|
Post by zaku on Nov 20, 2022 3:52:08 GMT -5
Is this one below more durable than the Superman 30s to the 70s edition? The binding in the 30s to 70s edition leaves a lot to be desired as I've found quite a number of copies with loose pages within. This one has a lot of the same material plus a few extra 80s stories. Is it worthwhile?
Just for the sake of curiosity, are they all pre-Crisis stories? Edit: I've found the list and there aren't even the stories of which you see the covers (like Superman 233). It's a borderline scam! Edit 2: and exactly, how did they choose the stories from the seventies? They aren't famous ones ,they are not historically significant, I don't think there is even a consensus that they are among the best the period has to offer. If I had wanted to offer an overview of Superman's 50 years of history, I certainly wouldn't have chosen these! Action Comics #398Action Comics #399
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Nov 15, 2022 3:45:08 GMT -5
That's an excellent point. Is this idea ever contradicted in the Pre-Crisis? Good question! After a quick Google search, if we want to assign these stories to Earth-2 it seems nothing published contradicts that the Manor is quite new. In the Silver and Bronze age (so Earth-1) it's explicit that the house is at last one century old. But the few times that Earth-2 Manor was showed (p.e in the Huntress), it was depicted in the familiar "Old Aristocratic Style".
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Nov 10, 2022 1:55:22 GMT -5
I wish I'd realized earlier that the 30th anniversary of the Death of Superman was coming up. I'm only 27 reviews away! So soon!?! By reading your reviews, it almost seems that post-crisis Superman was barely making his first baby steps 😅
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 26, 2022 9:32:03 GMT -5
"Next up is Hulk, and he is fightin' mad, but Champion won't fight a mindless brute." Err, what? Isn't it like his thing...? So why then they kidnapped him...? That's one of the reasons I never liked this annual very much, and never understood why it seems to be held in such high esteem by other comics fans as a great Thing story or just a great story in general. I found the way it made Ben the sole hero, the only one to go many rounds with the Champion, rather contrived: the Hulk probably could have handed the Champion his a** so he gets disqualified for being 'brutish', and the way Thor, Wonder Man and others are dismissed also rang hollow to me. And I found the way Colossus was quickly written out of the story a bit offputting as well, since he and Thing have about the same strength level, and he has the same sense of honor and willingness to take a beating that Ben has. I didn't read the annual, but Wonder Man isn't like a being of pure energy? I think it's very very difficult to hurt him. I don't remember any stories where he is defeated just by beating him. EDIT: this is a power chart from the 80s, the Thing is listed as stronger than Colussus.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 26, 2022 1:13:35 GMT -5
"Next up is Hulk, and he is fightin' mad, but Champion won't fight a mindless brute."
Err, what? Isn't it like his thing...? So why then they kidnapped him...?
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 22, 2022 14:50:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 21, 2022 11:02:46 GMT -5
Why the heck do people still live in Gotham? I mean, in real life the reason why people don't move from crime-ridden cities is because: a) the rest of the country is in the same situation (think some third world's countries) so it's pointless. Or b) they don't have the means to move away and start again their life somewhere else. But they showed that other US cities in the DC universe have a similar crime rate to the real world (except for the occasional alien invasion) so this isn't the reason. And even still rich people and middle class choose to live there, even if their money mean nothing for their own safety (I mean, if anything, the Joker is very democratic in his carnage). A city where there have been earthquakes, deadly epidemics, gang wars practically every day. I mean, recently in Joker War the Joker literally razed the city. Why would someone with adequate financial means decide to raise their child in such an apocalyptic nightmare? Access to shopping and entertainment?
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 21, 2022 10:26:52 GMT -5
Why the heck do people still live in Gotham? I mean, in real life the reason why people don't move from crime-ridden cities is because: a) the rest of the country is in the same situation (think some third world's countries) so it's pointless. Or b) they don't have the means to move away and start again their life somewhere else. But they showed that other US cities in the DC universe have a similar crime rate to the real world (except for the occasional alien invasion) so this isn't the reason. And even still rich people and middle class choose to live there, even if their money mean nothing for their own safety (I mean, if anything, the Joker is very democratic in his carnage). A city where there have been earthquakes, deadly epidemics, gang wars practically every day. I mean, recently in Joker War the Joker literally razed the city. Why would someone with adequate financial means decide to raise their child in such an apocalyptic nightmare?
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 18, 2022 15:46:50 GMT -5
Well, this was too nice. Context: in the last issues of "World's Finest" a new kid superhero arrived on Earth from another dimension. Superman takes him under his wing and helps him to settle on our planet. Now Sups thinks that he needs a secret identity so asks Supergirl for some suggestions and... So, it seems that she wasn't ok with the all "Abandoned in an orphanage" thing :^)
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 16, 2022 4:57:08 GMT -5
I remember the worst part of David's Hulk was the issues immediately after Onslaught when (spoiler) Banner was separated from the Green Goliath. It seemed to me just aimless.
I was the only one?
