|
|
Post by Batflunkie on May 11, 2023 19:05:33 GMT -5
Captain America #444-#454 and Captain America (Volume 3)#1-#7
So Gruenwald's tenure comes to a close and with an ending as wild as the one for #443, I was both surprised and elated by the direction Waid took on the book. A lot of the problems that I've had with Grenwald (strong characters that are elevated by the subsequent plots, yet sometimes half baked storylines) are not here. So far just solid silver age style action with a more modern flavor
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on May 11, 2023 23:32:07 GMT -5
I re-read Superman #271 "The Man Who Murdered Metropolis!" yesterday which is bizarre for a reason which extends beyond the parameters of the comic itself. You see, Elliot Maggin, who penned this story, intended to eventually do a story revealing that Brainiac had learned Superman's secret identity. Although "The Man Who Murdered Metropolis!" isn't that story, it does set the groundwork for the tale which would be. Except... Maggin never got around to writing that tale. Nor did anyone else. So here's the thing: So that Brainiac's revelation wouldn't come out of left field when Maggin let him spill the beans in, say, Superman #281, he let Brainiac drop hints in this issue which readers could go back to at a later date and say, "ooohhhhhh! I get it! These were all clues that Brainiac knew Superman's secret identity way back in #271!" Those clues that Brainiac had already deduced Superman's secret? The fact that he keeps addressing Superman with nicknames such as "Old cigarette smoke", "old father of modern gardening", "old county in Southeast England", sort of the way you might call someone "Old pal" or whatever. You see 'Kent' is a county in Southeast England, 'William Kent' is the father of modern gardening - you get the picture. It goes on and on and on: "Old Paleolithic cavern" "Old star of stage and screen" "Old British Duke" "Old 19th century jurist" "Old writer of science-fiction" Here's a sample, but it takes up the whole of their battle in this issue:   Of course, since Maggin never followed up on this idea, we've got this weird issue of Superman where Brainiac - a super-computer with a 12th level intellect - decides for no reason at all to keep addressing Superman as "Old canvas-painter" and stuff like that. Instead of Old Cigarette Smoke eventually learning, "ah, that explains Brainiac's curious behaviour last time we met" we can presume that hereafter whenever he appeared, Superman just figured that Brainiac had gone soft in the head. "Aw great, it's Brainiac again. What's he going to do this time? Wear a diaper on his head while singing 'The Flintstones' theme song or something?" |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on May 12, 2023 3:00:04 GMT -5
I re-read Superman #271 "The Man Who Murdered Metropolis!" yesterday which is bizarre for a reason which extends beyond the parameters of the comic itself. You see, Elliot Maggin, who penned this story, intended to eventually do a story revealing that Brainiac had learned Superman's secret identity. Although "The Man Who Murdered Metropolis!" isn't that story, it does set the groundwork for the tale which would be. Except... Maggin never got around to writing that tale. Nor did anyone else. So here's the thing: So that Brainiac's revelation wouldn't come out of left field when Maggin let him spill the beans in, say, Superman #281, he let Brainiac drop hints in this issue which readers could go back to at a later date and say, "ooohhhhhh! I get it! These were all clues that Brainiac knew Superman's secret identity way back in #271!" Those clues that Brainiac had already deduced Superman's secret? The fact that he keeps addressing Superman with nicknames such as "Old cigarette smoke", "old father of modern gardening", "old county in Southeast England", sort of the way you might call someone "Old pal" or whatever. You see 'Kent' is a county in Southeast England, 'William Kent' is the father of modern gardening - you get the picture. It goes on and on and on: "Old Paleolithic cavern" "Old star of stage and screen" "Old British Duke" "Old 19th century jurist" "Old writer of science-fiction" Here's a sample, but it takes up the whole of their battle in this issue: Of course, since Maggin never followed up on this idea, we've got this weird issue of Superman where Brainiac - a super-computer with a 12th level intellect - decides for no reason at all to keep addressing Superman as "Old canvas-painter" and stuff like that. Instead of Old Cigarette Smoke eventually learning, "ah, that explains Brainiac's curious behaviour last time we met" we can presume that hereafter whenever he appeared, Superman just figured that Brainiac had gone soft in the head. "Aw great, it's Brainiac again. What's he going to do this time? Wear a diaper on his head while singing 'The Flintstones' theme song or something?" I know Superman was meant to be an accessible comic for everyone, but it's amazing how he is the most static DC character in ALL of the Bronze Age. One can read a story he publishes right after the Sand Superman Saga and one right before the reboot and would be hard-pressed to find significant differences. Instead think about all the things that happened in the same amount of time to, like, Batman and Wonder Woman. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on May 12, 2023 20:43:22 GMT -5
