|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 8:42:38 GMT -5
How anyone here hates this ... I'm puzzled and why? |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 5, 2017 10:08:41 GMT -5
How anyone here hates this ... I'm puzzled and why?  ...for example. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Sept 5, 2017 10:13:59 GMT -5
I don't hate Byrne's Superman but I don't like it either. He took so many missteps, in my opinion, that they negated the few positive aspects. Among my problems with it:
* Krypton as a cold, sterile dystopia instead of the virbrant, if flawed, super-society of the Weisinger era
* Clark Kent as a jock in high school instead of the class nerd
* The Kents still being alive
* "Everybody wants a piece of me!" Grow a pair, you whiny chump.
* Clark Kent as a successful novelist/columnist instead of a working field reporter
Cei-U!
I'd list a few more but I have to go.!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 10:20:35 GMT -5
I don't hate Byrne's Superman but I don't like it either. He took so many missteps, in my opinion, that they negated the few positive aspects. Among my problems with it: * Krypton as a cold, sterile dystopia instead of the virbrant, if flawed, super-society of the Weisinger era * Clark Kent as a jock in high school instead of the class nerd * The Kents still being alive * "Everybody wants a piece of me!" Grow a pair, you whiny chump. * Clark Kent as a successful novelist/columnist instead of a working field reporter Cei-U! I'd list a few more but I have to go.! I liked a lot of the potential of the Byrne Supes era, but I found the execution did not live up to that potential and while I enjoyed it as it was happening, it didn't age well and now I find I have no desire to go back and read it. I think I liked the Wolfman/Ordway Adventures a bit more than either of the Byrne led Supes books and I liked Action with the team ups better than the Supes solo book, Barda issue aside. Unlike Cei-U, I liked the cold scientific take on Krypton and the Kents being alive though, and the family dynamic between Clark and hs parents was one of the stronger aspects of the rebooted Superman for me. I like the book less in hindsight than I did caught up in the hype of the moment and the expectation of it happening when I was in high school, but I don't hate the run. However, I do understand why people don't like the run, even why they strongly dislike it. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 5, 2017 10:50:25 GMT -5
I don't hate Byrne's Superman but I don't like it either. He took so many missteps, in my opinion, that they negated the few positive aspects. Among my problems with it: * Krypton as a cold, sterile dystopia instead of the virbrant, if flawed, super-society of the Weisinger era * Clark Kent as a jock in high school instead of the class nerd * The Kents still being alive * "Everybody wants a piece of me!" Grow a pair, you whiny chump. * Clark Kent as a successful novelist/columnist instead of a working field reporter Although some people might disagree with those items on the basis of personal tastes, I think it is a fundamental problem that Clark would have been a jock in High School (with the probable sense of entitlement that comes with it) and grown to be far more humble as Superman. Honestly, given that kind of background, I would have expected him to turn into a rather arrogant Superman, one who will save us all because he's simply the best. Where did his sudden humility come from? From Pa Kent's speech early on in Man of steel? I can't say that I disliked Byrne's numerous changes per se; Lex Luthor being an evil magnate instead of an evil genius can work; Krypton as a sterile planet can work; Clark Kent being a buff guy everyone respect instead of a shy journalist can work; not having the rich Kryptonian heritage of bottled cities, super-powered cousins and flying dogs can work... it's just that (a) this is not really the Superman we know, and getting rid of the mythos while only preserving the trappings feels a little empty, and (b) it becomes a little generic. Also, (c)... the parts of the mythos that were flushed out kept creeping back in, but in a more and more confusing way. Matrix? Ugh. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 5, 2017 10:58:00 GMT -5
Knowing that I'm not a Superman fan in any way, I've never understood what Ma & Pa Kent being dead added to Superman as a character. If Byrne got anything right it was Clark having living, caring parents, something that has always been incredibly rare in super-hero comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Sept 5, 2017 11:05:33 GMT -5
The Kents are one of my favorite things about post-Crisis Superman books.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 5, 2017 13:14:52 GMT -5
