shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 10, 2022 23:02:58 GMT -5
To make matters worse, it was spelled “Mxyztplk” for a while before it changed to Mxyzptlk” in the 1950s. I pronounced it “Mix-ta-pilk” when I was a kid, until I figured out you could just pronounce it the way it’s spelled. LOL so am I still spelling it wrong? Guess I need to stop trusting google. |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Jan 11, 2022 0:42:26 GMT -5
My sense of Byrne's work on this run goes back to an interview he did (that I also conveniently can't recall), in which he indicates that a lot of his ideas/inspiration for this run came from his own childhood -- things he'd wanted to see done with the character way back when. Something something "ascended fanboy." |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 24, 2022 23:29:31 GMT -5
I've never understood why Luthor was killed off in the first place. Luthor contracting cancer, sure - Byrne must have wanted to come up with some explanation as to why Luthor doesn't just surround himself with kryptonite 24/7 and used the cancer bit to get out of having to commit himself to writing scene after scene of Superman not being able to come close to Luthor from here on out - but that was neatly resolved by the time Byrne left. What made the Superman office say, "You know, what if we find out the cancer spread...?" You're not wrong. In fact, when Luthor first crafts the Kryptonite ring, he explains that the very first thing he did was have his best people ensure that it posed no danger to his health, so the idea that it later costs him his hand and (even later) kills him is a bit surprising. I guess even science can get it wrong sometimes, but that isn't even really acknowledged in the books. In an interview ( Amazing Heroes #96, I think) Byrne said that kryptonite is fatal to humans, but it takes much longer. When Luthor's people tested him, there was no danger to his health, because he hadn't been exposed to it nearly long enough for the kryptonite to cause any damage yet. A similar idea was used in 1981 in Brave & Bold #175.  As for the books not acknowledging it, it's not explicitly stated, but something is implied indirectly. Luthor got the kryptonite and made the ring in Superman #2, in which his team stated there was no danger to humans. In that same issue, he analyzes the evidence regarding Lana Lang's connection to Superman, and his computer spits out the conclusion that Superman is Clark Kent, which Luthor rejects. The pattern here is that Luthor does an analysis, perhaps a very thorough one, and then makes a conclusion... which he never, ever revisits again. Case closed. "Kryptonite is harmless," say the lab boys, and Luthor never questions it again. "Superman is not Clark Kent," he says, and never once ponders why Kent gets so many Superman stories, or that they have a similar build, or even ever reconsiders the idea that Superman might have a secret ID after all. He loses a hand, that's it, cancer finished, never considers that if it took years to manifest in his hand, there might have been lesser amounts of radiation penetration somewhere else in his body (or even multiple places) and it might manifest elsewhere later on. Byrne may not have planned Luthor's cancer or death, but what he set up laid a clear path for later writers to follow up on. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jan 25, 2022 0:06:57 GMT -5
You're not wrong. In fact, when Luthor first crafts the Kryptonite ring, he explains that the very first thing he did was have his best people ensure that it posed no danger to his health, so the idea that it later costs him his hand and (even later) kills him is a bit surprising. I guess even science can get it wrong sometimes, but that isn't even really acknowledged in the books. In an interview ( Amazing Heroes #96, I think) Byrne said that kryptonite is fatal to humans, but it takes much longer. When Luthor's people tested him, there was no danger to his health, because he hadn't been exposed to it nearly long enough for the kryptonite to cause any damage yet. A similar idea was used in 1981 in Brave & Bold #175. As for the books not acknowledging it, it's not explicitly stated, but something is implied indirectly. Luthor got the kryptonite and made the ring in Superman #2, in which his team stated there was no danger to humans. In that same issue, he analyzes the evidence regarding Lana Lang's connection to Superman, and his computer spits out the conclusion that Superman is Clark Kent, which Luthor rejects. The pattern here is that Luthor does an analysis, perhaps a very thorough one, and then makes a conclusion... which he never, ever revisits again. Case closed. "Kryptonite is harmless," say the lab boys, and Luthor never questions it again. "Superman is not Clark Kent," he says, and never once ponders why Kent gets so many Superman stories, or that they have a similar build, or even ever reconsiders the idea that Superman might have a secret ID after all. He loses a hand, that's it, cancer finished, never considers that if it took years to manifest in his hand, there might have been lesser amounts of