|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 25, 2018 10:20:00 GMT -5
Curiosity (and maybe lack of anything else to read) led me to purchase a Superman comic from that same time period. I don't know what the exact title was, just that Superman was the featured character. Now, I was still pretty much a newbie comic reader, possibly 6 months along, and I was totally unprepared for the difference in the Marvel books I'd been reading and this one. The characters talked in a way that was aimed for very young kids. They didn't use any prepositions in their sentences. Superman kept yelling "Great Scott" which nobody with any self-respect would ever say. There was more than one story in that comic, but I couldn't tell you what happened in either of them. The Superman book, compared to the Marvel books I was used to reading, was amateurish in every way. There was a huge, noticeable difference between the books the publishers were putting out, and DC had a much inferior product at the time. Probably it was Action Comics when they decided to publish stories in a Silver Age style. Really, what were they thinking?!? Everyone talks how burned were Maggins and Bates, but what was going on with Action Comics?!? |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 25, 2018 10:53:14 GMT -5
It added Steve Lombard as an antagonist to Clark, who often got his comeuppance, in a clever little way. I never liked Steve Lombard, especially because his addiction led to a delirious arms race with Clark Kent. What was the moral here? "Kids, if someone is bullying you, BULLY HIM HARDER! NO MERCY!" For example in this panel: "I'm needed somewhere else as Superman! Let's give Lombard a concussion!" HILARIOUS! <iframe width="14.139999999999986" height="12.82000000000005" style="position: absolute; width: 14.14px; height: 12.82px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 5px; top: 228px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_86228345" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="14.139999999999986" height="12.82000000000005" style="position: absolute; width: 14.14px; height: 12.82px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 647px; top: 228px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_42938279" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="14.139999999999986" height="12.82000000000005" style="position: absolute; width: 14.14px; height: 12.82px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 5px; top: 807px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_90391471" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="14.139999999999986" height="12.82000000000005" style="position: absolute; width: 14.14px; height: 12.82px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 647px; top: 807px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_32262499" scrolling="no"></iframe>  |
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Sept 25, 2018 11:27:26 GMT -5
Curiosity (and maybe lack of anything else to read) led me to purchase a Superman comic from that same time period. I don't know what the exact title was, just that Superman was the featured character. Now, I was still pretty much a newbie comic reader, possibly 6 months along, and I was totally unprepared for the difference in the Marvel books I'd been reading and this one. The characters talked in a way that was aimed for very young kids. They didn't use any prepositions in their sentences. Superman kept yelling "Great Scott" which nobody with any self-respect would ever say. There was more than one story in that comic, but I couldn't tell you what happened in either of them. The Superman book, compared to the Marvel books I was used to reading, was amateurish in every way. There was a huge, noticeable difference between the books the publishers were putting out, and DC had a much inferior product at the time. I think DC did have superior product at the time, but Superman wasn't it. The creators were in an awkward position as he was the flagship character and on a lot of toys and auxiliary media, which forced them to be conservative. The other problem was that even when they tried to make the character relatable, he was STILL the guy with all the hangover continuity from the Weisinger era ... Superman Emergency Squad, Beppo the Super-Monkey, and all of that. He desperately needed a reboot. |
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Sept 25, 2018 11:50:16 GMT -5
It added Steve Lombard as an antagonist to Clark, who often got his comeuppance, in a clever little way. I never liked Steve Lombard, especially because his addiction led to a delirious arms race with Clark Kent. What was the moral here? "Kids, if someone is bullying you, BULLY HIM HARDER! NO MERCY!" For example in this panel: "I'm needed somewhere else as Superman! Let's give Lombard a concussion!" HILARIOUS! And it didn't end at bullying and pranking; there's one instance, in Superman #301, written by Gerry Conway, and beautifully drawn by Jose Luis Garcia Lopez (PBHN), in which Superman, in order to deal with that aforementioned conundrum of anchoring the news on live television while being needed to save the day, hypnotizes poor Steve and disguises him as Clark Kent so he can appear on television. Basically he just very casually enslaved the guy for an hour or so (in that same issue, Supes also tricks Solomon Grundy and stands him on the Moon - it's an entire issue of weapons-grade Superdickery). |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 25, 2018 11:52:57 GMT -5
I think DC did have superior product at the time, but Superman wasn't it. The creators were in an awkward position as he was the flagship character and on a lot of toys and auxiliary media, which forced them to be conservative. I really never understood this: at the time the most marketable Marvel's character was probably Spider-Man, but it was never so kid-oriented or locked in an eternal status quo like his colleague from the Distinguished Competitor and it doesn't seem to me this hurt the merchandising, cartoon or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 25, 2018 11:57:02 GMT -5
