|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 16, 2018 16:26:45 GMT -5
I don't know about complicated, but Byrne has made it quite clear in the past that he believes Clark should be the absolute only survivor of Krypton. Yep. I really don't remember him saying anything about "complicated". |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 16, 2018 16:28:46 GMT -5
I don't know about complicated, but Byrne has made it quite clear in the past that he believes Clark should be the absolute only survivor of Krypton. True. That’s why there was no Supergirl, no Krypto, no Kandor. For a while, at least. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 16, 2018 16:44:04 GMT -5
Really, I believed the only criticism that I had heard about Silver Age Supergirl's origin story is that Superman was a jerk for leaving his cousin in an orphanage after her arrival. Who the heck said "Woah man, her origin story is sooooo complicated!"!?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 16, 2018 17:55:22 GMT -5
When the Image universe started they had the foolish idea that they could have all the separately owned characters intermingle. Maybe it could work but Todd Mcfarlane used a character owned by Liefeld as a integral part of his characters origin ( He killed him setting the stage for Spawn to be born). When Liefeld was dismissed by the other Image owners, He had a origin tied to a property he couldn't reference anymore. I Didn't follow Spawn after the beginning but I heard that they rebooted the origin to include someone else as the killer.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 16, 2018 19:00:12 GMT -5
Problem: Supergirl is Superman's cousin from Krypton is too complicated. I'm sorry, when did Byrne say that? Any source? Thank you. Apology not necessary. You're welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Sept 16, 2018 19:11:46 GMT -5
...for all of Byrne's snide remarks about needing to scrape the barnacles off of Superman's past, I don't think anything compares with the mess he made of things with his Superman run. "When was Superman stupid enough to tell people he had a secret identity" was how Byrne phrased his thoughts on the Superman/Clark Kent dynamic I think I mentioned something about this once on Shaxper's thread, but anyway... Byrne seems to have a... I don't know, almost a binary way of thinking where something must be fully ON, or fully OFF, with no gradients in between, or allowing that things may have changed along the way. Not the best way to describe it, but I'm not sure how to articulate it. In this case, the idea that no one would ever suspect a maskless Superman to have a secret identity is kinda sorta almost plausible in the pre-reboot continuity - after all, Superman was the first ever superhero, no one knew what to imagine or expect. But by the time Byrne was able to implementing that idea, DC had folded their multiverse together, having Superman appear LONG after a huge parade of superheroes debuted decades earlier. By then, the public had gotten used to the conventions superheroes lived by, with secret identities near the top of the list. And also, some of those heroes (like Black Condor and the original Starman) had gone maskless and maintained secret IDs. So given that history, why wouldn't someone wonder if Superman had a secret ID? |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 16, 2018 19:32:42 GMT -5
I don't know about complicated, but Byrne has made it quite clear in the past that he believes Clark should be the absolute only survivor of Krypton. Byrne frequently referred to needing to "scrape the barnacles off" of Superman's past and in his introduction for the 1988 Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told (where he also uses the barnacles line) explains by way of providing background for those who might be reading this book without knowing of Superman's history/Byrne's connection, that due to DC continuity becoming "hopelessly convoluted", he was called in to "fix" things. Since Supergirl, the secret identity issue, Superboy (though I believe this one was a problem forced onto him when he had been assured that in taking over Superman, he wouldn't have to explain how The Legion could still exist in a timeline without a Boy of Steel, until of course, DC told him it was his problem after all) are all part of the Superman mythos, I would have thought that complicating these elements would run contrary to his attempt to streamline the character. Byrne has also commented that Superman not being the sole survivor "deuniqued" the character - that is, how could Superman be unique when there was a whole city full of tiny Kryptonians, a cousin, a dog, and a Phantom Zone with his powers. I always thought the contrary was true - that by having these Kryptonians around while showing us how Superman was still the best person around for solving the problems he did, the writers showed us that Superman wasn't the greatest superhero simply by default - he was more than just a guy who won the genetic lottery. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 16, 2018 19:37:45 GMT -5
