Point/Counterpoint: Superman. Awesome or Sucks?

[TiQuinn]

Superman does suck.

He has the lamest Rogue's Gallery with the exception of a few like Luthor or Brainiac.

The Toyman? The Prankster? Myxltprick? There's no menace going on there. It's like putting up Superman Vs. Don Rickles. It's pure camp comedy. Bizarro? The best they could come up for this character is for him to be the Anti-Superman and to talk in broken Hulk jibberish.

Then there are his powers and lack of vulnerabilities. Maybe in 1938, it was cool to have a character who could do just about anything. At one time it may've been considered the height of comic book writing for the superhero to be always indestructible, as long as he was fighting evil scientists and Nazis, kids back then were entertained. The only suspense that was added was whenever Lois Lane or Jimmy Olsen were thrown into some danger, and so it wasn't enough that Superman won....he had to save the day and save Lois and Jimmy from whatever dumb circumstance they put themselves in.

But times and tastes changed. So they introduced Kryptonite, which was like an add-on vulnerability for the character, and a weak one at that. Okay, so Kryptonite could rob him of his powers and potentially kill him. But then any villain would HAVE to have this supposedly rare mineral to have any chance of fighting Supes. (btw, opportunity to add another lame villain in Metallo who just happens to be powered by the stuff.) Kryptonite worked as a tack-on vulnerability for only so long. Eventually, they decided they had to shake things up .

Enter, Kryptonite and its umpteen different flavors, each more queer than the last.

To inject some interest into the stories and maybe find something else to challenge Superman, they started overrelying on ancient Kryptonian technology or menaces from space a la Darkseid. They decided Superman needed buddies too. So they gave us such wonders as SuperGirl, Krypto The Super Dog, and Comet the Super Horse, and Beppo the Super Monkey, and stupid shit like the Bottle City of Kandor

The retardation levels hit new heights in 80s when they rebooted the whole series just so they could go back and do the same stories all over again, which admittedly was a DC problem in general.

This isn't even including the overhyped, overmarketed, poorly written Death of Superman and Return of Superman along with four spanking new Superman derivative characters including Cyborg Superman and Steel.

Superman was a character best left to a bygone era when he was beating up Nazis. Ever since then, he's just become more and more retarded.

And the spit curl is just GAY.

Next up, Northcott! :D

[shabois]

Counterpoint: The idea of Superman is great. You need a character like Superman, the boy scout and ultimate source of what is good and moral. You need an ultimate good guy to stand up for people who can't defend themselves.

There are plenty or dark heroes, anti-heroes, morally grey heroes out there. Granted they are more interesting and colorful, but that is not the point.

The world, kids, humanity needs a beacon of hope, one hero that is above reproach, that does the right thing all the time no questions asked and is powerful enough to strike fear into the hearts of those who would do evil.

Superman is the standard setter for supers, he is the definition of a Superhero.

He is the standard that we compare all other heroes to and inspires the child in all of us to believe that good conquers evil and good guys can finish first.

That being said, that’s all good and well for the movies. But it sucks for comics. It makes it hard to create real drama over the long term.

It is challenging to write an ongoing comic where your hero always has to be the straight man and s nigh indestructible.

I think they should end the comic- though All-Star Superman is great.

Just focus on the movies, but understand Superman is vital to the superhero world. He should just be used in smaller doses.

[Freedom Canadian]

The boy scout thing has nothing to do with Superman's lameness as a character. It's the whole "invulnerable except for one huge vulnerability" thing that is, IMO, lame from a dramatic standpoint. First of all, it insures that Superman is either in a situation where nothing bad can happen to him OR that he's in a situation where a child with a rock could kill him. Secondly, it restricts his enemies actions tremendously.

And also, it creates a situation where the villain is usually the underdog.

Which is not to say that you can't create good stories around Superman, but it's much harder. I like him in small doses.

[Maynard G. Krebs]

Frankly, I think the philosophical implications of a nigh-unstoppable force of good are quite fascinating.

Too bad only about 3% of the entire writing for Superman explores this.

[Varaj]

shabois you describe the idea of god. The perfect good. Superheroes aren't supposed to be god.
It is why that idea of Jesus appeals to people, it is God mixed with man. It why Superman fails he lacks that human understanding.

[TiQuinn]

Counterpoint: The idea of Superman is great. You need a character like Superman, the boy scout and ultimate source of what is good and moral. You need an ultimate good guy to stand up for people who can't defend themselves.

There are plenty or dark heroes, anti-heroes, morally grey heroes out there. Granted they are more interesting and colorful, but that is not the point.

The world, kids, humanity needs a beacon of hope, one hero that is above reproach, that does the right thing all the time no questions asked and is powerful enough to strike fear into the hearts of those who would do evil.

Superman is the standard setter for supers, he is the definition of a Superhero.

He is the standard that we compare all other heroes to and inspires the child in all of us to believe that good conquers evil and good guys can finish first.

That being said, that’s all good and well for the movies. But it sucks for comics. It makes it hard to create real drama over the long term.

It is challenging to write an ongoing comic where your hero always has to be the straight man and s nigh indestructible.

I think they should end the comic- though All-Star Superman is great.

Just focus on the movies, but understand Superman is vital to the superhero world. He should just be used in smaller doses.

The boy scout thing has nothing to do with Superman's lameness as a character. It's the whole "invulnerable except for one huge vulnerability" thing that is, IMO, lame from a dramatic standpoint. First of all, it insures that Superman is either in a situation where nothing bad can happen to him OR that he's in a situation where a child with a rock could kill him. Secondly, it restricts his enemies actions tremendously.

And also, it creates a situation where the villain is usually the underdog.

Which is not to say that you can't create good stories around Superman, but it's much harder. I like him in small doses.

The perfect counterexample here to Superman is Captain America. Capt. America represents all the same things that Superman does: Justice, Honor, Hope...The Ultimate Boy Scout.....but he's still human. He's less powerful than many super heroes in Marvel, but he's still the Icon. He can be killed, he can be hurt, and he has to use his wits to protect not just everyone around him, but himself as well (the shield does help, naturally. :))

[Varaj]

The perfect counterexample here to Superman is Captain America. Capt. America represents all the same things that Superman does: Justice, Honor, Hope...The Ultimate Boy Scout.....but he's still human. He's less powerful than many super heroes in Marvel, but he's still the Icon. He can be killed, he can be hurt, and he has to use his wits to protect not just everyone around him, but himself as well (the shield does help, naturally. :))

Word. The concept of paladin with out the "I'm a god" thing.

[Freedom Canadian]

(the shield does help, naturally. :))

Naturally. :D

Nobody's saying that interesting superheroes need to be impotent. They can be total badasses.

[Northcott]

Where to begin, where to begin? :)

Shabois has a good grasp on it. The idea of Superman is as a paragon, an example. The problem is that most people, and unfortunately many of the writers of the comic over the years, fail to grasp a single, essential truth: Superman isn't a power fantasy. Particularly not an adolescent power fantasy, which many have accused the character of being.

Seriously. If you discovered you were an unstoppable force as a teenager, what would your first thought be? To serve the common good unselfishly, rejecting any and all temptation for financial recompense, or even a piece of ass now and again? I've seen the threads around here. I'll laugh at the fucker who claims they're that altruistic. Superman's not a power fantasy; he's a fantasy of altruism. That somebody might be out there who can do genuine good in the world, look out for those helpless to save themselves, protect the innocent, and not be brought low for it. Superman is the dream of unstoppable altruism -- and that's where the writer's challenge is.

People mistake powers for a power fantasy, and that's understandable. It's the easy route. It's the thing that most have trouble getting past -- including the writers that have handled the character the worst over the years. Those who 'get' the concept write character-driven stories.

Superman is unpopular with a certain crowd specifically because he isn't an adolescent power fantasy. Conversely, Batman, another excellent character, is most popular with those same people. It's proof of Bob Kane's marketing genius: Superman was created from an impassioned point of view by two Jewish kids who lived in a bad neighbourhood -- this is why Superman's early stories have him doing things like whupping on wife-beaters and corrupt politicians.

Kane designed Batman to be appealing as an adolescent power fantasy, and Robin was later added to give him a "son" to appeal to children -- it worked in spades. Sales shot through the roof. Look at what he's become: dresses all in black, goes out only at night, lurks in his mysterious cave all day. He's so very dark and tragic, misunderstood by many. He's always three steps ahead of everybody else, of course, validating the inner Fatbeard of readers who enjoy that smug feeling of intellectual superiority (and who doesn't, really?), while bringing down a righteous ass-whupping on everybody. Batman has, in the past, not merely taken down his rogue's gallery which includes several super-powered individuals, but has taken down both Superman and the Hulk... and they're just two in a long list of uber-powered characters he's stomped on. Who's unstoppable now?

Oh, yeah... and every gorgeous chick lusts after him, but he only bangs the hottest.