I never liked Steve Lombard, especially because his addiction led to a delirious arms race with Clark Kent. What was the moral here? "Kids, if someone is bullying you, BULLY HIM HARDER! NO MERCY!" For example in this panel: "I'm needed somewhere else as Superman! Let's give Lombard a concussion!" HILARIOUS! And it didn't end at bullying and pranking; there's one instance, in Superman #301, written by Gerry Conway, and beautifully drawn by Jose Luis Garcia Lopez (PBHN), in which Superman, in order to deal with that aforementioned conundrum of anchoring the news on live television while being needed to save the day, hypnotizes poor Steve and disguises him as Clark Kent so he can appear on television. Basically he just very casually enslaved the guy for an hour or so (in that same issue, Supes also tricks Solomon Grundy and stands him on the Moon - it's an entire issue of weapons-grade Superdickery). Like his cousin said, this man IS A MONSTER.  |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 25, 2018 12:27:59 GMT -5
I think DC did have superior product at the time, but Superman wasn't it. The creators were in an awkward position as he was the flagship character and on a lot of toys and auxiliary media, which forced them to be conservative. I really never understood this: at the time the most marketable Marvel's character was probably Spider-Man, but it was never so kid-oriented or blocked in an eternal status quo like his colleague from the Distinguished Competitor and it doesn't seem to me this hurt the merchandising, cartoon or whatever. What merchandise? In the 70s and early 80s, Superman was the king of comic-related licensing. Marvel was barely a blip on the radar and Spider-Man was the bulk of it. In the world beyond comics, Spider-Man was a failed tv series and so-so cartoons, mostly from the 60s. Superman was movies, tv, cartoons, toys, sheets, coloring books, action figures; you name it. Marvel was pretty bad, for a long time, at securing licensing deals for their characters. Even as popular as the Hulk tv series was, you didn't get a ton of Hulk merchandise. Marvel's marketing improved over the course of the 80s, especially after they got Mattel deal. Prior to that you have the Mego figures; but, the DC characters tended to be featured more, thanks to the higher profile in the mass media. Spider-Man had bits and pieces; but, even Wonder Woman was licensed more (thanks to the tv show). Spider-Man's licensing wasn't affected by how his stories were written because there was little licensing to affect. It didn't effect the tv series because it didn't last an entire season. The cartoons were syndicated and not in a massive number of markets, and that was mainly the 60s cartoon.. The 1981 syndicated cartoon was barely seen; but, it was used as a sort of pilot to entice NBC to launch the Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends cartoon. That started to raise Marvel's profile, especially when it was paired with the Hulk cartoon. Marvel was so desperate to sign media deals that they ceded all control on their characters, which is why the few adaptations that arose are so off model. In the 70s and early 80s, if you asked the man on the street to name a Marvel character, they would ask what Marvel was (and the same for DC). If you asked them to name a comic book character, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman would come up the most, followed by Spider-Man and the Hulk (depending on if we mean before or after the tv series). Superman, by the 80s, had two/three full generations of readers who knew the character. Those parents that grew up with the comics would buy their kids Superman comics, because they knew what they were getting (same with Archie and Richie Rich). Those parents and grandparents were a big part of that comic buying market, which was way bigger than the Direct Market, at any stage. That's why DC editorial was so conservative about it. When Jenette Kahn came on board, DC sales were way down; but, Superman was still a major part of what they did have. She instituted changes that led to DC crawling their way back out of the cellar and back to fighting Marvel tooth and nail, to where they were beating a lot of their individual titles, though Marvel's combined line was stronger (propped up heavily on the X-Men and Star Wars, by that point). DC got more radical because Kahn knew they had nothing to lose and encouraged that, right up to the point of greenlighting revamping Superman, in a major way, not just a soft reboot. Also, Julie Schwartz was entrenched in the Superman office and had been for a long time. Julie was one of those forces that Kahn and Levitz had been fighting against, to modernize DC. By the period you are talking about, they are pushing him into retirement and eventually did, making him an ambassador to the fans, keeping him on the payroll. Julie did a lot to maintain the popularity of Superman; but, he didn't let it grow, when it became stale (the movie really helped them keep it propped up) and by the 80s no one wanted to work on the title, since they couldn't do anything with it. You can't do anything radical, so why give it your best? Just churn out more of the same thing, collect your paycheck and look for a better gig. So, yeah, the reboot was long overdue and a soft reboot wasn't going to do the trick, this time, since we didn't have a change in editor, until they went with the hard reboot. They also had to reach a point where even parents and grandparents weren't buying their kids Superman comics and the movies had lost their effect on sales (and had deteriorated to the point where the comics helped them more than they helped the comics). |
|
|
|
Post by comicsandwho on Sept 25, 2018 23:40:19 GMT -5
I read a considerable amount of 'Super-stuff' between when I started reading comics in '78, up to the reboot. Looking back, '78-'79 may have been the peak of the 'Schwartz era'. Martin Pasko, former letter-column regular who went to work for DC in the mid-70s, came up with some damn good, well-paced, super-suspense. About his only misfire was the stuck-up bitch persona he gave to Lana Lang, when she resurfaced as a regular supporting character in 1977. Cary Bates carried on with that(for a time, Pasko was on 'Superman', and Bates on 'Action Comics'), and it wasn't until about '83 that her personality softened.
