|
|
Retcons
Aug 22, 2016 10:59:50 GMT -5
Post by tingramretro on Aug 22, 2016 10:59:50 GMT -5
Why would Superman miss a world he'd left as a baby and should logically have no memory of in any case? That never made any sense to me, frankly. But then, virtually no Superman story published before 1986 really made much sense to me, and certainly there was very little I found "appealing" about him. I think the basic problem here is, you clearly had an emotional connection to the pre-Byrne Superman which I did not; all the things you consider significant about him which Byrne removed are either irrelevant or just plain silly to me. I thought having the Kents still be around actually improved things by giving him two more interesting supporting characters rather than the bland cardboard cutouts at WGBS during the Bronze Age. Also, any religious allegory surrounding the case would have gone right over my head, I'm afraid, as I am not religious. I don't even know who Abraham and Sara(?) were.
As for the JSA, I'm afraid everything you seem to dislike about Roy's writing is precisely what appeals to me. Like him, I'm a continuity freak who needs everything to make sense, and that limited series was an exercise in world building, which is just the kind of story I love. If I had any complaints about it at all, it's that I'd have liked it to be an issue longer and dealt more with the Society's history up to the (then) present day. A few things, tin. No child has a memory of his or her life before a certain age. Kal-El was no exception. But, like many of us, adopted or not, we have a curiosity about our origins, our ancestors, our heritage. The Kents knew that in the case of this exceptional child in particular, it would be crucial for him to know about from where he had come and from whom he was descended. Thta knowledge was always a part of his life, in great part thanks to the Kents, who could easily have prevented the young Clark from knowing anything about his origins, but took an opposite tack and encouraged his interest in his Kryptonian roots. Had Superman never known jack-squat about his Kryptonian heritage, your first point might be valid, but it flies in the face of centuries of human behavior. Of course, everyone's Superman or Batman or any other characeter can be greatly influenced by one's earliest encounter with the character; we all get that. However, Byrne did you and every other reader who first met Superman when the character was under his control a disservice by not acknowledging the significance of what had gone before and essentially creating a different character. Changing this aspect of Superman's background was akin to deciding to "ret-con" Batman's origin by revealing that the deaths of Martha and Thomas Wayne were the results of a hit ordered by Thomas Wayne gone wrong. This makes more sense, since as we all know, most murders are not random acts of violence and the first suspect in any murder is the victim's spouse. That the Wayne's deaths were not the results of a carefully constructed plot by Thomas Wayne, but the result of living in a random universe is a key part of the origin of The Batman; change that piece and you've created a new character. That's what Byrne did by making Krypton a dystopia. Pretending that the previous five decades of stories had got it wrong is simply lazy, neglectful, disrespectful... take your pick. BTW, Batman's origin was ret-conned before the term or the notion really existed in the famous story in which Batman learns the identity of his parents' killer and confronts him in an unforgettable sequence. However, the ret-con enriched and reinforced the story that had already been told and did not violate what had already been established as "fact" in the Btman world. Oh, and as for the religious allusions, one need not be religious to be aware of cultural touchstones. In fact, many nominally religious peopel wouldn't know Abraham and Sarh from Kanye I am living proof. Reading comics without at least an acquaintance with myth of any kind -- religious, national, etnic, whatever -- is a less fulfilling experience. I think, for instance, that Superman's Kryptonian surname/ family name is no accident given his creators' backgrounds and allows the reader further understanding of them and their character. Oh, and America vs. the JSA? That was not world-building; it was Roy at his overly fussy, prolix, OCD worst. And again, all sins of poor writing aside, the ret-con was absurd in motivation, execution, and effect. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think we will. But to just to correct you on one thing: I didn't first meet Superman when he was under Byrne's control. I probably first met him when I was about six or seven years old, which would have been a good ten years before Byrne's Man of Steel. I just had very little interest in him before Byrne. The JSA, Kamandi, the Legion, various other DC characters, yes, but not Superman. I read the odd Superman story, but I could count the number of them that actually struck me as memorable on the fingers of one hand while wearing mittens. He always seemed to me to be fairly dull and not believable, and the whole Krypton thing didn't help. The last survivor of an alien world making a life for himself on Earth is, in itself, an interesting concept, but by the time I first encountered Superman, he was far from the last. Basically, he was "the Last Son of Krypton" except for: 1) Supergirl 2) Superdog 3) Supermonkey 4) General Zod 5) Faora 6) Quex-Ul 7) Jax-Ur 8) Kru-El (and quite probably his cousins E-Vill and Nars-Tee, for all I know) 9) Probably a dozen other Phantom Zone villains 8) The entire population of Kandor 9) Zor-El, Alura and the entire population of Argo City 10) An entire Kryptonian colony world, Rokyn, in LSH In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking that the only people dumb enough to have actually stayed on Krypton until it blew up were Jor-El and Lara. Where's the drama in that? It just seemed stupid to me, as a kid. Byrne made Superman a real character, and I appreciated that. I have no idea what the significance of the name El is either, by the way. I just assumed Supes's creators thought it sounded suitably alien. |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 22, 2016 11:04:33 GMT -5
Post by dupersuper on Aug 22, 2016 11:04:33 GMT -5
Bad: Vision is not the original Human Torch after all. I like that one...I like both and don't want them mashed together. |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 22, 2016 11:18:21 GMT -5
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 22, 2016 11:18:21 GMT -5
I think we will. But to just to correct you on one thing: I didn't first meet Superman when he was under Byrne's control. I probably first met him when I was about six or seven years old, which would have been a good ten years before Byrne's Man of Steel. I just had very little interest in him before Byrne. The JSA, Kamandi, the Legion, various other DC characters, yes, but not Superman. I read the odd Superman story, but I could count the number of them that actually struck me as memorable on the fingers of one hand while wearing mittens. He always seemed to me to be fairly dull and not believable, and the whole Krypton thing didn't help. The last survivor of an alien world making a life for himself on Earth is, in itself, an interesting concept, but by the time I first encountered Superman, he was far from the last. Basically, he was "the Last Son of Krypton" except for: 1) Supergirl 2) Superdog 3) Supermonkey 4) General Zod 5) Faora 6) Quex-Ul 7) Jax-Ur 8) Kru-El (and quite probably his cousins E-Vill and Nars-Tee, for all I know) 9) Probably a dozen other Phantom Zone villains 8) The entire population of Kandor 9) Zor-El, Alura and the entire population of Argo City 10) An entire Kryptonian colony world, Rokyn, in LSH In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking that the only people dumb enough to have actually stayed on Krypton until it blew up were Jor-El and Lara. Where's the drama in that? It just seemed stupid to me, as a kid. Byrne made Superman a real character, and I appreciated that. I have no idea what the significance of the name El is either, by the way. I just assumed Supes's creators thought it sounded suitably alien. ^^Your move there. I hope you'll find it interesting. It's easy to find. Oh, and ignoring what might be outdated addenda to the Superman story is hardly disrespectful. Pruning makes the garden grow better: "As long as the roots are not severed, all is well," as Chauncey Gardiner said. I get that "Super-Monkey" might not make the cut 30 years after he was introduced. On television, Chuck Cunningham outlived his usefulness, simply went upstairs to bed and was forgotten; we didn't find out later in a very special episode that he was murdered by an envious Richie, thereby negating everything we knew about the characters on Happy Days. But making a tectonic shift in a character's background, roots, origin, and tradition is creating a new character. So just do that, I would have said to Byrne. |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 22, 2016 11:32:49 GMT -5
Post by dupersuper on Aug 22, 2016 11:32:49 GMT -5
Good: Much of Cooke's New Frontier. That wasn't a retcon... |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 22, 2016 11:33:45 GMT -5
Post by dupersuper on Aug 22, 2016 11:33:45 GMT -5
Good: Wally Wests parents were not the perfect people depicted in New Teen Titans issues but rather his mom was a nag and his father was a sleeper agent for the Manhunters. Bad: Barrys father was framed for killing Barrys mother. |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 22, 2016 11:34:20 GMT -5
Post by dupersuper on Aug 22, 2016 11:34:20 GMT -5
I always liked the idea that Alfred was there for young Bruce Wayne.
