|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 11, 2019 9:50:06 GMT -5
Meanwhile, Acting Editor Sam Foswell is already causing the expected trouble at the Daily Planet:  Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I've long taken it for granted that Sam Foswell looks too much like Spider-Man/Daily Bugle reporter Fredrick Foswell (with whom he shares a last name) to be a coincidence but I've never been able to figure out why. I mean, out of all the characters that DC could steal/homage why this guy? Did it start off as an in-joke which got carried away with?   |
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Aug 11, 2019 10:19:54 GMT -5
What I'm wondering is WHO at Marvel in the early 60s do you suppose Steve Ditko based Foswell on ? I mean, since the 3 main characters in the series were ALL based on Marvel staffers OR free-lancers...
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 11, 2019 10:30:46 GMT -5
Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I've long taken it for granted that Sam Foswell looks too much like Spider-Man/Daily Bugle reporter Fredrick Foswell (with whom he shares a last name) to be a coincidence but I've never been able to figure out why. I mean, out of all the characters that DC could steal/homage why this guy? Did it start off as an in-joke which got carried away with? No one has brought this up yet, and I had no idea. Maybe it was a subconscious sort of borrowing? Or maybe the Daily Bugle was this office's inspiration in trying to make the Daily Planet feel more real and full of real people? |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 11, 2019 11:44:34 GMT -5
The Adventures of Superman #475 (February 1991)  "Sleaze Factor" Script: Dan Jurgens Pencils: Dan Jurgens Inks: Art Thibert Colors: Glenn Whitmore Letters: Albert DeGuzman Grade: A- As a kid, I hated this cover. The empty white background, the weird Wonder Woman, and Superman getting trounced waaaay too easily (Seriously, Batman's hurting him??). Three months later, another lackluster cover was what finally turned me off from following this series any longer. Should you judge a book by its cover? Of course not. But covers are what sell comic books, and especially in the Triangle Era, where subplots run so rampant that it's hard to remember which issue was about what, covers are sort of vital. The thing is, the moment on the cover takes up less than a page of this issue, and it really isn't an important moment. It's like Jurgens used it just because he believed we'd be dazzled by the idea of the classic Justice League beating on Superman. But this isn't the 1950s. Readers grew desensitized to those kinds of "shock" covers decades earlier. And the worst part is, this is a REALLY exciting issue, filled with tons of cool moments that could have made for amazing covers. Here are just a few:     Heck, if you just skipped the cover and began with the first page, that STILL would have been more interesting:  I bring this up only because the Superman Office worked its butt off throughout 1990 to win new readers, and now, after a full month of lackluster stories, we're getting really good stories with totally uninteresting covers that aren't selling their interior content well at all, while Marvel is pumping out more polybagged, foil-embossed covers by hot artists than Wizard Magazine can find the time to salivate over. Sure, we've got a BIG event coming up in the next issue, and then the 1991 Superman crossover event "Time and Again," but otherwise, the Superman Office is sort of setting itself up to bleed readership at a time when it absolutely can't afford to, and they certainly lost an 11 year old me this way (I drop out in three more months). It's a shame, as this really is a GREAT issue. For one thing, I mentioned in my very last review how few GREAT villains this office has introduced in the Post-Crisis, but here Jurgens teams two of them (Thaddeus Killgrave and The Toyman) with a neurotic Intergang underling named Gillespie, and it's priceless:  The three react completely differently from one another to each development in the story, as they are each working towards different goals. Killgrave wants to kill Superman at any cost, Toyman wants to protect the children at any cost, and Gillespie just wants to keep his job. It's incredibly funny, and yet it also gets dark as we learn that Toyman and Killgrave both set up certain things in advance, expecting to one day betray each other. I hated the return of Sleeze in this issue. I really REALLY wanted him to be forgotten forever. But the fact that Toyman, a character utterly committed to preserving innocence, uses a trap he planted for Killgrave to kill Sleeze, is pretty much the coolest thing ever:  MAN, I hope his death sticks this time. I also like that, for the second issue in a row, Supes does an uncomfortable team-up with a villain with a heart of gold:  For a lot of 1990, the super villains were