Batman is practically everybody's little inner-self-important goth/emo whiner 14-year-old's wet dream. So let's be honest in tossing around finger-pointing of "godhood" and "power fantasies", people: they're fictional characters, and they're only as powerful as they're written. Batman's the power wankfest from Hell.


And this is where the crux of my irreverence lays with people who claim they want "more human" characters. It's bullshit. Because nine times out of ten, the first thing they do is point to their ultimate power fantasy, the guy who can't even be killed by a nuclear bomb, in spite of apparently having no powers, and say "human like that guy".

[TiQuinn]

Superman's not a power fantasy; he's a fantasy of altruism. That somebody might be out there who can do genuine good in the world, look out for those helpless to save themselves, protect the innocent, and not be brought low for it. Superman is the dream of unstoppable altruism -- and that's where the writer's challenge is.

I address this point, actually.

This is a perfect character for a simpler time, but it's not the basis for a character to stand the test of time. It's one-dimensional. It's why after about 10 or 15 years, the best Superman stories were already well done, and what we've been left with ever since has been utter crap.

The golden boy scout hero who is invincible, the unfailing paragon of altruism as you put it, literally begs to be deconstructed and tinkered with, brought low a bit....and yet those are the writers who you say "don't get it".

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hmmmm...interesting discussion, gang!

I have to admit, my favourite....has always been Captain America. (Hardly a surprise for many of you, I'm sure!;)) I've always liked Captain America, for his great virutes: Loyalty, Patriotism, Honour, Righteousness and Valour. His flaws being human and all...that just made him more believable and interesting.

Of course, I also am a big fan of Sergeant Rock....hmmmm...America, World War II, fighting the Nazis...certainly a theme, heh?:)

Superman has always been cool, too. But his drawbacks creatively...as TiQuinn and Canadian mentioned...are spot on.

I agree also with Northcott totally about Batman. I have never really liked Batman much at all.

I wonder what that says or reflects about me, heh?:)

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Northcott]

Now to pick apart specific points instead of just laughing at y'all. ;)

He has the lamest Rogue's Gallery with the exception of a few like Luthor or Brainiac.

The Toyman? The Prankster? Myxltprick? There's no menace going on there. It's like putting up Superman Vs. Don Rickles. It's pure camp comedy. Bizarro? The best they could come up for this character is for him to be the Anti-Superman and to talk in broken Hulk jibberish.


Braniac. You mean the green bald guy with discs on his head that wore purple short-shorts through the 50's, 60's, and 70's? That guy? Not lame?

It just goes to prove: a fictional character is only as good as their writer. Alan Moore wrote the last Silver Age Superman story, and damned if Superman's rogues gallery -- including the lame bastards above -- didn't show up in a nasty manner.

At one time it may've been considered the height of comic book writing for the superhero to be always indestructible, as long as he was fighting evil scientists and Nazis, kids back then were entertained.

"Anything less than a bursting shell cannot penetrate his skin." He was super-tough back then, but not indestructible. He was regularly flattened by nasty weapons designed by mortals, including standard bombs. And damn, man, all the best superheroes rock when fighting Nazis. Or are you backing out on your prior poll opinions? ;) Flip-flopper.

Enter, Kryptonite and its umpteen different flavors, each more queer than the last. (snip) So they gave us such wonders as SuperGirl, Krypto The Super Dog, and Comet the Super Horse, and Beppo the Super Monkey, and stupid shit like the Bottle City of Kandor


I'm not going to defend a pet peeve of mine. :) I really hate that shit. That's a prime example of writers seeing the powers before the character, and focusing on that.

Darkseid, on the other hand, was created in the 70's by Kirby after he split Marvel. It's only since the animated series that he's become a regular foe of Superman -- and about time. The two make an excellent pairing, providing not merely a power balance, but as symbols of conflicting ideologies. A good writer could do great things with that.

The retardation levels hit new heights in 80s when they rebooted the whole series just so they could go back and do the same stories all over again, which admittedly was a DC problem in general.

So it was a DC problem overall, but you're throwing it in here as a knock on this single character? Byrne's work on the character in the 80's was some fine stuff. He hadn't yet fallen from the top of his game at that point, and delivered a powered-down character more true to his Golden Age origins.

This isn't even including the overhyped, overmarketed, poorly written Death of Superman and Return of Superman along with four spanking new Superman derivative characters including Cyborg Superman and Steel.

Yeah, I hated that story-arc. For the life of me I don't get why some people rave about it. I find it funny that on one hand, though, the idea that the character is 'unbeatable' is being touted around, and on the other, the cheese of his death story is being hoisted up as evidence at the same time.

So you've picked out some poor examples of modern story telling. Good for you. Now tell us what you thought of the work Kingdom Come, Waid's Justice League run, Byrne's revision, or Loeb's work on the character which inevitably landed him his place in the Smallville production team (and from there, to Heroes).


Frankly, I think the philosophical implications of a nigh-unstoppable force of good are quite fascinating.

Too bad only about 3% of the entire writing for Superman explores this.

Agreed. That's a problem with monthly publications. Nevermind a character who has two to four titles a month at any given time.


shabois you describe the idea of god. The perfect good. (1) Superheroes aren't supposed to be god.
It is why that idea of Jesus appeals to people, it is God mixed with man. (2)It why Superman fails he lacks that human understanding.

1) Why not? You keep saying this, but never expand upon it. It worked for Nuada, Lugh, Gilgamesh. Herakles held the whole earth upon his shoulders, wore the skin of a beast that made him invulnerable, and defeated Death itself in a wrestling match.

2) So let's get this straight: the only child of a Kansas farmer who was raised in a humble, down-to-earth manner, grew up to hold a steady job, get married, and have a life... this guy is possessed of less human understanding than the only son of an aristocrat who never had to work a day in his life, borders on a split personality, and dresses up like a bat at night so he can beat up complete strangers because a bad man took away mommy and daddy twenty years ago? Right.



The perfect counterexample here to Superman is Captain America. Capt. America represents all the same things that Superman does: Justice, Honor, Hope...The Ultimate Boy Scout.....but he's still human.

Your point might stand if Captain America weren't constantly dogpiled as a boring character who's "too perfect". People crap all over Cap because he's too much of a goody-goody, he's boring, and he never loses. He also was at his best, and the height of his popularity, fighting Nazis. It sounds awfully familiar.


C'mon, guys. Bring some game. :D Or at least be honest. You don't really hate Superman because of the powers -- those have varied through the years. In the early 1960's he was so fast he could travel through time, in the late 1980's he couldn't even match fighter jets. He's always been a heavyweight among the heroes, but there's plenty of those.

Bad stories? Fuck yeah. Anybody else remember Captain America's "Capwolf" stage? Or how about Spider-Man's "clone saga"? Don't make me bring up the fact that Batman's embarrassing cheese of the 1960's almost got the character cancelled... and it was the introduction of Batgirl that saved it.

I'm figuring you're either turned off by the overt and oddly preferential attention the bad stories get, or you're just wishing for somebody who acts more fucked up and a little less heroic.



Thanks for this distraction. I'm going to get back to work now. :D

[Northcott]

I address this point, actually.

This is a perfect character for a simpler time, but it's not the basis for a character to stand the test of time. It's one-dimensional. It's why after about 10 or 15 years, the best Superman stories were already well done, and what we've been left with ever since has been utter crap.

The golden boy scout hero who is invincible, the unfailing paragon of altruism as you put it, literally begs to be deconstructed and tinkered with, brought low a bit....and yet those are the writers who you say "don't get it".

That's presuming that altruism doesn't belong in our era, or that it was somehow more applicable to a different era. You need to take a long, hard look at world history in the 30's and 40's, my friend -- it wasn't any more altruistic than we have today.

It's also blatantly untrue that the best stories were done in the first 10-15 years. Really. Look at comics from that era. They sucked. They had the seeds of genius, remarkable energy, but they were crap quality. Moore's Superman tale didn't come about 'till the late 80's. Loeb's in the late 90's. Waid's work has gone from the 90's into this decade.

Both the claim of era specifity and best tales being past are erroneous.


To shorten my long-ass messages:

SHARK: You'd love Mark Waid and Ron Garney's run on Captain America. I guarantee it.

Sgt. Rock is nine out of ten shades of cool, man. :)

I actually like Batman. A lot. Apparently it was the first word I could spell as a kid... go figure. I just realize what the character is, and enjoy him for it. Like an action movie: go in with the popcorn, and just enjoy the spectacle.

My personal favourite vision of Superman would be either Byrne's 1980's take on him, or the old Fleischer animated films from the 40's. Those fucking rocked! Mad scientists, exploding volcanoes, pulpy sci-fi villains in rocket cars, and Nazis! Great fun.

[Varaj]

1) Why not? You keep saying this, but never expand upon it. It worked for Nuada, Lugh, Gilgamesh. Herakles held the whole earth upon his shoulders, wore the skin of a beast that made him invulnerable, and defeated Death itself in a wrestling match.

None of those are Superman level of godliness.