I've mentioned before that this was a change that actually served a positive function for Alfred - it gave him a wit that would have been improper had he not been a member of the Wayne household since Bruce's childhood. As a potential employee who showed up on the doorstep of Wayne Manor after Bruce Wayne had grown to adulthood, it wouldn't have felt right for him to make the occasional sarcastic comment about his employer's nighttime proclivities since no "Gentleman's Gentleman" would ever be so forward with his employer. As a member of the family however, he's allowed that leeway.
BUT...
One of the problems I have with the modern Batman is that he's so one-dimensional. If an activity, idea, thought, interest has nothing to do with being Batman, then Bruce Wayne doesn't possess it. Hobbies? Batman doesn't need them. Romance? Oh you mean pretending to like someone to keep up the playboy act, right? Have a conversation with someone? "My parents are dead" and "Gotham is MY city" doesn't count. Knowing how to tie a tie, run Wayne Enterprises, cook? Nope, nope, nope. The guy's great at his job but brain dead outside of it and I think the current terms of his relationship with Alfred is part of the problem.
Had Don Cameron's origin for Alfred been left intact (arriving on the scene a few years after Bruce Wayne became Batman), today's writers would be forced to write Bruce Wayne as someone who is at least partially competent, independent, realistic. I mean, this would still be a guy capable of making Dick Grayson his ward, of running his business, of arranging his own dates, etc. Nowadays (well, when I last followed Batman maybe 10 plus years ago) Batman is more man-child than adult, someone who delegates all his grown up responsibilities to actual adults whether they be Alfred, Lucius Fox, or even Dick Grayson in those instances where someone has to apologize for Batman's petulance during times of crisis. And I think the problem all started with this retcon (which I first noticed not in Dark Knight Returns or Year One, but in an episode of Super Friends Galactic Guardians back in 1985 or so).
Was that the Scarecrow episode? |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 22, 2016 11:35:02 GMT -5
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 22, 2016 11:35:02 GMT -5
Good: Much of Cooke's New Frontier. That wasn't a retcon... Wishful thinking.  |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 22, 2016 11:38:21 GMT -5
Post by dupersuper on Aug 22, 2016 11:38:21 GMT -5
The Kents got younger not for any reason but editorial fiat (I'm assuming). Whatever seeming link might have been forged with the readership was hardly balanced by the beauty of having Clark's parents having been childless throughout much of a long and loving marriage before finding the infant in the spaceship. They were comics' Abraham and Sara (Remember Ma Kent's name in the 1942 novel and the television program?) receiving a gift from God. Their absolute love and faith in the son whom they were charged with rearing and in whom they instilled a moral sense based on honor, service, and compassion was inspiring to see. And the irony, of which they themselves were well aware, was that they would likely not see their son reach adulthood. Read "The Last Days of Ma and Pa Kent ( Superman 160, IIRC) for the full story. Having younger Kents as his parents meant no pathos. It was instant gratification, what the editors must have thought was a sop to Cerberus that would make the Kents more relevant to the readership, but was actually a high price to pay. Someone with more recent knowledge of the Superman saga may correct me, but wasn't the Jonathan Kent in the two-part story in the 80s in which he returns to life oh so briefly the "original" Pa Kent? Whoever wrote that story must have realized that "Pa" Kent was far better as a character than "Dad" Kent. The Post-Crisis Kents were still married for years before Clark came along (long enough to have a couple miscarriages, as seen in the World of Smallville mini), they were ust young enough to still be around as supporting characters for adult Clark. |
|
|
|
Post by Mormel on Aug 22, 2016 11:38:46 GMT -5
I gotta admit, I liked it when Lorna Dane was NOT the daughter of Magneto. I quite prefer her as a character independent from the Lehnsherr/Eisenhardt family. Leave the family woes to Alex.
