Batman-Online.com

As the title clearly states, this thread is for anything and everything related to the Man of Steel's 80th anniversary. Anything from fan art to music videos or any other kind of tribute is welcome here, so feel free to post anything interesting you find throughout the year ahead.


Here are some variant covers for Action Comics #1000.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rai.it%2Fdl%2Fimg%2F2013%2F06%2F1370837175988Supermanok.jpeg&hash=7e740d290a3c7414d251adec54d6d59f345a8211)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fart.cafimg.com%2Fimages%2FCategory_65103%2Fsubcat_114112%2Fdonsupeybyrne.jpg&hash=b3f280feb0b0512e1f510f384b44e30972f97d2f)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4UH0gX2u3I

(https://worldwideart-worldwideart.netdna-ssl.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/a/l/alex-ross-framed-superman-portrait-signed.jpg)

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1442/6668/products/SMFOREVER-ROSS-web800_1024x1024.jpg?v=1511369514)

These are the comics I was reading back in the day:

(https://lemurcomics.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/supe_nuts.jpg)
(https://i1.wp.com/www.podcastdequadrinhos.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/superman-red-superman-blue-1998--630x353.jpg?zoom=2&resize=593%2C332)

They had me interested, no doubt about it.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3695.0;attach=475;image)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkultstudio.com%2F__data%2Fe1aff0563ff5d19c481514fd750b05ec.jpg&hash=ce39d341e649c76d6faa9c367f537efcf2d5de56)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgeekshizzle.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2Falex-ross-superman-and-batman-02.jpg&hash=fccfc45582218657a3f116aac7f352602e174dd6)

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lMZn5W12UQc/maxresdefault.jpg)

In case I haven't made myself abundantly clear, I love Alex Ross's artwork including his Supes.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Floser-city.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2FAll-Star-Superman-Suicide-Prevention-Week.jpg&hash=9231cb5c40ce94af64fbb4c61759cb54baaa0db2)

(https://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/the_man_of_steel-040-600x889.jpg)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_RLW6Q9zp1hM%2FTPRmvfj6c9I%2FAAAAAAAAAgk%2FGjSrhnpGHp8%2Fs1600%2F000.jpg&hash=461b787270f85778468028db32eae13098feabe2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WPQPLB_fJA

(https://i.imgur.com/YBSuah0.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/wESQaXZ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/lKoOguS.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/ZeS7Of7.gif)

I'm going to try and find a copy of Action #1000 today.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 18 Apr  2018, 19:44I'm going to try and find a copy of Action #1000 today.

I'm going to try and pick up a copy myself at the weekend. Superman + Bendis is an intriguing combo.


Meanwhile Henry Cavill has paid his respects to the character on Instagram with the following message.

QuoteFor 80 years he has been saving our tails and indeed perhaps our souls. Inspiring us to be greater than we thought ourselves able. He's certainly changed me, given me hope, allowed me space to push myself beyond the limits of my patience. Truly, what would a world be without Superman? He paved the way for all of our favourite heroes even if he's not yours personally.
A huuuuge thank you to the incredibly talented artists and writers over the years who have given us so much. Within us, Superman will now live no matter how old he gets. Happy Birthday my friend.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BhuwrgEld7p/?utm_source=ig_embed

Not posting them all but here's a Facebook post on Alex Ross' page with a lot of his Superman art.

https://www.facebook.com/alexrossart/posts/2047202208831504

The Superman comics are about to receive the greatest anniversary gift of all – the return of Nuclear Man (aka Nuke-you-lur Man), courtesy of Brian Michael Bendis.


I just hope Bendis does a better job on this than he did with his recent Defenders Vol 5 run.

Ok. Gus Gorman can't be too far away.

But will they explore his alleged romantic history with Jor-El?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  7 Jul  2018, 19:27
But will they explore his alleged romantic history with Jor-El?

Whaa?

https://www.eonline.com/uk/news/912437/richard-pryor-and-marlon-brando-slept-together-comedian-s-widow-reveals

(https://i.imgur.com/B8QjZqG.gif)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  8 Jul  2018, 06:57
https://www.eonline.com/uk/news/912437/richard-pryor-and-marlon-brando-slept-together-comedian-s-widow-reveals

I need to bleach my mind now, thx.

Happy 82nd Anniversary to the Man of Tomorrow!

I found this cool backstory to the front cover of Action Comics #1.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X6oFnzrCguU/WtOrphX_HdI/AAAAAAAAEtY/7PuPp31G0dE_6OWwCXis_D4W5lH5yjNlwCLcBGAs/s1600/Action_Page.jpg)

;D

All jokes aside though, I remember reading of Secret Origins' retelling of Golden Age Superman's backstory and debut, and got curious to read the original first two issues of Action Comics.

One detail that I loved is how Siegel and Shuster presented Superman as the basis of real world science, using insect strength (i.e. ants' ability to lift objects a hundred times above their weight and grasshoppers ability to leap high) to present the fantasy as somewhat plausible to the reading audience. I can only imagine having a little educational tidbit while introducing a fun new character would've made lots of kids dreamed of the impossible back in those days. Put that together with Superman as a crimefighter who gets his hands dirty by using his hands to fight injustice, there's little wonder why this guy had such an appeal to kids at such a young age.

And man, just like the Fleischer cartoons, did he kick ass. Unlike the consensus you read nowadays on the Internet, Superman didn't hold back. Nor was he afraid to intimidate crooks with his strength and threats of violence.

(https://i.imgur.com/bvmvrL9.jpg)

As a matter of fact, similar to Golden Age Batman, this Superman is apparently not too afraid to use lethal force, as he sees the perpetrators getting what they deserve for their deviancy.

(https://i.imgur.com/IVIH3BF.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/tWmZ5Fq.jpg)

He was hard, direct and dealt with matters ranged from domestic abuse, gangsters and political disputes. I love how as Superman gets involved in a South American war that the US is profiting via the sale of munitions, he forces a corrupt congressman looking to take advantage of the situation to enlist in the war as a soldier. Even going so far to disguise himself as a soldier to make sure the politician doesn't try to escape, as a means to teach him a lesson by forcing him to experience the horrors of war.

In fact, the moral of the story extended to the two rival countries fighting in the war, as Superman abducted both commanders made them see how the pointlessness of the war. Very idealistic, but an appropriate story to tell to kids given what was going in the world at that period of time. Nowadays, any comic that explores Superman getting involved in political matters tend to explore dilemmas surrounding his involvement e.g. does having too much power make Superman too invasive, whether or not he should have the right to intervene such matters, and how the rest of the world might perceive him as an existential threat? Is it way cynical way to explore Superman's relationship with the world at large? Should he EVER get involved in any political matters? Depends who you ask, but it can provide great dialogue.

One criticism I have for these two issues is Lois Lane. Man, I know meekness might be a turn-off, but Lois showing her contempt for Clark for not fighting back at that gangster is pretty cold. Worst damsel in distress ever, if I were Superman, I'd let her rot.

A fun little read on how Superman debuted back in 1938.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 29 Apr  2020, 14:15
All jokes aside though, I remember reading of Secret Origins' retelling of Golden Age Superman's backstory and debut, and got curious to read the original first two issues of Action Comics.

One detail that I loved is how Siegel and Shuster presented Superman as the basis of real world science, using insect strength (i.e. ants' ability to lift objects a hundred times above their weight and grasshoppers ability to leap high) to present the fantasy as somewhat plausible to the reading audience. I can only imagine having a little educational tidbit while introducing a fun new character would've made lots of kids dreamed of the impossible back in those days. Put that together with Superman as a crimefighter who gets his hands dirty by using his hands to fight injustice, there's little wonder why this guy had such an appeal to kids at such a young age.

And man, just like the Fleischer cartoons, did he kick ass. Unlike the consensus you read nowadays on the Internet, Superman didn't hold back. Nor was he afraid to intimidate crooks with his strength and threats of violence.

(https://i.imgur.com/bvmvrL9.jpg)

As a matter of fact, similar to Golden Age Batman, this Superman is apparently not too afraid to use lethal force, as he sees the perpetrators getting what they deserve for their deviancy.

(https://i.imgur.com/IVIH3BF.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/tWmZ5Fq.jpg)

He was hard, direct and dealt with matters ranged from domestic abuse, gangsters and political disputes. I love how as Superman gets involved in a South American war that the US is profiting via the sale of munitions, he forces a corrupt congressman looking to take advantage of the situation to enlist in the war as a soldier. Even going so far to disguise himself as a soldier to make sure the politician doesn't try to escape, as a means to teach him a lesson by forcing him to experience the horrors of war.

