|
Post by Batflunkie on Sept 20, 2020 8:52:59 GMT -5
All it needs now is Morgan Freeman narrating it
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Sept 21, 2020 10:41:19 GMT -5
Just to pick up a point from Becca's post above way back when we were talking about Number Ones. (Rik Mayal Voice: Ooooerrr!) No one I think ever thought about rebooting the Beano with a new number one but Number One was reprinted a few times. www.beano.com/posts/how-to-spot-a-beano-no-1I want to know what a 'Whoopee Mask' was and where you would wear it. "Well, if you have to ask, sweetie..."
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Sept 21, 2020 12:19:20 GMT -5
Hmmm, moderators - clean up on aisle "There I said it."
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Sept 21, 2020 14:26:50 GMT -5
John Byrne’s Man of Steel mini-series is still my definitive Superman origin. I don’t think it’s been topped, nor should they have ever tried. There, I said it. This brings to mind Birthright. I have mixed feelings on Byrne's retelling, and by 2003, I think it was time enough at last to restore some pre- Crisis elements to the mythos. But I simply didn't like Birthright. Completely dismantling Byrne's Krypton ... making Clark and Lex peers who knew each other in Smallville ... bleech. And don't get me started on the neo-Donnerverse crap which followed Infinite Crisis. Birthright, in it's favour, had some originality.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Sept 21, 2020 20:35:07 GMT -5
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,376
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 25, 2020 5:53:39 GMT -5
I see I'm a little late to the Man of Steel discussion. I think it was equal parts wonderful and deeply flawed. I agree with Confessor that having Clark develop his powers slowly over time was a necessary fix for the character that made his origin far more believable (how in the hell would Ma and Pa Kent discipline a super three year old??), and some of the writing was fantastic (especially #2 and #4), but I had four significant problems with the series, as well: 1. I've never liked the idea of a Krypton that "deserved to blow up" (Byrne) 2. Clark as a high school football star, not yet having adopted the glasses nor dual identity, and basically looking exactly like Superman while pulling off amazing physical feats on the field as his powers slowly developed, regularly making the local newspaper as a result. If it isn't amazing enough that no one would have put two and two together, he's got pictures of himself in his football uniform in his apartment that Lois sees. 3. The scope of the series was so unclear. The first meeting with Batman is an entirely incidental adventure that has no real bearing on his origin, as is his first encounter with Bizarro. Both should have taken place in the regular titles after Man of Steel had concluded. 4. Sad-sack Lana Lang. And finally, the obligatory plug: My Superman in the Post-Crisis Era review thread
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,376
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 25, 2020 6:24:29 GMT -5
If you're looking for the discussion about Gerry Conway and the future of comics, it has been moved/merged here.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Sept 25, 2020 7:48:27 GMT -5
I see I'm a little late to the Man of Steel discussion. I think it was equal parts wonderful and deeply flawed. I agree with Confessor that having Clark develop his powers slowly over time was a necessary fix for the character that made his origin far more believable (how in the hell would Ma and Pa Kent discipline a super three year old??), and some of the writing was fantastic (especially #2 and #4), but I had four significant problems with the series, as well: 1. I've never liked the idea of a Krypton that "deserved to blow up" (Byrne) 2. Clark as a high school football star, not yet having adopted the glasses nor dual identity, and basically looking exactly like Superman while pulling off amazing physical feats on the field as his powers slowly developed, regularly making the local newspaper as a result. If it isn't amazing enough that no one would have put two and two together, he's got pictures of himself in his football uniform in his apartment that Lois sees. 3. The scope of the series was so unclear. The first meeting with Batman is an entirely incidental adventure that has no real bearing on his origin, as is his first encounter with Bizarro. Both should have taken place in the regular titles after Man of Steel had concluded. 4. Sad-sack Lana Lang.
Agreed on all four counts, and I would add a fifth (though not everyone agrees with me): Ma and Pa surviving into the present. I've always maintained that their passing in Clark's late adolescence were a necessary step in his maturation. Superman had to learn that there were enemies his powers couldn't overcome, particularly time and death.
Cei-U! I summon the obituary page!
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Sept 25, 2020 8:01:06 GMT -5
I see I'm a little late to the Man of Steel discussion. I think it was equal parts wonderful and deeply flawed. I agree with Confessor that having Clark develop his powers slowly over time was a necessary fix for the character that made his origin far more believable (how in the hell would Ma and Pa Kent discipline a super three year old??), and some of the writing was fantastic (especially #2 and #4), but I had four significant problems with the series, as well: 1. I've never liked the idea of a Krypton that "deserved to blow up" (Byrne) 2. Clark as a high school football star, not yet having adopted the glasses nor dual identity, and basically looking exactly like Superman while pulling off amazing physical feats on the field as his powers slowly developed, regularly making the local newspaper as a result. If it isn't amazing enough that no one would have put two and two together, he's got pictures of himself in his football uniform in his apartment that Lois sees. 3. The scope of the series was so unclear. The first meeting with Batman is an entirely incidental adventure that has no real bearing on his origin, as is his first encounter with Bizarro. Both should have taken place in the regular titles after Man of Steel had concluded. 4. Sad-sack Lana Lang.
Agreed on all four counts, and I would add a fifth (though not everyone agrees with me): Ma and Pa surviving into the present. I've always maintained that their passing in Clark's late adolescence were a necessary step in his maturation. Superman had to learn that there were enemies his powers couldn't overcome, particularly time and death.
Cei-U! I summon the obituary page!