2) So let's get this straight: the only child of a Kansas farmer who was raised in a humble, down-to-earth manner, grew up to hold a steady job, get married, and have a life... this guy is possessed of less human understanding than the only son of an aristocrat who never had to work a day in his life, borders on a split personality, and dresses up like a bat at night so he can beat up complete strangers because a bad man took away mommy and daddy twenty years ago? Right.

Batman :confused: Is this a trick question? ;)

[Northcott]

None of those are Superman level of godliness.

You're right. Herakles is beyond. ;)

[Varaj]

You're right. Herakles is beyond. ;)

Bah.

[Freedom Canadian]

That's presuming that altruism doesn't belong in our era, or that it was somehow more applicable to a different era.

Does Superman watch American Idol ? Does he like Nascar ? Does he even know what Myspace is ?

[shabois]

I think we have all made good points! There are a lot of similarities between Cap and Superman including Cap's much hyped drawn out recent death!

I have never really been a Cap fan and I have in fact been a Cap hater at times. But I always saw the need for Cap in the Marvel world.

Batman is sexy and Superman is boring and fanboys will always go for dark and gritty over the straight man. Like I said I think they need to end the Superman monthly runs and go to mini series like AllStar, or have him appear in JLA only.

The other option would be to radically change the concept which would piss off the traditionalists, but I am all for pissing off the old guard every so often.

Like others have said the concept of Superman is outdated and could use a revamp.

[Northcott]

I think we have all made good points! There are a lot of similarities between Cap and Superman including Cap's much hyped drawn out recent death!

I have never really been a Cap fan and I have in fact been a Cap hater at times. But I always saw the need for Cap in the Marvel world.

Batman is sexy and Superman is boring and fanboys will always go for dark and gritty over the straight man. Like I said I think they need to end the Superman monthly runs and go to mini series like AllStar, or have him appear in JLA only.

The other option would be to radically change the concept which would piss off the traditionalists, but I am all for pissing off the old guard every so often.

Like others have said the concept of Superman is outdated and could use a revamp.



Goddamn it, but I'm procrastinating horribly tonight. Wife and kid gone to the cottage, and I use the time to geek out on a board and work through the night. I am TEH SUCK.

But this conversation fascinates me. :D

I think that changing the concept would be an error. While altruism as a force isn't everybody's cup of tea, it's obviously enough to keep his sales at a point where the character can sustain 4+ titles a month, and guest appearances in other books as a counter-point to darker, grittier characters. From that perspective, he's invaluable, and he works financially. No wonder why DC clings to a status quo!

What's needed are writers who can pull of a character who's nice without being a doormat. Who's flawed enough to be interesting without falling entirely off the pedestal. The vision of Superman in Kingdom Come was a very good take on that: he was 1940's morality all over again, bordering on fascistic at times, but never quite seeming to cross that line. He's brought right to the brink at the very end, but makes the right choice. The powers were just flash and window dressing. The real story was a character-driven one.

Loeb's "Superman for All Seasons" was of a similar nature. The series was kind of uneven, imho, but ended well. The problem was that the first book in the series -- narrated by Johnathan Kent describing Clark as a young man, discovering his path to being Superman -- was so convicingly and touchingly done that the rest seemed weak in comparison. In hindsight, this is probably because of Loeb's relationship with his own son, Sam, who died just a couple years ago. It makes that first book almost heart-breaking to read.


I've long held that monthlies are the bane of the industry. Thicker, graphic novel style publications are the way to go. Rather than putting out four overpriced, ad-filled pamphlets a month, hire two or three really good creative teams to put out a few graphic novels a year. Nice, thick, complete stories that are (mostly) self-contained. Instead of mining through years of uninspired work driven by a need to meet deadlines, go straight for the diamonds by encouraging creators to craft the best, most complete stories they can.

Or say 'fuck it' and take a step back in comics! Make them kid-friendly again, strip them down so that they resemble the various animated series in tone and production quality, and hammer out those monthly pamphlets at the cheapest price they can. Get back on newstands. Make them a disposable, fun media again. Or even pursue both routes: one or two "specials" a year, plus the monthly, light-hearted fare.

[shabois]

I agree with you that they won't hange the concept and it will take a very skilled writer to make the comic exciting again.

This is why I am a big fan on the show Smallville. It made Superman interesting again by focusing on the struggles of Clark Kent becoming a superhero. It is also like the Ultimate Marvel comic line, where they have reimagined some classic characters and villians to make them more interesting.

[Northcott]

I agree with you that they won't hange the concept and it will take a very skilled writer to make the comic exciting again.

This is why I am a big fan on the show Smallville. It made Superman interesting again by focusing on the struggles of Clark Kent becoming a superhero. It is also like the Ultimate Marvel comic line, where they have reimagined some classic characters and villians to make them more interesting.


Yeah, needless to say I geeked out on Smallville. :) And I agree, they did a great job of making the character interesting again. First season they made the typical mistake: focus on the powers. Freak of the week + lots of kryptonite = formulaic show. But it held on, and the character-driven stuff really started to shine through. It helps that their casting was brilliant. Those actors have taken some remarkably cheesy scripts and carried them as if they were gold.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Loeb stepped into Smallville when it really hit it's stride, and the show really suffered after his son died and Loeb basically shut down for the better part of two years. The kid was apparently well-loved on the set, and one of the shows was dedicated to his memory.

Personally, I always loved the old "Earth II" stories from the 70's. It was a blast seeing the silver-templed, elder statesman Superman periodically come out of retirement to scare the crap out of somebody and deal some two-fisted justice. :)

Byrne seemed to get the idea back in the 80's, too. Any plot having to do with Superman's powers was usually a secondary vehicle to the character elements of the story. The rest were character-driven tales about Lois, Clark, Jimmy, or the villain of the day. If a problem challenged Superman's powers, it was layered overtop of a moral or emotional connundrum that he needed to solve.

I also really liked the contrast of Krypton and Kansas in that era: a very warm, down-home, humble, and loving upbringing contrasted with the relative coldness and inhumanity of what Krypton had become. It played very strongly upon the idea that Clark Kent is the character, and Superman is just a funky pair of tights he dons. I find that stance resonates more strongly with me; it makes more sense. His genetics eventually gave him great powers after years of being exposed to the sun, but it was the almost two decades of being raised by remarkable parents that make him what he is.

[TiQuinn]

Braniac. You mean the green bald guy with discs on his head that wore purple short-shorts through the 50's, 60's, and 70's? That guy? Not lame?

I liked the 80's Terminator update, and some of his more recent looks. Lameass getup from the 60s and 70s aside, the character was at least interesting and gave them a suitable match for Superman besides Luthor.


"Anything less than a bursting shell cannot penetrate his skin." He was super-tough back then, but not indestructible. He was regularly flattened by nasty weapons designed by mortals, including standard bombs. And damn, man, all the best superheroes rock when fighting Nazis. Or are you backing out on your prior poll opinions? ;) Flip-flopper.

Ah, but as you may not have noticed, I had few problems with the early Superman, because I recognize that he was a suitable character of that time. I am always for more Nazis in movies and comics! They are the ultimate villains! :D


So it was a DC problem overall, but you're throwing it in here as a knock on this single character? Byrne's work on the character in the 80's was some fine stuff. He hadn't yet fallen from the top of his game at that point, and delivered a powered-down character more true to his Golden Age origins.

It was DC overall, but I didn't particularly like Byrne's work in the 80's. I thought at the time, and still think that Crisis on Infinite Earths was an unnecessary move and a complete bore. Byrne "reimagined" stories and ideas that had already taken place over the years. That didn't take a lot of work. Not that there weren't good ideas in there. His best idea was the reinvention of Luthor, but the concept itself of rebooting the series was weak and a copout. It's the same with the Ultimates today. No! You don't get kudos for making all these characters "edgier" and then rehashing a war with the Skrulls or Spidey's first encounter with the Green Goblin!


So you've picked out some poor examples of modern story telling. Good for you. Now tell us what you thought of the work Kingdom Come, Waid's Justice League run, Byrne's revision, or Loeb's work on the character which inevitably landed him his place in the Smallville production team (and from there, to Heroes).

I can't say I've read them all of them, particularly Loeb's and Waid's stuff. Again Kingdom Come. Great story arc, but if you have to use an Elseworlds where you can reimagine anything and put the heroes in any situation (20 years in an apocalyptic future, Batman versus Dracula, DC Characters reimagined two centuries earlier, etc.), it's doesn't speak much for the core character and stories. You're also trotting out recent examples of the past 10 years as proof of the greatness of an 80 year old character with a shitload of crappy stories behind him.



Your point might stand if Captain America weren't constantly dogpiled as a boring character who's "too perfect". People crap all over Cap because he's too much of a goody-goody, he's boring, and he never loses. He also was at his best, and the height of his popularity, fighting Nazis. It sounds awfully familiar.

He's dogpiled by people who don't see the difference.


C'mon, guys. Bring some game. :D Or at least be honest. You don't really hate Superman because of the powers -- those have varied through the years. In the early 1960's he was so fast he could travel through time, in the late 1980's he couldn't even match fighter jets. He's always been a heavyweight among the heroes, but there's plenty of those.