Conversely, I liked it when Pietro and Wanda were children of Magneto. It retroactively added much irony to their interactions while they were all in the Brotherhood, and it was a baffling move that Marvel backtracked on that. I don't even know who their parents are right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 22, 2016 11:40:36 GMT -5
"Clark would be proud, too, of his Kryptonian heritage, but later portrayals of him have tried to shoehorn in too much of the psychobabble of adopted children longing for and seeking out their biological parents. Excuse my French, but to me, they fall under the heading of “ungrateful little shits.” Clark grew up as human, thinks as a human, reacts as a human. He lives and loves as a human. And that is what really defines him." John Byrne
So Byrne had an axe to grind when it came to the desire some adopted children have to seek out their biological parents and rewrote a key component of Superman's psychology to fight his battle for him. This, combined with Byrne's distaste for numerous stories which established Superman's visits to Krypton by way of time travel, possession of Kandor, personal memories of the planet, etc, resulted in the grim and bland Krypton Superman was burdened with for so long.
That's the problem I have with most retcons - they're too often employed not with the victim's fans in mind, but to appease those who don't like the character. I can understand if a new character is just not gelling with their intended audience, but to just throw away the core of a character that at this point had enjoyed nearly 50 years of success is mindboggling.
I always thought the core of Superman's character was that he was (originally) the last survivor of an alien race, raised by a kindly couple on Earth who taught him their values. Constantly revisiting Krypton and making it this perfect society just seems to me to weaken that.
I'm not sure what you mean by "weaken" here. Superman's connection to Krypton never altered his love for the Kents nor adjusted the role they played in his life - they were still "the kindly couple on Earth who taught him their values". In fact, I believe Superman revisited their deaths more often than he thought of Krypton. Clark hunched over Pa Kent as he lay dying and informed him that he should use his powers for good was a defining enough moment for Superman that a version of it made its way into the first Christopher Reeve film.
You also mention Superman's status as "the last survivor of an alien race". I'm not sure if you included that here to suggest that that too had been lessened through constant revisits to Krypton and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I do know that Byrne complained that introducing other survivors of Krypton meant Superman was no longer unique. I never thought Superman's strength lay in the fact that he was "the sole survivor of a doomed planet" and while unique does mean "one and only" as Byrne once pointed out, to me Superman remains unique and interesting so long as his greatness remains intact. Either Superman was the luckiest baby alive and simply stumbled into the role of "Earth's Greatest Hero" through default since no other Kryptonian was around to prove that anyone from Krypton could have been just the hero he was, or there was something at his core that went beyond his powers that made him the champion he was. By introducing other Kryptonians with the exact powers he had, Superman was allowed to show us that he was more than just a flying guy with super strength, heat vision, and super-ventriloquism since those others always (with the exception of Supergirl who was never as great as Superman) buckled under the responsibilities that Superman shouldered so well.
|
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 22, 2016 11:42:36 GMT -5
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 22, 2016 11:42:36 GMT -5
I've mentioned before that this was a change that actually served a positive function for Alfred - it gave him a wit that would have been improper had he not been a member of the Wayne household since Bruce's childhood. As a potential employee who showed up on the doorstep of Wayne Manor after Bruce Wayne had grown to adulthood, it wouldn't have felt right for him to make the occasional sarcastic comment about his employer's nighttime proclivities since no "Gentleman's Gentleman" would ever be so forward with his employer. As a member of the family however, he's allowed that leeway.
BUT...