radiation penetration somewhere else in his body (or even multiple places) and it might manifest elsewhere later on. Byrne may not have planned Luthor's cancer or death, but what he set up laid a clear path for later writers to follow up on. This is why I can't take Byrne's Luthor seriously - he's just so DUMB! Part of the problem is that Byrne doesn't seem to recognize that some the ideas he throws out there should come with long term ramifications. I've noted before how perplexing it is that he casually lets Lois believe that Superman and Clark Kent were raised as brothers in one issue and doesn't seem to understand that you can't toss an idea like that out there and just pretend that Lois is going to forget all about it come the next day and yet, this is what she does under Byrne's pen. So Byrne's Luthor dismisses the idea that Superman could be Clark Kent because a man of Superman's abilities would be "constantly exploit[ing]" them. OK, fair enough - he's only known Superman a short period at this time, but what happens when after a year or two or three he sees that, yes, Superman in fact is still rescuing cats from trees and not trying to exploit his powers to take over the world? Why doesn't he reexamine his "Superman can't be Clark Kent" theory at this time? Add to this Luthor being stupid enough to admit to his "reckless endangerment" of the lives aboard his ship when he first meets Superman in front of The Mayor and a reporter, as well as the whole wearing a radioactive rock which was slowly killing him (sure his scientists told him it was ok, but given that they were later revealed to be wrong, Luthor was clearly an idiot for not getting a second opinion) I just couldn't figure out how this guy hadn't choked to death on a pretzel by the time Superman arrived in Metropolis. Again, I think Byrne had some semi-clever ideas, but he never seemed to stop and consider that overtime, all these major screw-ups on Luthor's part would add up to made him look like an idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 25, 2022 2:49:24 GMT -5
In an interview ( Amazing Heroes #96, I think) Byrne said that kryptonite is fatal to humans, but it takes much longer. When Luthor's people tested him, there was no danger to his health, because he hadn't been exposed to it nearly long enough for the kryptonite to cause any damage yet. A similar idea was used in 1981 in Brave & Bold #175. As for the books not acknowledging it, it's not explicitly stated, but something is implied indirectly. Luthor got the kryptonite and made the ring in Superman #2, in which his team stated there was no danger to humans. In that same issue, he analyzes the evidence regarding Lana Lang's connection to Superman, and his computer spits out the conclusion that Superman is Clark Kent, which Luthor rejects. The pattern here is that Luthor does an analysis, perhaps a very thorough one, and then makes a conclusion... which he never, ever revisits again. Case closed. "Kryptonite is harmless," say the lab boys, and Luthor never questions it again. "Superman is not Clark Kent," he says, and never once ponders why Kent gets so many Superman stories, or that they have a similar build, or even ever reconsiders the idea that Superman might have a secret ID after all. He loses a hand, that's it, cancer finished, never considers that if it took years to manifest in his hand, there might have been lesser amounts of radiation penetration somewhere else in his body (or even multiple places) and it might manifest elsewhere later on. Byrne may not have planned Luthor's cancer or death, but what he set up laid a clear path for later writers to follow up on. This is why I can't take Byrne's Luthor seriously - he's just so DUMB! Part of the problem is that Byrne doesn't seem to recognize that some the ideas he throws out there should come with long term ramifications. I've noted before how perplexing it is that he casually lets Lois believe that Superman and Clark Kent were raised as brothers in one issue and doesn't seem to understand that you can't toss an idea like that out there and just pretend that Lois is going to forget all about it come the next day and yet, this is what she does under Byrne's pen. So Byrne's Luthor dismisses the idea that Superman could be Clark Kent because a man of Superman's abilities would be "constantly exploit[ing]" them. OK, fair enough - he's only known Superman a short period at this time, but what happens when after a year or two or three he sees that, yes, Superman in fact is still rescuing cats from trees and not trying to exploit his powers to take over the world? Why doesn't he reexamine his "Superman can't be Clark Kent" theory at this time? Add to this Luthor being stupid enough to admit to his "reckless endangerment" of the lives aboard his ship when he first meets Superman in front of The Mayor and a reporter, as well as the whole wearing a radioactive rock which was slowly killing him (sure his scientists told him it was ok, but given that they were later revealed to be wrong, Luthor was clearly an idiot for not getting a second opinion) I just couldn't figure out how this guy hadn't choked to death on a pretzel by the time Superman arrived in Metropolis. Again, I think Byrne had some semi-clever ideas, but he never seemed to stop and consider that overtime, all these major screw-ups on Luthor's part would add up to made him look like an idiot. He did kind of parody himself and his take on Luthor, over at Marvel's What The...?!  |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on May 18, 2022 10:18:05 GMT -5