Bring some game??

I've been dancing CIRCLES around you all night!! :D


Bad stories? Fuck yeah. Anybody else remember Captain America's "Capwolf" stage? Or how about Spider-Man's "clone saga"? Don't make me bring up the fact that Batman's embarrassing cheese of the 1960's almost got the character cancelled... and it was the introduction of Batgirl that saved it.

I'm figuring you're either turned off by the overt and oddly preferential attention the bad stories get, or you're just wishing for somebody who acts more fucked up and a little less heroic.

Everyone had bad story arcs at some time or another. It's part of the game. And it's also part of my preference for Marvel heroes versus DC heroes, too. DC always meant Sgt. Rock, Jonah Hex, and The Unknown Soldier to me. Marvel was where I went for real superheroes....not Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen.

But you keep bringing up Batman. And until now, nobody has really mentioned Batman except you. You should take that fight up with someone when they try to make that comparison, not before. My counterpoint was Capt. America. How is he more fucked up and a little less heroic? :D


That's presuming that altruism doesn't belong in our era, or that it was somehow more applicable to a different era. You need to take a long, hard look at world history in the 30's and 40's, my friend -- it wasn't any more altruistic than we have today.

There was certainly a difference in terms of what was considered acceptable in the 30s and 40s versus today as far as comics or film goes! Let's not mix actual history with the fictional content of comics.

It's also blatantly untrue that the best stories were done in the first 10-15 years. Really. Look at comics from that era. They sucked. They had the seeds of genius, remarkable energy, but they were crap quality. Moore's Superman tale didn't come about 'till the late 80's. Loeb's in the late 90's. Waid's work has gone from the 90's into this decade.

Okay, so maybe this is a better time for Superman. I haven't read many comic books in the past 10 years. I didn't watch Smallville.

If the character of Superman is more interesting and exciting today, then I will take you at your word and just add IT TOOK LONG ENOUGH. :p

I think that changing the concept would be an error. While altruism as a force isn't everybody's cup of tea, it's obviously enough to keep his sales at a point where the character can sustain 4+ titles a month, and guest appearances in other books as a counter-point to darker, grittier characters. From that perspective, he's invaluable, and he works financially. No wonder why DC clings to a status quo!

Altruism isn't really the root issue. Altruism combined with invincibility means that writers were forced to invent silly things like Kryptonite or use lame conventions like "OH NO! Lois is in danger! Even with my super-speed, I may not reach her in time!" to inject some interest into the stories. Now stretch that out over decades, and there's not much going meat on the bone.



I've long held that monthlies are the bane of the industry. Thicker, graphic novel style publications are the way to go. Rather than putting out four overpriced, ad-filled pamphlets a month, hire two or three really good creative teams to put out a few graphic novels a year. Nice, thick, complete stories that are (mostly) self-contained. Instead of mining through years of uninspired work driven by a need to meet deadlines, go straight for the diamonds by encouraging creators to craft the best, most complete stories they can.

Or say 'fuck it' and take a step back in comics! Make them kid-friendly again, strip them down so that they resemble the various animated series in tone and production quality, and hammer out those monthly pamphlets at the cheapest price they can. Get back on newstands. Make them a disposable, fun media again. Or even pursue both routes: one or two "specials" a year, plus the monthly, light-hearted fare.

I like either of those ideas.

But like you mentioned before: Superman driving four titles, right now? That's the early 90s all over again, man. And those stories sucked ass and the whole thing eventually unsustainable.

Holy shit...........

This is a long ass post.

[shabois]

Here is a much shorter post... You should really check out Smallville, excellent show which actually enhanced my appreciation for Superman.

[Northcott]

I liked the 80's Terminator update, and some of his more recent looks. Lameass getup from the 60s and 70s aside, the character was at least interesting and gave them a suitable match for Superman besides Luthor.

Metallo went in the same direction looong ago. During the Byrne reboot, in fact. First or second issue of Superman was Supes getting a whuppin' from Metallo -- and then the bastard used the Kryptonite heart. The origin given the character in the animated series worked particularly well, too.

I find that the more dastardly the villain, the better Superman works. He needs that point of contrast. Watered-down villains, like the Silver Age renditions, left it all seeming... bleh. You won't get any argument from me on that. But that's also the era where Batman hit his uber-cheese factor. Most DC heroes did.

As an expression of altruism and heroism, Superman works best when placed against despicable characters. The nihilism of Darkseid, the sociopathy of Metallo or Luthor, the fear of soulless technology gone wrong in Braniac, etc.

I rather liked the update they've given Braniac where he's a Kryptonian AI gone horribly, horribly wrong.

Ah, but as you may not have noticed, I had few problems with the early Superman, because I recognize that he was a suitable character of that time. I am always for more Nazis in movies and comics! They are the ultimate villains! :D

It was DC overall, but I didn't particularly like Byrne's work in the 80's. I thought at the time, and still think that Crisis on Infinite Earths was an unnecessary move and a complete bore. Byrne "reimagined" stories and ideas that had already taken place over the years. That didn't take a lot of work.

I mostly agree on the issue of Crisis. That, of course, was an editorial decision well beyond Byrne, and even in the re-creation of Superman he wasn't entirely at the helm. The coldness of Krypton wasn't his idea, for example (Marv Wolfman, I think). As for re-imagining stories... only some of them. The origin story is a given, but much of what followed was Byrne running with his Kirby fanboy ideas -- like the team-ups with Etrigan and Mr. Miracle, the battle with the Teen Titans, nearly getting killed by the Silver Banshee, etc. I particularly liked how he dealt with Luthor, and why the link to Clark Kent was never made: Luthor's ego just couldn't accept that somebody that powerful wouldn't be as megamaniacal as he is. The idea that somebody with power would pretend to be less than, would not be as corrupt as himself, was unfathomable. It was over the top, yes, but very fitting.

Superman was powered down significantly, enough so that he'd fit into most heroic RPGs with some effort, and the Clark Kent side was played up. The work wasn't ground-breaking, but it was very solid.

His best idea was the reinvention of Luthor, but the concept itself of rebooting the series was weak and a copout.

Whereas I'm of the opinion that if you fuck something up, you should make it right. They switched the character back to an earlier template of himself, and the result was a massive spike in popularity, even on the titles that didn't have Byrne's name attached. As they've slowly re-introduced the Silver Age crap over the years, the same old song and dance about how "out of touch with the times" Superman is has started up once again.

I see it being less about the times, and more about writers who refuse to learn from history.

I can't say I've read them all of them, particularly Loeb's and Waid's stuff. Again Kingdom Come. Great story arc, but if you have to use an Elseworlds where you can reimagine anything and put the heroes in any situation (20 years in an apocalyptic future, Batman versus Dracula, DC Characters reimagined two centuries earlier, etc.), it's doesn't speak much for the core character and stories. You're also trotting out recent examples of the past 10 years as proof of the greatness of an 80 year old character with a shitload of crappy stories behind him.

Again, I'm of a different opinion. They're fictional characters. As such, it doesn't matter if they're written into a different continuity. Hell, the current Superman isn't the original if we go all fanboy about it, and the Kingdom Come version has been worked into DC's mainstream continuity. So where do we draw the line?

Though I'm curious as to how you think that a story doesn't speak much for the core of a character when you can swap settings around ad nauseum and make that character work for entertaining story variations in all those settings, without violating the central themes of the character.

Now, I'd trot out stories from before the 80's as examples... but really, are you going to get references to stories from the late 60's and the 70's? Underneath all the weirdness there were some real gems, though I'd say that the coolest stuff at the time for DC belonged to Batman, Green Arrow, and Green Lantern. The creative teams they had on those characters... damn! Can't top O'Neal, Adams, and Golden.

Bring some game??

I've been dancing CIRCLES around you all night!! :D

In between being schooled on your comic history? Sure. We'll go with that. ;)

Everyone had bad story arcs at some time or another. It's part of the game.

Now you're getting it. ;)
And it's also part of my preference for Marvel heroes versus DC heroes, too. DC always meant Sgt. Rock, Jonah Hex, and The Unknown Soldier to me. Marvel was where I went for real superheroes....not Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen.

Thank God Marvel didn't have a goofy sidekick for it's superheroes! I mean, imagine if some twinky little bastard had served as a sidekick to the Avengers, the Hulk, Captain America, Captain Marvel, and... no, hold on. That's Rick Jones. ;)

But you keep bringing up Batman. And until now, nobody has really mentioned Batman except you. You should take that fight up with someone when they try to make that comparison, not before.

Read the responses. He's been mentioned. :) He's also the prototypical example of the "more human" superhero. He doesn't even have the advantage of the super-soldier serum which made Cap into a low-grade superhuman.

My counterpoint was Capt. America. How is he more fucked up and a little less heroic? :D

Your words, not mine. My claim is that Cap is the same as Superman. Just as unbeatable, just as prone to spouting moralistic platitudes. The reason both of them get crapped on is because they are "too perfect".

