|
|
Post by Duragizer on Feb 14, 2019 22:14:23 GMT -5
"Mullet" Superman doesn't bother me as he did back in the day. It's just an unflattering hairstyle, after all, not a drastic personality change.
|
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Feb 15, 2019 19:14:25 GMT -5
"my" characters? Great question! Easy one first. The original Crystal. Of course. Butthat's sort of cheating: I don't know anyone who likes the post 1970 incarnation.  And the first five issues of the Hulk: each one a masterpiece. Such a rollercoaster of changes, so much fascination to those characters, and such stories! After that the "Hulk Angry" and "Hulk smash" didn't do anything for me. Don't get me wrong, they were fun, and there's a nostalgia hit: every week on the British "Mighty World of Marvel" the Hulk was beating up some new muscle bound guy. But it wasn't "my" Hulk. And Mary Tourtel's Rupert Bear. I grew up seeing Rupert on TV and in books, but he never grabbed me. Then many years later I read an old Mary Tourtel story, and I loved it! (Tortel invented Rupert, but most people know it from Alfred Bestall's more famous and longer time on the character.) Tourtel's Rupert was a young child, seeing the world for the first time, and everything was amazing. Like the best philosophers he wanted nothing better than to passively observe, and so discover more and more. At least, that is how I saw him. I saw this as a metaphor for the real world: endlessly amazing if only we stop and look. But to me the Bestall Rupert was dull. He was far more active. He pushed on and made things happen: he was a manager, not a philosopher. The philosopher bear was my bear. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 16, 2019 14:49:10 GMT -5
"my" characters? Great question! Easy one first. The original Crystal. Of course. Butthat's sort of cheating: I don't know anyone who likes the post 1970 incarnation. Ooh, here's one for ya.. Medusa worked best as a villain. |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Feb 16, 2019 22:16:15 GMT -5
Reading Superman Chronicles, Vol. 1 has got me thinking about "my" Superman and how he's developed over the years.
I was born in 1987, and my introduction to Superman was in the early '90s (1992/93) — first through the Chris Reeve films (which I was quite taken with; Superman IV was my favourite of the bunch) then about a year or so later, I became acquainted with the Superman comics being published at the time. This was post-Death & Return, and so Supes was sporting the long tresses, which I absolutely hated and kept me from becoming a regular buyer of the titles. Still, I read enough to get a sense of who this Superman was and how he operated (Clark Kent was the real deal rather than a disguise; he was in a long-term romantic relationship with Lois Lane; etc.). So in the '90s, my Superman/Clark Kent was some combination of the Donnerverse & post-Crisis versions of the character. In the '00s I watched Smallville, and that version of the character and his world ended up folded into the mix, too.
In recent years, my Superman has evolved into something of a different animal. The Reeve films haven't aged well for me, and neither has Smallville. I've since watched all the Fleischer cartoons and read some of the early Golden Age comics created by Siegel & Shuster, which has given me an appreciation for that rougher, less powerful version of the character. I've also watched the first two seasons of Lois & Clark, and while I dislike Dean Cain's Superman, I love his depiction of Clark. So these days, My Superman is the Bud Collyer Superman, my Clark is the Dean Cain Clark, and my Krypton is John Byrne's Krypton.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 16, 2019 22:46:40 GMT -5
"my" characters? Great question! Easy one first. The original Crystal. Of course. Butthat's sort of cheating: I don't know anyone who likes the post 1970 incarnation. Ooh, here's one for ya.. Medusa worked best as a villain. I'd have to go back and read those early FF issues to confirm, but my memory is that Kirby drew her differently when she was a villain - bigger, more majestic and physically imposing. But I could be remembering the difference between Kirby and later artists rather than between two stages of Kirby. Regardless, I do much prefer that earlier version, visually. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 17, 2019 23:28:02 GMT -5
Kyle Rayner is MY Green Lantern... I found Hal Jordan boring.. it was only the concept of the corps and the cool aliens that I liked... Kyle made it all WORK. Hal was only interesting when he fell and redeemed himself. I would have been very happy for him to remain the Spectre.
Wally West is MY Flash... Barry Allen is almost as boring as Hal.
In both cases, the writers took the concepts created in the silver age and took them further, making them work in a better way.