Pasko's time as the regular super-scripter was short, as he got caught up in the old 'World's Greatest Superheroes' syndicated comic strip, as well a some non-comics projects (scripting for the 'Buck Rogers' TV show, and ultimately for a number of animated series). Len Wein, just back from Marvel, did some nice work in '79, with the odd Conway, Pasko, and even Bates story thrown in. But by the early '80s, Bates had mostly switched back to 'Superman'(his long stint on 'The Flash' kept him from being full-time on both Super-books). And, also around 1980, Bates' super-idea well seemed to run dry, as he relied too heavily on aliens, gimmicks, gimmicky aliens, and the 'Super-rogues gallery' that really needed an overhaul.
That came with Marv Wolfman's run on 'Action', around 1981-early '84, highlighted by the revamped Luthor and Brainiac, the Lois-Superman breakup, and, yes, the beginnings of Perry White having Alzheimer's(a development that was usually glossed over, or ignored completely, by other writers).
Bates continued to do his uninspired thing with these changes, and, ultimately, Wolfman moved on from Action...which is pretty much where zaku started this thread. I thought Justin Moore was an annoying little twerp, although, as I mentioned above, Lana Lang's change in attitude(and hairstyle, to something similar to Annette O'Toole from 'Superman III') was a positive move, and seemed to foreshadow 'reboot Lana'.
The multi-story format in 'Action' was mostly lackluster. The intent of that was supposed to recapture the 'silver age' feel(Although the scripts were mediocre, the art by the likes of Kurt Schaffenberger and Wayne Boring added to the nostalgia).
I could really tell something was wrong when even 'DC Comics Presents', which had always felt 'different', since it wasn't hard-bound to follow the continuity of the solo books, started doing more uninspired repeat team-ups, after a period of emphasizing heroes Superman hadn't worked with before.
I haven't even mentioned Elliot "S!" Maggin in all of this. He had recently left comics when I started following them, but he returned around 1982, and did the occasional specials and fill-ins, with a more consistent presence on the main books in their final year before the reboot, as zaku mentioned above. A lot of Maggin's sci-fi heavy, grandiose writing style left me cold, aside from that 1986 'Imaginary Story' in which a Kal-El who grew up as a 'son of Mars' has a change of heart when his adopted world decides to invade Earth. The one Maggin 'classic' I just couldn't get into was Superman # 400, with its loosely-connected vignettes about how the 'myth' of Superman persists far into Earth's future. Similarly, # 300 had depicted 'Superman 2001', another hokey 'future shock' tale in which Kal-El arrives on Earth in 1976, and eventually saves the Earth from a dictator. I just didn't care for his attempts to write Superman stories as 'cerebral science fiction'with quasi-'Star Trek' soul-searching. He and Bates were a little too 'hippie' for my tastes at times, so, in that regard, Byrne(like Alan Moore) was 'something different', if not long-term fix.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 26, 2018 1:56:00 GMT -5
comicsandwho, thank you for your interesting analysis. Actually, I appreciated how the character of Lana Lang was portrayed and I think the story of his relationship with Clark Kent could have some potential (although I think the latter was a real hypocrite to engage with her, after years of pulling and springing with Lois Lane). Thank you for confirming that Perry White was actually suffering from Alzheimer's and not from "mysterious plot from outerspace", but I'm sure if the series continued, he would have healed by smoking a supersigar or something like that... Justin Moore was creepy, but I'm wondering if the authors were considering him a real potential love interest for Lois Lane. If this is the case,it was fortunate that reboot happened, because they were heading towards an Avengers#200-Insensibility-Level love story here...