just white noise in the background, to be used for a little action and maybe a few laughs before returning to the human drama of the issue. I enjoyed that approach, but it's nice to finally be seeing worthwhile villains who steal the show, as well. And, speaking of villains stealing the show, boy is Luthor still commanding attention long after his death as we learn just how much trouble Metropolis is in without Luthor at its helm:  Not only is Lexcorp in utter turmoil, selling off its assets, laying off hundreds, and generally unable to govern itself, but Dr. Kelley suggests that, without Luthor also running (and containing) the criminal underworld in Metropolis, the city could easily plummet below Gotham in terms of crime. This entire year really is going to be shaped by Luthor's absence. Thus, my regret (once again) that the year-long "1991" crossover couldn't have been given an actual name and logo that would have been more eye-catching and would have suggested this really is a year-long story arc shaped by Luthor's death:  But (again) The Superman Office is having a (cover) image problem right now. Important Details:- Jimmy has decided to start wearing his Superman signal watch again. Did I care? No. Do you care? Probably not. But Jurgens gives us an entire epilogue devoted to this decision. - Gillespie and Killgrave are now running the Happyland Amusement Park as a cash laundering front for Intergang. - (apparent) death of Sleaze Minor Details:- By the end of this issue, Toyman is no longer with Gillespie and Killgrave, but we don't know what has happened to him. - Why is Gillespie able to lie to Superman?  Wouldn't Superman notice his heart rate and general discomfort while (badly) lying on the spot? -Isn't Sleaze's ash walker (a predatory monster from Apokolips) still living under the park? - In six more months, Batman and Robin are going to battle an amusement park gone mad, too. Kinda' seems like the people of the DCU would stop visiting amusement parks after two such encounters occurring so close together in time. Oh, but wait...editorial offices. No one gives a damn. Plot synopsis: Intergang hires Thaddeus Killgrave and Toyman to rebuild Happyland Amusement Park into a front for Intergang, but Sleaze is there (last seen in Action Comics #593) and starts kidnapping children on opening day. Jimmy Olsen and Lucy Lane get captured too. Toyman activates giant robots he hid in the park to find the children, Superman is summoned to the scene, and Toyman and Killgrave get into a struggle over whether to use their resources to kill Superman or find the children. Sleaze ends up escaping in Killgrave's emergency escape rocket, but Toyman had it wired to blow up on command and does so. Jimmy then decides to start using his Superman signal watch again. |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Aug 11, 2019 15:48:05 GMT -5
I hated the return of Sleeze in this issue. I really REALLY wanted him to be forgotten forever. But the fact that Toyman, a character utterly committed to preserving innocence, uses a trap he planted for Killgrave to kill Sleeze, is pretty much the coolest thing ever: MAN, I hope his death sticks this time. Alas, if there ain't a body.... |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 11, 2019 23:12:14 GMT -5
Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I've long taken it for granted that Sam Foswell looks too much like Spider-Man/Daily Bugle reporter Fredrick Foswell (with whom he shares a last name) to be a coincidence but I've never been able to figure out why. I mean, out of all the characters that DC could steal/homage why this guy? Did it start off as an in-joke which got carried away with? No one has brought this up yet, and I had no idea. Maybe it was a subconscious sort of borrowing? Or maybe the Daily Bugle was this office's inspiration in trying to make the Daily Planet feel more real and full of real people? I've thought that perhaps that the Superman team might have just been borrowing from the same source Lee and Ditko went to and wasn't copying Marvel, but homaging, I don't know, some fictional newspaper man from some old film perhaps, except the fact that they share the same surname suggests otherwise. I think your last idea is probably the correct one - it's just weird that they wouldn't try to hide it more. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 12, 2019 0:55:19 GMT -5
The Adventures of Superman #475 (February 1991) "Sleaze Factor" Script: Dan Jurgens Pencils: Dan Jurgens Inks: Art Thibert Colors: Glenn Whitmore Letters: Albert DeGuzman Grade: A- Hoo boy. About the only thing I liked about this issue was its cover. Of course, I'd feel ripped off afterwards, but if covers are "what sell comic books" then, I can't really fault it on that account. It's a cheap gimmick, of course - that's not Batman, Flash, nor Wonder Woman and it's not even really Superman either which is the problem I have with this one.
