>The masked, caped superhero. I see that happening. I see mainstream audiences being educated in the ways of the superhero: the crossover, the shared universe. If you’re watching “Deadpool,” here’s an X-Man. If you’re watching — I think this is right — “Arrow,” here’s the Flash. The idea is that you’re going to have to watch everything to get the whole story, which is the idea Lee and Kirby established for comics back in the ’60s. And I think it’s, ultimately, going to lead to the same kind of creative malaise you’ve got in comics. Thirty years ago, Alan Moore effectively wrote the end of the superhero with “Watchmen” and “Miracleman.” But instead of that leading to an explosion of different genres within comics, it actually came full circle — to it simply tightening back up to superheroes again.
>Why do you think that happened?
>I think because it’s easy. I think because it’s comfortable. Because it works for the publisher. And it’s so much easier for writers, artists, editors, publishers to produce more of what came before, with perhaps a little more spice, which is what they took from “Watchmen” and “Miracleman.” So they took the window dressing of Alan’s work without really thinking about what it meant, and what it meant was the end of the superhero. “Watchmen” shows us that the only way to save the world is to terrify it, and “Miracleman” shows us that the only way to save the world is to turn everyone into a superhuman. In other words, in both cases, if you’re a superhero, you have to think beyond human. You have to let go of your humanity, which is quite a scary idea, and that’s how it’s portrayed in both books. But that’s been ignored.