One of the problems I have with the modern Batman is that he's so one-dimensional. If an activity, idea, thought, interest has nothing to do with being Batman, then Bruce Wayne doesn't possess it. Hobbies? Batman doesn't need them. Romance? Oh you mean pretending to like someone to keep up the playboy act, right? Have a conversation with someone? "My parents are dead" and "Gotham is MY city" doesn't count. Knowing how to tie a tie, run Wayne Enterprises, cook? Nope, nope, nope. The guy's great at his job but brain dead outside of it and I think the current terms of his relationship with Alfred is part of the problem.
Had Don Cameron's origin for Alfred been left intact (arriving on the scene a few years after Bruce Wayne became Batman), today's writers would be forced to write Bruce Wayne as someone who is at least partially competent, independent, realistic. I mean, this would still be a guy capable of making Dick Grayson his ward, of running his business, of arranging his own dates, etc. Nowadays (well, when I last followed Batman maybe 10 plus years ago) Batman is more man-child than adult, someone who delegates all his grown up responsibilities to actual adults whether they be Alfred, Lucius Fox, or even Dick Grayson in those instances where someone has to apologize for Batman's petulance during times of crisis. And I think the problem all started with this retcon (which I first noticed not in Dark Knight Returns or Year One, but in an episode of Super Friends Galactic Guardians back in 1985 or so).
Was that the Scarecrow episode?
Yup - "The Fear" though I got the series name wrong. It should be Super Powers: Team Galactic Guardians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 22, 2016 11:44:05 GMT -5
As I said earlier, I really don't see how Krypton had that much to do with "forming the quintessance of the character". Superman's character was formed by his having been raised as the son of the Kents. Byrne just recognized that, and actually made him into a real, believable and interesting character for the first time in fifty years. Hadn't seen this, tin. You really have to check out the stories published before you started reading, I guess, because it's all there. Byrne recognized nothing except what he wanted to see. |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 22, 2016 11:50:28 GMT -5
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 22, 2016 11:50:28 GMT -5
The Kents got younger not for any reason but editorial fiat (I'm assuming). Whatever seeming link might have been forged with the readership was hardly balanced by the beauty of having Clark's parents having been childless throughout much of a long and loving marriage before finding the infant in the spaceship. They were comics' Abraham and Sara (Remember Ma Kent's name in the 1942 novel and the television program?) receiving a gift from God. Their absolute love and faith in the son whom they were charged with rearing and in whom they instilled a moral sense based on honor, service, and compassion was inspiring to see. And the irony, of which they themselves were well aware, was that they would likely not see their son reach adulthood. Read "The Last Days of Ma and Pa Kent ( Superman 160, IIRC) for the full story. Having younger Kents as his parents meant no pathos. It was instant gratification, what the editors must have thought was a sop to Cerberus that would make the Kents more relevant to the readership, but was actually a high price to pay. Someone with more recent knowledge of the Superman saga may correct me, but wasn't the Jonathan Kent in the two-part story in the 80s in which he returns to life oh so briefly the "original" Pa Kent? Whoever wrote that story must have realized that "Pa" Kent was far better as a character than "Dad" Kent. The Post-Crisis Kents were still married for years before Clark came along (long enough to have a couple miscarriages, as seen in the World of Smallville mini), they were ust young enough to still be around as supporting characters for adult Clark. I think this squares with the Silver Age Kents, who were older when they found Kal-El, yes, but were alive as he was on the threshold of manhood and leaving Smallville for Metropolis U. Had it not been for the plague they contracted on their trip into the past, all indications suggested that they would have been around, for a while, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 22, 2016 11:58:56 GMT -5
I always thought the core of Superman's character was that he was (originally) the last survivor of an alien race, raised by a kindly couple on Earth who taught him their values. Constantly revisiting Krypton and making it this perfect society just seems to me to weaken that.
I'm not sure what you mean by "weaken" here. Superman's connection to Krypton never altered his love for the Kents nor adjusted the role they played in his life - they were still "the kindly couple on Earth who taught him their values". In fact, I believe Superman revisited their deaths more often than he thought of Krypton. Clark hunched over Pa Kent as he lay dying and informed him that he should use his powers for good was a defining enough moment for Superman that a version of it made its way into the first Christopher Reeve film.