This is why I can't take Byrne's Luthor seriously - he's just so DUMB! Part of the problem is that Byrne doesn't seem to recognize that some the ideas he throws out there should come with long term ramifications. I've noted before how perplexing it is that he casually lets Lois believe that Superman and Clark Kent were raised as brothers in one issue and doesn't seem to understand that you can't toss an idea like that out there and just pretend that Lois is going to forget all about it come the next day and yet, this is what she does under Byrne's pen. So Byrne's Luthor dismisses the idea that Superman could be Clark Kent because a man of Superman's abilities would be "constantly exploit[ing]" them. OK, fair enough - he's only known Superman a short period at this time, but what happens when after a year or two or three he sees that, yes, Superman in fact is still rescuing cats from trees and not trying to exploit his powers to take over the world? Why doesn't he reexamine his "Superman can't be Clark Kent" theory at this time? Add to this Luthor being stupid enough to admit to his "reckless endangerment" of the lives aboard his ship when he first meets Superman in front of The Mayor and a reporter, as well as the whole wearing a radioactive rock which was slowly killing him (sure his scientists told him it was ok, but given that they were later revealed to be wrong, Luthor was clearly an idiot for not getting a second opinion) I just couldn't figure out how this guy hadn't choked to death on a pretzel by the time Superman arrived in Metropolis. Again, I think Byrne had some semi-clever ideas, but he never seemed to stop and consider that overtime, all these major screw-ups on Luthor's part would add up to made him look like an idiot. I'm really curious to see how well Junior does or does not address these concerns in the coming year. He's definitely more cunning and careful than Lex 1.0, but if he does know all that the original Lex did, then this absolutely SHOULD come back into play: Again, this is an era of Superman that I've not yet ventured into. I've held off in order to catch up on some other review threads because, when I do this thread, I go all in, but it's been almost a year since I wrapped up the "1991" arc, and I'm really itching to get into "1992" soon. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on May 18, 2022 23:07:08 GMT -5
I was actually just thinking yesterday that the slimy, backstabbing Luthor who hides behind the veneer of concerned benevolent Luthor that's popped up in recent decades owes more to Luthor II than he does his predecessor. Byrne's Luthor was too full of buffoonish bluster, too quick tempered to really convince me that the citizens of Metropolis saw him as a decent, caring man. As you once mentioned, here was a guy who would lose it in front of his employees at a moment's notice - kind of hard to maintain the persona of a well meaning businessman when he'd drop that guise every time Superman's name is mentioned. Above, you see Luthor as a master manipulator playing fourth dimensional chess. Had it been Byrne's Luthor giving this speech, Happersen would be running into frame, waving his arms while shouting "Mr. Luthor! You're on live TV! That's Barbara Walters you're talking to!" |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 17, 2022 11:56:27 GMT -5
Superman: The Man of Steel #7 (January 1992)  "Stormy Weather" Script: Louise Simonson Pencils: Jon Bogdanove (layouts); Dennis Janke (finishes) Inks: Dennis Janke Colors: Glenn Whitmore Letters: Albert De Guzman Grade: B Simonson and Bogdanove wage the opening volley in the "1992" story arc, and it's certainly the least bad thing they have done to date. While, after the the big ending of the "1991" arc last month, one might expect an update on Lex Luthor II, Simonson and Bogdanove are still pushing Cerberus as the big antagonist in a post-Luthor world. Right out of the gate, this creative team still behaves like the unwanted step-child who was either left out of the big summit or just wasn't paying enough attention there. Still, there is a lot to actually like about this issue. By far, the strongest appeal of this Superman Office, even more than it's obsessively tight continuity, is the complex and endearing world of the characters moving around Superman's orbit, and Simonson seems to be getting that. So, while Cerberus is out there and plotting, most of the issue is two of its operatives tracking Lois in her everyday life, while Simonson and Bogdanove jump around to give us updates on how other ancillery characters are faring as well. The A plot concerns a spat between Clark and Lois. The cover's exaggeration of this problem is almost criminal in its visual hyperbole, but the spat