|
|
|
|
Post by comicsandwho on Sept 26, 2018 3:47:33 GMT -5
As I recall, when Wolfman took over Action(with # 544, the famous 'new Luthor and Brainiac' issue), she gives Superman an ultimatum about their relationship...and when he won't/can't make that commitment, she takes an assignment in the Middle East, which reduces her to cameos for a few issues...including one in which her return flight is almost attacked by an alien, til Superman stops it...causing Lois to wonder if Superman knew she was on the plane, and that's why he saved it (as if he was going to say say, 'Nah, Lois isn't on board, screw 'em, let 'em die!)
Eventually, Lois just 'did stuff' and moved on with life at the Planet.
Interestingly, one of the last 'pre-reboot' Superman titles was a Lois Lane miniseries , two 48-page issues, in May and June of 1986. The story is very grim, as Lois, alienating her friends in the process, throws herself into investigating missing-child stories for a feature article on a problem Superman can't solve. The series has subplots that...(Spoiler...ish, since they were never followed up on )...
end up with Jimmy Olsen engaged to Lucy Lane..and Lana having a meltdown as he tells how the missing-children phenomenon affected her(revealing that, while living in Italy before she returned to Metropolis, she had been married...and had a child, murdered by a DC Comics equivalent of one of Italy's terror groups of the '70s and '80s). The series had been planned since about 1984, as a four-parter, before they 'doubled up' the format. I think it was all too 'heavy' to publish until '86, when they knew that era was ending, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 26, 2018 6:07:26 GMT -5
As I recall, when Wolfman took over Action(with # 544, the famous 'new Luthor and Brainiac' issue), she gives Superman an ultimatum about their relationship...and when he won't/can't make that commitment, she takes an assignment in the Middle East, which reduces her to cameos for a few issues... Attagirl!  You know, the relationship between Lois Lane and Superman is so ingrained in the popular culture that I hadn't given it much thought, but, really, what was going on? If you had to define their sentimental status until that moment, what would it be? They were perpetually dating? They were in a non-exclusive relationship? Did Superman really believe that Lois Lane would wait indefinitely until he made his mind? And by the way, was already Clark in a relationship with Lana..? Interestingly, one of the last 'pre-reboot' Superman titles was a Lois Lane miniseries , two 48-page issues, in May and June of 1986. The story is very grim, as Lois, alienating her friends in the process, throws herself into investigating missing-child stories for a feature article on a problem Superman can't solve. It seems quite interesting. Why I never heard of it?!! Jimmy Olsen engaged to Lucy Lane.. Ok perhaps I have some blanks here, but weren't they already a thing? What happened? |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 26, 2018 7:31:27 GMT -5
Jimmy-Lucy had always been "on again, off again;" but, I wasn't reading the book when they were engaged. No idea on the specifics. Probably trying to push it further in the soap opera to match the era.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 26, 2018 8:07:13 GMT -5
Jimmy-Lucy had always been "on again, off again;" but, I wasn't reading the book when they were engaged. No idea on the specifics. Probably trying to push it further in the soap opera to match the era. You know, after reading those issues, I decided that "dinner" is a code word for "sex". I don't know how many times Lana Lang asked Clark to "dine" with her. Clark was sad? Let's dine! There's anything to celebrate? You've got to come for dinner. I'm in a particular good mood? You could come to the house for "dinner", because I have a new "recipe" you have to try. So, this is how you define a "serious relationship" in the Superman's Universe: you don't dine with other people. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 26, 2018 11:32:01 GMT -5
I suspect that Justin Moore was meant to be the new Jimmy Olsen now that the latter had grown up. Although I haven't read all of the Superman stories being discussed during this period, I can't imagine there was a more Justin Moore-centric issue than Superman 402 in which he even lumps Olsen in with Clark and Lois as one of the "old pros" suggesting that Jimmy was no longer seen as the up and coming cub reporter looking to be taken seriously. The fact that Moore too, is a cub reporter who hasn't yet found his big break yet makes the connection between the two clearer. Although I don't think that the character was really needed, I do appreciate that there was something subtly crude and abrasive about the guy. Sure, Steve Lombard and Morgan Edge could also be described as self-centred, coarse, and blunt, but these were characteristics painted on with a wide brush. One could easily understand how Moore could genuinely regard himself as a decent, pleasant guy without picking up on the way he could come off as insensitive to others.