* Krypton as a cold, sterile dystopia instead of the virbrant, if flawed, super-society of the Weisinger era * Clark Kent as a jock in high school instead of the class nerd These bothered me, but I was able to live with them. I actually liked these changes, and some of them weren't entirely attributable to Byrne. My issue with Byrne was that he didn't seem to understand who Clark/Superman was. The guy was ignorant, judgmental, and quick to anger, especially in the Action Comics team-ups. Superman is an institution, and I need him to act like a hero, or at least to be learning lessons as a result of his failure to act like a hero. When he's depicted as just an average farmboy from Kansas with alien DNA, I'm out. So, when you put Superman under hypnosis, and we're outright told the hypnosis can't force him to do things he's morally opposed to, my Superman couldn't serially rape Big Barda in front of a video camera. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 5, 2017 13:23:52 GMT -5
Lex Luthor being an evil magnate instead of an evil genius can work; Krypton as a sterile planet can work; Clark Kent being a buff guy everyone respect instead of a shy journalist can work; not having the rich Kryptonian heritage of bottled cities, super-powered cousins and flying dogs can work... it's just that (a) this is not really the Superman we know, and getting rid of the mythos while only preserving the trappings feels a little empty, and (b) it becomes a little generic. To the best of my knowledge, none of those changes were Byrne's ideas. Most of the basic premise for the Superman Post-Crisis reboot was done by Frank Miller, Steve Gerber, Andy Helfer, and Marv Wolfman before Byrne was brought onboard. Now THAT was Byrne. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 5, 2017 13:26:52 GMT -5
Lex Luthor being an evil magnate instead of an evil genius can work; Krypton as a sterile planet can work; Clark Kent being a buff guy everyone respect instead of a shy journalist can work; not having the rich Kryptonian heritage of bottled cities, super-powered cousins and flying dogs can work... it's just that (a) this is not really the Superman we know, and getting rid of the mythos while only preserving the trappings feels a little empty, and (b) it becomes a little generic. To the best of my knowledge, none of those changes were Byrne's ideas. Most of the basic premise for the Superman Post-Crisis reboot was done by Frank Miller, Steve Gerber, Andy Helfer, and Marv Wolfman before Byrne was brought onboard. Now THAT was Byrne. They were? When I saw Byrne on NBC's the today show talking about the man of steel prior to its publication, he claimed that DC had brought him onboard to revamp Superman and that he was free to do what he wanted. I was unaware that he had to use other people's ideas. I guess it didn't make him sound as important on TV! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 13:58:25 GMT -5
shaxper ... Understood your post ... I can see why.
|
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 5, 2017 16:01:20 GMT -5
I hate that Norman Osborn raped Gwen Stacy. Just to nitpick (and it's an important nitpick), Norman Osborn did not rape Gwen Stacy. She willingly had sex with him and then bitterly regretted it. Not the same thing as rape. True but that only goes to show how reprehensible Osborn's heinous actions were in this instance. It's become a pointless retcon. If JMS had been allowed to follow through on his original intentions here by making Peter the father of Gwen's twins, then that would be a totally different thing. But NOOOOOOO, Editorial decides that Peter having near-adult kids would age him too much. Peter can't be married, Peter can't have children, so we poor readers are left with rubbish like this. |
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 5, 2017 16:12:09 GMT -5
I hate that nearly 60 some years after acquiring him, DC still struggles to merge the innocence, charm and fun of Captain Marvel/Shazam into their overall universe. Say what you will about the need for Crisis but at least Earth-S gave the Captain a good home to continue those type of fund adventures.
I hate new #1s. It's a cheap sales gimmick, only providing brief bumps in sales.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 17:29:16 GMT -5
I hate that nearly 60 some years after acquiring him, DC still struggles to merge the innocence, charm and fun of Captain Marvel/Shazam into their overall universe. Say what you will about the need for Crisis but at least Earth-S gave the Captain a good home to continue those type of fund adventures. I hate new #1s. It's a cheap sales gimmick, only providing brief bumps in sales. If fans didn't buy them in higher quantities publishers wouldn't put them out. If you don't like them, aim your ire at the fans who give postive reinformcement for these practices by voting with their wallets for more of this type of stuff. Comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 18:20:11 GMT -5
I hate that nearly 60 some years after acquiring him, DC still struggles to merge the innocence, charm and fun of Captain Marvel/Shazam into their overall universe. Say what you will about the need for Crisis but at least Earth-S gave the Captain a good home to continue those type of fund adventures. Power of Shazam was the best attempt to incorporate Cap into the DCU. I enjoyed the series but still wish (like you) Cap & the Fawcett heroes were on their own earth. |
|
