David Cronenberg Insults Christopher Nolan, Comic Books, And Superhero Movie Fans

I do not think Nolan’s films stand out from any crowd. Dark Knight was good, but that wasn’t Nolan’s doing as much as Ledger’s – proven by the overall “meh” of the other two Nolan Batman movies. While I disagree with Cronenberg on a great many things, I completely concur on his thoughts about Christopher Nolan. The dude’s a brand now, and a disappointing one.

¿Can somebody handle him Watchmen? Thanks.

I don’t see how this is “calling out” Nolan in any sort of inappropriate way.  He said that:
a) he thinks the Batman films are boring and likes Memento better, and
b) Nolan doesn’t have a lot of power because of the studio system.

The first seems like a legitimate personal opinion to me, and the second an observation more about the industry than about Nolan himself.

I’m just not seeing the big deal here.

Oh Cronenberg, you massive troll.

Sorry, I have to disagree. Nolan’s films do stand out, especially against “comic book movies” as much as other genres. He took something that is seen as adolescent and transformed it into something else. Not campy, not silly or humorous, but enjoyable for adults. Not to say the other superhero films can’t be enjoyed by adults, but they are fun for the whole family. As far as the other movies being meh… well, I just plain disagree with that comment most of all.

R

Jeez…that’s almost as bad as Bill Watterson’s (negative) opinion of comic books and graphic novels. From a man who draws (well, drew) comics.

Granted, he’s also seemingly of the school that an artist should never sell out. And that if you’re an artist, and you make money, you’re a sellout. The man’s artistic standards might be a tiiiiiny bit tightly-strung than is normal.

I see why it upsets some people, but I think he probably just spoke too generally because it was in the moment.  I seriously doubt he meant to denigrate comics in general.  Seems to me he was speaking specifically about super hero comics.  Also, throwing more f-bombs and blood into a super hero story does not stop it’s premise from being adolescent..so please stop saying Watchmen and Snyder’s Batman are proof he is wrong.  He’s talking the root of the story…adolescent male wish fulfillment.

BTW, I love both those examples.  I think they’re highly entertaining.  I love and make comics.  I also agree with him that Batman films are not masterpieces of cinema.  Please realize that does not mean a film is not good.

He also said nothing derogatory about Christopher Nolan.  He said he’s made better films (he has) and he made a statement about the film industry.

I think he may have spoken out of turn, on the spot, and I think you’re taking the article a little hard.

Nolan doesn’t have any power? That is the most erroneous thing I’ve heard today. If superhero movies didn’t get him any power in the industry, then how did he get Inception made? You know Inception right? The critically acclaimed, multi-cultural casted film that didn’t have a superhero cape in sight and still made a shit ton of money. DC sounds jelly of a director who gets to walk both sides of the cultural line, while most people outside of the horror movie fanbase don’t even know who he is.

Inception.  No super heroes, like Memento…also better than the Batman films, like Memento.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Nolan had to fight and struggle like crazy to get Inception made. It was in development for years, and the only reason the studio let him was as favour for him doing the Batman movies. And they made it clear during development that they were making a big concession. When Nolan secured an A-list cast of Oscar nominees and winners, the studio said it was a “fluke”. When it opened to rave reviews, again the studio said it was a “fluke”. When it did amazing at the box office, once more, the studio said Nolan got lucky.

Most who operate within the studio system have very little power, except for lucky minorities like Terrence Malick and Stanley Kubrick. Everything DC is saying is spot on, and he’s not denigrating Nolan so much as bemoaning a system that limits his talent.

Really? Watchmen is adolescent male wish fulfilment? Do they wish they could be the violent, smelly psychopath, the fat has-been with erectile dysfunction, or the dead rapist?

A story being adolescent and “for kids” are two very different things.

Weird, I would have thought for sure he would be a Charles Burns fan.

That first block quote is opinion, plus a bit of misinformation (as you pointed out) and some great hyperbole (unless Memento was shot on a $10 budget, ha). But the last quote about how the horror genre can be art while the comic book genre can’t? That really annoys me. As you point out, not all comic books (and even superhero comic books) are made for children. But even if they were, does that immediately disqualify them from being art? Are kids so dumb that anything influenced by their tastes becomes…not art? It also bugs me that someone would say a genre can’t be art just because they think it hasn’t been done yet. I guess part of the problem there was the question that sort of forced him to make a generalization like that in the first place.

