|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 28, 2016 14:08:07 GMT -5
Had the event which triggered Superman's abandonment of humanity been something other than "I'm outraged that the public isn't outraged that the world's most violent, dangerous terrorist has been murdered" then I could understand the reader's (and Superman's) disgust. Instead, Waid chose the most nonsensical justification for Superman's disappearance when he could have selected any number of rational explanations for his petulance. I mean, seeing as how The Joker had just murdered the entire Daily Planet staff during the course of a single afternoon mass killing spree and has presumably been doing these sorts of things regularly for about 30 years now, you have to figure his kill count is literally in the thousands. I'm not saying Superman didn't have good reason to get fed up or feel rejected by humanity, but we weren't given a good reason. I should also mention that I didn't like the "we're taking our ball and going home" attitude any more when the JSA exhibited it in the 1970's/80's so I'm not just picking on Waid here.
When did the JSA exhibit any such attitude in the 1970s/80s? They remained active from the early sixties right through to 1986 when they were exiled to another dimension!
In the 1970's it was established that the JSA had disbanded in 1951 because of pressure from the HUAC (or the comic book equivalent) to reveal their identities. So, comic book time it was supposed to be 1951 until I guess the early 1960s, but it was a retcon introduced in the mid-70s for the All Star revival (unless it had mentioned in one of the JLA/JSA team-ups.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 28, 2016 14:19:17 GMT -5
When did the JSA exhibit any such attitude in the 1970s/80s? They remained active from the early sixties right through to 1986 when they were exiled to another dimension!
In the 1970's it was established that the JSA had disbanded in 1951 because of pressure from the HUAC (or the comic book equivalent) to reveal their identities. So, comic book time it was supposed to be 1951 until I guess the early 1960s, but it was a retcon introduced in the mid-70s for the All Star revival (unless it had mentioned in one of the JLA/JSA team-ups.
Oh, I know that-remember it well, it was the 1970s/80s reference that confused me. But I don't see why they weren't justified in their actions. It was DC Special #29, in fact. * edit: no it wasn't, see below. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2016 14:19:30 GMT -5
When did the JSA exhibit any such attitude in the 1970s/80s? They remained active from the early sixties right through to 1986 when they were exiled to another dimension!
In the 1970's it was established that the JSA had disbanded in 1951 because of pressure from the HUAC (or the comic book equivalent) to reveal their identities. So, comic book time it was supposed to be 1951 until I guess the early 1960s, but it was a retcon introduced in the mid-70s for the All Star revival (unless it had mentioned in one of the JLA/JSA team-ups.
I think it was toward the end of their run in Adventure Comics (late 70's) this retcon was established. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 28, 2016 14:30:18 GMT -5
In the 1970's it was established that the JSA had disbanded in 1951 because of pressure from the HUAC (or the comic book equivalent) to reveal their identities. So, comic book time it was supposed to be 1951 until I guess the early 1960s, but it was a retcon introduced in the mid-70s for the All Star revival (unless it had mentioned in one of the JLA/JSA team-ups.
I think it was toward the end of their run in Adventure Comics (late 70's) this retcon was established. Damn-of course it was! Sorry, confusing myself there, got mixed up with the untold origin. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Sept 28, 2016 17:03:41 GMT -5
Had the event which triggered Superman's abandonment of humanity been something other than "I'm outraged that the public isn't outraged that the world's most violent, dangerous terrorist has been murdered" then I could understand the reader's (and Superman's) disgust. Instead, Waid chose the most nonsensical justification for Superman's disappearance when he could have selected any number of rational explanations for his petulance. I mean, seeing as how The Joker had just murdered the entire Daily Planet staff during the course of a single afternoon mass killing spree and has presumably been doing these sorts of things regularly for about 30 years now, you have to figure his kill count is literally in the thousands. I'm not saying Superman didn't have good reason to get fed up or feel rejected by humanity, but we weren't given a good reason. I should also mention that I didn't like the "we're taking our ball and going home" attitude any more when the JSA exhibited it in the 1970's/80's so I'm not just picking on Waid here. The symbolism of the gesture is more important than the actual narrative logic. The internal logic of Superman turning his back on the world doesn't matter, what matters is what it represents: Superhero comics are heading in a bad direction where idealistic heroes like Superman are irrelevant. The book skewers the trend as a whole. Image is a figure head and the next generation of heroes are inspired by the Image trend (which was the next generation of heroes and creators) but the bastardizations of the classic characters is criticized as well, which is why they start the story in such shitty states.
Kingdom Come entered active development in 1993. It's actually Alex Ross's book more than it is Waid's. He conceived the story as a teenager and worked on it alone for ten years before bringing it to DC, who hooked him up with Waid.
Look at the epilogue again and look at where the heroes are at. They've learned something from the experience and whatever happened before they're going to do their best to make sure they handle whatever comes next the right way. I mean, this just about sums it up:
![]() 
That image, published ten years after Batman kicked the shit out of Superman in DKR, isn't uplifting?
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 28, 2016 19:29:42 GMT -5
That image, published ten years after Batman kicked the shit out of Superman in DKR, isn't uplifting?
It is a nice scene, you make a good point. As an aside, I'm really hoping that one of them gives a "What the Hell are you looking at" to the jerk behind Batman when they've finished hugging.
I think my issues with this series stem mostly from the fact that I don't seem to be on the same starting page as Waid and Ross. Their interpretation of the Superman/Batman relationship is so far removed from my own that regardless of where they go with it, because their starting point (that Batman should be at least somewhat antagonistic towards Superman) is nowhere near mine (no, he shouldn't) I can't help but find the decisions made at each point to be "off".