manages to feel real: both perspectives seeming equally valid, and both participants haunted by it in their every moments after:  The reconciliation at the close is positively adorable and absolutely the kind of stuff that keeps me reading these books:  I'll take this over a battle with a flavor-of-the-month villain anytime. Meanwhile, I can't decide if I love or hate the fact that Jimmy Olsen's life is starting to feel more like an Archie comic with each progressing panel:   And Simonson definitely moves up a few notches in my estimation by finally FINALLY letting Lana Lang get over Clark Kent after five frickin' years of being a sad sack and little else:  Who knows? Maybe she'll actually become a compelling character and I'll start to care about her new life with Pete Ross in Washington. Though I have to admit I'm not sure how long we're going to stay invested in that if it's multiple states away from where Superman's A plot is taking place each month. Might prove an interesting test for this office that has (up to this point) been so successful in delivering compelling drama on the sidelines. How far from the action can these side stories get before they start to feel irrelevent? Dennis Janke begins assisting Bogdanove on art as of this issue, and will continue to do so for a few months. At first, I missed the change in credits and thought Bogdanove was just getting that much better. After all, some of these panels are legitimately great, less in terms of arrangement and more in terms of facial expression:   whereas others show Bogdanove's usual flaws, whether a hulking Clark Kent who would never fool anyone into believing he is mild-mannored:  inconsistent/exaggerated body proportions:  and (often) surprisingly manly, muscular faces for women:  I wonder if Janke took an eraser to any of the panels that ended up looking good. I also wonder if Carlin hadn't requested that Bogdanove get an assist on the art. From what I hear, he does improve with time. Maybe Janke is helping him and not just cleaning up after him. Important Details:1. 1st appearance of villains Jolt and Blockhouse, though it is implied we have met them before in other identities. 2. Cameo first appearance of whoever is leading Cerberus:  It would be hilarious if Simonson and Bogdanove meant to imply that Dave Sim's Cerebus is leading Cerberus. They certainly have the same hands. 3. Jimmy Olsen has broken up with Lucy Lane  ..and become Archie Andrews in every panel since. 4. Pete Ross and Lana Lang are now living together and romantically involved. Minor Details:- Simonson sure doesn't hold back on her view of unions:  That Jeb, the union organizer who created this mess, just departs for the West Coast at the end of this issue, no consequences doled out for him, and none of his nasty work being undone by the close, is downright upsetting. As a proud union member, I'm cringing at all of this. - Bogdanove has no idea how to draw monkeys:  |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jun 17, 2022 14:24:31 GMT -5
Superman: The Man of Steel #7 (January 1992) "Stormy Weather" Script: Louise Simonson Pencils: Jon Bogdanove (layouts); Dennis Janke (finishes) Inks: Dennis Janke Colors: Glenn Whitmore Letters: Albert De Guzman Who knows? Maybe she'll actually become a compelling character and I'll start to care about her new life with Pete Ross in Washington. Though I have to admit I'm not sure how long we're going to stay invested in that if it's multiple states away from where Superman's A plot is taking place each month. Might prove an interesting test for this office that has (up to this point) been so successful in delivering compelling drama on the sidelines. How far from the action can these side stories get before they start to feel irrelevent? - Simonson sure doesn't hold back on her view of unions: That Jeb, the union organizer who created this mess, just departs for the West Coast at the end of this issue, no consequences doled out for him, and none of his nasty work being undone by the close, is downright upsetting. As a proud union member, I'm cringing at all of this. ehhhhhh. Yeah, she tosses Clark's picture in the trash but not so much in a "Clark's a great catch, but he's hardly the only man in the world" way, but in a, well, here's what she thinks: "I've loved Clark as long as I can remember... and he doesn't love me. Never has... never will. I can throw away my life waiting for something that isn't going to happen... or I can make the most of what I have. Pete may not be a Superman, but he's pretty wonderful in his own way... and he loves me... at least I think he loves me".translation: "Clark is my obsession... but I'll never be his. I'd wait my whole life for him since I don't have the inner strength to move on, but thankfully, Clark has enough strength for both us to make it clear that I have no chance with him hence my decision to take what pathetic crumbs get tossed my way and hang onto them with all I've got. Pete loves me... or does he? Why would anyone love me? oh come on, Lana, you're being too hard on yourself! Of course Pete loves you - it's not like he's Superman and is above settling for last