...for all of Byrne's snide remarks about needing to scrape the barnacles off of Superman's past, I don't think anything compares with the mess he made of things with his Superman run. "When was Superman stupid enough to tell people he had a secret identity" was how Byrne phrased his thoughts on the Superman/Clark Kent dynamic I think I mentioned something about this once on Shaxper's thread, but anyway... Byrne seems to have a... I don't know, almost a binary way of thinking where something must be fully ON, or fully OFF, with no gradients in between, or allowing that things may have changed along the way. Not the best way to describe it, but I'm not sure how to articulate it. In this case, the idea that no one would ever suspect a maskless Superman to have a secret identity is kinda sorta almost plausible in the pre-reboot continuity - after all, Superman was the first ever superhero, no one knew what to imagine or expect. But by the time Byrne was able to implementing that idea, DC had folded their multiverse together, having Superman appear LONG after a huge parade of superheroes debuted decades earlier. By then, the public had gotten used to the conventions superheroes lived by, with secret identities near the top of the list. And also, some of those heroes (like Black Condor and the original Starman) had gone maskless and maintained secret IDs. So given that history, why wouldn't someone wonder if Superman had a secret ID? Great point - I mean, Superman must need some down time too, does he just relax as Superman? Interestingly, there is a Golden Age story which actually answers Byrne's "When was Superman stupid enough to tell people he had a secret identity" and the answer comes on an occasion when, after Superman was seen emerging from an alley, a curious detective goes into said alley and discovers a pair of clothes he realises Superman must have been wearing before. From that moment on, Metropolis knew that Superman was also in their presence disguised as a regular guy. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 16, 2018 19:42:34 GMT -5
When the Image universe started they had the foolish idea that they could have all the separately owned characters intermingle. Maybe it could work but Todd Mcfarlane used a character owned by Liefeld as a integral part of his characters origin ( He killed him setting the stage for Spawn to be born). When Liefeld was dismissed by the other Image owners, He had a origin tied to a property he couldn't reference anymore. I Didn't follow Spawn after the beginning but I heard that they rebooted the origin to include some else as the killer. I've heard this too, but I wonder if Liefeld's character being the guy who killed Spawn went back into continuity once the issues the rest of Image had with Liefeld resolved themselves. Another thing about Image I'm curious about is that Savage Dragon ran in approximately real time - that is, he debuted in both our world and the Image Universe in 1992. I believe the same was true for Shadowhawk for a time, but since I don't believe that the whole Image Universe chose not to utilize a sliding time scale, how, say, The Dragon could meet Spawn in 1993 if Spawn now happens to be a character who has always been around for 10 or so years. Sure, a lot of these you could overlook, but some of those crossovers must have been important to the history of these characters. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 16, 2018 19:44:26 GMT -5
I'm sorry, when did Byrne say that? Any source? Thank you. Apology not necessary. You're welcome. ... Ok, let me rephrase that: did Byrne even say on record something similar to: "Supergirl's origin was too complicated, so I came up with the right solution"? Yes or Not? Because these are the Byrne's words from his own website: So it seems that if there was any problem, it was just some mundane copyright issue, something similar to the Marvel's Spider-Woman situation. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 17, 2018 0:50:47 GMT -5
Apology not necessary. You're welcome. ... Ok, let me rephrase that: did Byrne even say on record something similar to: "Supergirl's origin was too complicated, so I came up with the right solution"? Yes or Not? Because these are the Byrne's words from his own website: So it seems that if there was any problem, it was just some mundane copyright issue, something similar to the Marvel's Spider-Woman situation. I wasn't sure what inspired Byrne to reintroduce Supergirl - whether it was an editorial edict a la "Hey, remember when we said 'Don't worry about how your idea not to use Superboy will impact the Legion of Superheroes since we've got that all figured out. Actually, now that we think of it, you better come up with something fast!' or Byrne working with a free hand - but his execution was unnecessarily complicated especially when one considers his claim that his intention with Superman was to take things back to basics and away from "elaborate rituals" ( a quote again taken from The Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told - 1988 edition - and used by Byrne to explain why he removed The Kents as Clark's adoptive parents and made them his perceived biological parents but which I think pertains to his intentions with the reboot. Besides, I don't want to sound as though I'm constantly harping on his dismissive attitude towards the character's history by bringing up his "scraping away barnacles" quote over and over again though I think it better illustrates Byrne's approach to Man of Steel/his Superman/Action run. If Byrne brought Supergirl back just to address copyright issues, fine, but again, it's the execution I take issue with. He could have come up with any number of ideas, but chose one that was a complete mess. |
|
|
|
Post by brianf on Sept 17, 2018 1:17:29 GMT -5
Deadman having a robot body is an idea that was thankfully dropped. Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned it. Someone at DC might read this and we'd get a new Deadman in a Robot Body comic. With seven different bodies, each of a different color (Red Deadman, Blue Deadman, Green Deadman...) and inhabited by the soul of other dead heroes. Mike Allred recently revisited that idea in ‘Bug: The Adventures of Forager’ #4
The series was basically just riffing on Kirby, except they also throw in Tatsinda - that rat girl from Deadmans Aquaman backs ups from the 1960's. Weird little series. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 17, 2018 6:26:32 GMT -5