In fact, the moral of the story extended to the two rival countries fighting in the war, as Superman abducted both commanders made them see how the pointlessness of the war. Very idealistic, but an appropriate story to tell to kids given what was going in the world at that period of time. Nowadays, any comic that explores Superman getting involved in political matters tend to explore dilemmas surrounding his involvement e.g. does having too much power make Superman too invasive, whether or not he should have the right to intervene such matters, and how the rest of the world might perceive him as an existential threat? Is it way cynical way to explore Superman's relationship with the world at large? Should he EVER get involved in any political matters? Depends who you ask, but it can provide great dialogue.

One criticism I have for these two issues is Lois Lane. Man, I know meekness might be a turn-off, but Lois showing her contempt for Clark for not fighting back at that gangster is pretty cold. Worst damsel in distress ever, if I were Superman, I'd let her rot.

A fun little read on how Superman debuted back in 1938.

One of the big takeaways I have of early Golden Age Superman is how much I don't enjoy Joe Shuster's take on Superman. It's amazing to think that the other artists in his studio (John Sikela, in particular) all had vastly more interesting artwork than Superman's actual co-creator.

As to the business of Superman killing in those early issues, yeah, he was a two-fisted, no-nonsense, FDR-style New Dealer. Rough and ready justice. Shuster's kind of weak art aside, that's a very powerful, very primitive and very hard-nosed version of Superman. In fact, that's probably a huge factor behind why I adore Unbreakable so much. Because it's pretty clear that The Overseer draws a LOT of inspiration from the very early issues of Action Comics.

Honestly, I think the virtual extinction of the classic Golden Age Superman is one of the great tragedies of the character's whole history. You can restore Batman to something close enough to the original Finger/Kane version without sacrificing too much of anything. But restoring Superman to his early Golden Age iteration necessarily involves deleting decade upon decade of innovation. I understand the reluctance to return Superman back to that point since it really is a drastic reduction. But that early Siegel/Shuster stuff has a lot of potential and the vast majority of it has never been explored.

I don't usually recommend The New 52. But Grant Morrison's run on Action Comics vol. 02 featured a version of Superman kinda sorta similar to the Golden Age version. It doesn't last very long, unfortunately. But it's by far the closest Superman has been to the 1938 original since 1938, probably.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 29 Apr  2020, 14:15
One criticism I have for these two issues is Lois Lane. Man, I know meekness might be a turn-off, but Lois showing her contempt for Clark for not fighting back at that gangster is pretty cold. Worst damsel in distress ever, if I were Superman, I'd let her rot.

Reading this makes me hark back to something I read awhile ago about readers not liking John Byrne's handling of Lois Lane during his tenure on the books at the very start of the Post-Crisis era. Though, if I am not mistaken, Byrne himself has admitted to being more of a Clark/Lana Lang shipper than Clark/Lois.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 29 Apr  2020, 23:57

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 29 Apr  2020, 14:15
One criticism I have for these two issues is Lois Lane. Man, I know meekness might be a turn-off, but Lois showing her contempt for Clark for not fighting back at that gangster is pretty cold. Worst damsel in distress ever, if I were Superman, I'd let her rot.

Reading this makes me hark back to something I read awhile ago about readers not liking John Byrne's handling of Lois Lane during his tenure on the books at the very start of the Post-Crisis era. Though, if I am not mistaken, Byrne himself has admitted to being more of a Clark/Lana Lang shipper than Clark/Lois.

I got the idea that he never really bought into the Clark/Lois romance. He acknowledged that the mythos required it but he wasn't convinced by it.

Frankly, the older I get, the more I agree. There was a time when I was half@$$ concerned that Lana would supplant Lois in the mythos. Now, I could sooner envision Lois supplanting Lana.

In fairness to everybody concerned, Lana and Lois were both created to serve pretty similar purposes in the character's life so it makes sense that they'd eventually threaten each other's narrative turf.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 29 Apr  2020, 20:08
Honestly, I think the virtual extinction of the classic Golden Age Superman is one of the great tragedies of the character's whole history. You can restore Batman to something close enough to the original Finger/Kane version without sacrificing too much of anything. But restoring Superman to his early Golden Age iteration necessarily involves deleting decade upon decade of innovation. I understand the reluctance to return Superman back to that point since it really is a drastic reduction. But that early Siegel/Shuster stuff has a lot of potential and the vast majority of it has never been explored.

You're the Superman guy. I respect your expert opinion especially on that front.

I have four questions you may or may not want to answer:

What innovations do you see as positive and which do you see as negative?
Would you welcome a complete return to the original incarnation?
Would you deem that early depiction to be identifiable enough as SUPERMAN?
What are your thoughts on the current state of the Superman brand and where does it go to from here?

I can't speak for Superman comics all that much, but I welcome the innovations that have come with time regarding Batman.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 01:53You're the Superman guy. I respect your expert opinion especially on that front.

Thank you.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 01:53What innovations do you see as positive and which do you see as negative?

There's a germ of truth to that whole "Superman is too powerful" bit. A lot of writers think in terms of physically challenging the hero. And if that's the only thing you have in your bag of tricks, writing Superman will be a tough job.

At the end of the day, the customer is always right. I think the gigantic array of powers Superman possesses is a bit too much for some people. I think DC would probably have aided their own cause 30+ years ago if they'd settled on four basic powers for Superman and deleted the rest. Superman must fly (at least in theory). Superman must be "invulnerable". Superman must have super-strength. So pick whatever you want as the fourth ability and remove the rest.

From there, put those four powers on a lower spectrum. People love the Fleischer Superman so I'd recommend something along those lines.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 01:53Would you welcome a complete return to the original incarnation?

At this point? Yeah, probably. And here I refer to Action Comics #01. The whole low-powered, two-fisted social crusader thing.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 01:53Would you deem that early depiction to be identifiable enough as SUPERMAN?

I think so. And I think a Superman who "stands up for the common man" has a lot of potential appeal to audiences.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 01:53What are your thoughts on the current state of the Superman brand and where does it go to from here?

What I know of modern day Superman doesn't sound appealing. Bendis has had Superman go public with his true identity. That solves a problem, admittedly. Superman doesn't wear a mask. Neither does Clark. We live in a world of facial recognition software. Do the math. So Superman outing himself avoids that problem.

Frankly, if that was the best idea Bendis had for dealing with that problem, he's a piss-poor writer. There are tons of ways to address that problem that don't require identity disclosures, masks or anything else.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 01:53I can't speak for Superman comics all that much, but I welcome the innovations that have come with time regarding Batman.

The innovations to Batman basically built upon what was already there in The Case Of The Chemical Syndicate. You're hard-pressed to find too much GENUINE CANON of Batman that contradicts what was shown in TCOTCS.

Plus, obviously Batman benefits from change.

The changes made to Superman are different inasmuch as some of the core essentials introduced in Action Comics #01 were made obsolete over time. A good example is the wife beater in that story. Superman arrives on the scene and kicks him around a little bit. Back in those days, stuff that we would consider today to be spousal abuse was generally legal in the US. But Golden Age Superman rose above the law and asserted what Siegel believed to be MORAL TRUTH. Namely, a man shouldn't beat up his wife. That was not a unanimously held opinion back then.

By contrast, in the 90's there was a two-part story called Crisis At Hand which took that one moment from Action #01 and made an entire story out of it. Superman tried to intervene in a domestic dispute, he beat the husband around a little bit, the wife called the cops on Superman and only the fact that he's Superman spared him from criminal prosecution.

Point being that in the current year, Superman is subservient to the laws of man where his Golden Age counterpart made little effort operate within the parameters of the law. If he saw a problem, he'd set it as straight as he could, using his bare hands if necessary. And if setting things right meant breaking the law, he was happy to do it.

There are all manner of possible explanations for why that changed. Golden Age Superman wasn't physically capable of wiping out all life on Earth. He could be stopped permanently by human means if it ever came down to it. That version of Superman flouting the law probably wasn't terrifying to anybody. But modern Superman is so vastly powerful that, as per BVS, it's truly terrifying to think what might be possible if he openly and unapologetically broke the law. Because if he does that, it's one more reminder that (A) he can kill the entire human race if he ever decides he wants to and (B) there is literally no way to stop him.

So that could be why Superman these days is usually written to be so passive and slow to action. Because deep down inside, the reader must believe in the rightness of his action before they can be thrilled by the action itself. A different literary transaction occurs in modern Superman stories compared to the Golden Age ones. The changes brought to Superman just in his range of powers necessitate changes be made to his essential character as originally established in Action #01 because the context of his actions are so different based upon the scale and scope of his powers.

Again, that's not a problem for Batman. Sure, Batman unapologetically took human life in his early appearances. But that's a negotiable aspect of his character. It's hardly chiseled in stone either way that Batman is committed to kill or that he's committed to never kill. Writers, artists, filmmakers, animators, etc, all have pretty wide latitude with Batman. But Superman taking life, particularly human life, has a certain emotional context in a Golden Age setting and a very different context in a modern setting.