place. Still... better go have sex with him just to make sure". Think I'm exaggerating? Take another look at Lana's sad sack face as she stares at her reflection in the mirror. Toss in the fact that Pete Ross is pretty sad sack himself (Lana thanks him for letting her stay with him and he responds with "Enough of that, Lana! I'm the one who talked you into taking that lemon... and you should be kicking me instead of thanking me... ( thinking) And I'd hoped she was over Clark. Who was I kidding? She'll never be over him..." And again, sad sack artwork used to depict Pete Ross - slumped shoulders, hopeless frown, almost no eye contact. Even when Lana makes her move on him he's still got that frightened, intimidated look on his face. Hard to credit Lana with pulling herself up by her bootstraps when this is the guy she's settling for. Pretty crazy to think that Pete Ross was created so that Superboy could have a pal who learned his secret identity on his own and kept that secret to himself so thoroughly that even Superboy was unaware that Pete was constantly getting him out of jams behind his back. To see him reduced to 'No, Lana! You sleep in the bed and I'LL be the one who spends in the night sobbing in the bathroom!" suggests that what's being set up here is many, many instances still to come of Lana staring at Clark's taped back together again picture thinking "oh Clark, even here in this cave in the middle of nowhere I can't stop thinking of you" as Pete's silhouetted form is visible in the background thinking "even after figuring out how to open that can of stew for our anniversary, she's still pinning over Clark. aw, who can blame her - Clark's wonderful. At least she and I can agree on that... but how come she never lets me hold his picture? Guess I really am a nobody..." You heard wrong. In fact, you might want to get a lawyer and go after whoever suggested this. Actually, I've been somewhat apologetic/mildly defensive about his work myself, but the best I can say is that he has his moments. Sort of like how Paul McCartney defends the Magical Mystery Tour film by pointing out that it's only place you can see The Beatles perform I Am the Walrus, I will say that I genuinely appreciate Bogdanove's Golden Age approach when depicting moments such as these:  No, it's still not great, but I do love how he has Superman sweeping that car with his foot rather than kicking it. You'd see this during the Golden Age from time to time - Superman shrugging a guy across the room as opposed to punching him across the room; walking across the sky as he patrols the city instead of streaking through it - the execution isn't always great (though I do like it in this panel) but I think Bogdanove deserves credit for putting this sort of thought into his work especially since I don't think anyone else is doing so on a frequent basis (though I could be wrong). It would be sort of like if every other artist forgot to draw Superman with a spit-curl but Bogdanove always made sure it was there. It takes more than that to be a great artist, sure, but hey, at least he understands the iconography which he's working with. I will say however, that Bogdanove did impress me at the age of 13 when he handled his share of the Doomsday slugfest and glancing back, I think it still holds up. People conversing; people walking down the street; the staff of The Daily Planet doing their thing? Not a job for Bogdanove. Superman having a slugfest with a monster or flying after Brainiac's skull-ship as it bounces lasers of his chest? Put him in (though I'll let you decide how much credit should go to him and how much to Janke). Without wishing to spoil anything, we do eventually learn that Lois has some attraction to Friedman. For all of my complains about Lana and Pete, I can at least understand how the lowered expectations relationship works in that scenario. However, the idea that Clark would be jealous of this guy (and I'm not saying he wouldn't be jealous of anybody - I'm just saying this guy) is ridiculous to me. Obviously, in this universe, unions are horrible, nasty things so I can't imagine that Jeb's standing in one is what impresses Lois. He's an obnoxious, condescending bully so I think we can rule out his personality as well. He's got that stupid pony-tail and smug smirk on his face as his default look, so I can't believe that she finds him dreamy or anything. The guy is what Guy Gardner's secret identity would be if he had one, so what is it? It might be interesting if, for all of his virtues and positivities from the superficial to the noble, we discover that Superman can, at times, worry that the woman he loves will be wooed away from him by another, but this Superman/Lois/Jeb triangle makes about as much sense to me as seeing Superman trying to keep Lois from meeting Guy Gardner so that she won't fall in love with him would. Have I missed anything? I think DC should steal this line for their eventual trade paper back advertisements. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jun 17, 2022 15:50:25 GMT -5
