|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2024 1:03:40 GMT -5
I was reflecting on mid-80's DC as I often do, and I still find it somewhat ironic that while Crisis was the big initial "continuity event", the most influential books on the medium were their out of continuity one-two punch with Dark Knight and Watchmen.
Which got me to thinking about Batman versus Superman during that era. Byrne's Superman was the big reboot to boost their flagship character back up again, with Crisis creating the path to launch it. And it had success no doubt, but I still feel like what Miller did with Dark Knight was the bigger game changer for the character in the long term. Batman would get some other help like visibility with the movie, but still I think the "dark and gritty" Batman that would continue to define his character (and the popularity that went with it) owes a lot to what Miller started.
Superman I think had struggled to find his place in comicdom as the Bronze Age proceeded, even with the movie exposure he similarly enjoyed earlier on. While history unfolded as we all know with the aforementioned Byrne run, I wonder if he could have benefited even more from someone who seemed to have an uncanny knack with "throwback" characters, and that would be Roy Thomas. I base this largely on his stellar All-Star Squadron run which unabashedly seemed to combine a love letter to classic comics with action storytelling that could still appease an 80's audience. While Roy was not shy to "expand" on characters as he saw fit, you still had this feeling these were the same people who had appeared during their classic publication years. Still a bit old-fashioned, but somehow in a most lovingly hip way.
I think Superman could have benefited from this, and the reason why is I think creators during the 70's into the 80's kept struggling to make Superman relevant still as the world and how it was reflected in comicdom was changing. Versus just embracing his old-fashioned appeal but somehow channeling that into something still appealing to modern day readers.
Of course Byrne had massive star power at that point, and was at the height of his powers, so for immediate impact it makes sense he was a top choice who again did deliver success. But could Roy have positioned a more "retro chic" Superman that could have gone more the distance for DC over the years similar to my comparison of what Miller did with the grittier take on Batman (which is something I don't feel Byrne fully accomplished)? Perhaps a bit of sketchy speculation, but I'd still love to hear opinions.
Again, my question is not simply would Thomas have "sold better" initially than Byrne, more whether he could have created a more definitive reference for the years to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2024 1:29:36 GMT -5
As I think about my own question here, I do think it "could" have been done at least to some extent despite the changing times. A later example that comes to mind is what Darwyn Cooke accomplished with Superman in New Frontier, you get a character where you can clearly see his classic comic book roots. He's still an idealization of patriotism and a classic sense of justice, yet a scene like his confrontation with Wonder Woman is a more provocative look at tougher questions that challenge those ideals. It neither dismisses the legacy of who he is nor ignores more modern questions on ethics and the role of heroes.
Again, my focus here is more on Roy specifically during the 80's, but the Cooke example suggests to me there could have been some more enduring appeal of this Superman approach in the right creative hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by majestic on Mar 13, 2024 6:19:31 GMT -5
I loved Roy Thomas All Star Squadron but I don't think he would have set sales on fire on Superman. He was great at revisiting the past and making things "fit". I don't think he could have updated Superman in 1986 to make him more viable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2024 7:09:36 GMT -5
I loved Roy Thomas All Star Squadron but I don't think he would have set sales on fire on Superman. He was great at revisiting the past and making things "fit". I don't think he could have updated Superman in 1986 to make him more viable. I don't know that he would have either, but despite the success Byrne had, it never felt like a defining run on Superman to me. Honestly, I think his later Elseworlds Generations was better than any of his regular run. Another example to me of a "retro style" Superman character that worked well was Busiek's Samaritan in Astro City. Again, clearly a nod to the past, yet somehow worked perfectly well in a 90's era series. But I think you're right and others will likely agree, if it was about the $$$ at the time, Byrne made a lot of sense. I just like wondering what might have been, I don't know that Byrne (much as I like John) really had as great a vision for Superman as others might have. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2024 7:28:22 GMT -5
Even on the sales front, I question the lasting power as well. The early success did decline, and by 1992 it was the "Death of Superman" gimmick. Superman may never have been ultimately positioned as well as say X-Men or Batman going into that era, but my premise (however shaky it may be) is that he might have had a more solid/stable niche with an "outside of the box" (for that time) approach that more embraced what made him interesting in the first place.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,866
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 13, 2024 7:41:46 GMT -5
Byrne seemed like a sure thing when he was hired on. As I've argued here, DC already had a pretty good idea of what they were looking for from the relaunch and just needed someone with a built-in fandom to attach to the project. I think you can absolutely argue that Byrne ran it into the ground (I still firmly believe the entire reason Action Comics Weekly happened was as an excuse for DC to boot Byrne off the title in response to his extremely questionable decisions in Action Comics #592 and #593), but it's important to keep in mind that Superman's greatest value to Warner at the time (and still today) was as a license/trademark. The Chris Reeves movies were still dominating at the box office, and a six year old shaxper was buying the action figures, wearing the pajamas, and watching Super Powers: Galactic Guardians on TV. So, while DC wanted to make Superman's books a success again, they also didn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They were only going to allow so much change. The Batman license was far less of a prized possession by this point. There were action figures, coloring books, and PJs too, but Batman was still hopelessly attached to the West/Ward television series in the collective cultural consciousness. Miller had more freedom to stir the pot, so to speak. That being said, he certainly wasn't the first to make Batman darker and more over the top. He just made it less subtle and more unhinged. Also worth noting: DKR was not originally intended to be a Post-Crisis reset of the property. It was sort of a pre-cursor to Elseworlds, intended to exist in its own space without affecting the larger franchise, as was the follow-up Year One. But DC saw where the sales and media attention were and shifted gears in response. I can't speak to whether Roy Thomas would have been a better choice for Superman, but I'm relatively sure it was never going to happen. DC wanted a BIG name; even Marv Wolfman's name wasn't big enough. In 1986, the name "Roy Thomas" wasn't going to command that power. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Mar 13, 2024 7:51:43 GMT -5