"Wouldn't Superman notice his heart rate and general discomfort while (badly) lying on the spot?"Superman would - this guy in his costume however... Superman is an idiot throughout this story. Clark Kent understands the possible ramifications to come of Luthor's death just enough to accept that "Lexcorp is such an essential part of Metropolis' economy that if it should fail thousands would suffer!" but needs Dr Kelley to explain to him that Superman isn't going to be much help once lost jobs lead to desperate citizens which leads to rampant crime which leads to... She actually has to point out that Superman flying around punching things isn't going to necessarily help the economy of Metropolis. This sounds like something an exasperated Perry White should be explaining to Jimmy Olsen who should be countering with "Jeepers! You're right!" but no, no, Clark responds with "Sorry, Dr. Kelley, but I can't accept your pessimistic predictions!". Look - she just explained things to Kent in a rational way why the death of the man who ran Metropolis could prove disasterous for the city and rather than counter with something rational or factual on his part, he chalks these valid concerns up to pessimism. He's supposed to be an objective journalist and he sounds like he's from Fox News having global warming explained to him and saying "Sorry, but I'm not so cynical to believe all that stuff!" No wonder she just walks away from him. When next we see Kent, he's walking down an alley thinking "Kelley gave me a lot to consider" like he's in the final panel of one of those old Silver Age DC public service ads where Bob Hope would tell a bunch of kids not to be mean to Norwegians and hey, maybe Superman was playing the dumb guy just so Jurgens could indulge in a bit of exposition with the reader and we can move on, but... Kent overhears that "some anxious parents are reporting some missing children at Happyland. Better check it out!" on a police officer's walkie-talkie. He decides to check it out but can't do so without adding "probably nothing". I get that parents must do this a lot - big amusement park, huge crowds, hyperactive kids, already stressed out parents - but once we find out that this isn't a false alarm, it just underscores the point established two pages earlier that Clark Kent relies on his gut a lot and his gut is often wrong. It might still be considered a minor point, but I think it would have been better if Jurgens had Superman think " may be nothing, but I better check it out" rather than " probably nothing". So Superman gets to Happyland and sees the giant robots attacking people. Who is his first guess when it comes to figuring out the mastermind behind all of this? "Luthor is dead..." Why is Luthor suspect number one? Does this sound like something Luthor would be doing if he were alive? OK, his second choice is Mxyzptlk and you know what? Not a bad guess actually. It does sound like something Mxyzptlk would do except wouldn't the fact that these are robots (which Mxyzptlk wouldn't have to build) suggest otherwise? It would be like Batman being attacked by a flock of monocle-wearing penguins inside an umbrella factory and thinking "when did Two-Face get out of jail?" He does figure out that Toyman is involved on his third guess and really that's two guesses too many. These last two complaints of mine are my reactions to off-hand remarks Superman makes and if you want to say, "Boy, Chad, he used the word 'probably' isn't of 'maybe' and didn't know who was behind things right away. Sheesh! Give the guy a break!" I'll just point out that there's no getting away from Superman's simple-mindedness in this story since it keeps coming at you in different ways. He starts battling these robots and we're treated to dialogue (all from Superman) such as "BURN, TIN MAN!", "And as for you, Kong, it's two thumbs down, and out for you! [ rips off its mechanical arms] Let's see you climb the Empire State Building now!", and "Cowboys and pirates I can understand, but teddy bears? Give me a break!" He sounds like a 12 year old kid. Even his "There, there, sweetie! These nasty old monsters won't bother you again!" "Promise?" "Cross my heart and hope to die!" sounds more patronising than comforting even if he was talking to a child. He might as well add "Would your widdle tweddy bear like a wolly pop?" And as you noted, yes, he lets the owner of Happyland (and Toyman and Killgrave partner) walk away simply because he said he had no idea he was working with The