I know Superman was meant to be an accessible comic for everyone, but it's amazing how he is the most static DC character in ALL of the Bronze Age. One can read a story he publishes right after the Sand Superman Saga and one right before the reboot and would be hard-pressed to find significant differences. Instead think about all the things that happened in the same amount of time to, like, Batman and Wonder Woman. I suspect that blame for this would lay at the feet of editor Julius Schwartz who never seemed to have much of an interest in the character. I've been re-reading the New Look era of Batman which Schwartz was assigned to and I get the same feel there - an overpowering recognition on his part that he's ill-suited to handle the caped crusader which manifests itself in the way that he just flails about throwing as many ideas at the wall as he can discard next month if he decides to. He admitted that he killed off Alfred on a whim since it was his first instinct after deciding to bring in Aunt Harriet; Aunt Harriet then was immediately forgotten about with the exception of two stories and the random panel here and there; he announced that stories would be more sophisticated and real from here on out and then just as quickly reversed himself and went back to ridiculous sci-fi concepts. Arguably the best regarded development during his tenure was bringing Neal Adams on board, except it Murray Boltinoff, I believe, who did that and it took Bill Dozier from the tv series to point out that Alfred was kind of an essential part of the canon. A bit of a digression, I suppose, since we're talking about Superman, but I really do think it boils down to Schwartz having about as much understanding of the man of steel as he did Batman. The difference here though, is that Superman was selling just fine before Schwartz came on board which may be why he never really tried anything new with the character after O Neil's Sandman Saga. Perhaps he was waiting for something akin the Batman tv show to hit so that he could draw inspiration from that, but nothing ever really arrived. The Christopher Reeve movie I guess, but I don't know if that really suggested a path to follow other than the one they were already on. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on May 13, 2023 1:04:47 GMT -5
I know Superman was meant to be an accessible comic for everyone, but it's amazing how he is the most static DC character in ALL of the Bronze Age. One can read a story he publishes right after the Sand Superman Saga and one right before the reboot and would be hard-pressed to find significant differences. Instead think about all the things that happened in the same amount of time to, like, Batman and Wonder Woman. I suspect that blame for this would lay at the feet of editor Julius Schwartz who never seemed to have much of an interest in the character. I've been re-reading the New Look era of Batman which Schwartz was assigned to and I get the same feel there - an overpowering recognition on his part that he's ill-suited to handle the caped crusader which manifests itself in the way that he just flails about throwing as many ideas at the wall as he can discard next month if he decides to. He admitted that he killed off Alfred on a whim since it was his first instinct after deciding to bring in Aunt Harriet; Aunt Harriet then was immediately forgotten about with the exception of two stories and the random panel here and there; he announced that stories would be more sophisticated and real from here on out and then just as quickly reversed himself and went back to ridiculous sci-fi concepts. Arguably the best regarded development during his tenure was bringing Neal Adams on board, except it Murray Boltinoff, I believe, who did that and it took Bill Dozier from the tv series to point out that Alfred was kind of an essential part of the canon. A bit of a digression, I suppose, since we're talking about Superman, but I really do think it boils down to Schwartz having about as much understanding of the man of steel as he did Batman. The difference here though, is that Superman was selling just fine before Schwartz came on board which may be why he never really tried anything new with the character after O Neil's Sandman Saga. Perhaps he was waiting for something akin the Batman tv show to hit so that he could draw inspiration from that, but nothing ever really arrived. The Christopher Reeve movie I guess, but I don't know if that really suggested a path to follow other than the one they were already on. Someone on this forum said that Superman's perpetual status quo was absolutely willed and not a lack of ideas or anything. It was supposed to be the comic most likely to appeal to the casual reader, so it had to all be familiar and relatable. There was a mini-relaunch in 1983 with the arrival of Wolfman which introduced the new looks of Braniac and Lex Luthor, the breakup between Lois Lane and Superman and the new sentimental situation between Clark Kent and Lana Lang. But it was always the same authors and artists working on the character, so introducing new elements to the character was of little use. |