If Byrne brought Supergirl back just to address copyright issues, fine, but again, it's the execution I take issue with. He could have come up with any number of ideas, but chose one that was a complete mess. I don't believe Byrne is lying, because, well, a) when he talks about his work at DC he can be presumptuous, arrogant and smug, but no one has ever accused him of not telling the truth about it. b) he has always been clear about what were his ideas, like the removal of Superboy from continuity (something that it later regretted) or editorial mandate, like the reinterpretation of Luthor as a businessman or the inclusion of Lois Lane (he didn't want to include her in the reboot). So why should he lie about this particular detail? c) If the reintroduction of Supergirl was an editorial mandate, why she used that identity years after Byrne's departure? (Before that s/he was just "Matrix"). About your consideration that her origin was a "mess", well, ok, to each his own. I don't have any particular opinion about that. I was just puzzled because you said that Byrne affirmed he had reintroduced Supergirl because her pre-Crisis origin was too "complicated" and it was the first time I heard something similar. I was really curious to know what your sources were. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 17, 2018 10:30:18 GMT -5
If Byrne brought Supergirl back just to address copyright issues, fine, but again, it's the execution I take issue with. He could have come up with any number of ideas, but chose one that was a complete mess. I don't believe Byrne is lying, because, well, a) when he talks about his work at DC he can be presumptuous, arrogant and smug, but no one has ever accused him of not telling the truth about it. b) he has always been clear about what were his ideas, like the removal of Superboy from continuity (something that it later regretted) or editorial mandate, like the reinterpretation of Luthor as a businessman or the inclusion of Lois Lane (he didn't want to include her in the reboot). So why should he lie about this particular detail? c) If the reintroduction of Supergirl was an editorial mandate, why she used that identity years after Byrne's departure? (Before that s/he was just "Matrix"). About your consideration that her origin was a "mess", well, ok, to each his own. I don't have any particular opinion about that. I was just puzzled because you said that Byrne affirmed he had reintroduced Supergirl because her pre-Crisis origin was too "complicated" and it was the first time I heard something similar. I was really curious to know what your sources were. Just to be clear, I don't think Byrne is lying and I certainly don't think he thought "Hm, how can I make this unnecessarily complicated?", I'm just saying that when he introduced/re-introduced certain concepts, he did so in a manner contrary to his "back to basics", "scraping barnacles", "fixing" approach. When I said "if Byrne brought back Supergirl to address copyright issues..." I wasn't questioning the validity of what he was saying, I was just trying to get to the point of what I took issue with. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 17, 2018 17:03:04 GMT -5
I don't believe Byrne is lying, because, well, a) when he talks about his work at DC he can be presumptuous, arrogant and smug, but no one has ever accused him of not telling the truth about it. b) he has always been clear about what were his ideas, like the removal of Superboy from continuity (something that it later regretted) or editorial mandate, like the reinterpretation of Luthor as a businessman or the inclusion of Lois Lane (he didn't want to include her in the reboot). So why should he lie about this particular detail? c) If the reintroduction of Supergirl was an editorial mandate, why she used that identity years after Byrne's departure? (Before that s/he was just "Matrix"). About your consideration that her origin was a "mess", well, ok, to each his own. I don't have any particular opinion about that. I was just puzzled because you said that Byrne affirmed he had reintroduced Supergirl because her pre-Crisis origin was too "complicated" and it was the first time I heard something similar. I was really curious to know what your sources were. Just to be clear, I don't think Byrne is lying and I certainly don't think he thought "Hm, how can I make this unnecessarily complicated?", I'm just saying that when he introduced/re-introduced certain concepts, he did so in a manner contrary to his "back to basics", "scraping barnacles", "fixing" approach. When I said "if Byrne brought back Supergirl to address copyright issues..." I wasn't questioning the validity of what he was saying, I was just trying to get to the point of what I took issue with. I think the same holds true for almost the entire post-Crisis DC universe. Everything was supposed to start fresh, with clean reboots or half-reboots that would make the DC world more accessible to readers not versed in the multiple worlds concept. (Never mind that I seriously doubt that ever proved a problem to anyone). However, right from the start, things got far worse than they ever had been, because (a) there was a new layer of complexity added, that of the pre-Crisis/post-Crisis dichotomy, and (b) writers wanted to do brand new things AND keep the old stuff at the same time. Clean reboots like Wonder Woman's worked like a charm, but for the rest... The examples of supposedly simple but ultimately confusing ideas we got back then are legion! ( See what I did there?) so Byrne was really not that different from other writers. I believe that the post-Crisis universe would have benefitted from a strong editorial hand, à la (gasp!) Shooter’s. |
|