Different power levels? They both look like pen & ink creations to me. They're as powerful as the effect they have on plot -- and Cap never loses. He always beats the odds. Hell, he's withstood being at ground zero for the equivalent of a nuclear blast, and didn't even get a mild tan from it.

There was certainly a difference in terms of what was considered acceptable in the 30s and 40s versus today as far as comics or film goes! Let's not mix actual history with the fictional content of comics.

The Comics Code Authority changed those standards in the 50's, not the 30's and 40's... though I will concede some difference in the standards. But it's a fallacy to try and remove the notion of real history from the study of comics: they're a pop culture phenomenon, and so are tied inexoribly with the developments in our culture.

If the character of Superman is more interesting and exciting today, then I will take you at your word and just add IT TOOK LONG ENOUGH. :p

I use current examples for your benefit. ;) I'm a complete geek for this character.

Altruism isn't really the root issue. Altruism combined with invincibility means that writers were forced to invent silly things like Kryptonite or use lame conventions like "OH NO! Lois is in danger! Even with my super-speed, I may not reach her in time!" to inject some interest into the stories. Now stretch that out over decades, and there's not much going meat on the bone.

I'll throw this out there one more time: not only has his invincibility altered dramatically throughout the years, but the level of powers is only significant insofar as the writer wishes it to affect the plot.

1) "Oh No! Agent 13 is in danger! I can throw my shield to save her, but if I miss...!"

2) "Oh No! Robin is in danger! The bat-line may not make it!"

3) "Oh No! Jane Foster is in danger! If only I could strike my cane upon the ground and change back into Thor!"

4) "Oh No! Dinah's in danger! If I miss with this arrow..."

Seeing a pattern yet?


But like you mentioned before: Superman driving four titles, right now? That's the early 90s all over again, man. And those stories sucked ass and the whole thing eventually unsustainable.

Hell, the companies are even playing with variant covers again. You know the old saw about people who don't learn from history.

Holy shit...........

This is a long ass post.

Welcome to the dark side! Muh-ha-ha-ha-ha!

[Northcott]

By the way, guys, thanks for this thread. It's been a fucking blast. :D

I swear, I so much as mention Superman and my wife rolls her eyes so hard I think she's about to pass out. Every night before bed, my daughter looks up at my little collection of Superman memerobelia on the shelf in my office, and waves goodnight to it. She refers to him as "Man", but it's one of the first words she uttered.

[Varaj]

Read the responses. He's been mentioned. :) He's also the prototypical example of the "more human" superhero. He doesn't even have the advantage of the super-soldier serum which made Cap into a low-grade superhuman.

You brought him up and we play along so you don't cry in your Superman underroos. :)



Your words, not mine. My claim is that Cap is the same as Superman. Just as unbeatable, just as prone to spouting moralistic platitudes. The reason both of them get crapped on is because they are "too perfect".

Different power levels? They both look like pen & ink creations to me. They're as powerful as the effect they have on plot -- and Cap never loses. He always beats the odds. Hell, he's withstood being at ground zero for the equivalent of a nuclear blast, and didn't even get a mild tan from it.

Something lame has been done with all characters but the concept of Superman's powers make the amount of lameness with him many, many more times likely.




I'll throw this out there one more time: not only has his invincibility altered dramatically throughout the years, but the level of powers is only significant insofar as the writer wishes it to affect the plot.

1) "Oh No! Agent 13 is in danger! I can throw my shield to save her, but if I miss...!"

2) "Oh No! Robin is in danger! The bat-line may not make it!"

3) "Oh No! Jane Foster is in danger! If only I could strike my cane upon the ground and change back into Thor!"

4) "Oh No! Dinah's in danger! If I miss with this arrow..."

Seeing a pattern yet?

Yeah the contrived situations for Superman are 100x lamer than the contrived situations for other super heroes.
It is all about degrees, the basic concept of power level forces more wild levels of crap.

[Northcott]

So to summarize your argument: "Oh noez! Teh powrz are TEH LAME!!!!"

C'mon, man. At least put some thought into it. You've become lazy in your trolling. I had trouble enough believing you were sincere from the get-go, and with each subsequent post I become more and more convinced that you're not.

[Varaj]

So to summarize your argument: "Oh noez! Teh powrz are TEH LAME!!!!"

C'mon, man. At least put some thought into it. You've become lazy in your trolling. I had trouble enough believing you were sincere from the get-go, and with each subsequent post I become more and more convinced that you're not.

That is the exact point I have. The powers are way over powered so they have to come up with extreme contrived situations to challenge him. I hate that sort of thing. Not a troll just not much to discuss on it. There is no reason behind other than I don't like extreme power ranges with contrived situations to handle those power ranges.

[TiQuinn]

Though I'm curious as to how you think that a story doesn't speak much for the core of a character when you can swap settings around ad nauseum and make that character work for entertaining story variations in all those settings, without violating the central themes of the character.

I say that because it's not difficult for most comic book superheroes. Their origins and motivations are rather simplistic at the core, by design. More has been done in recent years to make comics "deeper", particularly with independents or DC's Vertigo line, but Superman and Batman? Fairly simplistic motivations and simple origins make for transferability into other genres. These stories are entertaining, I don't dispute that, and they are fun because they are radically different in one way or another, but the true challenge is to continue writing engaging stories without having to rely on gimmicks such as Batman reimagined as a Pirate.

Now, I'd trot out stories from before the 80's as examples... but really, are you going to get references to stories from the late 60's and the 70's? Underneath all the weirdness there were some real gems, though I'd say that the coolest stuff at the time for DC belonged to Batman, Green Arrow, and Green Lantern. The creative teams they had on those characters... damn! Can't top O'Neal, Adams, and Golden.

Neal Adams and Denny O'Neal are tops in my book. I remember a lot of those stories, actually, though not necessarily Superman.

Honest disclosure time now:

I don't really HATE Superman. The Superman "sucks" comment was just some painfully obvious trolling which I'm sure you knew. ;) But I never really "liked" the character either. I read a lot of comics over the years, and Supes just never sat well with me mainly because of the reasons I've already listed.

Now Batman....Batman in the O'Neal/Adams days were the best. He was darker, they took him away from all the campiness, yet he didn't get so incredibly dark as he got in 80s and 90s. The detective was still there, so to speak. He was still a hero, not a vigiliante. Now, I liked Dark Knight Returns and moreso, I liked The Killing Joke and some other stories from the 80s, but I agree....Batman's popularlity spiked at the same time as guys like Punisher and Wolverine, and he became DC's Capt. "Uber Dark and Brooding Badass".


Thank God Marvel didn't have a goofy sidekick for it's superheroes! I mean, imagine if some twinky little bastard had served as a sidekick to the Avengers, the Hulk, Captain America, Captain Marvel, and... no, hold on. That's Rick Jones. ;)

OH! LOW BLOW! :mad:

Point me to the comic book Rick Jones got from Marvel! I give you Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane, who did get comics.......

<Digression>....and were always complete dicks to Superman in them too. You ever notice how almost every story had Jimmy and Lois getting incredible powers from some villain or fallen meteor or some such and then becoming incredible pricks who treated Supes like shit? WTF?</Digression>

.........and you trot out Rick Jones who was fell into the same group but didn't nearly get the exposure that the DC idiots-in-peril always got.

:D



The Comics Code Authority changed those standards in the 50's, not the 30's and 40's... though I will concede some difference in the standards. But it's a fallacy to try and remove the notion of real history from the study of comics: they're a pop culture phenomenon, and so are tied inexoribly with the developments in our culture.

C'mon, man.

You think they could've sprung some of the storylines and themes of the 80s and 90s in the 30s and 40s? Really? For instance, the O'Neal/Adams GA/GL stories. I know the CCA didn't exist at the time, but do you think those would've made it past editors of the day? Or the darker Batman of the 80s/90s? Vigilante superheroes who don't capture the villains but kill them? The darkest/edgiest you got at that time were the Submariner and the Spectre, really.

[Northcott]

You think they could've sprung some of the storylines and themes of the 80s and 90s in the 30s and 40s? Really? For instance, the O'Neal/Adams GA/GL stories. I know the CCA didn't exist at the time, but do you think those would've made it past editors of the day? Or the darker Batman of the 80s/90s? Vigilante superheroes who don't capture the villains but kill them? The darkest/edgiest you got at that time were the Submariner and the Spectre, really.

I'm swamped right now, and this thread calls me like siren seeking to destroy me on the rocks!!! I'm such a fucking geek.

So I'm going to make this one quick point, and then get back to this thread later. :D

Certain elements would not have flown. They were, for example, far more conservative about religious issues. The GL/GA issue where an environmental crusader was turned into a Christ figure, quite blatantly and literally, would have probably caused a nation-wide controversy.