Of course, a return to "social crusader Superman" inevitably leaves the character wide open to certain political ramifications but we would do well to steer clear of that in this thread. But you know exactly what I mean here. Comic writers these days probably have a very different idea of what a "social crusader Superman" should do and say in 2020.

Honestly, there's so much more to say. But I've typed too much already. I just hope you don't regret asking. :D

Thanks for the response.

I don't find enjoyment in saying this but I think the future of the character is DOA unless something drastic happens.

I think it's a perfect storm of modern irrelevancy and long term neglect. It goes to show that something big can fail. A McDonald's store isn't going to be an automatic success just because of the brand. If a new franchise opens up on the corner with slow and rude service, and a poorly made product, that franchise will close. Batman and Spider-Man are big franchises but still require a steady stream of content (and good content at that) to keep enthusiasm and momentum. Superman has neither right now. There may be disappointments along the way with Batman media, but they can be taken easier if the track record is still mostly good, and needs are being met elsewhere.

Cavill is being aged out of the role and will NEVER wear the cape again. They're making a new Lois and Clark show, and if that flops...boy....it's really panic stations. I already have huge problems with that depiction anyway. The comics right now, from what I've skimmed, aren't my thing. So I don't know what the hell they're going to do to stop the slide.

If I were in charge I'd commission a video game, and MAKE SURE it was Arkham/Spider-Man PS4 quality. That's a start. Say what you want about that format, but these games generate a lot of excitement - especially in the younger demographic which represents an entry point. Such a game would show the character is fun, and would start to generate positive chatter, which is exactly that's what the brand needs. I love Superman, believe it or not, especially the Animated Series. But you can't ride on those memories forever. Worrying times indeed.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 07:51
Thanks for the response.

I don't find enjoyment in saying this but I think the future of the character is DOA unless something drastic happens.

I think it's a perfect storm of modern irrelevancy and long term neglect. It goes to show that something big can fail. A McDonald's store isn't going to be an automatic success just because of the brand. If a new franchise opens up on the corner with slow and rude service, and a poorly made product, that franchise will close. Batman and Spider-Man are big franchises but still require a steady stream of content (and good content at that) to keep enthusiasm and momentum. Superman has neither right now. There may be disappointments along the way with Batman media, but they can be taken easier if the track record is still mostly good, and needs are being met elsewhere.

Cavill is being aged out of the role and will NEVER wear the cape again. They're making a new Lois and Clark show, and if that flops...boy....it's really panic stations. I already have huge problems with that depiction anyway. The comics right now, from what I've skimmed, aren't my thing. So I don't know what the hell they're going to do to stop the slide.

If I were in charge I'd commission a video game, and MAKE SURE it was Arkham/Spider-Man PS4 quality. That's a start. Say what you want about that format, but these games generate a lot of excitement - especially in the younger demographic which represents an entry point. Such a game would show the character is fun, and would start to generate positive chatter, which is exactly that's what the brand needs. I love Superman, believe it or not, especially the Animated Series. But you can't ride on those memories forever. Worrying times indeed.

I agree about Superman's longterm prospects. I have loved the character my entire life as you probably remember, but even my enthusiasm has been tamped down in recent times. There are many reasons for that. Superman is simply the most obvious victim.

These days, my tastes have run more toward horror comics and away from superheroes entirely. I have gotten a lot more enjoyment from the various horror comics I've been reading than anything new to do with superhero comics.

You do raise a good point about Batman and Spider-Man. Both of them have had successful blockbuster films, well regarded animated series, popular video games, enjoyable animated features and not-so-horrible comics in recent times to attract audiences. Superman has mostly had nothing.

I kind of don't care anymore. Even if DC can set up alternative distribution outside of Diamond, the comic book direct market is done, son. All of the energy these days is with crowdfunding.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 12:48
You do raise a good point about Batman and Spider-Man. Both of them have had successful blockbuster films, well regarded animated series, popular video games, enjoyable animated features and not-so-horrible comics in recent times to attract audiences. Superman has mostly had nothing.

I kind of don't care anymore. Even if DC can set up alternative distribution outside of Diamond, the comic book direct market is done, son. All of the energy these days is with crowdfunding.

Yeah. Superman has been left behind big time, and while I like past content, overall I don't care for character's current trajectory.

I cycle through interests and a lot of that has to do with how I'm feeling at the time. I went through a big Matrix phase earlier in the year. I'm still a big fan, but I also like a lot of other things. The recent weeks I've really been feeling Spider-Man, and last weekend I binge watched a ton of Brave and the Bold. Superman hasn't come up on my radar for quite some time.

I am now feeling the urge to read books, which is probably my favorite thing to do. Sitting in silence and absorbing the psychological meaning of each page. Charles Manson and Jim Jones are my subject matters of choice this time after exploring similar personalities to near exhaustion. I'm fascinated by cults, persuasion and their deeds.

If DC evoked the winning STAS template they'd be on the right track. But instead the brand is frozen in its tracks, unsure of itself and redundant. The recent animated content has focused heavily on the Doomsday arc, which is a mistake. It has pigeonholed the character as only having power and meaning in such a storyline, and again does not offer variety to the audience. The Elseworlds Red Son movie wasn't what the brand needed right now either.

Just a mess.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 14:07I cycle through interests and a lot of that has to do with how I'm feeling at the time.

I call this the Fanboy Muse. The fan will indulge heavily in one of his interests at a given time and then something else a week or a month or however long later. I consider this to be evidence of (A) above-average intelligence and (B) a wide variety of interests.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 14:07I went through a big Matrix phase earlier in the year. I'm still a big fan, but I also like a lot of other things. The recent weeks I've really been feeling Spider-Man, and last weekend I binge watched a ton of Brave and the Bold. Superman hasn't come up on my radar for quite some time.

Different but the same. I went through a general villain fixation starting in the fall last year. After that, I believe it was Scorsese films. After that was horror movies. And now, horror comics.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 14:07I am now feeling the urge to read books, which is probably my favorite thing to do. Sitting in silence and absorbing the psychological meaning of each page. Charles Manson and Jim Jones are my subject matters of choice this time after exploring similar personalities to near exhaustion. I'm fascinated by cults, persuasion and their deeds.

Same here. I went through a phase where I absorbed every documentary I could find about Ted Bundy, Manson, The Zodiac and some others.

I find the potential overlap between charismatic serial killers and deadly cults to be fertile ground for analysis that not very many people seem to want to do.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 14:07If DC evoked the winning STAS template they'd be on the right track. But instead the brand is frozen in its tracks, unsure of itself and redundant. The recent animated content has focused heavily on the Doomsday arc, which is a mistake. It has pigeonholed the character as only having power and meaning in such a storyline, and again does not offer variety to the audience. The Elseworlds Red Son movie wasn't what the brand needed right now either.

Just a mess.

The perception a lot of audiences likely have is that Superman has two stories:

01- Origin
02- Death

Even Snyder unwittingly played into that a little bit. He was removed before he could complete his story and by now, the damage is done. DC doesn't really like Superman and they don't know what to do with him. They went through a phase at one point where they wanted Superman to be Batman with powers and that just doesn't work.

I predict that DC Comics will eventually be shut down by AT&T. AT&T will then license the comic book characters out to other publishers. And I suspect those publishers will be able to develop Superman specifically in ways that DC just doesn't have the vision for anymore.

PM me your email address if you want.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 15:26
The perception a lot of audiences likely have is that Superman has two stories:

01- Origin
02- Death

Even Snyder unwittingly played into that a little bit. He was removed before he could complete his story and by now, the damage is done. DC doesn't really like Superman and they don't know what to do with him. They went through a phase at one point where they wanted Superman to be Batman with powers and that just doesn't work.

The overused mind control trope and Superman as Batman's punching bag are other problematic trends which can't help but lessen his stature. Superman has become a stranger people can't be bothered reconnecting with.

I have to say this part: the underlying concept of Superman being an illegal alien journalist in the woke 2020 context makes Superman even less appealing FOR ME going forward. When I see something like 'Superman Smashes the Klan' I shake my head. Nazis and KKK are bad, we are told, and you shouldn't have a problem with the premise of such a comic. The problem is that we are told to punch Nazis, and the modern news media labels members of the public Nazis. The standard to meet that label these days is very low indeed. It's a completely one sided conversation and depiction in the entertainment industry. The powers that be seek to establish the acceptable social norm, and go against that norm if you dare. Using a character that is already struggling to sell your politics isn't wise. But onwards they go.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri,  1 May  2020, 06:35

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 15:26
The perception a lot of audiences likely have is that Superman has two stories:

01- Origin
02- Death

Even Snyder unwittingly played into that a little bit. He was removed before he could complete his story and by now, the damage is done. DC doesn't really like Superman and they don't know what to do with him. They went through a phase at one point where they wanted Superman to be Batman with powers and that just doesn't work.