I will at least say that if you have to have Superman and Batman at odds with one another, it's nice that Waid at least made an effort to make Superman look like more than the naïve simpleton he's usually portrayed as by lesser writers. "Spare me your Holier Than Thou act" is a lot more preferable to "Bruce is always right *sniff*".
And who said Hal Jordan wasn't in this series? That's him serving coffee right there! It might not be glamorous but "With Great Power..."
|
|
|
|
Post by batlaw on Sept 28, 2016 19:49:34 GMT -5
Love both immensely and consider each an incredible work of art. I enjoy and prefer KC more than Marvels personally but although they're similar works, they're vert different and can't be directly daily compared. And of course there's personal preference. KC for me may be my personal all time favorite comics work. Surely some of the reasoning could simply be it was "right people, right subject right time" but every generation of readers has THEIR classic or "gold standard". I'm still blown away by KC today and enjoy it with the same amount of awe, appreciation and delight. I can't say that about all other notable works such as DKR for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Snikts and Stones on Sept 28, 2016 19:59:28 GMT -5
I never read Marvels all the way through, but it was great to look at no doubt. I think Kingdom Come was a better story, and Ross really went after all the characters, but I've always thought his art was lacking in dynamism... Not an effective visual story teller for me...
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Sept 28, 2016 21:34:15 GMT -5
I think my issues with this series stem mostly from the fact that I don't seem to be on the same starting page as Waid and Ross. Their interpretation of the Superman/Batman relationship is so far removed from my own that regardless of where they go with it, because their starting point (that Batman should be at least somewhat antagonistic towards Superman) is nowhere near mine (no, he shouldn't) I can't help but find the decisions made at each point to be "off". Again, it's a reflection of the then current DCU. Batman and Superman were antagonistic in the story because that's what the trend was post-Miller. Their relationship at the beginning of the book is what their relationship was in the mainstream comics of the story, their relationship at the end of the book is what Ross and Waid (and you, seemingly) felt it should be. It's the same reason Superman has a ponytail during the flashbacks and his exile. Superman had long hair in the comics of the time so he has it at the start of the series. But as soon as he goes back to being Superman again he cuts it. Ross hated the long haired look so it's natural that Superman deciding to take back the world from violent anti-heroes would be marked by him going back to his classic haircut. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Sept 28, 2016 22:57:25 GMT -5
In the panel crazyoldhermit posted is that Bruce and Clark?
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Sept 28, 2016 23:29:37 GMT -5
Am I the only one who always thought that the "apparatus" that Bruce wears bears a faint resemblance to Darth Vader's armor, especially the neck?
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,211 
|
Post by Confessor on Sept 29, 2016 0:17:04 GMT -5
My problem with Marvels is that when a bystander has the narration, it takes the magic away from the heroics and makes it seem a little silly. He uses the same writing method in Astro city and it wears thin issue after issue. Wow! I couldn't disagree with this more. I think Busiek telling the story through the eyes of an everyman like Phil Sheldon is a masterstroke. It's been copied many times since, including in Busiek's own Astro City (which I also adore), but it was a breath of fresh air back in 1994 to see a story like this. Contrary to your above post, I think that seeing the marvels through the eyes of regular people enhances their magic, by couching them in the mundane and everyday. One of the central themes of Marvels to me is that these heroes are God-like beings that walk among us ("us" being the fictional regular people in the Marvel Universe). Seeing the Marvel Universe unfold through the eyes of a newspaper reporter like Sheldon or the likes of Gwen Stacy is what ultimately gives the book its heart and soul. Marvels is one of my all-time favourite comic books and it might very well be my absolute favourite mini-series. Kingdom Come I enjoyed quite a bit too, but it didn't resonate with me like Marvels did. It's been a long time since I read KC though, and I remember very little about it. Marvels, on the other hand, I re-read every two or three years, I should think. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Sept 29, 2016 3:16:53 GMT -5
In the panel crazyoldhermit posted is that Bruce and Clark? Yes it is (and Diana). I take it you haven't read the story? Am I the only one who always thought that the "apparatus" that Bruce wears bears a faint resemblance to Darth Vader's armor, especially the neck? I don't think it's very faint. The gorget is almost identical. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 29, 2016 5:37:24 GMT -5
My problem with Marvels is that when a bystander has the narration, it takes the magic away from the heroics and makes it seem a little silly. He uses the same writing method in Astro city and it wears thin issue after issue. Wow! I couldn't disagree with this more. I think Busiek telling the story through the eyes of an everyman like Phil Sheldon is a masterstroke. It's been copied many times since, including in Busiek's own Astro City (which I also adore), but it was a breath of fresh air back in 1994 to see a story like this. Contrary to your above post, I think that seeing the marvels through the eyes of regular people enhances their magic, by couching them in the mundane and everyday. One of the central themes of Marvels to me is that these heroes are God-like beings that walk among us ("us" being the fictional regular people in the Marvel Universe). Seeing the Marvel Universe unfold through the eyes of a newspaper reporter like Sheldon or the likes of Gwen Stacy is what ultimately gives the book its heart and soul. Marvels is one of my all-time favourite comic books and it might very well be my absolute favourite mini-series. Kingdom Come I enjoyed quite a bit too, but it didn't resonate with me like Marvels did. It's been a long time since I read KC though, and I remember very little about it. Marvels, on the other hand, I re-read every two or three years, I should think. I own a set of the Marvels mini series, so I do like it. But I prefer KC. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 8:03:08 GMT -5
Surprised by the responses. I added a poll.
|
|
