Tony's alter-ego, in the flesh!

[Nev the Deranged]

http://www.whowantstobeasuperhero.tv/cast/#majorvictory

[Nev the Deranged]

So, I posted the above in haste, without much thought beyond "oh, look! this is amusing!"

But after talking to Tony a bit, and moreover, after having actually seen more of this show... I am thoroughly disgusted, and I really need to apologize for associating any of Tony's work with this deep black pit of an endeavor called "Who Wants To Be a Superhero".

Nevermind that it was co produced by and stars Stan Lee as the host/judge. This show could not be more of a disservice to the concept and ideals that superheroes represent. Simply put, it's plain fucked up.

The first snippet of the show I saw featured three remaining contestants, in full comic book drag, standing on pedestals to be addressed by Stan, who was reviewing their performance in their last "trial", the details of which I couldn't surmise. But every time Stan said something, these so called heroes wept like children. My roommate had to change the channel, he was so disturbed, and he doesn't give a fig for superheroes one way or another. All I could think was "Superheroes don't cry, man".

Whatever. On with my life, right?

Until tonight when I caught the rerun of the episode, featuring the actual "trial" itself. The trial consisted of each of the contestants in turn approaching and talking to a member of a prison roadwork crew, an imposingly large black man dressed in the typical orange jumpsuit, with his hands cuffed. Their task was ostensibly to talk to this man and try to offer him guidance or solace- but the *real* tasks that they were being judged on were "secret tasks" they had to accomplish- for which the whole "chatting with the inmate" scenario was merely a pretense! Major Victory had to put one hand on the man's shoulder, then one on the other shoulder, then one hand on each shoulder at once. Another had to hug the man three times. I couldn't bear to watch long enough to find out what the others had to do. This man was clearly nonplussed, but beneath the cell-block bluster and the quadruple-homocide hardness, he seemed genuinely open to some kind of transformative event- something most of us would find ludicrous in the presence of costumed idiots. And it hurt me so much to watch a man serving four consecutive life sentences, so in need of a REAL superhero, be shamelessly manipulated by these poseurs into petty acts of familiarity for the sake of a contest as meaningless as one's choice of breakfast cereal any given morning. It made me sick, and I had to leave the room.

This is emphatically not what being a superhero, or even an everyday hero, is about. Shame on you, Stan Lee, and shame on you, contestants, for giving us this not JUST pathetic, not MERELY uninspiring, but shamelessly exploitative debacle of an endeavor. You are not heroes. You are villains.

[TonyLB]

I haven't watched any of this series, so I really don't have that level of potent disgust.  Not that I think it's inapprioriate, just that I don't have enough info to judge.

But, frankly, I'll stand by the objection that I formed within about ten seconds of first hearing of the concept for the show:  Clark Kent wouldn't sign up for such a show.  Peter Parker wouldn't sign up for such a show.  A big point of ... well ... virtually any superhero I can name (excepting of course the always redoubtable Booster Gold!) is that they aren't doing it for the glory and attention.  That is part of the glory of secret identities ... it is proof.

You don't have to ask "Hey, would Superman still save the world with the same fervor if nobody knew who he was?"  You don't have to ask "Hey, would Spiderman keep saving people, over and over again, if everyone in the city treated him like trash rather than praising him?"  That's their life.  They would.  They do.

I ask myself "Hey, would these reality-TV folks go out and talk with convicted felons if there weren't TV cameras rolling?"  And I gotta tell you, I don't think they would.

[Nev the Deranged]

So I was thinking more about the scene I witnessed, of these wannabe "superheroes" manipulating a prison inmate for their own personal gain, and wondering what they SHOULD have done, and what they might have said, were they actually trying to help him or comfort him in some way. Admittedly this was as much a petty, self congratulatory daydream of the "I would have been so much cooler that that!!" type as it was a philosophical pondering, but it actually yielded some points that rang true with me, which I will now inflict *ahem* share with you.

Now, I'm working from hastily scrawled notes, as this happened as I was falling asleep, so bear with me as I decipher them. (I think if I really were a superhero, I'd be Disclaimer Man...)

Basically the thing that grabbed me was the parallel between the flashy superhero costume, and the inmate's dayglo orange jumpsuit. Because, in a way, they really serve the same functions, even though the superhero chooses his, and the inmate is forced to wear his. The inmate is put in a garish outfit because it draws attention to him, to his whereabouts, to his actions. A prison inmate cannot hide, cannot sneak, cannot blend in, no matter where he goes (well, except a prison, I suppose). A superhero wears a garish costume for the same reason- to draw attention to himself, his whereabouts, and his actions. Likewise, a superhero cannot hide, sneak, or blend in. Everything he does, he does publicly. His clothing makes the statements of his actions unvarnished and clear. A prisoner's garb forces the judgement of the public eye on him, whereas the superhero invites that judgement. Superheroes, like criminals, are known and recognized, not by *who* they are, but by *what they are* and most importantly, *what they DO*. People are going to infer things about either one based on their clothing, and expect certain things from them accordingly.