The overused mind control trope and Superman as Batman's punching bag are other problematic trends which can't help but lessen his stature. Superman has become a stranger people can't be bothered reconnecting with.

I have to say this part: the underlying concept of Superman being an illegal alien journalist in the woke 2020 context makes Superman even less appealing FOR ME going forward. When I see something like 'Superman Smashes the Klan' I shake my head. Nazis and KKK are bad, we are told, and you shouldn't have a problem with the premise of such a comic. The problem is that we are told to punch Nazis, and the modern news media labels members of the public Nazis. The standard to meet that label these days is very low indeed. It's a completely one sided conversation and depiction in the entertainment industry. The powers that be seek to establish the acceptable social norm, and go against that norm if you dare. Using a character that is already struggling to sell your politics isn't wise. But onwards they go.

The most horrifying moment of any fan's existence is realizing that if the Marvel characters existed irl, we ourselves would probably be their targets because of our, shall we say, normie policy views.

Marvel characters are basically supervillains that nobody is allowed to call supervillains.

It's not quite that bad with DC. Yet. And it may never be if DC ceases to exist soon (which is my expectation). But you are right about the bar being set low as far who is a "Nazi" in today's world.

The interesting thing is how the Golden Age Superman didn't have an explicit political agenda. People describe him as Roosevelet-esque. And I understand that as useful shorthand. There's even some accuracy to it. But if one is familiar with Roosevelt's actual record (not the revisionist nonsense that's been attached to his legend) then you see Golden Age Superman breaking away from Roosevelt several times in Action Comics #01 alone.

Frankly, I think DC's overall disinterest in Superman is probably the only thing that's protected him from becoming a far-left mascot like Captain America has become.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 30 Apr  2020, 03:54Golden Age Superman wasn't physically capable of wiping out all life on Earth. He could be stopped permanently by human means if it ever came down to it. That version of Superman flouting the law probably wasn't terrifying to anybody. But modern Superman is so vastly powerful that, as per BVS, it's truly terrifying to think what might be possible if he openly and unapologetically broke the law. Because if he does that, it's one more reminder that (A) he can kill the entire human race if he ever decides he wants to and (B) there is literally no way to stop him.

Circling back to power levels.

Some cite the All Star Superman panel as their favorite, but mine is from TDK Returns.

(https://i.ibb.co/G2msTsz/4-C1-D7-F23-CCE9-483-D-8-DD6-DA0-BA619949-D.jpg)

The key phrase that is an ENORMOUS source of inspiration to me is "if I am weak", which is pure self belief and macho grunt. I wouldn't even need the artwork of Superman's tiny body stopping the nuke, just that phrase. But the art is an added bonus. It presents Superman with odds worthy of his power level, he saves the day and suffers damage because of it. Something has to be done, so it will be done. Love it. It would be the equivalent of Spider-Man lifting the rubble, showing vulnerability and willpower.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 29 Apr  2020, 23:57

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 29 Apr  2020, 14:15
One criticism I have for these two issues is Lois Lane. Man, I know meekness might be a turn-off, but Lois showing her contempt for Clark for not fighting back at that gangster is pretty cold. Worst damsel in distress ever, if I were Superman, I'd let her rot.

Reading this makes me hark back to something I read awhile ago about readers not liking John Byrne's handling of Lois Lane during his tenure on the books at the very start of the Post-Crisis era. Though, if I am not mistaken, Byrne himself has admitted to being more of a Clark/Lana Lang shipper than Clark/Lois.

Ha ha, Lois was certainly willing to do whatever it would take get a scoop on Superman in Byrne's MOS mini-series. But I'll cut her some slack. If I made all that effort to put my own life in danger to get an interview with Superman and he complies, only to be beaten by somebody else who came from out of nowhere, I'd be bitter too. It makes it even funnier that Lois was interviewing the same guy who would beat her to that story all along.  ;D

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 29 Apr  2020, 20:08
Honestly, I think the virtual extinction of the classic Golden Age Superman is one of the great tragedies of the character's whole history. You can restore Batman to something close enough to the original Finger/Kane version without sacrificing too much of anything. But restoring Superman to his early Golden Age iteration necessarily involves deleting decade upon decade of innovation. I understand the reluctance to return Superman back to that point since it really is a drastic reduction. But that early Siegel/Shuster stuff has a lot of potential and the vast majority of it has never been explored.

I don't usually recommend The New 52. But Grant Morrison's run on Action Comics vol. 02 featured a version of Superman kinda sorta similar to the Golden Age version. It doesn't last very long, unfortunately. But it's by far the closest Superman has been to the 1938 original since 1938, probably.

I suppose that's true. If you compare the differences between the Golden Age and the Silver/Bronze Age eras, Superman appears to be a social crusader in the former, whilst the latter made him into a science fantasy character. I once read Actions Comics #500, which had Superman narrating his life story as he visits an exhibition celebrating him. As you know, the latter had Clark Kent becoming Superboy with some help from his parents (Pa Kent even helped Clark to learn how to fly by tying him up as a makeshift kite together with balloons, ha ha!), and Clark himself was not only a skillful inventor who created the suit, but also constructed robots that resembled himself and Superboy in order to avoid suspicion and when he couldn't be two places at once. Including building trap doors at home to avoid anyone seeing Superboy flying from the Kent farm.*

Suffice to say, it's a far cry from the days of Superman fighting wife beaters, intimidating criminals and participating in war conflicts. Maybe in the post-Frank Werthem era, all of that was necessary for the character to survive. It might be silly to some people, but the evolution of the character during that time may have helped maintain his status in pop culture, particularly with children, for so many years. But unlike Batman, the only downside is that science fantasy escapism may have contributed in keeping Superman stuck in some sort of nostalgic limbo by a fanbase not willing to be open-minded towards modern interpretations.

*For all the drastic differences between those different eras, the one thing they had in common - at least judging from what I read in Secret Origins #1 and Actions Comics #500 - was Clark Kent didn't become Superman and move to Metropolis until the Kents had passed away. A truly coming-of-age moment for him, just as well as it was a tragic moment for him. For all the talk about how difficult it is to make Superman relatable, it's a shame some can't see how such a poignant moment would enable people to start embracing adulthood. It's something I'm sure other people understand all too well, sadly.

I haven't read much New 52 Superman, apart from Superman #0 where Krypton is attacked by a cult embracing the planet's pending demise (IIRC). But I assume Morrison's run had Clark moving to Metropolis under similar circumstances?

If I can larp as an historian for a minute, Superman's powers gradually began expanding from the jump in Action Comics #01. But if I had to make a guess as to when the game changed forever with Superman, it was America dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1938, Superman was considered by his own comics to be the most powerful thing in the world. For better or for worse, the bar was set pretty low back then.

But after the bombs fell on Japan, Superman's powers needed to expand such that he could remain the most powerful being in the world. The "most powerful thing in the world" continuum now included nuclear weapons. That meant that Superman had to be more powerful than nukes.

Another thing that changed was the nature of a superhero's powers in general. Before 1945, a lot of pop fiction for children tended to revolve around magic, the paranormal, etc. Yes, Superman was a notable exception but he still proved the rule.

But those bombs getting dropped changed something in the American psyche. And so for the next few decades, really, science, technology, the military, etc, all supplanted magic as the prime mythological constructs of pop fiction. Magic had been displaced by science because, by then, science was probably a lot scarier than magic ever could've been. I find it telling that a lot of characters who had a magical component underlying their mythos, origins or powers had largely faded away by the mid-50's. It's no coincidence that Hal Jordan and Barry Allen debuted when they did. The differences between them and their predecessors are no accident.

Superman was an obvious beneficiary to all that. So whereas his stories needed to be fairly grounded, writers after 1945 had the mandate to take the character into more sci-fi territory.

But those changes also meant that Superman's career as a social crusader also ended. America's newfound post-war affluence, swagger and relief demanded changes. For example, crooked tenement owners ripping off their tenants was probably seen as an almost anachronistic concept in the era where suburban America as we know it was born. The little guy just didn't need as much help in post-war America as he did before.

In order for Superman to stay relevant, he needed stories more ambitious than kicking the snot out of abusive husbands and or settling some clueless foreign dictators' hash. It's very revealing that beginning in the 50's, Superman was increasingly pitted against mad scientists or else angry housewives. His powers either needed to be tested or else Superman himself had to be forced into situations where his powers could offer little practical use.

As the space race wore on, Superman had showdowns with more and more aliens. Mankind already possessed the power to destroy the world. Now, mankind was looking toward the stars and developing the technology to take itself there. Superman's stories had no choice but to keep up.