Toyman. The guy is obviously tense and sweating and wouldn't even fool the reader even if he hadn't read any of the story up to that point, so how does he beat Superman's senses? Because Superman's too dumb to pay any attention to them. This lack of intellectual curiosity on Superman's part wasn't something which Jurgens introduced to the character but inherited from Byrne who likely dumbed his Superman down to compensate for the fact that he wanted his interpretation to be inexperienced at the start of his run. DC didn't allow this and so I think that's why Byrne's Superman never seemed as bright as he should have been - he just used his inexperienced Superman as his baseline throughout his tenure. It's one of the many things about the post-Crisis Superman which prevents me from thinking of him as the real thing and if there were one thing I wish this issue didn't feature it would be that aspect of the character rather than the character of Sleez. Not that I like Sleez any more than anybody else, but man, Superman just got lumbered with this 'I'm super strong and can fly so why do I need to know things?' personality which really irritated me. I've read Byrne's run (at least his Man of Steel, Superman, and Action stuff) and I kept wondering things like "How can Superman not possibly know that this scrapbook he got in the mail came from Ma Kent? Wouldn't he detect her scent or fingerprints at least?", "How can Batman hide from Superman just by letting go of his Bat-Rope and standing behind a sheet of lead?", or "Why does Superman tell Wonder Woman he's nothing but a farm boy from Kansas when someone with the ability to literally see and hear any part of the world from his office should be so much more worldly?" and the conclusion I came to is that Byrne and later writers adopted a sort of "Well, since I wouldn't be curious enough as a child to experiment with my microscopic vision to see what my parents fingerprints look like or would be interested in using my powers of super-sight/hearing/speed/etc to travel the world, then neither would Superman" and I think it does a tremendous disservice to the character to reduce him to "Joe Schmo but he can fly and smash things". So that's my read on the story. You do make some good points about the three villains but even here, Toyman's "Won't somebody think of the children?" got tired after the first few variations of this line and Killgrave just seemed a little too Dr Sivana for my tastes. I'm wondering if the writers are thinking that with Luthor out of the picture, they need to beef up Superman's Rogues Gallery which is pretty sparse given the fact that so far, Brainiac (his number two baddie) hasn't really been figured out yet post-Crisis leaving, I guess, Mxyzptlk as his biggest enemy by default at this point. Mr. Z (who I think in fairness shouldn't be judged until his next appearance since that one will shed light on who he was in Superman 51) seems to have been introduced for this reason and I suspect Baron Sunday from the upcoming issue 665 of Action Comics was also meant to do the same. Perhaps the whole three villains in one approach here was a sort of attempt to put a bunch of old Super foes back into circulation to fill that Luthor void. I mean, if they're bringing back Terra-Man, it does seem like there is some desperation at play here. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 12, 2019 9:58:59 GMT -5
Clark Kent understands the possible ramifications to come of Luthor's death just enough to accept that "Lexcorp is such an essential part of Metropolis' economy that if it should fail thousands would suffer!" but needs Dr Kelley to explain to him that Superman isn't going to be much help once lost jobs lead to desperate citizens which leads to rampant crime which leads to... She actually has to point out that Superman flying around punching things isn't going to necessarily help the economy of Metropolis. This sounds like something an exasperated Perry White should be explaining to Jimmy Olsen who should be countering with "Jeepers! You're right!" but no, no, Clark responds with "Sorry, Dr. Kelley, but I can't accept your pessimistic predictions!". Look - she just explained things to Kent in a rational way why the death of the man who ran Metropolis could prove disasterous for the city and rather than counter with something rational or factual on his part, he chalks these valid concerns up to pessimism. He's supposed to be an objective journalist and he sounds like he's from Fox News