I was never a big fan of Bog's work. Mainly I knew him from Power Pack. It was okay, but he was no June Brigman. Also, he reduced Franklin Richards to a toddler.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 17, 2022 22:37:56 GMT -5
ehhhhhh. Yeah, she tosses Clark's picture in the trash but not so much in a "Clark's a great catch, but he's hardly the only man in the world" way, but in a, well, here's what she thinks: "I've loved Clark as long as I can remember... and he doesn't love me. Never has... never will. I can throw away my life waiting for something that isn't going to happen... or I can make the most of what I have. Pete may not be a Superman, but he's pretty wonderful in his own way... and he loves me... at least I think he loves me".translation: "Clark is my obsession... but I'll never be his. I'd wait my whole life for him since I don't have the inner strength to move on, but thankfully, Clark has enough strength for both us to make it clear that I have no chance with him hence my decision to take what pathetic crumbs get tossed my way and hang onto them with all I've got. Pete loves me... or does he? Why would anyone love me? oh come on, Lana, you're being too hard on yourself! Of course Pete loves you - it's not like he's Superman and is above settling for last place. Still... better go have sex with him just to make sure". Think I'm exaggerating? Take another look at Lana's sad sack face as she stares at her reflection in the mirror. Toss in the fact that Pete Ross is pretty sad sack himself (Lana thanks him for letting her stay with him and he responds with "Enough of that, Lana! I'm the one who talked you into taking that lemon... and you should be kicking me instead of thanking me... ( thinking) And I'd hoped she was over Clark. Who was I kidding? She'll never be over him..." And again, sad sack artwork used to depict Pete Ross - slumped shoulders, hopeless frown, almost no eye contact. Even when Lana makes her move on him he's still got that frightened, intimidated look on his face. Hard to credit Lana with pulling herself up by her bootstraps when this is the guy she's settling for. Pretty crazy to think that Pete Ross was created so that Superboy could have a pal who learned his secret identity on his own and kept that secret to himself so thoroughly that even Superboy was unaware that Pete was constantly getting him out of jams behind his back. To see him reduced to 'No, Lana! You sleep in the bed and I'LL be the one who spends in the night sobbing in the bathroom!" suggests that what's being set up here is many, many instances still to come of Lana staring at Clark's taped back together again picture thinking "oh Clark, even here in this cave in the middle of nowhere I can't stop thinking of you" as Pete's silhouetted form is visible in the background thinking "even after figuring out how to open that can of stew for our anniversary, she's still pinning over Clark. aw, who can blame her - Clark's wonderful. At least she and I can agree on that... but how come she never lets me hold his picture? Guess I really am a nobody..." Yes, you can absolutely see it that way, but I took those final panels to mean things were finally changing. I sense from your tone that it doesn't turn out that way, and that disappoints me greatly. Arrrrgggghhhh. Up until this issue, I positively loathed Bogdanove. I can respect what he is trying to do with his action panels, but the ridiculous proportions always distract me. He draws people the way Liefeld draws feet. I suspect Liefeld is exactly who DC was thinking of when they hired this guy, DC having totally missed out on the Image revolution, but I'd take Liefeld over Boggy anyday, and that's saying a lot coming from me! I suspect that was kind of the point. This conflict felt very real and universal. It's a moment nearly every couple goes through: no matter how douchy the ex is, there is always that insecurity that, at some point, your partner found this person more attractive than everyone else in their life. Supes being jealous of "Jeb" is sort of priceless. If even Clark can go down that path, we can excuse ourselves for doing the same (so long as we man up and apologize like Clark did). That would at least work better than, "This volume collects a bunch of stories from after the Byrne run you've heard about and before the Doomsday stuff you actually care about!" I actually saw an omnibus just yesterday collecting every Doomsday and Funeral for a Friend issue, and it was selling for $150. I imagine this is one run we'll never see DC reprint in its entirety. |
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Jun 18, 2022 9:59:55 GMT -5
Cameo first appearance of whoever is leading Cerberus: It would be hilarious if Simonson and Bogdanove meant to imply that Dave Sim's Cerebus is leading Cerberus. They certainly have the same hands. Wouldn't Cerebus have an extra finger? Simonson had previously written another character based on Cerebus, S'ym, during her time on New Mutants. I think Cerebus may have been originally intended to be named Cerberus but Dave Sim misspelled it. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 18, 2022 10:46:00 GMT -5