So, I see a lot of Superman's evolution over the decades has primarily come down to social factors influenced by economics, science, technology, etc.

To contrast that against Batman, his stories had gradually become lighter and lighter, especially after 1945. Stories featuring a grim, brooding avenger of the night were just against the public mood after the war. I enjoy fifties and early sixties Batman stories. But it's undeniable that the talent crafting the stories were trying like mad to find an identity and direction for Batman in a world that had been completely reordered.

Sometimes, those artists and writers were successful. Other times, they weren't. But I don't think it's possible to overemphasize how much the end of the war, the good economy, the Cold War, the space race, the atomic bomb and other things influenced culture which in turn influenced comics. I'm sure Wertham, the Comics Code and other things all played their part. But comics were facing plenty of challenges without those things.

Then again, I could be completely wrong here.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 10 May  2020, 06:54
As the space race wore on, Superman had showdowns with more and more aliens. Mankind already possessed the power to destroy the world. Now, mankind was looking toward the stars and developing the technology to take itself there. Superman's stories had no choice but to keep up.

So, I see a lot of Superman's evolution over the decades has primarily come down to social factors influenced by economics, science, technology, etc.

This goes to show that comic book characters must evolve with the times to stay relevant. This is what I suspect a lot of Superman idealists don't seem to understand. By clinging onto one specific interpretation, whether it's a Silver Age comic book sensibility or Richard Donner, Superman will eventually fade into obscurity. Yes, we all have our preferences, and we're not going to like every take. But people need to be open-minded if Superman is going to stay relevant in the public conscience. It would be like me only preferring Steve Engelhart's run on Batman, but turning down every other comic afterwards. I'd be missing out on stories like The Court of Owls.

In the last couple of days, I've been reading a few more Superman comics, and I stumbled across Superman 2001 (Superman #300, 1976) written by Cary Bates and Elliot S! Maggin. This is basically a prototypical Elseworlds story, where Kal-El is born in the year 1976, and shows how he'd become Superman in the year 2001, hence the title. Given this was a Cold War story, Kal-El became the subject of a political arm wrestle between the US and the USSR ever since his spacecraft was first discovered, and as soon as his existence was confirmed to the world in 1990, tensions between the two warring countries immediately escalate into nuclear assault. Kal-El saves the world from annihilation, and as a result, peace talks begin to take place between the Americans and the Soviets. But the experience left Kal-El discouraged that humanity nearly destroyed itself over him, and believed if people couldn't be ready with the power and technology it already possessed then they couldn't be ready to accept a powerful alien. So he adopted the name Clark Kent - the first name taken from a soldier who found his spacecraft and the last name taken in honour of the late General who was a father figure - and never used his powers again, until eleven years later.

People can take this story or leave it. But judging from the criteria of loudmouth Superman "fans" online, if the character doesn't smile every single frame or displays any existential doubts, I can only assume they'd accuse Bates and Maggin of "not getting" Superman.

Now that I've mentioned Maggin, I've got a bone to pick with him over this MORONIC comment about that tired old argument of Superman killing Zod in MOS:

Quote from: Elliot S! Maggin
More likely that the mistake was handing over an archetypal heroic character to an objectivist Ayn Rand freak.

Oh ... did I say that? Must be in a mood.

Look. There are a bunch of answers here that suggest Superman had no other choice. Horsesh*t. First of all, you NEVER put a character in a position where he has no choice other than to betray a fundamental premise of his existence. Second, Snyder didn't put Superman in any such position. Either the director doesn't have much of an imagination or — more likely — he just wanted to be the kid who kicks over the paint can in the garage.

Superman always devises a solution because, of his nature, he does have an imagination that makes that possible. Want proof? Start with putting your invulnerable hand over the bad guy's heat-spitting eyes and take it from there.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Zack-Snyder-make-a-mistake-in-having-Superman-kill-Zod-in-Man-of-Steel

Where to begin? The hypocrisy of this idiot is astounding.

If Zack Snyder is an objectivist, presumably because he said he wanted to adapt one of her works on film, then I guess Patty Jenkins is a serial killer sympathiser because she depicted Aileen Wuornos under a sympathetic light in Monster. I wonder if Maggin had expressed his disgust at Jenkins when she had Wonder Woman killing several German soldiers, Luddendorf (in Luddendorf's case, Diana outright f***ing MURDERED him) and Ares? Or did he praise the film and says WW is everything MOS should've been - and not recognise the cognitive dissonance?

Never mind the other examples of Superman killing Zod such as in Superman II or the end of Byrne's run, how about we address the hypocrisy of his little remark about "you NEVER put a character in a position where he has no choice other than to betray a fundamental premise of his existence". You can easily make the same argument to criticise Maggin's work on Superman 2001. Young Clark Kent stopped his heroics for years because he lost faith in humanity for abusing its own power, and he certainly didn't think it would be ready for him. You could say Clark's decision cost the world quite a lot if you can imagine how many other conflicts he could've stopped, how many accidents he could've prevented, or say, how many lives and cats on trees he could've rescued? I'd hate to think of people showing their contempt for Maggin and Bates for making Clark turning his back on humanity.

As for "sTaRt WiTh PuTtInG yOuR iNvUlNeRaBlE hAnD oVeR tHe BaD gUy'S hEaT-sPiTtInG eYeS aNd tAkE iT fRoM tHeRe"? The simple-minded idiocy of this comment never ceases to amaze me, which might explain why it's so popular. The fact that it's said by a comic book writer who makes a living telling stories to his own liking is even more mind-boggling.

If you can't even accept the fact that the film's ending established Zod as a genocidal maniac who refused to surrender, and all non-lethal options to stop him had been taken away then you might as well just relinquish your right to watch films. FFS, covering his eyes...and then what? What other option did Superman have to stop him that didn't involve some deus ex machina? I guess the Death of Superman comic should've had found another way to stop Doomsday, instead of Superman sacrificing himself and delivering that fatal blow. I wouldn't be surprised if people like Maggin would cry "Superman is being stupid, homicidal AND suicidal for charging at Doomsday!". Yeah, f*** the world, right? Sanctimony is more important than whatever is at stake.

Idiot, hypocritical gatekeepers like Elliot S! Maggin are the reason why Superman is in limbo, across all media.

I was going to post the following in the Post-Crisis Superman thread, but following my last post, I think it's more suitable to post it here.

The other Superman comic I read the other day was Day of Doom - a four issue run by Dan Jurgens. It takes place a decade after the entire Death of Superman saga, and Perry White gives a new reporter the job to write about the anniversary of Superman's death. Meanwhile, mysterious attacks keep occurring around Metropolis that eerily resemble Doomsday's destruction all those years ago.

The best thing I loved about this story is Jurgens does NOT shy away from the fallout surrounding Superman's death and resurrection. Ty Duffy, the new Daily Planet reporter, is disgusted how Superman's death is still commemorated despite he came back to life, while all the victims who perished during the Doomsday and Cyborg Superman attacks are hardly acknowledged. Later on, it's revealed the latest Doomsday-like attacks were recreated by a ghostly villain called the Remnant, who blames Superman for Doomsday's carnage.

Jurgens wrote this story in 2003. This particular exchange of words between Superman and the Remnant is astonishing.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXZrdndU0AA7H9q?format=jpg&name=900x900)

Who the f*** would ever thought the Remnant's contempt for Superman would mirror the exact same criticisms lots of people would have for MOS ten years later?

All the heated questions these people would ask i.e. "why didn't Superman take Zod out of the city and into a deserted area" and so on; not only this was already explored in comics long ago, but the fact that the biggest detractors for Snyder's Superman sound exactly like the Remnant is unbelievable.

My only complaint is the ending is an anticlimax, and we never know who the Remnant is. But I do appreciate how Jurgens explores the damaging impact the Doomsday saga left behind, as well as exploring the complicated consequences Superman's return has had on Metropolis. Jurgens was a key player behind the whole Death of Superman arc, so it's not surprising he would tackle its aftermath in some philosophical detail in Day of Doom.

I do wonder though: does the Superman fandom hate the Post-Crisis era? I hardly see too many people show their love for it.

The whole "take it someplace deserted" bit is strange in that (A) that's not exactly a comic book tradition and (B) Zod's stated premise was to "make them suffer". Superman was never Zod's target during the Metropolis rampage; innocent civilians were. Even if Superman had dragged Zod out into the middle of some desert, Zod would've eventually wiggled free and made a beeline for the nearest major metro to destroy as many people as possible.

I enjoy Maggin's work. He wrote some great Superman stories in the 70's and 80's. His vision has come to define a lot of what I savor about the Bronze Age Superman. But he's kind of a jerk on a personal level.