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on May 13, 2023 7:13:36 GMT -5
I re-read Superman #271 "The Man Who Murdered Metropolis!" yesterday which is bizarre for a reason which extends beyond the parameters of the comic itself. You see, Elliot Maggin, who penned this story, intended to eventually do a story revealing that Brainiac had learned Superman's secret identity. Although "The Man Who Murdered Metropolis!" isn't that story, it does set the groundwork for the tale which would be. Except... Maggin never got around to writing that tale. Nor did anyone else. So here's the thing: So that Brainiac's revelation wouldn't come out of left field when Maggin let him spill the beans in, say, Superman #281, he let Brainiac drop hints in this issue which readers could go back to at a later date and say, "ooohhhhhh! I get it! These were all clues that Brainiac knew Superman's secret identity way back in #271!" Those clues that Brainiac had already deduced Superman's secret? The fact that he keeps addressing Superman with nicknames such as "Old cigarette smoke", "old father of modern gardening", "old county in Southeast England", sort of the way you might call someone "Old pal" or whatever. You see 'Kent' is a county in Southeast England, 'William Kent' is the father of modern gardening - you get the picture. It goes on and on and on: "Old Paleolithic cavern" "Old star of stage and screen" "Old British Duke" "Old 19th century jurist" "Old writer of science-fiction" Here's a sample, but it takes up the whole of their battle in this issue: Of course, since Maggin never followed up on this idea, we've got this weird issue of Superman where Brainiac - a super-computer with a 12th level intellect - decides for no reason at all to keep addressing Superman as "Old canvas-painter" and stuff like that. Instead of Old Cigarette Smoke eventually learning, "ah, that explains Brainiac's curious behaviour last time we met" we can presume that hereafter whenever he appeared, Superman just figured that Brainiac had gone soft in the head. "Aw great, it's Brainiac again. What's he going to do this time? Wear a diaper on his head while singing 'The Flintstones' theme song or something?" Thank you! I read this a year or two ago and was wondering what was going on with Brainiac, with all of those nonsensical insults. I'd assumed it would be explained by the end of the story but never really was. Now I know why! |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on May 13, 2023 7:45:31 GMT -5
I know Superman was meant to be an accessible comic for everyone, but it's amazing how he is the most static DC character in ALL of the Bronze Age. One can read a story he publishes right after the Sand Superman Saga and one right before the reboot and would be hard-pressed to find significant differences. Instead think about all the things that happened in the same amount of time to, like, Batman and Wonder Woman. I suspect that blame for this would lay at the feet of editor Julius Schwartz who never seemed to have much of an interest in the character. I've been re-reading the New Look era of Batman which Schwartz was assigned to and I get the same feel there - an overpowering recognition on his part that he's ill-suited to handle the caped crusader which manifests itself in the way that he just flails about throwing as many ideas at the wall as he can discard next month if he decides to. He admitted that he killed off Alfred on a whim since it was his first instinct after deciding to bring in Aunt Harriet; Aunt Harriet then was immediately forgotten about with the exception of two stories and the random panel here and there; he announced that stories would be more sophisticated and real from here on out and then just as quickly reversed himself and went back to ridiculous sci-fi concepts. Arguably the best regarded development during his tenure was bringing Neal Adams on board, except it Murray Boltinoff, I believe, who did that and it took Bill Dozier from the tv series to point out that Alfred was kind of an essential part of the canon. In defense of Schwartz, much of the inconsistencies during his first five or six years editing the Bat-books was due to interference from higher up in the food chain, especially once the deal for the TV series was struck. It wasn't until after the show was axed and Carmine Infantino replaced Irwin Donenfeld in the executive suite that Schwartz could bring his own sensibilities to bear.
Cei-U! I summon the behind-the-scenes meddling!