Super heroes in general. Violent catharsis.

Respectfully, how?  It seems like semantics, to me.

Lotta talk coming from a man who was in Jason X.

Adolescence is by definition the state *between* childhood and adulthood.  It’s the act of transitioning away from childhood, and separating oneself from things that are “for kids”.  

I agree with the points made by Bri Lance, at least in terms of Croneberg’s comments on superhero films.

However, I do take issue with his comment that comic books are kids stuff is straight up ignorant. It’s the sort of thing said by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News pundits freaking out because Superman no longer fights for America, Tea Partiers are looked upon with suspicion in a Captain America comic, or they killed Robin. Basically, it’s the comment of someone who hasn’t read a comic book or graphic novel since childhood and thinks that’s the level of the content across the board. 

A story being adolescent (at least the way it sounds like you’re using the term) means the content of the story is childish, as in something like potty humor. A story written “for kids” is written with the aim of being for that age group, something like Superfriends. Snyder’s Batman is a rated T comic, it’s not for kids.

I tend to agree with him just a little bit, but not on all fronts.  There are some moments where I’m like, “Yeah, Nolan’s Batman, bad-ass, dark, whoo!” and then sometimes I’ll watch them and think, “I am literally watching a guy dressed in a cape and bat ears run around the city and speak with a weird husky voice.”  I can definitely see where Cronenberg is coming from, especially being a fan of his very dark films.  But I also think you can take any kind of media and make it something original.  Nolan made some very dark and creative films out of a children’s comic.  That’s saying something.

Okay, I see what you’re saying.  To clarify, when I say adolescent, I’m using the term to mean what wolcotte defined in their response.

But, when I say that, I’m also making my own assumption that an adolescent is a “T” teen, and also that someone Cronenberg’s age would include teens in his definition of “kids.”

That’s just me, though.

My point was just that I don’t believe he is saying all comics are juvenile, adolescent, whatever…just super hero books; and that those books will probably never be translated into film in any way considered “masterpieces of cinema” by people who respect and practice the art of film. And I, even though I love them, as a 34 year old man, have to agree with him.

This is all just me wording how I took what he said.  I do agree that he stuck his foot in his mouth…I just don’t think he meant it as venomously as some are taking it.

I’m willing to bet he is, if he’s read them.

Oh yes. The Fly was Art, Batman Begins was adolescent.
Totally.
Bitter much?

I know Inception was an idea that languished. The point I was making is that superhero movies opened the door for a non-superhero movie, Inception, to be made. And IMO, which I should have stated before, I think that gave Nolan some power. And it really reads more like DC knocking both the system and the genre in general. But again, my opinion.

 ”When I was ten, I read fairytales in secret and would have been
ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them
openly. When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the
fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
-C. S. Lewis

Only the most narrow-minded think something is inferior because it appeals to children.  Cronenberg, I think that’s you.

Three things:

(1) ‘Dark Knight Rises’ is rubbish on a narrative level, but succeeds every other way. Great performances and direction with an awful, awful script. Love the way the sets referenced the well Bruce falls down with the fight with Bane where he falls, and the prison where he rises. But, still, very poor. Can’t fault him for that.

(2) “Comic book film” is synonymous with “insecure male power fantasy… sorry, superhero film”. You ask ninety percent of people what a comic book film is, they’ll point to Spider-Man or Batman, because most people don’t immediately go, ‘Road to Perdition’ or ‘Ghost World’ or ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’. If he says comic book film, chances are he means superhero film. But words spoken cannot be edited like those that are typed.

(3) I’d argue most comics still are for children because, like ‘Torchwood’, adult content doesn’t make a show adult when it still feels incredibly childish. Themes, issues, adult storylines… simply putting in some blood or some sex, well, that’s aimed at 14 year-old boys, isn’t it? Heck, one of the goriest scenes I’ve read in fiction recently was from Darren Shan’s ‘Lord Loss’, where the main character is confronted with the butchering of his entire family in such a way as would have reduced Bruce Wayne to a gibbering wreck for years. (Which has just given me a great idea for an alternate reality version of The Joker!)

Generally, I would consider something like Catcher in the Rye to be a piece of material “for adolescents” in that it deals with the issues and sentiments specific to adolescents, and it’s not material for “kids”, all while still being a mature and complex piece of work.