As I think about my own question here, I do think it "could" have been done at least to some extent despite the changing times. A later example that comes to mind is what Darwyn Cooke accomplished with Superman in New Frontier, you get a character where you can clearly see his classic comic book roots. He's still an idealization of patriotism and a classic sense of justice, yet a scene like his confrontation with Wonder Woman is a more provocative look at tougher questions that challenge those ideals. It neither dismisses the legacy of who he is nor ignores more modern questions on ethics and the role of heroes. Again, my focus here is more on Roy specifically during the 80's, but the Cooke example suggests to me there could have been some more enduring appeal of this Superman approach in the right creative hands. Agreed. I could probably write the same post and add the name Grant Morrison, from his time on All-Star Superman. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2024 8:35:13 GMT -5
Also worth noting: DKR was not originally intended to be a Post-Crisis reset of the property. It was sort of a pre-cursor to Elseworlds, intended to exist in its own space without affecting the larger franchise, as was the follow-up Year One. But DC saw where the sales and media attention were and shifted gears in response. That's actually the key point to me, it was the non-continuity event that really was groundbreaking for Batman. A crazy concept...the quality of storytelling transcended the "larger editorial plans" for the mainstream series. That's where I'm going with this thread. You could have never done Dark Night and instead Byrne could have come over at that time and done Batman instead. I bet you would have gotten a sales boost as well. But would it have been as defining for the character in the long run? Now I don't know that Roy would have had a "Dark Knight" magnitude impact on Superman by any means, but he is one of the few creators I can think of at that time who seemed to have some magic with characters who might have stuggled to be relevant in the 80's in other creators' hands. But I'll throw another idea out there...if we want to go a little more "star power", what if Alan Moore had taken over instead of Byrne? Now, he wasn't going to get license to be as subversive as say with Watchmen, but it was established he could write in a more mainstream context and he clearly had deep knowledge of and affinity for classic comics. Again, this is not to bash the job Byrne did overall, nor questioning if it was a good business move. More just a reflection of could there have been something more character-defining creatively speaking. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2024 8:36:08 GMT -5
As I think about my own question here, I do think it "could" have been done at least to some extent despite the changing times. A later example that comes to mind is what Darwyn Cooke accomplished with Superman in New Frontier, you get a character where you can clearly see his classic comic book roots. He's still an idealization of patriotism and a classic sense of justice, yet a scene like his confrontation with Wonder Woman is a more provocative look at tougher questions that challenge those ideals. It neither dismisses the legacy of who he is nor ignores more modern questions on ethics and the role of heroes. Again, my focus here is more on Roy specifically during the 80's, but the Cooke example suggests to me there could have been some more enduring appeal of this Superman approach in the right creative hands. Agreed. I could probably write the same post and add the name Grant Morrison, from his time on All-Star Superman. Yep, another good example of someone who really just "got it" in my opinion as well. |
|
|
|
Post by majestic on Mar 13, 2024 8:38:14 GMT -5
IMO at that time the only writer that could embrace Superman's past and make it interesting in 1986 was Alan Moore. His Supreme in the 90s was a great home to Silver Age Superman plus his excellent Superman Annual featuring Mongul showed he "got" Superman.
|
|
|
|
Post by majestic on Mar 13, 2024 8:39:25 GMT -5
Guess we all had the same thoughts 😅
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2024 8:44:13 GMT -5
Guess we all had the same thoughts 😅 Let's face it...Alan Moore made everything better back in the day. End of thread lol. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,866
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 13, 2024 8:44:31 GMT -5
But I'll throw another idea out there...if we want to go a little more "star power", what if Alan Moore had taken over instead of Byrne? Now, he wasn't going to get license to be as subversive as say with Watchmen, but it was established he could write in a more mainstream context and he clearly had deep knowledge of and affinity for classic comics. beat me to it in invoking Supreme. I agree this would be interesting, but it would probably mean not getting "Whatever Happened to The Man of Tomorrow," and that would be a shame. I think I liked Moore's vision of the classic Superman more than any deconstructed darker version he might give us. Oh, I'm absolutely on board with bashing Byrne, but I do understand your intent and think it's a fun idea. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Mar 13, 2024 8:46:40 GMT -5
Agreed. I could probably write the same post and add the name Grant Morrison, from his time on All-Star Superman. Yep, another good example of someone who really just "got it" in my opinion as well. I believe Superman is timeless in many respects, and the likes of Morrison and Cooke seemed to get that. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,866
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 13, 2024 8:51:07 GMT -5
In the end, maybe this boils down to a question of what qualities a successful rebooted Superman would need to have. I personally feel that the best way to "depower" him is to tell stories more focused on the life of Clark Kent, dealing with street-level ordeals that can't be solved with powers. It's exactly why I love Lex Luthor as corporate mogul and why the Triangle Era is my favorite.
I also think Clark needs to be wholesome and emblematic of all the virtues we aspire to, showing us that good character and integrity save the day every bit as much as super powers.
All that considered, I think Paul Kupperberg might have been an interesting choice to reinvent Superman. of course, he was even less of an A list name than Roy Thomas in 1986.
|
|