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on May 13, 2023 10:36:18 GMT -5
I suspect that blame for this would lay at the feet of editor Julius Schwartz who never seemed to have much of an interest in the character. I've been re-reading the New Look era of Batman which Schwartz was assigned to and I get the same feel there - an overpowering recognition on his part that he's ill-suited to handle the caped crusader which manifests itself in the way that he just flails about throwing as many ideas at the wall as he can discard next month if he decides to. He admitted that he killed off Alfred on a whim since it was his first instinct after deciding to bring in Aunt Harriet; Aunt Harriet then was immediately forgotten about with the exception of two stories and the random panel here and there; he announced that stories would be more sophisticated and real from here on out and then just as quickly reversed himself and went back to ridiculous sci-fi concepts. Arguably the best regarded development during his tenure was bringing Neal Adams on board, except it Murray Boltinoff, I believe, who did that and it took Bill Dozier from the tv series to point out that Alfred was kind of an essential part of the canon. In defense of Schwartz, much of the inconsistencies during his first five or six years editing the Bat-books was due to interference from higher up in the food chain, especially once the deal for the TV series was struck. It wasn't until after the show was axed and Carmine Infantino replaced Irwin Donenfeld in the executive suite that Schwartz could bring his own sensibilities to bear.
Cei-U! I summon the behind-the-scenes meddling!
Also, through the 60s, Superman and Batman were the highest selling superhero comics and bringing in truck;loads of licensing deals, so there wasn't much incentive to shake things up too much. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on May 13, 2023 12:43:07 GMT -5
In defense of Schwartz, much of the inconsistencies during his first five or six years editing the Bat-books was due to interference from higher up in the food chain, especially once the deal for the TV series was struck. It wasn't until after the show was axed and Carmine Infantino replaced Irwin Donenfeld in the executive suite that Schwartz could bring his own sensibilities to bear.
Cei-U! I summon the behind-the-scenes meddling!
Also, through the 60s, Superman and Batman were the highest selling superhero comics and bringing in truck;loads of licensing deals, so there wasn't much incentive to shake things up too much. I wish that DC had selected a more exciting period in which to freeze Superman - say, in 1965 when anything could happen - dealing with the topsy-turvy antics of Mr. Mxyzptlk; Imaginary stories every four months; Luthor/Brainiac team-ups; etc - rather than making him relive the day Steve Lombard tied his shoelaces together as he was heading out to fight a sludge monster over and over and over again. It's seems like they just picked a random Superman comic from 1974 and said "Rinse, wash, repeat". I mean, was Terra-Man any more suitable for the reading audience of the 1970s than Bizarro? |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on May 13, 2023 12:52:14 GMT -5
I suspect that blame for this would lay at the feet of editor Julius Schwartz who never seemed to have much of an interest in the character. I've been re-reading the New Look era of Batman which Schwartz was assigned to and I get the same feel there - an overpowering recognition on his part that he's ill-suited to handle the caped crusader which manifests itself in the way that he just flails about throwing as many ideas at the wall as he can discard next month if he decides to. He admitted that he killed off Alfred on a whim since it was his first instinct after deciding to bring in Aunt Harriet; Aunt Harriet then was immediately forgotten about with the exception of two stories and the random panel here and there; he announced that stories would be more sophisticated and real from here on out and then just as quickly reversed himself and went back to ridiculous sci-fi concepts. Arguably the best regarded development during his tenure was bringing Neal Adams on board, except it Murray Boltinoff, I believe, who did that and it took Bill Dozier from the tv series to point out that Alfred was kind of an essential part of the canon. In defense of Schwartz, much of the inconsistencies during his first five or six years editing the Bat-books was due to interference from higher up in the food chain, especially once the deal for the TV series was struck. It wasn't until after the show was axed and Carmine Infantino replaced Irwin Donenfeld in the executive suite that Schwartz could bring his own sensibilities to bear.
Cei-U! I summon the behind-the-scenes meddling!