I think comic books can capture a lot of mature themes (and I don’t mean sex and violence) that resonate with adolescents and adults who can remember that period of time (and may still be feeling the echoes of their own).

Wow.  After watching Pattinson on The Daily Show the other night I was actually thinking of going to see Cosmopolis.  Dave’s douchebaggery quickly knocked that out of me.

Wrong. That’s just bad psychology. It’s been analyzed to death that superhero stories are modern myths. Is mythology meant for kids? Nope. Mythology is for everyone. Besides, you can argue that there are superheroes all over the place and the definition of a superhero movie is actually very broad.

There are R-rated superhero movies so Cronenberg is plain wrong. He’s being intellectually condescending.

Inception didn’t just “languish”. It’s something Nolan had to push and fight for and constantly be reminded that he was getting the favour of a lifetime. A studio very reluctantly throwing a bone to somebody who made them hundreds of millions of bucks does not equate power. If it did, Nolan would have changed the industry and more movies of a similar vein would be getting made, instead of more sequels prequels and remakes.

I really don’t see anything wrong with DC criticizing the system since he’s been fighting it for decades. And to knock him for saying he doesn’t like superhero movies is almost as preposterous as concluding that he’s “jelly” of Nolan for thinking his independent movies are better than ones with studio interference.

If being childish means enjoying what I like for whatever reasons I like, while being grown up means I can only like certain things for certain reasons, it’s no contest. I’d rather be childish.

I think the guy is a blithering idiot!

 Lol okay, you’re right and I was wrong.

Well, The Fly was derived from Kafka, and Batman Begins was derived from a comic.  We can’t ignore the source material.

if you think of the story of how bruce wayne became batman then it kinda moves from being just a childrens comic. I mean the main character had his parents murdered in front of him. yeah he, superman and the rest of the jla became lighter characters over time, mostly because they were used as symbols of inspiration during WWII and became popular with children after that but at the core i wouldnt say batman was for kids..esp the stories from the 80′s onward. plus his main villian is a mass murdering psychopathic clown. thats pretty creepy. 

A lot of people are talking here about how Batman is a kids’ comic book and yes, at one time, it was. But we should also remember that Nolan’s Batman is based on Frank Miller’s Batman, who is in no way, shape, or form safe for children. 

I’m not too interested in this movie as it is, but this guy kind of turned me off from it even more. Anything can be art. Comics (and their subsequent movies) instill a feeling of pride and hope in the audience – when a lot of people don’t feel that way in their everyday lives. That makes it important. 

What I think Cronenberg means by his second comment is that Batman is a highly managed and profitable property. To a guy like him how can it be art if part of the creative process is him checking in with suits from Warner Brothers ever 5 minutes on how this affects the Batman brand and when designs are decided on weather or not they would make cool toys. 

Considering who he is and how he cas been making movies since, I dunno, the late 70′s It is no suprise he thinks these movies are shit.

And comic book movies are at this point a genre of film based on superhero comics and not a reference to the source material.

You’re dismissing the source material because of the medium on which it was printed. How is that different?

The Fly wasn’t derived from Kafka, it was derived from The Fly that they made 20 years before that.

oops – delete – meant to comment on main strand

Up his own ass much?  I’d rather watch any Nolan film over a Cronenberg one any day – in fact i’d probably prefer Michael bay come to that. Cronenberg can keep his ‘arty clique’ movies for himself – i’ve pretty much seen every Cronenberg movie  and wouldn’t class any as supreme cinema. At least Nolan has put some effort into bringing something new to blockbuster/superhero movies – i’d like to see how Cronenberg would pull that off – but obviously it’s below him. I watch movies to be entertained and Nolan does that way better than Cronenberg.

You’re mistaken. Nolan’s Batman is in no way influenced by Miller’s violent, fascist, police-state Batman. He’s much closer to the idealized Neal Adams Batman of the ’70s in his actions and motivations.

I think Cronenberg is right that the superhero genre is… well, it’s exactly what Allan Moore told everyone it was when he published Watchmen. I.e., it is always premised on some mix of fascist ideology, violent sexual fantasy, and adolescent wish fulfillment. The funny thing is that Nolan more or less agrees with this, I think, which is what makes his Batman movies so weird and lifeless. Anyone who tries to make a “serious” superhero movie since Watchmen is sort of setting themselves up to make an absurd product. It’s like trying to write an occult conspiracy thriller since Eco’s “Foucault’s Pendulum”: how can anyone take the genre seriously after it’s been so thoroughly and hilariously deconstructed?