Simonson had previously written another character based on Cerebus, S'ym, during her time on New Mutants. Good point. That is correct. He blamed it on his (then) girlfriend. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jun 18, 2022 11:40:42 GMT -5
ehhhhhh. Yeah, she tosses Clark's picture in the trash but not so much in a "Clark's a great catch, but he's hardly the only man in the world" way, but in a, well, here's what she thinks: "I've loved Clark as long as I can remember... and he doesn't love me. Never has... never will. I can throw away my life waiting for something that isn't going to happen... or I can make the most of what I have. Pete may not be a Superman, but he's pretty wonderful in his own way... and he loves me... at least I think he loves me".translation: "Clark is my obsession... but I'll never be his. I'd wait my whole life for him since I don't have the inner strength to move on, but thankfully, Clark has enough strength for both us to make it clear that I have no chance with him hence my decision to take what pathetic crumbs get tossed my way and hang onto them with all I've got. Pete loves me... or does he? Why would anyone love me? oh come on, Lana, you're being too hard on yourself! Of course Pete loves you - it's not like he's Superman and is above settling for last place. Still... better go have sex with him just to make sure". Think I'm exaggerating? Take another look at Lana's sad sack face as she stares at her reflection in the mirror. Toss in the fact that Pete Ross is pretty sad sack himself (Lana thanks him for letting her stay with him and he responds with "Enough of that, Lana! I'm the one who talked you into taking that lemon... and you should be kicking me instead of thanking me... ( thinking) And I'd hoped she was over Clark. Who was I kidding? She'll never be over him..." And again, sad sack artwork used to depict Pete Ross - slumped shoulders, hopeless frown, almost no eye contact. Even when Lana makes her move on him he's still got that frightened, intimidated look on his face. Hard to credit Lana with pulling herself up by her bootstraps when this is the guy she's settling for. Pretty crazy to think that Pete Ross was created so that Superboy could have a pal who learned his secret identity on his own and kept that secret to himself so thoroughly that even Superboy was unaware that Pete was constantly getting him out of jams behind his back. To see him reduced to 'No, Lana! You sleep in the bed and I'LL be the one who spends in the night sobbing in the bathroom!" suggests that what's being set up here is many, many instances still to come of Lana staring at Clark's taped back together again picture thinking "oh Clark, even here in this cave in the middle of nowhere I can't stop thinking of you" as Pete's silhouetted form is visible in the background thinking "even after figuring out how to open that can of stew for our anniversary, she's still pinning over Clark. aw, who can blame her - Clark's wonderful. At least she and I can agree on that... but how come she never lets me hold his picture? Guess I really am a nobody..." Yes, you can absolutely see it that way, but I took those final panels to mean things were finally changing. I sense from your tone that it doesn't turn out that way, and that disappoints me greatly. Arrrrgggghhhh. Oh no no - I only remember what's going to happen in the broadest of strokes and that's if I ever read these issues at all in the first place. I won't spoil what little I do remember, but my comments above refer only to my interpretation of Man of Steel #7 and nothing more. Could be more sad sack stuff; could be S and M every morning, noon, and night - I don't remember/know. However, two 'woe is me' love birds issue after issue would grow tired fast so even if that was what was intended here, I can't imagine the team of writers wouldn't change their tracks upon recognizing their misstep. I will let you know that this sub-plot isn't going to be dropped and it does develop and grow. It's interesting how much of my interpretation is based upon the accompanying artwork. "Pete may not be a Superman, but he's pretty wonderful in his own way..." carries totally different connotations depending upon whether Lana is drawn with that scared, wide-eyed look on her face (as Bogdanove went with) or with a sly smile and sideway glance over to an oblivious Pete (as Bogdanove could have). It'll be interesting to see how Jurgens, Guice, et al read things. Really hoping that you didn't read my comments and decide "Well, looks like I won't be reading comics anymore. Where's that tank of gasoline, my matches, and copies of Action Comics #1?" |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 18, 2022 23:44:11 GMT -5
Really hoping that you didn't read my comments and decide "Well, looks like I won't be reading comics anymore. Where's that tank of gasoline, my matches, and copies of Action Comics #1?" If I survived the Byrne stretch, I can handle a little more sad-sack Lana  Great point about Boggy's artistic choice with Lana. I still fell for it, but that's because any of his panels where people have appropriate anatomy pretty much gets a pass from me. The bar is set so low that it's touching the ground and rolling into the gutter. |
|