having global warming explained to him and saying "Sorry, but I'm not so cynical to believe all that stuff!" No wonder she just walks away from him. A lot of what he is responding to is her statement that Luthor was holding Metropolis's underworld in check, and that rampant, Gotham-like crime levels are an issue Superman can't solve alone. Kind of profound to have someone say aloud in a comic book, actually. Another part of Clark's inability to understand is his blind unwillingness to accept that Metropolis needed a man like Luthor. Is it naive? Of course. But I didn't find it impossible to accept from Clark. For me, it was less about his intelligence and more about his idealism. I'd tell you you're splitting hairs here, but it bothered me too. As you're going to point out later in your post, Luthor pretty much WAS Superman's rogues gallery for most of 1987-1990. Remember when every super powered villain who would show up during Byrne's run ended up working for Luthor in one way or another? So it was a reasonable assumption. Well, we are following his thought process. Sometimes, our initial impulse is wrong. I appreciated that being presented authentically. I can't stand when the hero immediately knows who the villain is: "Hmmmm...a Halloween riddle. MUST be Calendar Man (and not Riddler cuz he ain't in this story)". Nah, I respected that. I thought Jurgens would go the lazy writer route and immediately suspect Sleaze (which was the actual answer). Plus, Toyman seemed semi-reformed last time AND was supposed to still be in jail, as far as Superman knew. It's there, but I don't see it in as pronounced a way as you do. But yes, it's there. Yes, all of that did seem out of character. I wonder if Jurgens had a ghostwriter on this issue. I actually enjoyed some of the lameness; it reaffirms that goody-goody quality for the man of steel, but it didn't fit anything we'd seen from him previously. No argument there. Byrne's vision was for Superman to be a regular kid from Kansas, albeit with super powers. He wanted to make Clark "one of us," which apparently meant jumping to conclusions and violence too quickly, using his X-ray vision to see folks naked, and starring in a porno with Big Barda...or something. Gotta love Byrne-era Superman, right? What do you mean? Didn't allow Byrne to do what? The Exile storyline really beat the Byrne out of Superman, and Perez took tremendous pains to emphasize that upon Clark's return to Earth. When I inevitably go back to read this run again, I'll almost certainly begin with 1990. Clark comes off as uncharacteristically ignorant this time around, but I don't see that as symptomatic of any kind of Byrneism creeping back in. I think it's just clumsy writing in an issue that generally worked well enough for me not to take too much note of it. Again, it's there. I just didn't find it totally disrupting my enjoyment of the issue. That's what made the whole thing so amusing for me. They were comedic tropes playing off of each other until one would do something to remind you they were seriously dangerous super villains. Anyway, I found it fun. Yup. And don't forget how Byrne squandered Bizzaro and Metallo. Hey, I liked Terra Man  |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 12, 2019 10:50:26 GMT -5
For what it's worth, as of this post, this is now my longest running review thread here at the CCF. I intended to get a gatefold, foil-embossed cover, polybag, and trading card for the occasion, but I'm told no one manufactures those for discussion board posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 12, 2019 10:58:03 GMT -5
For what it's worth, as of this post, this is now my longest running review thread here at the CCF. I intended to get a gatefold, foil-embossed cover, polybag, and trading card for the occasion, but I'm told no one manufactures those for discussion board posts. How about pogs? Everybody loves pogs! Look, it's CCF, in pog form! |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 13, 2019 1:31:18 GMT -5