As far as I’m concerned, David Cronenberg is being controversial for the sake of being controversial, he’s simply coming off as being jealous more than anything. Christopher Nolan is the greatest filmmaker to emerge in modern times, he has changed cinema as we know it. David Cronenberg also needs to do his research before he can make such an illogical comment because a) Nolan has never and will never shoot in 3-D b) Is Cronenberg in any way familiar that A History Of Violence is a comic book adaption because if he doesn’t then I feel sorry for him c) I just think he’s being jealous and if he thinks comic books are kid stuff then that’s just being backdated and outlandish.

So proud of the Nolan fans, like myself, out there who are very well spoken and eloquent unlike the Cronenberg fans who are non existent. 

Or like the 4th Doctor said:  “There’s no point being grown-up if you can’t be childish sometimes.”

you dont think calling another director’s work ‘boring’ is calling them out?.. hrm.

I respect Cronenberg and his work.. i liked eXistenZ and History of Violence.. but his work is pretty sloppy… I havent seen Cosmopolis.. and i’ll be checking it out for sure.. but to dismiss a genre, let alone another director’s work is pretty childish and snobby of him..

to reduce Nolan’s work as impressive ‘technical work’ sounds ignorant and jealous.

“I think Cronenberg is right that the superhero genre is… well, it’s
exactly what Allan Moore told everyone it was when he published
Watchmen. I.e., it is always premised on some mix of fascist ideology,
violent sexual fantasy, and adolescent wish fulfillment.”

I’d say it’s more like *bad* Superhero stories are premised on some mix of fascist ideology, violent sexual fantasy, and adolescent wish fulfilment. The best superhero stories are far more universal and nuanced than such an appraisal.

“Anyone who tries to make a “serious” superhero movie since Watchmen is
sort of setting themselves up to make an absurd product. It’s like
trying to write an occult conspiracy thriller since Eco’s “Foucault’s
Pendulum”: how can anyone take the genre seriously after it’s been
so thoroughly and hilariously deconstructed?”

How can anyone watch any science fiction movie with sound in space and flying saucers after science has proven so many tropes impossible or incorrect?  How can anyone watch any fantasy movie when the anatomy of dragons and physics of magic are incomprehensible?  How can anyone enjoy a kung-fu action movie after they’ve seen how real fights look and operate?  How can anyone watch a crime drama without guffawing at the wild divergences from legal and scientific accuracy?  How can anyone watch a romantic comedy where the lovers don’t act remotely like logical human beings?

Because there’s an inherent truth and narrative power beneath the superhero genre that allows it to persist even when its tropes and themes are scrutinised and criticized.

Again with the assumptions? Not all comic books are for kids, mister.

 How can that be?  When Cronenberg made some fantastic films!

I would like to point out that the problem is also how he dismisses a valid genre. That, to me is troubling, he is implying the superhero comics are incapable of ever dealing with deeper issues, by virtue of their being superhero comics. To me that is condescending and relatively offensive to screenwriters of Superhero films, as well as, comic writers. Essentially he is saying he has the right to determine what “art” is, and comic superhero movies can not even hope to be art. That is the insulting part. When someone limits the possibilities of art, dismisses potential, and dismisses film themes in serious work then there is a problem.

Though I find the insinuation that all cape comics are somehow male wish fulfillment, or that male wish fulfillment is an integral element in comics, which…is how I read a statement in the comments…

Finally, someone said it. Glad it was David Cronenberg. I love superhero films too but I have yet to see one that’s high art. Content matters, people. You don’t want superhero films to be high art – they’d have long unintelligible tracts of Lynch-ian sequences, fifth-wave feminist diatribes, and leave you feeling like you were supposed to be throwing up somewhere about an hour in. Superheroes appeal to our desire to be more than we are and for certainty; high art appeals to a need to question and problematize.  I think we need both as a species and as a society. He’s not even meaning to insult fans of the films. They’re great films, as Cronenberg says; they’re just not “high art cinema.” Don’t think something is “inferior” just because it is or isn’t art.