Sex in kid's comics was never overtly stated, either, though implied here and there. Certainly notions such as rape were brought up, but never directly named. Femme Fatales would routinely offer sex, in not so many words, to heroes to try and avoid their fate. There were also underground adult comics at the time, the equivilent of modern indy press, but they were really lurid and tawdry crap. On the flipside, even mainstream press comics were mostly crap -- the artform was in its infancy.

Violence and "grit", on the other hand? It was there. And the heroes killed... or at least some of them did. Superman and Captain America always did the "warn the bad guy of impending doom" shtick, but then would basically turn around and say "The fools! I warned them!" after they'd be consumed in a horrible fire. ;)

Other figures, like Batman, weren't always so gentle. In Robin's first appearance, they end up going after mobsters at the construction site of a high rise. After toppling a mobster off the supports to fall to his death, Batman and Robin stand around grinning ear to ear and laugh about it. I vaguely remember Robin snapping a picture of the crook falling to his death, too, but it's been years since I read that. I may be remembering incorrectly.

Societal violence was more accepted back then. There were a number of vigilante characters who would bump off badguys as soon as look at them, and even the superheroes weren't above causing a death or three, depending on the writer in question.

[shabois]

What do you guys think of the marriage of Clark and Lois? Has it affected the character of Superman or your opinion of him? I only ask because there is this huge deal at Marvel about Spidey and Mary Jane and how they will answer once and for all the state of their marriage in a crossover designed to make you spend more money.

Apparently there is a lot of fanboy angst over their marriage. Yet I have not heard that much backlash against the Superman marriage. I did see and hear a lot of negative opinions about the kid having super powers in the most recent movie, but that is a side point.

Do you think there is equal criticism of Spidey's marriage as opposed to Superman's? More?? Less??

Do DC fans not care or do they have bigger priorities?;)

[Glass]

There isn't fanboy angst over Spidey's marriage, there's Joe Quesada angst over it. Although whether he's really angsty and out to see it destroyed, or it just became a recurring joke, I'm not sure.

[shabois]

I think Joe Q has become a reoccurring joke!:D

[Northcott]

That is the exact point I have. The powers are way over powered so they have to come up with extreme contrived situations to challenge him. I hate that sort of thing. Not a troll just not much to discuss on it. There is no reason behind other than I don't like extreme power ranges with contrived situations to handle those power ranges.

Whoa. Well... and here I was just having fun figuring this was all a big troll job. :)

Out of curiosity, what do you think of mythological tales? Herakles carrying the world on his shoulders, Beowulf ripping the arm off an otherwise invulnerable beast with his bare hands, Thor smashing entire mountains with Mjolnir, etc?

Obviously my perspective on all this is very different, as I don't take powers seriously outside their role as window dressing. I have my own preferences for which power levels to keep the characters at, but that has more to do with my philosophy on where they stand as symbols than anything else.


I did see and hear a lot of negative opinions about the (Superman's) kid having super powers in the most recent movie, but that is a side point.

Do you think there is equal criticism of Spidey's marriage as opposed to Superman's? More?? Less??

Pardon my snipping, but my posts are long enough. I wanted to keep it brief as possible. :)

I think that the beef with Superman's kid was more with the fact that he existed at all, rather than his having powers. This comes from two directions, imho:
1) People are sick to death of cutsey saviour children with hidden powers hijacking movies. It's like nails on a blackboard.
2) He's Super-bastard! The supposed paragon of virtue knocks up his girl, splits the planet, and at the end of the movie neither of them fucking bothers to tell the guy she's marrying. Between that and the super-stalker behaviour. Ewww. That movie made me weep for the wasted potential.

[Northcott]

I say that because it's not difficult for most comic book superheroes. Their origins and motivations are rather simplistic at the core, by design.

I think there's great validity to that: after all, you can't exactly haul Atticus Finch out of To Kill A Mockingbird and drop him into any genre. But the flipside of that argument is that characters who have an iconic enough design that they tap into basic wishes and impulses of humanity are strong enough to survive transplant: look at how often Tarzan's been shunted around (though God knows some of those were painful errors).

What they lack in complexity they make up for with strength of foundation. From that perspective, it's up to the writer to bring complexity to the tale without sabotaging the foundation. Ideally. To see how easy it is to screw up, we just have to look at any one of a number of horrid Superman power wank-job stories we've seen over the years, or the number of Frank Miller wannabe's who have had Batman as an antisocial sociopath since the 80's.

The real shame is how very few writers get that deconstruction is fucking worthless unless you build something in its place. It's the core of power in Alan Moore's work -- for everything he deconstructs, he rebuilds it again. Often staying true to the original idea.

Neal Adams and Denny O'Neal are tops in my book. I remember a lot of those stories, actually, though not necessarily Superman.

First comic I ever bought, I was 4 years old -- Superman Family #1, giant-sized issue. Neal Adams did the art on the lead story, which had Batman and Superman being targetted by the "revenge squads" out to get them. Pure and utter cheese... but Adams artwork made it SO. FUCKING. BEAUTIFUL.

I don't really HATE Superman. The Superman "sucks" comment was just some painfully obvious trolling which I'm sure you knew. ;) But I never really "liked" the character either. I read a lot of comics over the years, and Supes just never sat well with me mainly because of the reasons I've already listed.

Yeah, I kinda clued in. ;) I can get that some people don't dig the character. Some people prefer low fantasy to high fantasy with their swords n' sorcery stuff -- it's all a matter of personal tastes.

Me? I love the super-hero genre as a whole. Maybe someday I'll get the chance to apply my philosophy of it to the titles I loved as a kid, but I doubt it. It's looking more and more like I'm going to be an indy publisher working in other genres, if I continue to do this gig at all.

Now Batman....Batman in the O'Neal/Adams days were the best. He was darker, they took him away from all the campiness, yet he didn't get so incredibly dark as he got in 80s and 90s. The detective was still there, so to speak. He was still a hero, not a vigiliante. Now, I liked Dark Knight Returns and moreso, I liked The Killing Joke and some other stories from the 80s, but I agree....Batman's popularlity spiked at the same time as guys like Punisher and Wolverine, and he became DC's Capt. "Uber Dark and Brooding Badass".

Man, I completely agree with you there. I think that's what Morrison -- is that who has Batman now? -- is trying to return him to. More of a balanced, centred guy. I think that DC and Marvel need to get over this "comics are for adults now" mentality and start aiming for the family-friendly fare again. At least partially. Those old O'Neal/Adams issues of Batman and Green Lantern & Green Arrow were fantastic stuff. They hold up over the years, and they're not something I'd shy away from giving a kid to read.


OH! LOW BLOW! :mad:

Heheheh.

Point me to the comic book Rick Jones got from Marvel!

Captain Marvel. Instead of being the sidekick, he was one of the two main characters, and served as a mentor to the son of Mar-Vell. He had a good 60 issue run, written by Peter David.

I think you'd have liked it. He was a right bastard at times, and the humour of the book was sharp. Outside of that, I'd say the comparison still stands. I mean, sure Jimmy had his own comic in the 70's as a blatant attempt at appealing to youth culture... but he was only ever a periodic sidekick. Now Rick? Damn! From the Hulk to Captain America, to the Avengers, to Captain Marvel 1... he may not have had his own comic, but he was in everybody else's! ;)

I give you Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane, who did get comics.......

Mary Jane got her own a couple years back. I had dinner with the guy who landed the art assignment -- Takeshi Miyazawa. Great guy. Amazing artist. The inker did him no favours on that book. They were trying the same thing: strong female lead in stories that may have a super-hero in the background, but aren't super-hero centric. In MJ's case it was a romance book, in Lois' it was more hard-nosed reporter/true crime kinda stuff.

<Digression>....and were always complete dicks to Superman in them too. You ever notice how almost every story had Jimmy and Lois getting incredible powers from some villain or fallen meteor or some such and then becoming incredible pricks who treated Supes like shit? WTF?</Digression>

If you haven't read Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?", you should. When they were closing out the Silver Age before the big relaunch, they finally let Moore write Superman -- he was chomping at the bit to do the tale. What made it perfect was Curt Swan's illustrations. He drew that character for 25+ years.

If you haven't read it, I'm sure you can imagine what happens in an Alan Moore story when Jimmy and Lana take up their goofy super-powered mantles to try and help out their pal, Superman, when they're convinced he's about to die.

[Northcott]

And since we're on the topic of Superheroes, Gods, and the philosophies that drive the industry... here's a peek at Alan Moore's "Twilight of the Gods". He proposed Ragnarok for the DC Universe back in '87. The opening proposal is rambling, but it's got some real gems that show he examines the development of the industry, and things in general, with a broader eye than most folks.

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/6612/twilight.htm

[Varaj]

Whoa. Well... and here I was just having fun figuring this was all a big troll job. :)

Out of curiosity, what do you think of mythological tales? Herakles carrying the world on his shoulders, Beowulf ripping the arm off an otherwise invulnerable beast with his bare hands, Thor smashing entire mountains with Mjolnir, etc?

Two things about those you mention. None of them have the full range of powers Superman has. They aren't as godlike as Superman.
The other is context, Superman stands out very much like a sore thumb the others are surrounded by things of similar power levels.