You also mention Superman's status as "the last survivor of an alien race". I'm not sure if you included that here to suggest that that too had been lessened through constant revisits to Krypton and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I do know that Byrne complained that introducing other survivors of Krypton meant Superman was no longer unique. I never thought Superman's strength lay in the fact that he was "the sole survivor of a doomed planet" and while unique does mean "one and only" as Byrne once pointed out, to me Superman remains unique and interesting so long as his greatness remains intact. Either Superman was the luckiest baby alive and simply stumbled into the role of "Earth's Greatest Hero" through default since no other Kryptonian was around to prove that anyone from Krypton could have been just the hero he was, or there was something at his core that went beyond his powers that made him the champion he was. By introducing other Kryptonians with the exact powers he had, Superman was allowed to show us that he was more than just a flying guy with super strength, heat vision, and super-ventriloquism since those others always (with the exception of Supergirl who was never as great as Superman) buckled under the responsibilities that Superman shouldered so well.
A nice insight, Chad. The lone survivor idea to me was always important, but not nearly so important as his having lost two sets of parents. Both sets saved his life and clearly set him on a path to greatness and nobility whose flowering they didn't live to see; that was such a burden for him that he even tried to use his powers to bend time and space to prevent their deaths. Add to all that guilt that he blamed himself for the deaths of the second set, notwithstanding what he discovered afterwards, and you have an integral component of a complex character. |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 22, 2016 12:29:35 GMT -5
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Aug 22, 2016 12:29:35 GMT -5
Ive seen it. And to be honest I hated his depiction more so in it than the comics. I always saw Jason as boisterous, reckless and even hot headed, but it just seemed off to me, after all his sacrifice to help and save another life if it meant his own, from a mother that abandoned him, but he wouldn't have turned into someone as despicable as he was portrayed in that movie. To me it was too out of character. Jason was intensely focused to the point of having tunnel vision and had an attitude of the ends justifying the means. Thus I felt his motives were very appropriate. It was a lot more interesting and true to the character than being out for revenge or a personal vendetta. Did you ever read the two Batman issues just prior to Death in the Family? Those are the ones that really show how this depiction fits. Okay I just read the two issues again, and it kick started my memory. Jason obviously seeing a gal abused and because of it resorting to suicide as a way out certainly took it's toll on him. The lack of knowing what exactly happened on that balcony I think is the biggest game changer in how someone sees Jason. After seeing what he saw, and Felipe getting away with it because of diplomatic connections obviously made him angry and frustrated. Coupled with even before the lead up to his death, Jason was always impatient and ready for action. I think Starlin tried to write it in a way to let readers make their own assessment of Jason and his actions. He was mad, hot headed and nearly reading to tear Felipe apart because of what he drove Gloria to do. But in the next issue, without Bruce pushing him to tell him more about the incident, I think Jason got more grounded and cooled off. Yeah he skipped school to follow Bruce, but he's probably done it before and would do it again, just out of being a teenager that likes taking risks. I think he does like the power that being skilled in crime fighting gets him from Bruce's training, but I also feel he knows the ultimate right and wrong. Would anyone miss a POS like Felipe if he were gone? Not any decent law abiding citizen. But I think even Jason knew intentionally killing him was not right. What I take from his response to Bruce, is that he didn't feel remorse or guilt at all, even if he was inadvertently responsible for Felipe's fall. And that can lead to a psychotic with the power to back it up. So maybe it wasn't unrealistic to think that Jason became what he did. I just think that the reader not seeing his hand directly responsible there is some hope for him not taking the dark path. And as we follow on into Death in the Family, where Batman's anger leads his to punch Superman in frustration, it's not impossible to have the desire and ability to want to commit dark deeds, but still keep yourself at bay. As it seems if anytime Batman would have fell from grace, it would have been in that story, putting the Joker out of everyone's misery for good. |
|