Watchmen the graphic novel aside, the film wasn’t “high art” either. Don’t get me wrong – I really enjoyed it, and I think it’s probably the best in its genre I’d ever seen before or since. But there are just certain tropes, ways of storytelling, and imagery that are still on the side of adolescence – Rorschach *totally* fits into wish fulfillment in my books: outside of the law, anonymous, unloved but always right about everything… he’s got a lot of attractive qualities that remain one-dimensional. YMMV.

Wasn’t impressed by TDKR.
Making people who got burned by the banks into the bad guys was a dick move. 

Don’t worry, lol!  Batman will jackboot stomp all those ungrateful poor people and save all the heroic bankers!

Most obnoxious pro conservative film since Birth of a Nation.

I think a good argument can be made for “Dead Ringers” and “Videodrome” at least as examples of “supreme cinema art”. But then again I’m partial to Cronenberg myself. I think he has brought some interesting things to more mainstream fare, his obsessions are all over “The Fly” and “A History of Violence”. I even think “The Fly” did excellent business on release, though it might not have been a blockbuster per se. Nolan definitely tries to entertain more frequently than Cronenberg, and if entertainment is your first priority I see why you like Nolan’s movies better. But Cronenberg ain’t no slouch, man.

Nolan is an extremely talented director but I’m not so sure he’s “changed cinema as we know it”.

to be fair, he only said that of the Batman films. he did say he liked Memento.

Cronenberg fan here. I comment therefore I am and all that.

Yes, The Fly is totally Art. The whole Batman never getting over his parents thing is a bit childish yes. Not bitter at all, no. Just ate so my blood sugar level should be high, thanks for asking. Good debate. Let’s do it again sometime.

This whole debate is just a tired rehashing of the whole high art versus low art hackneyed bullshit. Any time anyone tries to tell me why something or other can’t have meaning or value, or goes on to define what can, (eg: this is real art, but this by it’s very nature can never be art) I just roll my eyes. Why the hell are people still talking about this? Has anyone ever come to any kind of resolution on the subject? The arguments being thrown around here; why this or that is art or true cinema or whatever, but this isn’t because (insert bullshit) are completely subjective and relative. Guess what? A fair amount of the paintings hanging in galleries were rejected by the critics and establishment of their day. Edgar Allen Poe died penniless, in agony and alone, ditto Lovecraft. Van Gogh and many others were only really appreciated after they died. The point is, critics like to pretend we’ve papal authority on the dubious claim of artistic merit. The truth is, it’s a fairly untenable measure to attempt to employ, especially when dealing with matters as nebulous and esoterically metaphysical as “art”. Why don’t we just try to define “truth” or “beauty” while we’re at it?

The way I see it (and yes this is opinion and therefore, much like Cronenberg’s opinion, completely subjective and not really worth getting riled up about when all is said and done) if you like something, you find meaning in it and you enjoy it, then that thing, be it Citizen Kane or Plan 9 from Outer Space, has value inherently. If someone else comes along and tells you that thing that you like (unless said thing is breaking some sort of laws or infringing on someone else’s rights) is of no value, then the appropriate response is sign language employing one’s middle finger only.

Some one else posted this C.S Lewis quote, I thought it was apt so I’ll repost it here:
 
“When I was ten, I read fairytales in secret and would have been 
ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them 
openly. When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the 
fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” 

The point is, if you find meaning in comics or anything else that someone else deems as “low brow” then it has meaning, regardless of what someone else says, cult directorial status notwithstanding. 

I am personally more moved by the works of Alan Moore, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and Stan Lee, than I am. let’s say Damian Hirst bisecting an endangered species and displaying it in a formaldehyde tank. Damian Hirst however, though there is some debate, is considered high art, whereas the visionaries who impacted mainstream culture in indelible ways seem destined to be constantly dismissed because of the medium they worked in and their audience. I could argue that what Hirst does isn’t art but merely barbarism, while I could probably come up with compelling reasons for why the aforementioned comic book scribes and artists work does constitute art. The exercise would be meaningless ultimately (although probably fun) because at the end of the day no one can actually agree on the criterion for what does and does not constitute art or culture. David (or dave as I call him) has no more claim to veracity or authenticity than I do.  

Calling them out? When you respectfully voice your opinion on somebody else work? Did he personally attack him? No. David Cronenberg has his own opinion and it conflicts with mine but that doesn’t mean I think anything less than him. It’s the pussifcation of this country if nobody can stand a “difference of opinion”. 