Obviously my perspective on all this is very different, as I don't take powers seriously outside their role as window dressing. I have my own preferences for which power levels to keep the characters at, but that has more to do with my philosophy on where they stand as symbols than anything else.

You can still tell a good story but why dress a good story in utter crap when you could tell the good story without applying a window dressing that looks horrible. My philosophy is such that power levels shouldn't hurt the story. Superman's power levels hurt the stories.

[Dr. Paragon]

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/6612/twilight.htm

I heard about this in the mid 90's and it is quite frankly The Shit.

The climax is both surprising and disturbing, an awesome tale.

[Northcott]

Two things about those you mention. None of them have the full range of powers Superman has. They aren't as godlike as Superman.

Not the full range, certainly. But not as godlike? Herakles lifting the entire earth? Defeating death itself in a wrestling match? Lugh slaying other Gods with a single blow, mastering all arts and sciences, being undefeatable in combat. Even in crossovers, Thor is played up as Superman's equal... and the comic book version of Thor is watered down from the myths.

The other is context, Superman stands out very much like a sore thumb the others are surrounded by things of similar power levels.

...

... Look, Varaj, I'm serious when I say I don't want to offend you with this but -- this is exactly the kind of thing that had me thinking you were trolling. Both DC and Marvel settings have multiple characters that meet or exceed those standards.


You can still tell a good story but why dress a good story in utter crap when you could tell the good story without applying a window dressing that looks horrible. My philosophy is such that power levels shouldn't hurt the story. Superman's power levels hurt the stories.

In your opinion, of course. And we have yet to hear what you think those power levels are. They vary from year to year. His power level in the Golden Age was meant to be a modern-day demi-god: more powerful than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet, able to soar higher than a plane. his abilities were mapped to the heights of human technological acheivement.

Through the silliness of the Silver Age, this changed. Comics were expressly for kids after the CCA became involved, and all comics were pablumized. When Marvel showed up in the 60's, this started to change.

By the 80's he was restored to that Golden Age standard. Currently, a crop of writers longing for the Silver Age stuff have slowly attempted to re-introduce all the older elements one by one. Yet even as that's been happening, Dini and Timm popularized an animated version derived in part from Byrne's Golden Age-inspired vision, where he grunts with effort lifting a tank and gets knocked around by heavy machine gun fire. It's all cyclical.

Myself, I prefer the demi-god with the watered-down powers.

[Northcott]

I heard about this in the mid 90's and it is quite frankly The Shit.

The climax is both surprising and disturbing, an awesome tale.

Yeah... and the ending's bloody sad.

I did have some issues with implied characterization, though. J'onn J'onzz being that maelific, for example. It stands against everything written about the character. Or the idea that the two paragons of temperance and compassion in the DCU, Superman and Wonder Woman, would raise a delinquent child.

But the impact of the overall story idea was massive, and I loved Moore's approach to looking at the industry and how writing a massive tale would impact the readership and cross-over potential. From that perspective alone it was a brilliant piece.

There's no way that DC could have accepted it, though, and I don't blame them. Really, the whole thing hinged on one central premise: the Billy Batson factor. And that alone... well, Hell, you can imagine how that could be spun. It's fucking disturbing. No company would risk that.

[Dacke]

I only ask because there is this huge deal at Marvel about Spidey and Mary Jane and how they will answer once and for all the state of their marriage in a crossover designed to make you spend more money.
There is? I thought they dealt with that years ago, maybe a year into JMS' run on Amazing Spider-Man.

I remember that when JMS took over the comic, he mentioned that he wasn't allowed to do much with their relationship because (a) it would confuse new fans from the movies, and (b) they had promised another writer that he would get the marriage angle in his Spidey comic.

Then that other writer decided that he wasn't going to do it, so they let JMS do a reunion story, and now they've been back together for what, four or five years?

[Varaj]

Not the full range, certainly. But not as godlike? Herakles lifting the entire earth? Defeating death itself in a wrestling match? Lugh slaying other Gods with a single blow, mastering all arts and sciences, being undefeatable in combat. Even in crossovers, Thor is played up as Superman's equal... and the comic book version of Thor is watered down from the myths.


Glad you agree. Superman has it all.



... Look, Varaj, I'm serious when I say I don't want to offend you with this but -- this is exactly the kind of thing that had me thinking you were trolling. Both DC and Marvel settings have multiple characters that meet or exceed those standards.


I'm sorry I didn't realize I had said Superman was the only super hero that had this problem. My mistake I will try to find that post and edit to correct that.




In your opinion, of course. And we have yet to hear what you think those power levels are. They vary from year to year. His power level in the Golden Age was meant to be a modern-day demi-god: more powerful than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet, able to soar higher than a plane. his abilities were mapped to the heights of human technological acheivement.

Through the silliness of the Silver Age, this changed. Comics were expressly for kids after the CCA became involved, and all comics were pablumized. When Marvel showed up in the 60's, this started to change.

By the 80's he was restored to that Golden Age standard. Currently, a crop of writers longing for the Silver Age stuff have slowly attempted to re-introduce all the older elements one by one. Yet even as that's been happening, Dini and Timm popularized an animated version derived in part from Byrne's Golden Age-inspired vision, where he grunts with effort lifting a tank and gets knocked around by heavy machine gun fire. It's all cyclical.

Myself, I prefer the demi-god with the watered-down powers.

You mean my opinion is my opinion? :rolleyes: Wow who would have thunk.
What is the overwhelming image in American culture of Superman? (Power wise) That is the one I'm talking about.

[TiQuinn]

What is the overwhelming image in American culture of Superman? (Power wise) That is the one I'm talking about.


Good point.

The power levels may've fluctuated over the years in the comic books but for the majority of observers, it's always been "He's the most powerful of the superheros". You ask someone on the street what Superman's weakness, and they're not going to say "Well, you can probably kill him with a nuclear bomb, and machine gun bullets knock him around some". They're going to say "Kryptonite". The Superman movies, particularly the first, really entrenched Superman as all-powerful....probably far beyond the abilty of John Byrne or other writers to tone it down again.

Superman can turn back time by spinning the Earth backwards! ZOMG! (and I still liked the first Superman movie, but it did further ensconce Superman as invincible and can do virtually ANYTHING).

Bryan Singer's movie certainly didn't help either.

The fluctuations and limitations in Superman's powers may be apparent to dedicated comic book enthusiasts like Northcott, but not to the majority of people.

[Northcott]

Good point.

The power levels may've fluctuated over the years in the comic books but for the majority of observers, it's always been "He's the most powerful of the superheros". You ask someone on the street what Superman's weakness, and they're not going to say "Well, you can probably kill him with a nuclear bomb, and machine gun bullets knock him around some". They're going to say "Kryptonite". The Superman movies, particularly the first, really entrenched Superman as all-powerful....probably far beyond the abilty of John Byrne or other writers to tone it down again.

Those statements I don't find to be nearly so much of a problem. The idea that he's the most powerful of the superheroes... well, yeah. Pretty much. There are equals, of course, and quite the number of them through the years, but he'll always stand out because he's the original.

The idea that most people recognize kryptonite what his weakness is -- again, it makes sense. Ask people what schizophrenia is, and you'll hear a lot of chatter about multiple personality disorders instead. People gravitate toward the simplest solutions. Can't shoot 'em? Glowing green rock'll do the trick! We all know that being bullet-proof, and even bomb-proof, is pretty minor on the list of superhero schticks -- but that glowing green rock is an easy, dramatic hook that people are bound to remember.

Bryan Singer's movie certainly didn't help either.

Eugh. Abomination! At least they kept it down to the notion of his basically being a template that matches/exceeds human acheivement here. He gets knocked for a loop rescuing the plane, arrives back from Krypton in a ship rather than having flown, etc. But still.... eugh!

The fluctuations and limitations in Superman's powers may be apparent to dedicated comic book enthusiasts like Northcott, but not to the majority of people.

I would disagree with that save for Singer's recent movie. In the decade or so before that, the animated version from Dini and Timm was the most prevalent among a new generation, and that version was based heavily off of Byrne's rendition of the character. Singer went and dialed it up again. Personally, I'm hoping the movie franchise will die off for awhile.

[Northcott]

I'm sorry I didn't realize I had said Superman was the only super hero that had this problem. My mistake I will try to find that post and edit to correct that.

Man, but you're a snarky little bitch today.

You said: "The other is context, Superman stands out very much like a sore thumb the others are surrounded by things of similar power levels." I pointed out that he's surrounded by things of similar power levels. Your point is addressed directly, and disproven. If he's not the only character with this problem, then the chances are that the character doesn't stand out like a sore thumb.

You mean my opinion is my opinion? :rolleyes: Wow who would have thunk.
What is the overwhelming image in American culture of Superman? (Power wise) That is the one I'm talking about.