Good point - it certainly didn't help that Schwartz had to revamp the titles while simultaneously maintaining the Bob Kane look thanks to Kane's contract. Still, Schwartz and company did later admit that they hadn't thought a lot of their ideas through - Who was The Outsider before the show forced them to make him Alfred? Why was Alfred killed off rather than pushed to the side other than a whim? Why was Aunt Harriet forgotten about almost from the moment she arrived? etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 13, 2023 12:58:44 GMT -5
Also, through the 60s, Superman and Batman were the highest selling superhero comics and bringing in truck;loads of licensing deals, so there wasn't much incentive to shake things up too much. I wish that DC had selected a more exciting period in which to freeze Superman - say, in 1965 when anything could happen - dealing with the topsy-turvy antics of Mr. Mxyzptlk; Imaginary stories every four months; Luthor/Brainiac team-ups; etc - rather than making him relive the day Steve Lombard tied his shoelaces together as he was heading out to fight a sludge monster over and over and over again. It's seems like they just picked a random Superman comic from 1974 and said "Rinse, wash, repeat". I mean, was Terra-Man any more suitable for the reading audience of the 1970s than Bizarro? Yeah. Steve Lombard. Ugh! I’ve read so little 1970s Superman and yet I’m very familiar with his boring bullshit and his tedious antics. I read a story last week where it was revealed that Gotham City mystery writer Kaye Daye is his aunt. They should have had her visit Steve more often, and she could have given him shit about being so stupid and awful and dumb. (And his backfiring pranks would have made her suspect that Clark Kent is Superman!) |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 13, 2023 19:56:11 GMT -5
I read the Sensei Mini series from First Comics... fun stuff that seems like it needed a sequel. It was a bit confusing... with 3 stories in different times, but it actually worked out decent enough that my usual hatred for Time Travel didn't kick in. It's too bad the promised sequel never happened (I don't think anyway)
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on May 14, 2023 5:10:49 GMT -5
Also, through the 60s, Superman and Batman were the highest selling superhero comics and bringing in truck;loads of licensing deals, so there wasn't much incentive to shake things up too much. I wish that DC had selected a more exciting period in which to freeze Superman - say, in 1965 when anything could happen - dealing with the topsy-turvy antics of Mr. Mxyzptlk; Imaginary stories every four months; Luthor/Brainiac team-ups; etc - rather than making him relive the day Steve Lombard tied his shoelaces together as he was heading out to fight a sludge monster over and over and over again. It's seems like they just picked a random Superman comic from 1974 and said "Rinse, wash, repeat". I mean, was Terra-Man any more suitable for the reading audience of the 1970s than Bizarro? I really think that Superman in the Bronze Age needed some changes. I mean, the character in the Silver Age was a sociopath jerk who literally spent half of his time in elaborating complex plans to make a woman doubts of her mental health while she was right all along. The problem was (in my opinion) that the same people continued to work on the character. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on May 14, 2023 7:49:36 GMT -5
I wish that DC had selected a more exciting period in which to freeze Superman - say, in 1965 when anything could happen - dealing with the topsy-turvy antics of Mr. Mxyzptlk; Imaginary stories every four months; Luthor/Brainiac team-ups; etc - rather than making him relive the day Steve Lombard tied his shoelaces together as he was heading out to fight a sludge monster over and over and over again. It's seems like they just picked a random Superman comic from 1974 and said "Rinse, wash, repeat". I mean, was Terra-Man any more suitable for the reading audience of the 1970s than Bizarro? I really think that Superman in the Bronze Age needed some changes. I mean, the character in the Silver Age was a sociopath jerk who literally spent half of his time in elaborating complex plans to make a woman doubts of her mental health while she was right all along. The problem was (in my opinion) that the same people continued to work on the character. Except that it wasn't the same people. Schwartz used a different writing staff, mostly young guys like O'Neil, Maggin, Pasko and others who came up through the ranks of fandom, rather than the old pros like Siegel, Binder, Coleman, Bernstein, and Hamilton that Weisinger relied on. Cary Bates was the only scripter common to both.Yes, artists like Swan and Plastino carried over but they weren't contributing to the plots or suggesting new characters. So while your criticism that not enough or the right kind of updating of the character happened in the Bronze Age is valid,it's not for the reason you suggest.
Cei-U! I summon the counterpoint!
|
|
|
|
Post by majestic on May 14, 2023 8:09:47 GMT -5
Reading through 75 years of Shazam! I am surprised at the # of Golden Age stories I have read before.
|
|