"How Do You Hide a Superman?" is a memorable story in which Moore stumbles upon a guy dressed in a Superman costume waking up in an alley. The seemingly homeless man claims that he's actually Superman recovering from a bout of amnesia and power depletion after battling a group of 40th century marauders who have shown up in our time to take him down. Moore assumes that this is just a new angle a homeless guy has come up with to earn spare change (which is a nice detail since you'd have to think that in Metropolis you'd have to occasionally run into people with stories of 'Hey, can you spare me some change so I can call the police and report that Brainiac shrunk my car?') but begins to believe that this guy who does look like Superman, is in fact, Superman especially after it becomes clear that there is a couple of futuristic looking guys after him. His thoughts make it clear that Moore isn't the type of person to just ignore a person in need and he's resourceful enough to know how to evade the Marauders who but what's equally clear is that Moore isn't exactly empathetic to a guy he rolls his eyes at and considers a "loony" while thinking about how Lois might start paying attention to him if he makes a name for himself for saving the man of steel. Flippant thoughts about how Superman's sanity seems to have left town with his personality when 'Superman' starts acting strangely violent and threatening doesn't help either.
Anyhow, with or without Moore, I'd add Superman 402 to my list of great Superman tales from this period (and it's written by Cary Bates who, to be honest, I was earlier dismissive of during this period) since it nicely draws out a complex tale that you're initially given to believe isn't all that complex. "Superman gets amnesia and loses his powers and is on the run from bad guys" eventually turns into "Superman begins to slowly regain his memory along with his powers and speaks in an odd manner" which in turn becomes "Superman becomes paranoid and starts ranting about the worms of Metropolis who don't honour him enough" which segues into "Superman is about to tear Justin apart with his bare hands when we learn he isn't actually Superman at all and those bad guys from the future are actually police officers looking for a dangerous criminal with a Superman complex".
So another example of this period not always having great stories to tell, but when they're good, they're great.
|
|
|
|
Post by comicsandwho on Sept 26, 2018 12:08:08 GMT -5
As I recall, when Wolfman took over Action(with # 544, the famous 'new Luthor and Brainiac' issue), she gives Superman an ultimatum about their relationship...and when he won't/can't make that commitment, she takes an assignment in the Middle East, which reduces her to cameos for a few issues... Attagirl! You know, the relationship between Lois Lane and Superman is so ingrained in the popular culture that I hadn't given it much thought, but, really, what was going on? If you had to define their sentimental status until that moment, what would it be? They were perpetually dating? They were in a non-exclusive relationship? Did Superman really believe that Lois Lane would wait indefinitely until he made his mind? And by the way, was already Clark in a relationship with Lana..? Interestingly, one of the last 'pre-reboot' Superman titles was a Lois Lane miniseries , two 48-page issues, in May and June of 1986. The story is very grim, as Lois, alienating her friends in the process, throws herself into investigating missing-child stories for a feature article on a problem Superman can't solve. It seems quite interesting. Why I never heard of it?!! Jimmy Olsen engaged to Lucy Lane.. Ok perhaps I have some blanks here, but weren't they already a thing? What happened? 1. Perhaps, no Italian publisher bothered with it(due to the reference to terrorism)? More likely, since it was a more 'adult' story line(with some mild profanity), it was passed over. 2. Lucy was written out of Jimmy's feature in the early '70s, and had only appeared a few times since then. This engagement was not referenced again, since the Lucy-Jimmy relationship wasn't part of the Byrne reboot at first. |
|
You know, the relationship between Lois Lane and Superman is so ingrained in the popular culture that I hadn't given it much thought, but, really, what was going on? If you had to define their sentimental status until that moment, what would it be? They were perpetually dating? They were in a non-exclusive relationship? Did Superman really believe that Lois Lane would wait indefinitely until he made his mind? And by the way, was already Clark in a relationship with Lana..?