To 30-somethings? Christopher Reeve. To kids in the last 15 years? Probably a mix of the movie and the animated shows. Frankly, I really, intensely disliked the movie. You won't find any defense of that from me. I thought it was a butcher job. I'm curious to see if they'll actually carry through with the plans for a sequel.

The animated series, from the solo version to the Justice League, presents a version more in synch with my image than yours. They had the problem through the first season with everything and it's cousin kicking Superman's ass, while the other heroes would subsequently beat the villain of the day down.

[Varaj]

Man, but you're a snarky little bitch today.
Today?


You said: "The other is context, Superman stands out very much like a sore thumb the others are surrounded by things of similar power levels." I pointed out that he's surrounded by things of similar power levels. Your point is addressed directly, and disproven. If he's not the only character with this problem, then the chances are that the character doesn't stand out like a sore thumb.

Not all super heroes exist in the same universe so your point is meaningless. In the universe that Superman exists in he does stand out as you yourself stated. Do we need to discuss what context and scope means?

[Northcott]

Not all super heroes exist in the same universe so your point is meaningless. In the universe that Superman exists in he does stand out as you yourself stated. Do we need to discuss what context and scope means?

We probably would, if you weren't dead wrong. Again.

Damn, dude. Pay attention. We apparently need to discuss what "reading comprehension" means.

[Varaj]

We probably would, if you weren't dead wrong. Again.

Damn, dude. Pay attention. We apparently need to discuss what "reading comprehension" means.

In Superman's universe who competes at his power level (lets pick Christoper Reeves Superman power level)?

[Northcott]

In Superman's universe who competes at his power level (lets pick Christoper Reeves Superman power level)?

Je-sus. Christ. You expect me to list them all?!?

1) Mongol -- villain, equal.
2) Darkseid -- villain, superior.
3) Braniac -- villain, equal. (He's built himself up to it)
4) Mon-El -- hero, equal... but without the kryptonite weakness.
5) Daxamites -- the planet Mon-El hails from. They're all that freakin' powerful, but lead poisons them... except Mon-El. We'll count the whole planet as "one", shall we?
6) Sodol Yat -- hero, possibly superior. He's not only a massive Daxamite, but the fucker's a Green Lantern on top of it.
7) Captain Marvel and his freakin' sidekicks.
8) Black Adam.
9) Bizarro. Sometimes a goofy copy, sometimes a scary-ass zombie-like clone.
10) Doomsday -- more powerful.
11)Zod & his minions.
12) J'onn J'onzz, the Martian Manhunter -- plus he's a telepath, can change his shape, and turn intangible.
13) The rest of the freakin' martians.
14) I'm getting sick of listing them, so this will have to do for now. I think there's probably only about a half dozen more.

[Varaj]

Je-sus. Christ. You expect me to list them all?!?

1) Mongol -- villain, equal.
2) Darkseid -- villain, superior.
3) Braniac -- villain, equal. (He's built himself up to it)
4) Mon-El -- hero, equal... but without the kryptonite weakness.
5) Daxamites -- the planet Mon-El hails from. They're all that freakin' powerful, but lead poisons them... except Mon-El. We'll count the whole planet as "one", shall we?
6) Sodol Yat -- hero, possibly superior. He's not only a massive Daxamite, but the fucker's a Green Lantern on top of it.
7) Captain Marvel and his freakin' sidekicks.
8) Black Adam.
9) Bizarro. Sometimes a goofy copy, sometimes a scary-ass zombie-like clone.
10) Doomsday -- more powerful.
11)Zod & his minions.
12) J'onn J'onzz, the Martian Manhunter -- plus he's a telepath, can change his shape, and turn intangible.
13) The rest of the freakin' martians.
14) I'm getting sick of listing them, so this will have to do for now. I think there's probably only about a half dozen more.

Allow me to retort.

The idea that he's the most powerful of the superheroes... well, yeah. Pretty much.

[Northcott]

Allow me to retort.

And? Being a flagship character depicted as holding a position of leadership, he'll invariably be cast in at least a slightly better light than his compatriots of comparable power level.

C'mon. Give me a real retort, Varaj. Something other than fingers in the ears and a sing-song "Nyah-nyah, I can't hear you!".

[Varaj]

And? Being a flagship character depicted as holding a position of leadership, he'll invariably be cast in at least a slightly better light than his compatriots of comparable power level.

C'mon. Give me a real retort, Varaj. Something other than fingers in the ears and a sing-song "Nyah-nyah, I can't hear you!".

I say he is the most powerful just like you do. There isn't anything to retort. You just can't seem to deal with the fact I think the situations they have to come up with to challenge Superman are stupid. You like it, good for you. I think his powers are poor dressings that mask the good stories the writers try to tell. It is an ugly distraction to what could be.
It is general complaint I have the the super hero genre but the more you ratchet up the level of the super hero the more contrived the challenges feel. That is they way I feel about it. You may not see or feel the contrived nature like I do but they irk me.

[Northcott]

I say he is the most powerful just like you do. There isn't anything to retort. You just can't seem to deal with the fact I think the situations they have to come up with to challenge Superman are stupid. You like it, good for you. I think his powers are poor dressings that mask the good stories the writers try to tell. It is an ugly distraction to what could be.
It is general complaint I have the the super hero genre but the more you ratchet up the level of the super hero the more contrived the challenges feel. That is they way I feel about it. You may not see or feel the contrived nature like I do but they irk me.

And in the Marvel setting, I could buy into Captain America being the most powerful -- the guy's stomped on Gods. From the point of view of who the writers want to come out on top, that guy's going to be the most powerful... so I guess I should change my vote to Batman. But whatever. :)

I have less of an issue with fantasy and fantastic powers than I do with bad storytelling. Even human-level drama can seem horribly contrived in the hands of the wrong writer.

I also loved myths of Herakles as kid. I dig the myths of the Irish pantheon, and the wild deeds they perform. The Norse? Awesome stuff. Tickles my fancy.

Everybody's got their own preferences, and I can dig that. I don't even need justifications. You don't like the character? That's cool. No story is everybody's cup of tea. But don't go handing out spurious claims that make it look like you don't know what you're talking about, man. Especially not on such a trivial subject. It demeans the otherwise high standing you've rightfully earned.

[Varaj]

And in the Marvel setting, I could buy into Captain America being the most powerful -- the guy's stomped on Gods. From the point of view of who the writers want to come out on top, that guy's going to be the most powerful... so I guess I should change my vote to Batman. But whatever. :)

I have less of an issue with fantasy and fantastic powers than I do with bad storytelling. Even human-level drama can seem horribly contrived in the hands of the wrong writer.

I also loved myths of Herakles as kid. I dig the myths of the Irish pantheon, and the wild deeds they perform. The Norse? Awesome stuff. Tickles my fancy.

Everybody's got their own preferences, and I can dig that. I don't even need justifications. You don't like the character? That's cool. No story is everybody's cup of tea. But don't go handing out spurious claims that make it look like you don't know what you're talking about, man. Especially not on such a trivial subject. It demeans the otherwise high standing you've rightfully earned.

Spurious claims? Bah it may be spurious from ComicStoreGuy (or what ever that simpon's character is called) but for Joe average that is they way Superman appears.

[Northcott]

Spurious claims? Bah it may be spurious from ComicStoreGuy (or what ever that simpon's character is called) but for Joe average that is they way Superman appears.

Do you supose Joe Average spends as much time justifying his hate for a fictional character and debating it on internet message boards? ;)

[Varaj]

Do you supose Joe Average spends as much time justifying his hate for a fictional character and debating it on internet message boards? ;)

I certainly didn't mean to come across as justifying, just explaining. :p

[Northcott]

I certainly didn't mean to come across as justifying, just explaining. :p

You're forgiven. When you come around to your senses, I'll even let you worship at my Superman altar. :D

[Varaj]

You're forgiven. When you come around to your senses, I'll even let you worship at my Superman altar. :D

Very kind of you.

[Northcott]

I'll take pictures of it to show you. It's teh pretty! All blue and red and yellow...

I like the primary colours.

[Varaj]

I'll take pictures of it to show you. It's teh pretty! All blue and red and yellow...

I like the primary colours.

You haven't heard my rants about red and yellow and even worse orange. Gaw such ugly colors.

[Northcott]

You haven't heard my rants about red and yellow and even worse orange. Gaw such ugly colors.

I must hate you now. I cannot love a man who does not respect the entire rainbow! It's FABULOUS!

[Varaj]

I must hate you now. I cannot love a man who does not respect the entire rainbow! It's FABULOUS!

My rainbow starts at black and ends a black. It is very angstastic.

[Northcott]

You're that fucker that painted the red door black, aren't you?!? :mad:

[Varaj]

You're that fucker that painted the red door black, aren't you?!? :mad:

I don't want anymore colors I want to turn them black.

[there_is_no_bob]

It's FABULOUS!I must post this now.
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u119/there_is_no_bob/fabulous.jpg

[Dacke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kl3GeOPKsg

[Northcott]

I must post this now.
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u119/there_is_no_bob/fabulous.jpg


I'm glad somebody made use of that. :D