Characterizing Snyder as an "objectivist Ayn Rand freak" is a crude insult. Or at least, I take it as an insult since I have no affection for objectivism, Ayn Rand or any of that stuff. But I can't recall Snyder ever making public statements regarding his, ah, policy preferences. It could be possible that Maggin knows something about Snyder that we don't. And if Snyder is a libertarian or devotee of Rand philosophy, well, (A) that's his business, what do I care and (B) Maggin found the crudest possible way to out him.

Again, I like Maggin on a professional level. But man, on a personal level he can be a serious pill sometimes.

I admire your level-headed take on Maggin. But nowadays, I have an extremely low tolerance when it comes to stupidity from people. When it comes to comic book personalities who should know better, it's automatically zero.

As far as the objectivist slander is concerned, I've seen sheep attack Snyder's work on MOS and BvS as "objectivist propaganda". Some of the claims I've read include the Kents are supposedly anti-altruistic: Jonathan warning Clark to keep his powers a secret is an act of selfishness, and Martha encourages Clark to make a choice if he wants to continue being Superman, and the world doesn't owe him anything.

Which is all nonsense. Pa Kent urging Clark to keep his powers a secret until he's older goes back to the Golden Age era, and recreated in Secret Origins #1, while Martha was trying to comfort her son during an overwhelming time for him. If Clark takes such an enormous burden, it should be by his own choosing. And so he does. If this is all anti-altruistic as these naysayers say, then Snyder did a pretty sh*t job. Yeah, Superman sacrificing himself to protect the greater good in the end of BvS is really selfish! The same thing can be said for the original Death of Superman story!

I can't fathom the utter stupidity.

Going back to Maggin's dumb suggestion in covering Zod's eyes for a moment, it was established that Kryptonians couldn't resist heat vision. See the moment when Faora had to flinch her hand away for a brief moment in agony as Superman fires heat vision for the first time. So no, Maggin's "iNvUlNeRaBlE hAnD" statement is f***ing wrong. Maybe if the idiot had paid some attention to the movie for a bit instead of writing the one in his head, he'd understand that.

Snyder's work isn't perfect by any means, but when people adopt multiple standards to criticise the movies' "biggest flaws" for the very same things others have been guilty of, and much more worse they conveniently ignore, it pisses me right off. When comic writers have to resort to making dishonest, baseless and blatantly hypocritical statements to criticise somebody else's work, it's unforgivable.

I rewatched Justice League Unlimited's adaptation of For the Man Who Has Everything, and decided to compare it with the original source material by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, which I finally read a few weeks ago.

While I do think this is one of the JLU animated series' best episodes and it does a fine job of balancing censorship and maintaining the action-packed violence, I reckon the original comic has a lot more depth. The comic shows that despite the Black Mercy is intoxicating Kal-El of dreaming a life on Krypton, the world in his dreams is still full of turmoil. In fact, it's probably even worse off before it was destroyed in reality.

Clark should've dreamed of reuniting with a living Jor-El as father and son happily ever after, but instead there is tension between the two. In any Superman scenario where Krypton would still exist, Jor-El should be delighted that his prediction of the planet's doom was wrong, like in the JLU cartoon version. Instead, he finds bitterness that his prediction has gotten him kicked out of the science council, which paves the way for the helplessness of seeing society crumbling before his very own eyes, losing Lara to illness many years prior, political division and family estrangement.

Mongul explains the Black Mercy was supposed to gift the host whatever dreams they desire, but if anything, it shows Superman knows on a subconscious level that Krypton was always destined to fail. Unlike the JLU episode where the dream Kal-El lived in was a paradise interrupted by a world-ending earthquake, where at least he got to hug his son for the last time, the comic, by contrast, shows he was really living in a nightmare. A world that was becoming increasingly volatile to the point where none of his family members were safe; Kara getting hospitalised because she was related to Jor-El despite having no ties to his political movement whatsoever, shows that this is a far cry from any dream that Clark would've wanted.

If I were to compare to Superman taking his anger at Mongul after waking up, I would say the comic feels a lot more gut-wrenching. Superman in JLU can get outraged at Mongul's heartless comment about how he should've stayed in the happy fantasy land inflicted by the Black Mercy, simply because the fantasy wasn't real, like Batman does to the Mad Hatter in the BTAS episode Perchance to Dream. But I think the comic does a better job at conveying Superman's hurt, because as I already said, the dream became nothing more than a nightmare. The sadness is compounded further when Superman wakes up after being deprived from embracing his dream son for the last time.

Good story. And yet, people still persist in thinking Superman comics are mostly about a superpowered boy scout. For the Man Who Has Everything says otherwise. I was surprised to read a Superman story by Alan Moore that was worth reading, it was much better than Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?.

While watching this video showcasing this potential for a modern Superman video game, I can't help but wonder since when does Superman fire Hadoukens?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to2vn4mgWM4

It's a shame that Superman never had great video games like Batman has. Probably the best Superman game I've ever played was the The Death and Return of Superman on SNES, but even that wasn't amazing. To its credit, it followed the whole Death of Superman, Reign of the Supermen and Return of Superman saga pretty well, starting from Superman fighting the Underworld monsters and Clawster as the stage boss, fighting Doomsday before Superman dies, and it's good to play as Eradicator, Steel, Superboy and Hank Henshaw. I appreciate how it follows Hank Hanshaw taking Doomsday's body out of Project Cadmus, and destroying Coast City like in the comics. My biggest criticism is the gameplay is pretty repetitive and Superman is dramatically weakened. It's very strange to see him get hurt by bikers armed with Molotov cocktails and chainsaws, but I suppose that's sums up the difficulty in making a Superman video game that's playable at all.

The other two Superman games which I thought were okay were the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive, which I grew up playing, and the Taito arcade game. The Sega game even has some of the same sound effects from the B89 game adaptation, which were both made by Sunsoft, but it was pretty difficult. Fighting Brainiac inside a speeding train while trying to dodge Mr. Mxyzptlk's bombs and androids on stage two was a pain, and I used to ragequit every time I struggled to beat Brainiac during the final boss battle.

As for Taito arcade game? Most memorable things about it is it plays the John Williams theme and it's strangely a two player co-op game, so Player 1 can play Superman in blue and Player 2 plays Superman in red. Superman's special power, aside from heat vision, used a Hadouken-style power too. They could've used a freeze breath power ball that instantly freezes your enemies instead, but oh well.

I was reading a back issue of Action Comics #542 (1983) a few days ago, and the story began with Superman and Lois arguing over his habit of constantly cutting their dates short every time an emergency appears. Lois accuses Superman of using his duties as an excuse because he's depriving himself from committing to a normal relationship and having a life. How does he react? As soon as Lois leaves, Superman not only punches a boulder in anger, he flies past two crises happening in Metropolis at that very moment and ignored any calls for his help. All because Lois' words had cut him so deep that he became oblivious to his surroundings.

Hahaha, and to think the average Superman know-it-all on Twitter argues he needs to be an abstract figure of "hope" and are too busy focused on how many times he smiles. Now, I'm not saying example I've describe is a perfect way to write how Superman should have a dilemma. What I'm saying is Superman can be given humane traits, both upstanding and flawed, like every other comic book character. Depriving him of that not only ignores his history, but ruins his relevance in pop culture.

Here is a good review of the SNES version of The Death and Return of Superman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hfYthWLJsA

As I said, the game is pretty faithful to the whole Death of Superman saga, but they definitely could've taken a page out of Maximum Carnage's book by adding different comic panels during cut scenes.

It's going to take a lot of innovation, and even risk taking, to make a successful Superman game. Right now, Superman-related games are limited to Injustice fighting games or boss battles e.g. Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League. I suppose game companies find it easier to make a story about Superman going bad.

Wizard Superman character profile from May 1996:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUH1VbwXsAEJN24?format=jpg&name=large)

The original creative team behind The Death of Superman are reuniting for a new 30th Anniversary 80-page special.

https://www.dccomics.com/blog/2022/07/27/death-of-superman-anniversary-special-with-stories-from-original-teams

Now this brings back some memories.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnLstMvXEAQLq8X?format=jpg&name=large)

I remember the build up, and I also remember having to go to different comic shops to finally find a copy. It was sold out everywhere.

Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 24 Jan  2023, 16:00
I remember the build up, and I also remember having to go to different comic shops to finally find a copy. It was sold out everywhere.

As a young kid it was the electric blue Superman story captured my imagination. At first it was disappointment and disgust that Superman no longer wore the red and blue, had bullets pass through him and used pure energy powers. But not long after that my apprehension became excitement. It was never going to last full time, but I enjoyed the experiment while it lasted and think the stunt had creative merit. I like those big, life changing events in fictional characters' lives and even if they were done to stoke declining sales, it felt like the Superman property was on the front foot. Back then it felt like the comics still mattered, but it seems much less so now.

Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 24 Jan  2023, 16:00
I remember the build up, and I also remember having to go to different comic shops to finally find a copy. It was sold out everywhere.

Yes. The build up to "Superman Vol. 2 #75" was pretty substantial for the time, and I too remember that day fairly vividly. My dad drove me around to 2-3 comic stores that day, and I distinctly remember every one had a sign or signs stating that #75 was "one per customer". Luckily, I was able to get the black bagged edition, and one first print regular edition to read. Going home that day and seeing the local and national news stations actually acknowledge this story line, just furthered how much of an "Event" this truly was.

I wasn't really a regular comic reader when "Spider-Man #1" with Todd McFarlane, or "X-Men #1" with Jim Lee pulling art duties, came out, so I can't really speak to that. However, with as many "big" things that came out of the 1990's like, for instance, the onset of Image Comics with Spawn, Wildcats, Youngblood, ect, the Knightfall storyline featuring the breaking of Batman's back, Wolverine losing his adamantium, the major shift during the "Clone Saga", and attempt to revamp the entire line of Spidey books with Ben Reilly, Hal Jordan losing the mantle of Green Lantern following becoming Parallax, "Infinity Gauntlet", "Heroes Reborn/Return", Onslaught, ect ect ect ..... ALL of it pales in comparison to the impact Superman Volume 2 #75 had the day of release.

That was truly one for the ages.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 24 Jan  2023, 21:57Yes. The build up to "Superman Vol. 2 #75" was pretty substantial for the time, and I too remember that day fairly vividly. My dad drove me around to 2-3 comic stores that day, and I distinctly remember every one had a sign or signs stating that #75 was "one per customer". Luckily, I was able to get the black bagged edition, and one first print regular edition to read. Going home that day and seeing the local and national news stations actually acknowledge this story line, just furthered how much of an "Event" this truly was.

I wasn't really a regular comic reader when "Spider-Man #1" with Todd McFarlane, or "X-Men #1" with Jim Lee pulling art duties, came out, so I can't really speak to that. However, with as many "big" things that came out of the 1990's like, for instance, the onset of Image Comics with Spawn, Wildcats, Youngblood, ect, the Knightfall storyline featuring the breaking of Batman's back, Wolverine losing his adamantium, the major shift during the "Clone Saga", and attempt to revamp the entire line of Spidey books with Ben Reilly, Hal Jordan losing the mantle of Green Lantern following becoming Parallax, "Infinity Gauntlet", "Heroes Reborn/Return", Onslaught, ect ect ect ..... ALL of it pales in comparison to the impact Superman Volume 2 #75 had the day of release.

That was truly one for the ages.

To piggyback off this a little bit, I always thought the whole Doomsday/Funeral For A Friend/Reign Of The Supermen trilogy of stories was fascinating. I mean, the stories themselves are good. Obviously.

But the meat and potatoes of how people processed those stories.

The Doomsday storyline was definitely one for the ages. But I also think it was one for the masses as well. Pretty much anybody could buy those issues as they came out and follow I'll say 90% of the story. Maybe they didn't understand what Underworld was, what the Justice League was, how Lex Luthor came about becoming a svelte 20-something a beard and long hair or why Supergirl suddenly turned into gray Jell-O when Doomsday punched her. But they were able to follow the central premise of the story. Namely, that Superman kicks the bucket. Not to sound snooty, but Doomsday is for the masses. And Funeral For A Friend was for anyone with a heart.

But Reign Of The Supermen? That one was for THE FANS. If you didn't have a working knowledge of Superman comics starting from at least 1989 going into 1992, very little about Reign Of The Supermen would've made sense to you. ROTS pivots on Hank Henshaw, Mongul, Warworld, the Eradicator/Krypton Man and other stuff which was super obscure at the time. I've often wondered what a jarring experience it must have been for new readers to go from a largely accessible story like Doomsday to a super emotional story like FFAF and then got tossed right into the deep end with a nigh-impenetrable story ROTS.

I remember when ROTS was coming out trying to explain what Supergirl was all about to someone. "Well, she's a protoplasmic shapeshifting clone of Lana Lang from a parallel universe who came to this universe, fell in love with Lex Luthor and became allies with Superman". His eyes crossed after the seventh or eighth word.

Apparently, the original plan was to simply and cleanly bring Superman back from the dead in Adventures Of Superman #500. But after Doomsday became a huge media spectacle, the creative team completely redesigned the storyline where Superman comes back to life. They added in bunches of new twists and turns and red herrings and surprises. New storylines, new characters, new everything.

I can't prove that they wanted to craft ROTS to be a valentine to the fans who followed the character BEFORE Doomsday came along. But I wouldn't be surprised if that was exactly what they had in mind.

Anyway, to your original point, I think the fact that Superman is such an iconic character and the Doomsday storyline is so easy to follow is why that comic book event tends to stand out far above most of the other things you mention.

What I've always found amusing is that the Batman office was all in with Knightfall. After a certain point, the wheels were in motion and nobody could stop them. It came as a big surprise to Denny O'Neil when he found out what the Superman office was up to with Doomsday. By that point, he couldn't stop what was already in progress. But he did say at least once that if he'd known what was going on with the Superman books, he never would've allowed Knightfall to happen because it looked (to some people) like the Batman titles were copying what the Superman titles were doing and that just wasn't true at all.

The mindboggling thing is that you could argue that Knightfall/Knightquest/KnightsEnd were FAR better planned and executed than the Superman stuff. In January of 1992, the Batman creative teams largely knew exactly what they would be publishing in July of 1994. I sometimes think the Batman titles will never get the full amount of praise they deserve for their concepts and executions simply because they're so superficially similar to what the Superman titles did and, let's face it, Superman got their story out first (by accident).

Quote from: thecolorsblendTo piggyback off this a little bit, I always thought the whole Doomsday/Funeral For A Friend/Reign Of The Supermen trilogy of stories was fascinating. I mean, the stories themselves are good. Obviously.

But the meat and potatoes of how people processed those stories.

The Doomsday storyline was definitely one for the ages. But I also think it was one for the masses as well. Pretty much anybody could buy those issues as they came out and follow I'll say 90% of the story. Maybe they didn't understand what Underworld was, what the Justice League was, how Lex Luthor came about becoming a svelte 20-something a beard and long hair or why Supergirl suddenly turned into gray Jell-O when Doomsday punched her. But they were able to follow the central premise of the story. Namely, that Superman kicks the bucket. Not to sound snooty, but Doomsday is for the masses. And Funeral For A Friend was for anyone with a heart.

I agree. That's a fair statement, and a good point. The Doomsday/Death story line was absorbing and simplistic enough that engaging new readers to climb on board the Superman books was indeed a thing (I think Dan Jurgens has spoke to this numerous times). I was certainly one of them, and yeah, to be perfectly honest, I remember being a bit confused seeing Supergirl's face become jell-o, and Lex Luthor with a beard and hair, but the fun in all of that back then was going back to the back issue bin and finding out!

QuoteBut Reign Of The Supermen? That one was for THE FANS. If you didn't have a working knowledge of Superman comics starting from at least 1989 going into 1992, very little about Reign Of The Supermen would've made sense to you. ROTS pivots on Hank Henshaw, Mongul, Warworld, the Eradicator/Krypton Man and other stuff which was super obscure at the time. I've often wondered what a jarring experience it must have been for new readers to go from a largely accessible story like Doomsday to a super emotional story like FFAF and then got tossed right into the deep end with a nigh-impenetrable story ROTS.

I remember when ROTS was coming out trying to explain what Supergirl was all about to someone. "Well, she's a protoplasmic shapeshifting clone of Lana Lang from a parallel universe who come to this universe, fell in love with Lex Luthor and became allies with Superman". His eyes crossed after the seventh or eighth word.

Apparently, the original plan was to simply and cleanly bring Superman back from the dead in Adventures Of Superman #500. But after Doomsday became a huge media spectacle, the creative team completely redesigned the storyline where Superman comes back to life. They added in bunches of new twists and turns and red herrings and surprises. New storylines, new characters, new everything.

I can't prove that they wanted to craft ROTS to be a valentine to the fans who followed the character BEFORE Doomsday came along. But I wouldn't be surprised if that was exactly what they had in mind.

Yes indeed. As a very new reader to Superman in 1992, the Post-Crisis Superman continuity was distinctly different than what was readily available with Superman, as far as tv shows and movies go, but damn was it good stuff. The Superman crew at DC Comics making the decision to put emphasis on Superman's supporting characters and such just made the backdrop of Metropolis feel that much grander in scale, and as a consequence, more intriguing to read about. To me, the Superman cast of characters at that time, was one those vital Post-Crisis 'updates' that really worked in it's favor.