As you're going to point out later in your post, Luthor pretty much WAS Superman's rogues gallery for most of 1987-1990. Remember when every super powered villain who would show up during Byrne's run ended up working for Luthor in one way or another? So it was a reasonable assumption. Good point - I'd add the caveat that it's still a little too cutesy for Luthor what with the cowboy robot and all, but given that this is a guy who allied himself with The Joker (or at least let him run amok in Metropolis) in the World's Finest mini-series, I'll admit that I was wrong.Well, we are following his thought process. Sometimes, our initial impulse is wrong. I appreciated that being presented authentically. I can't stand when the hero immediately knows who the villain is: "Hmmmm...a Halloween riddle. MUST be Calendar Man (and not Riddler cuz he ain't in this story)". My problems with Superman here are the result of the cumulative effect of watching his initial impulse being wrong over and over again and him not catching on to that fact. At some point, he should have adopted a "things aren't quite adding up here so I better not take anything at face value" attitude but instead, after being caught off guard by the giant robots, he gets caught off guard by the JLA robots and then adds "I can hear your hydraulics and electronics 'friends'! Next time... make the robots a bit more convincing!" Well, if you heard their hydraulics, what was with your whole "Hey it's The Justice League! Looks like this case is pretty much wrapped - UHUNGH!" Once or twice I can accept, but it just keeps happening. And right after the fake JLA shows up, Toyman appears. "Hear me out!" "You have thirty seconds before I lose it, Toyman!" I get that kidnapping children is likely to piss Superman off, but man, you'd think at some point he'd think it might be better to just gather some facts especially when he's been lamenting how confused he is by what's going on. I'm not expecting him to become a Super-Sherlock Holmes, but a little less Inspector Lestrade would be nice.What do you mean? Didn't allow Byrne to do what? Just a reference to this:
"Byrne later said in interviews that he regretted not having given Clark a "Superboy" career, during which he and other writers could have shown him as a fallible youth still learning how to use his powers in combat". Retro Vision Magazine, issue #8. Copyright 1988 (http://superboytheater.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-john-byrne-revamp-deleting-superboy.html).I'm certain that I read somewhere (perhaps in a Wizard interview) that the reason Byrne regretted this was due to DC telling him that he couldn't have Superman learning the ropes when Man of Steel began and instead had to be fully experienced at the start of his run. The Exile storyline really beat the Byrne out of Superman, and Perez took tremendous pains to emphasize that upon Clark's return to Earth. When I inevitably go back to read this run again, I'll almost certainly begin with 1990. Clark comes off as uncharacteristically ignorant this time around, but I don't see that as symptomatic of any kind of Byrneism creeping back in. I think it's just clumsy writing in an issue that generally worked well enough for me not to take too much note of it. Again, it's there. I just didn't find it totally disrupting my enjoyment of the issue. I think it hurts that this issue so closely followed Kurse of the Krimson Kryptonite where we see Superman lose his powers but not his sense of responsibility. I've whined a lot about how much I don't care for the Post-Crisis Superman but man, seeing him say "I've lost my strength, invulnerability, vision powers, and flight but I'll still go up against that guy ripping buildings apart if it means getting to save only one life" was inspiring. He just seems so irresponsible here just a couple of months later that it's somewhat jarring.That's what made the whole thing so amusing for me. They were comedic tropes playing off of each other until one would do something to remind you they were seriously dangerous super villains. Anyway, I found it fun. You're absolutely right about Toyman's coolness when he simply repurposes a possible deathtrap for one bad guy so that it can be casually used to deal with another. He also displays quick thinking when he uses his robots to lead Superman to Sleez when pointing out to an objectioning Killgrave "Look, these were never going to hurt Superman, OK? Let's just use them to find a bigger problem for him to deal with instead."Yup. And don't forget how Byrne squandered Bizzaro and Metallo. Hey, I liked Terra Man eh, it isn't that I really have a problem with the new Terra-man, but it seems weird to me that he got lumbered with the old 'Let's have us a rodeo, pardner!' speech patterns of the Bronze Age villain. DC can sacrifice Lex Luthor, turn Brainiac into a clown, kill off Bizarro in his first appearance, but "Good Lord! Byrne forgot to bring back Terra-Man! We need to rectify that ASAP!"