Yes, I also thought that the Kents staying alive was a huge concession to contemporary audiences. That is depression-era and earlier stories often had the "kid on their own" trope--think Dickens or even Tarzan. Boomer creators nd readers needed the security of being able to go home to mom and dad.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,376
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 25, 2020 8:20:46 GMT -5
I see I'm a little late to the Man of Steel discussion. I think it was equal parts wonderful and deeply flawed. I agree with Confessor that having Clark develop his powers slowly over time was a necessary fix for the character that made his origin far more believable (how in the hell would Ma and Pa Kent discipline a super three year old??), and some of the writing was fantastic (especially #2 and #4), but I had four significant problems with the series, as well: 1. I've never liked the idea of a Krypton that "deserved to blow up" (Byrne) 2. Clark as a high school football star, not yet having adopted the glasses nor dual identity, and basically looking exactly like Superman while pulling off amazing physical feats on the field as his powers slowly developed, regularly making the local newspaper as a result. If it isn't amazing enough that no one would have put two and two together, he's got pictures of himself in his football uniform in his apartment that Lois sees. 3. The scope of the series was so unclear. The first meeting with Batman is an entirely incidental adventure that has no real bearing on his origin, as is his first encounter with Bizarro. Both should have taken place in the regular titles after Man of Steel had concluded. 4. Sad-sack Lana Lang.
Agreed on all four counts, and I would add a fifth (though not everyone agrees with me): Ma and Pa surviving into the present. I've always maintained that their passing in Clark's late adolescence were a necessary step in his maturation. Superman had to learn that there were enemies his powers couldn't overcome, particularly time and death. Cei-U! I summon the obituary page!
In theory, I would agree. In execution, Ordway, Stern, and Jurgens used them beautifully to be the inspiration Clark needed when he inevitably fell into self-doubt severals years into his career. When you have the powers of a god, you're bound to need some guidance now and then. Having ultimately served the purpose of mentoring and inspiring Clark through that crisis, they became superfluous to the franchise, but if much of the appeal of Man of Steel was believability, then the idea that Clark could play the perfect do-gooder without having anyone help him from the sidelines in those first few years seems very far-fetched to me. We all fall into self doubt and crisis. A super man with super expectations for himself would fall even harder.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Sept 25, 2020 9:05:01 GMT -5
I see I'm a little late to the Man of Steel discussion. I think it was equal parts wonderful and deeply flawed. I agree with Confessor that having Clark develop his powers slowly over time was a necessary fix for the character that made his origin far more believable (how in the hell would Ma and Pa Kent discipline a super three year old??), and some of the writing was fantastic (especially #2 and #4), but I had four significant problems with the series, as well: 1. I've never liked the idea of a Krypton that "deserved to blow up" (Byrne) 2. Clark as a high school football star, not yet having adopted the glasses nor dual identity, and basically looking exactly like Superman while pulling off amazing physical feats on the field as his powers slowly developed, regularly making the local newspaper as a result. If it isn't amazing enough that no one would have put two and two together, he's got pictures of himself in his football uniform in his apartment that Lois sees. 3. The scope of the series was so unclear. The first meeting with Batman is an entirely incidental adventure that has no real bearing on his origin, as is his first encounter with Bizarro. Both should have taken place in the regular titles after Man of Steel had concluded. 4. Sad-sack Lana Lang.
Agreed on all four counts, and I would add a fifth (though not everyone agrees with me): Ma and Pa surviving into the present. I've always maintained that their passing in Clark's late adolescence were a necessary step in his maturation. Superman had to learn that there were enemies his powers couldn't overcome, particularly time and death.
Cei-U! I summon the obituary page!
I'm with you, Cei-U, and (shameless plug) weighed in on the deaths of the Kents and the effect they had on me a while back in the Comic Lover's Memories thread: classiccomics.org/thread/3785/comic-lovers-memories?page=4
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Sept 26, 2020 11:58:45 GMT -5
I'm of the opinion that it makes more sense for there to have been something very wrong with Krypton as a culture. A race of people who can become gods just by leaving their homeworld goes extinct because all but one of them refuse to leave their homeworld. Something is off there.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Sept 26, 2020 12:41:04 GMT -5
I've always preferred the original Siegel version: Kryptonians were inherently superhuman on or off-world, no yellow suns required, but still all too human in refusing to listen to science and dying with their world rather than take the necessary but inconvenient steps to save themselves. Think Jerry was making a statement?
Cei-U! I summon Old School Superman!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 26, 2020 15:10:37 GMT -5
I've always preferred the original Siegel version: Kryptonians were inherently superhuman on or off-world, no yellow suns required, but still all too human in refusing to listen to science and dying with their world rather than take the necessary but inconvenient steps to save themselves. Think Jerry was making a statement? Cei-U! I summon Old School Superman! Well, that and the Moses connection.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 26, 2020 15:30:58 GMT -5
I've ranted about how much I loathe Byrne's Superman before so I won't go through all that again, but the attitude that it feels perfectly acceptable to a large number of readers to treat the works of Siegel, Finger, Marston, et al as completely disposable is something I've never been able to wrap my head around. I don't mean obscure little bits of trivia, but elements which define the core of a character (which identity represents the "real" character, whether a character is motivated by justice or vengeance, etc). I can understand changing certain things out of a need to update things or to appeal to new trends (I mean, Siegel himself did this multiple times with Superman) but when a character loses his majestic standing as King of the Superheroes so he can become "just a simple farm boy" for instance it makes me wonder why comic readers seem to have lower standards than say those who read Sherlock Holmes or Popeye or The Flintstones or whatever.
|
|