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 10, 2022 17:14:43 GMT -5
Well, I think this is the most ethical way to use superpowers
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 10, 2022 11:45:24 GMT -5
Before that, writers and editors had to deal with--or ignore--the endless silly stories, I find this example very enlightening: First of all, let's remember that every single Superman story was in continuity until the last published pre-reboot issue. I don't remember many stories (almost none!) tThat explicitly contradicted something that happened during the Silver Age (perhaps the only exception was the Superboy story in which it was told that Jor-El and Lara had escaped the destruction of Krypton). So when they had to tell something problematic again, the solutions found were... well problematic too. Everyone remembers fondly (?) this scene So when Superman recalls the same scene in Dc Special 26... Notice at what point the recalling conveniently stops. It was evident that even those who worked on Superman at the time were embarrassed by his misogynist baggage, but they had no way to get rid of it... And yet, even in the most "enlightened" 70s, Sup looks like a prick because he doesn't have the courage to clearly say no to the advances of an adult woman and uses childish tricks to dissuade her.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 10, 2022 10:22:25 GMT -5
I have to agree with your friend. There was no valid reason for the Crisis (ignoring for the moment the business justifications) beyond the laziness of those editots and writers who couldn't see the value in the multiple earths paradigm or be bothered to establish and follow certain ground rules. I've long maintained that the best way to rejuvenate a tired character is not a full-fledged reboot but the approach used by David Michelinie and Bob Layton when they first took over Iron Man: keep the stuff that's working, ignore ( not retcon) what doesn't, explore new aspects of the lead's personality/psyche/backstory, bring in a fresh new supporting cast (James Rhodes, Bethany Cabe, Mrs. Arbogast), create new villains (Justin Hammer), revamp the older ones, and keep the storylines moving forward instead of rehashing the past. The ironic part of all that is that DC did try this approach with Superman in '71: they kept the stuff that was working, ignored the stuff that wasn't (Bizarro World, the Sduper-Pets, Big Blue's army of robot Supermen, the constant threat of kryptonite, most of the super-dickery), explored new aspects of Kal/Clark's personality (such as his loneliness and his eaction to having his power level reduced), added fresh new characters to his supporting cast (Morgan Edge, the WGBS crew, Clark's neighbors), created new villains and revamped some of the older ones. Unfortunately, they almost immediately began ignoring everything they'd done except Clark's switch from newspaper reprter to TV anchorman) until within a couple of years the Silver Age status quo had been almost completely restored. So, my answer to your question is yes, it should've been possible to update Superman for a new generation of readers without throwing the baby out with the basthwater. They simply chose not to. Cei-U! I summon the early morning musings! Thank you, as always, your opinions are always very interesting and well reasoned! Just to add an element to my theory that a full reboot was better, in 1983 they actually tried to revive the character using the approach you proposed. Marv Wolfman was the new writer after the success of the New Teen Titans and new elements were introduced such as: 1) the breakup between Lois Lane and Superman 2) the beginning of a romantic relationship between Clark Kent and Lana Lang 3) the new look for Luthor and Braniac 4) The arrival of a new and dangerous villain (Vandal Savage). From what I was able to discover, all of this was absolutely useless in reviving the character. The only things people remember from that time are probably Lex Luthor's armor and robotic Braniac, but I suspect that's only thanks to the cartoons and toys. My opinion was that the character was no longer salvable, but I absolutely respect your absolutely sensible and legitimate point of view
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 10, 2022 8:41:23 GMT -5
After the "what-if" question about Alan Moore, I have another one: Was Pre-Coie Superman salvageable?I explain better the context of this question, which arises from a discussion I had some time ago on an Italian forum. Here another user stated that there was absolutely no need for a full Superman reboot and thus to lose decades of his rich history. It would have been enough to call new artists and new writers without having to do a total reset of its continuity (remember that The Man of Steel together with Wonder Woman were the only ones to have a total reboot after COIE). In support of his theory he explained that: 1) other comics of the time (Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Thor, etc) managed to attract new readers thanks to the new talents who worked on them without having to give up their rich history (so it was not the fear of a too complex continuity to keep readers away). 2) Alan Moore managed to make excellent stories with this version of the character, so he wasn't too "old-fashioned" or anything for modern times. My objections were: 1) that, well, not everyone is Alan Moore. They had called Wolfman in 1983 to revive the character and it was absolutely useless. 2) Superman, ethically and morally, was absolutely a disaster for the revisionism of the 1980s. He was the man who proudly did this and this Imagine some feminist writer from the British underground comics scene who would have enjoyed making Kara say, "Kal, can you explain to me exactly why abandoning a traumatized alien girl (who was also your cousin) in an orphanage, literally minutes after she landed on another planet, with the justification that you couldn't be bothered was it NOT an act of super-patriarchy? You know, at the time I was a terrified little girl who trusted her cousin, who was also the only one survived his planet and therefore I had not asked any questions, but now that I am an adult woman with my agency I have this curiosity ..." His counter-objection was to, well, simply discard the most problematic part of his history (you can say that 90% of his acts of super-dickery happened during the Silver Age) but I think that some parts of his history are so integral to his character (like the forenamed abandoning and the continue gas-lighting of Lois Lane) that was simpler to do a complete reboot. So, what are your thoughts on this subject? Was it possibile to continue with the same version of the character? Or was it a lost cause?
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 7, 2022 1:11:57 GMT -5
I really, really, really doubt Shooter would have given that freedom Moore would need. He probably would leave after the second issue of whatever he wrote. But I sincerely doubt he could have made the first one either.
|
|