I hated the return of Sleez in this issue. I really REALLY wanted him to be forgotten forever. No argument here. I don't know if you count the 'Sleez Rises!' storyline starting in about six weeks as one appearance or four given the manner in which it runs through all the titles and then some, but whichever way you do your math, you're going to be "treating" yourself to at least a dozen more Sleez stories before the 1991 Triangle period has run its course.
I'd say it's almost worth it just for that video of Curt Swan reading the Barda/Superman porno issue at DC's Lexington offices for the first time in preparation for 'Curt Swan Month Part Two: Sleez Rises Again!' (which followed 'Sleez Rises!' by less than two months) and hearing him mutter 'What the f**k is this?' and 'You have got to be sh**ing me' as he turns each page.
Man, Shaxper - you have got your work cut out for you.
Just kidding - Sleez doesn't return again.
Or does he?
|
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Aug 13, 2019 8:25:46 GMT -5
"I think that's why Byrne's Superman never seemed as bright as he should have been - he just used his inexperienced Superman as his baseline throughout his tenure. It's one of the many things about the post-Crisis Superman which prevents me from thinking of him as the real thing"
What makes this seem all the more "wrong" is the way the Post-Crisis continuity was handled from the start. That is, they show the heavily-revised origin... but then, instead of continuing on from there, like ANY NORMAL new version (or "reboot") would... they JUMP AHEAD 10 years, allegedly to allow for stories from the previous version to have "still happened".
So The Post-Crisis SUPERMAN should NOT be inexperienced, because he's been doing his job for TEN YEARS already.
The more time goes on, the more I think "CRISIS" was one collosal misguided miustake.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Aug 13, 2019 9:07:49 GMT -5
Maybe Foswell has a brother or cousin who looks just like him?
Maybe Foswell was tired of JJJ's dickery and changed his 1st name to get hired at the Daily Planet?
Maybe Foswell is a Luthor spy:an evil clone of Frederick?
Maybe Foswell is an alien duplicate?
Maybe Foswell is a German sleeper agent?
Maybe Foswell is really Frederick's sister Samantha who couldn't get a job as a female reporter so adopted the male identity of Sam?
Maybe Foswell is from an alternate earth/dimension/reality?
Maybe Foswell is really Frederick and JJJ uses him to spy on the Daily Planet?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 13, 2019 11:06:21 GMT -5
"I think that's why Byrne's Superman never seemed as bright as he should have been - he just used his inexperienced Superman as his baseline throughout his tenure. It's one of the many things about the post-Crisis Superman which prevents me from thinking of him as the real thing"What makes this seem all the more "wrong" is the way the Post-Crisis continuity was handled from the start. That is, they show the heavily-revised origin... but then, instead of continuing on from there, like ANY NORMAL new version (or "reboot") would... they JUMP AHEAD 10 years, allegedly to allow for stories from the previous version to have "still happened". So The Post-Crisis SUPERMAN should NOT be inexperienced, because he's been doing his job for TEN YEARS already. I think the totally uncoordinated Batman office was responsible for this one. Denny O'Neil had absolutely no plan for Post-Crisis Batman. Then, at the last second (long after solicits were printed in the comics) Year One went from a stand alone tpb to four issues of Batman to the official Post-Crisis origin of the character, and suddenly Batman had already been active for ten years. In contrast, was the Superman Office going to let Clark be a rookie? They had to leap ahead ten years. It was too sweeping a change to have been decided upon as abruptly as it had been. Lots of good ideas, but folks scrambling long after Crisis was over with to figure out how this should work. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 13, 2019 16:25:48 GMT -5
chadwilliam, not ignoring your last post. Just haven't had the time to respond thoughtfully. I will get back to you!
|
|