I guess the point I'm making is that although superhero costumes look ridiculous, the purpose of them is to ensure that the person inside takes responsibility for their DEEDS and the consequences of them. That's what makes them a hero, not the costume itself.

Yeah... that was way more coherent when it was in my head. But I think I got the general idea across...

[Lance D. Allen]

An interesting idea that's come to me since school started, is the function of role, and it's effect on the person in it.

Given the costumes and the concept of the show, the participants could see themselves in one of two roles, as I see it. Superhero, or Reality TV contestant. From what I'm gathering from you guys and what little bit else I've read, most, if not all, of the contestants have chosen the latter role.

And that vastly influences their behavior.

If you're familiar with the Stanford Prison experiment, you're probably aware of the power that a role can have on the person in it, especially with positive reinforcement.

So these people see themselves as contestants. Sure, they probably want to think of themselves as superheros, but most people who would apply to most reality shows aren't the sort to dig into the deeper meaning of what it is to be a superhero; They see the glitz, the glam and the overt heroics, and that's what they want to do. But let's go back to the role of contestant.. They're given tasks, with conditions and standards, and a very apparent reward/punishment scheme. Furthermore, they've got motherfucking STAN LEE, the father of comic books as far as most readers are concerned, telling them they're doing good.

SO, my point with all of this? How do you know you wouldn't be doing the same thing, if you'd not had the opportunity to see it from the outside? I doubt anyone who's heard anything about the Stanford Prison experiment would fall into the same traps the participants did, if they were in that situation? Maybe you wouldn't; You're obviously the sort to examine the intricacies of the concept of superhero.. But if you were there in a costume, with probably the most revered man in comics telling you that superheroes manipulate people for personal gain (but in prettier language) who's to say you wouldn't be playing the con just as much?

[Nev the Deranged]

I'd like to think I'm pretty good about standing up for what I believe in. Granted, I don't believe in much. I freely admit that I don't think there is such thing as objective morality, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be kind to each other.

I still remember that time some guy in the checkout line at Dominick's was bitching because the woman in front of him had 12 items in the 10 item lane. I was like "dude, relax, five minutes isn't gonna kill ya" or something to that effect, and he goes "Some people's time is more valuable than others". Like, OMFG, you did not just say that. "No, I don't think it is. So chill." That shut him up. And, I won't lie, made me feel awesome.

On the other hand, I regularly curse people to the depths of the hell of the diamond encrusted howler monkeys for getting in my way when I'm driving. *shrug*

But I'd probably relish the chance to get all righteous on Stan Lee's ass on national television. ^_^

[AaronLehmann]

I'd like to think I'm pretty good about standing up for what I believe in. Granted, I don't believe in much. I freely admit that I don't think there is such thing as objective morality, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be kind to each other.

Actually it does.  After all, if you don't believe in objective morality, then you can't set a universal standard.  And "Thou shalt try to be kind to one another," is a (admittedly weak) universal standard.  Even considering the pragmatic concerns doesn't help, since, as you have pointed out, there are times when you feel it's appropriate NOT to be kind to one another.

[Nev the Deranged]

Sorry, but I never said I didn't believe is SUBjective morality. Which I do. So, no contradiction.

=P

[AaronLehmann]

If you say that we all should be kind to one another, which you did, then you are positing an objective standard of behavior:  "Be kind."

Aaron Lehmann

[TonyLB]

If you say that we all should be kind to one another, which you did, then you are positing an objective standard of behavior:  "Be kind."

First:  Saying "This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be kind to each other" is a double negative and doesn't mean the same as "This means that we should be kind to each other."  You can both be right.  Aaron, in saying "There is no objective standard saying we should be kind" and Nev in saying "There is no objective standard saying we shouldn't be kind."

Second:  Is this conversation going to go anywhere that's gonna get my blood pumping?  'cuz if you're going to disagree about matters like objective morality and its implications then I at least want to see some ranting and rhetorical blood on the floor.

[Nev the Deranged]

I believe we should all be kind to each other. I just don't think the universe cares if we do. Therefore, this belief (like all beliefs) is subjective, not objective. The concept of an objective, universal, cosmically enforced morality is one I personally find ludicrous.

Does that clear things up?

Re: the show. Turns out, upon further investigation, that all the "challenges" on the show were faked. The prisoners were actors. Nothing they did granted them any chance to act heroically or dastardly, which in my opinion is a good thing, since the actions they did take would have been dastardly if they were real. It is impossible to know whether, after the first fraudulent challenge was revealed, whether or not any of them took the rest of them seriously in any way other than with regards to winning.

The whole thing is a disappointing and disreputable farce. Although I shouldn't be surprised, Stan Lee is a businessman first.