I love Dick Grayson as Nightwing.. the guy with Batman's fighting skills and Superman's leadership... the one man that can both unite and lead any group of heroes.
All in all, I loved the way the DCU was developing before they stopped doing so with Flashpoint/Infinite Crisis/etc and was looking forward to see what happened next.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 17, 2019 23:29:43 GMT -5
When did Cyclops become a villain? I am so out of the loop at times! I mean, I picked up an X-Men title (UK reprint) for the first time recently - and Cyclops is young/hanging around with the Champions while the original X-Men seem to be time displaced. Thank goodness for Wikipedia! Cyclops had been barely a hero since House of M... he went full villain during A v. X, when he killed Xavier (while powered by the Phoenix Force). The original X-Men got brought forward in time.. Cyclops left the others to be on his own at some point and ended up with the Champions. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 18, 2019 0:49:08 GMT -5
Here are a couple of the earlier Kirby Medusa images that I think are very different (and much superior) to later renditions by other artists:   Partly this is just a difference in style but mostly I think it's a difference in how the character is envisaged - and I definitely think later artists missed the boat when they ignored Kirby's original and just drew a generic attractive comic-book female plus long hair.
But then I think superhero artists in general tend to make their heroines too slight and fragile-looking, especially in comparison with the exaggeratedly heroic male figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 18, 2019 6:10:10 GMT -5
She did look more like She Hulk in the early version. You are right that most comic artists draw females to be smaller with big busoms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 18, 2019 6:42:53 GMT -5
Here are a couple of the earlier Kirby Medusa images that I think are very different (and much superior) to later renditions by other artists: [/div][/quote] Agreed! You’re also right about her looking much stronger here than in later renditions by other artists, a choice that was (I believe) unwarranted or even ill-advised. I loved how Andromeda (the Supergirl stand-in in the 5YL era of the Legion) towered over her male collleagues without losing any of her feminity; in the super-hero business, it is odd that so many women would look like malnourished models. Regarding Kirby, a lot of his designs were toned down and made more generic by other artists... Medusa up there is a good example, as in fact is the Wizard in the same picture. Kang the conqueror never looked so good as in his first Kriby-drawn appearance either. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Feb 18, 2019 7:14:35 GMT -5
Along those lines, I noticed how petite Frank Quitely made Lois Lane in All-Star Superman #3:  While Darwyn Cooke broke new ground in DC: The New Frontier by making Wonder Woman taller than Superman:  |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 18, 2019 7:15:17 GMT -5
She did look more like She Hulk in the early version. You are right that most comic artists draw females to be smaller with big busoms. That's telling in itself - that "She-Hulk", the female version of the monstrous Hulk, is the first character that comes to mind when you look for a comparison or for an example of one that isn't a willowy model-type. |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Feb 18, 2019 21:41:04 GMT -5
I wish more artists were inclined to draw brawnier superheroines/villainesses. The default Barbie template is incredibly boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2019 23:07:35 GMT -5
This is "My Medusa" ... Red Hair and Green Costume! ... Complimentary by Design ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 19, 2019 18:50:39 GMT -5
I've found that my love of comics history (and reading old comics in general) has altered my perceptions of "my" characters. Not only that, being a child of the 80's (I'm 41) my first encounter with most superheroes was in cartoons and merchandise, so what constitutes as the definitive take on certain characters is skewed further.
I think the best example is the Hulk, my favorite Marvel character. I first encountered him (I think) from the TV show and around the same time the short lived early 80's cartoon. The TV show was its own thing--even as a child I grasped that this really wasn't the same character that was appearing in toys, comics and cartoons. The cartoon, though, was clearly based off the classic Hulk from the 70's. When I started reading comics regularly, the Hulk had just turned gray and Peter David had just started his classic run. For all intents, David's Hulk should be my definitive take on the character. It's not. I think it's the best overall Hulk run, and I do love that era, but the definitive Hulk for me will always be the Hulk of the 70's, particularly the Wein/Trimpe/Buscema years. My favorite Hulk early, to be more specific, is probably 1975-1980.
The "Hulk Smash!" Hulk is simply the most unique version of the character. I've enjoyed other takes, but most, if we're honest, are basically amalgams of the Thing and Wolverine's personalities. I just prefer the sometimes loveable, sometimes scary, always misunderstood, man-monster that made the character iconic in the first place.
|
|