You see Laura, if you want to become a member of the geek pop culture, you have to remember this; NEVER EVER voice an opinion that goes against the general consensus because that would make you different. You will put in a category of “fanboy/fangirl” where your voice only counts as the high-pitch whine of a fly that buzzes around the internet. 

He doesn’t have to like them..I love superhero movies and I enjoyed the Dark Knight trilogy despise what anyone think about them.

Cronenberg has a point. I can’t remember ever being bored by a Cronenberg movie. Revolted, disturbed, challenged maybe, but always entertained. 

Whereas every Nolan movie I’ve seen in the last few years has made me yawn. Glossy, technically brilliant spectacles, all of them, but I’ve never cared an ounce about the characters. Rule one of film-making? Be entertaining. Without that you’re nowhere. 

Well said. And I loved “The Fly” as a kid, partly because it was clearly inspired by adolescent sci-fi mixed with the original adolescent drama, “Romeo and Juliet”.

Not to nickpick, you say that Cronenberg “recently spoke out against his distaste for comic books”. He actually spoke out against comic books. If he spoke out against his distaste for them, he’d be speaking out against himself.

Simple re-write mistake aside, this is very well-written and I’ll have to read more of your writings. Congrats on making it to the top of Google headlines this morning.

Superheroes, or movies about creepy twin gynecologists…hmmmm.  I’ll take superheroes (though I am a fan of Jeremy Irons’s acting, of course).

Funnily enough, there is an actress named “Barbara Gordon” in “Dead Ringers.”

 There is a difference between for adolescence and adolescent just like their is a difference between something being for children and something being childish.

See, I don’t think they portray him as “always right”, I think they portray him as paranoid and insane and right in this one case largely by accident. And he’s anonymous, but at the cost of his private identity being a lonely, urine-stained freak. I don’t deny that there are people who identify with him, but I don’t think that’s the intention.

i have to admit, i miss Nolan pre batman and inception. they leave me pretty cold, whereas his previous movies were rivetting and thought provoking.

*claps*

you beat me to that comment

even if it had been based on Miller’s batman, i was a kid when that came out, and i can assure you kids were reading it. i don’t know why it has become so contested to admit that superheroes were designed for children. adults like pixar movies, adults like superhero movies. if anything, adults have more need of brief escape/respite into superhero films than children do.

you don’t need to pretend superhero stories are Shakespearean to justify them.

yeah, because a guy who doesn’t like superhero movies couldn’t possibly make a good movie

have there been any superhero movies that deal with “deeper issues”? also, why should they, that’s not really their bailiwick, and it is unfair to suggest there is something wrong with them because they don’t.

i don’t think so. you are suggesting that when someone says adolescent they mean puerile. i see people dismiss adult works as adolescent as a suggestion that they are immature, i.e., better suited to adolescents than adults, but that is all. so no, i don’t really se a difference between ‘for adolescents’ and adolescent. the dictionary doesn’t either.

i think what rubs you wrong is the suggestion that something you like, i.e. batman, is primarily adolescent. suck it up buttercup. i watch cartoons aimed at kids, i don’t make elaborate rationalizations that they aren’t aimed at kids.

watchmen was a deconstruction intended to unravel the silly fantasy that superheroes are. it proves the point rather than defending the mature superhero idea you are hoping to push

I’m not trying to push that at all. I agree with you, and I think the audience is supposed to see these people as silly. The poster I was replying to was saying that Watchmen is still adolescent wish fulfilment.

ah, i see that now. whoops

How thin-skinned are you? Jeez…

Not in comics, as a whole. I never implied that. But in the MAJORITY of super hero books, I stand by my statement.

Of course there are exceptions, but there is a very obvious reason they are CONSIDERED EXCEPTIONS by the general readership, and gain more female readership.

You COULD argue that, to distract from the point, but I wouldn’t bother. Because that isn’t what anyone in this conversation is referring to when they say “super hero comics.”

Say that term, and 99% of readers will think Superman or The Avengers…not Indiana Jones or Doc Savage or Conan.

Mythology however…EVERY story is modern mythology. A myth is ideology in narrative form.

A myth, no matter how profound it’s deeper meanings, can still be wrapped up in a male wish-fulfillment story.

Actually, they remember being kids and pretending they could dress up in silly outfits and solve all their problems by beating up the right bad guy…they could even get the girl, if they proved they were tough enough.