QuoteAnyway, to your original point, I think the fact that Superman is such an iconic character and the Doomsday storyline is so easy to follow is why that comic book event tends to stand out far above most of the other things you mention.

Yeah, I guess so. DC was known as being very emphasized on continuity at the time, but with Marvel, ideally something like "Infinity Gantlet" should be as easily accessible to new readers as something like "Secret Wars" was back in the '80's, but I'm not sure if it was or not? I think something like "Heroes Reborn" simply came too late. As, sure, Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld returning to Marvel comics seemed like a big deal, but this was (i think) following the big speculator bubble bursting during the mid 90's, and whatever impact those guys might have had on Fantastic Four, Iron Man, Captain America, and the Avengers, was just flat out diminished due to the climate of the entire industry that stage....

Ha! Your comment about attempting to explain the protoplasmic shapeshifting being that was Supergirl at the time instantly reminds me of occurrences where I attempted to explain the Spider-Man "Clone Saga" (yeah, good luck!), or getting that 'deer in the headlights' look whenever mentioning the differences between Pre-Crisis/Post-Crisis, ect.

"Yeah, well there's three different Supermen. Three different Wonder Women."

"Uhhhh ........."  :D

QuoteWhat I've always found amusing is that the Batman office was all in with Knightfall. After a certain point, the wheels were in motion and nobody could stop them. It came as a big surprise to Denny O'Neil when he found out what the Superman office was up to with Doomsday. By that point, he couldn't stop what was already in progress. But he did say at least once that if he'd known what was going on with the Superman books, he never would've allowed Knightfall to happen because it looked (to some people) like the Batman titles were copying what the Superman titles were doing and that just wasn't true at all.

The mindboggling thing is that you could argue that Knightfall/Knightquest/KnightsEnd were FAR better planned and executed than the Superman stuff. In January of 1992, the Batman creative teams largely knew exactly what they would be publishing in July of 1994. I sometimes think the Batman titles will never get the full amount of praise they deserve for their concepts and executions simply because they're so superficially similar to what the Superman titles did and, let's face it, Superman got their first (by accident).

I can see how Denny's Batman crew could study and improve upon their own execution with Superman's titles hitting the bases first, but I guess they were not without their own risks as well. I recall Denny O'Neil stating he was mortified at the thought that readers would end up loving the more brutal Azbats during the whole Knightquest arc. Which didn't happen of course, but there was some validity to his concerns. The '90's most definitely had it's share of violent superheroes, and it was a thing. Enough of a thing to concern Denny at least.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 24 Jan  2023, 23:09
The mindboggling thing is that you could argue that Knightfall/Knightquest/KnightsEnd were FAR better planned and executed than the Superman stuff. In January of 1992, the Batman creative teams largely knew exactly what they would be publishing in July of 1994. I sometimes think the Batman titles will never get the full amount of praise they deserve for their concepts and executions simply because they're so superficially similar to what the Superman titles did and, let's face it, Superman got their story out first (by accident).

Doomsday was a wild, uncontrolled animal with little mental capacity other than destroying everything in his path. Bane on the other hand was an intelligent, strategic scalpel who over time was abused as a character to ironically become something more like Doomsday. I think when they're presented in their best possible lights, both villains fit into the established rogues gallery really nicely, despite their origins as one and done stunts. Superman died, but he went out fighting and took Doomsday with him. Batman on the other hand was completely out of gas and humiliated on his own turf, with his conquerer ruling the city for a period of time afterwards. I can see why things were done differently for each character, but think Knightfall is the better story. But indeed, the Death of Superman was the bigger cultural event, and there's no room for debate on that. The simplicity is probably a big part of that. Superman dies, the world mourns, Superman returns. I don't think anything has matched it since, and I'd say it was the character's literary peak.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 27 Jan  2023, 00:21Doomsday was a wild, uncontrolled animal with little mental capacity other than destroying everything in his path. Bane on the other hand was an intelligent, strategic scalpel who over time was abused as a character to ironically become something more like Doomsday. I think when they're presented in their best possible lights, both villains fit into the established rogues gallery really nicely, despite their origins as one and done stunts. Superman died, but he went out fighting and took Doomsday with him. Batman on the other hand was completely out of gas and humiliated on his own turf, with his conquerer ruling the city for a period of time afterwards. I can see why things were done differently for each character, but think Knightfall is the better story. But indeed, the Death of Superman was the bigger cultural event, and there's no room for debate on that. The simplicity is probably a big part of that. Superman dies, the world mourns, Superman returns. I don't think anything has matched it since, and I'd say it was the character's literary peak.

I agree. Sadly.

There was an Imaginary Story published in Superman #149 (1962 or so) called "The Death Of Superman" that I think was an overall better story. Lex pretended to reform, only to betray and murder Superman. And honestly, I think this is how the story OUGHT to go. Never liked the idea of Superman getting beaten to death. Plus, in the 1962 story, Lex figured out Superman's TRUE weakness: He wants to see the best in everyone. So, rather than build yet another Ultimate Weapon, Lex uses Superman's own inherent goodness against him to devastating results. Personally, that seems a lot more dignified to me than a gigantic fist fight.

Anyway. That whole Doomsday/Funeral For A Friend/Reign Of The Supermen bit was the Post-Crisis Superman's high point for sure. Frankly, I don't think the Post-Crisis Superman ever recovered from it. Because I would say that starting with Byrne's Man Of Steel in 1986 to the end of Reign Of The Supermen is one of the best runs of any comic book EVER. But after ROTS, it was like the wheels came off the wagon for Superman. The stuff AFTER he came back from the dead just isn't as interesting as the pre-Doomsday stuff.

For me personally, I started inventing my own continuity. And maybe after Superman got killed by Doomsday, he never came back from the dead. When Doomsday killed him, that truly was the end of the line. Because some of those post-ROTS stories are just awful.

And again, you compare that to Batman. If anything, the Batman line of comics IMPROVED after KnightsEnd. And they were already pretty good to start with. So many good Batman stories after then. Prodigal, Contagion, Legacy, Cataclysm/No Man's Land, the list just goes on. Knightfall didn't ruin Batman. But I think you could argue (easily) that Doomsday ruined Superman.

You do raise an interesting point about Bane and Doomsday being frequently mishandled. If someone writes a stupid Bane or an intelligent Doomsday, it's fair to say that he missed the point of both characters.

I liked Funeral for a Friend a lot, as much as the slugfest, and it doesn't even feature Superman. I think it's because the character's strength has always been an idea: a conversation that people have amongst themselves. It's also that people don't appreciate what they have until it's gone, and when it returns so does the status quo. As Batman said in a comic, "let's face it Superman, the last time when you really inspired anyone was when you were dead."

The aftermath of the death had an element of mystery with the individuals claiming to be Superman, and managed to show the universe in which Superman lived in could be interesting in its own right. The imposters all had traits of the real deal, but only served to prove there can only be One. I remember the content with the Kents being emotional, and that's coming from someone who doesn't often feel that way. I also really, really like the concept of Lex gloating over his nemesis' coffin as well. He finally got what he wanted.

In terms of the method of death, I don't mind a slugfest. It makes sense for him to go out that way. Such a strong force needs something stronger to finally grind him to a halt. But if I really had to choose, I'd go with All Star Superman. There's a certain elegance that death provides. It's a sickness (the solar radiation) that gives him a tragic, romantic doom. His life is ticking away, moment by moment. He knows it too, but still retains his inner peace and sense of morality. Before the end he gets Lex to see things his way, says one last goodbye to Lois and makes his final sacrifice on his own terms.

To me, Knightfall is a celebration of what makes Batman great. We get to see a broad selection of his rogues gallery and through the onslaught we are left with his biggest strength, which is never giving up. In the end this proves to be his downfall. He won't allow himself to rest whenever the signal is lit. He had never really been beaten like this before and I think it needed to happen. He had lost friends and allies, which is personal pain. But experiencing physical pain yourself is very different, and forced Bruce to stare down the very real possibility his crime fighting career was over.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 28 Jan  2023, 06:39
There was an Imaginary Story published in Superman #149 (1962 or so) called "The Death Of Superman" that I think was an overall better story. Lex pretended to reform, only to betray and murder Superman. And honestly, I think this is how the story OUGHT to go. Never liked the idea of Superman getting beaten to death. Plus, in the 1962 story, Lex figured out Superman's TRUE weakness: He wants to see the best in everyone. So, rather than build yet another Ultimate Weapon, Lex uses Superman's own inherent goodness against him to devastating results. Personally, that seems a lot more dignified to me than a gigantic fist fight.

I'd argue that the spectacle of a gigantic fist fight to the death with a Hulk-like beast played out rather almost 'too perfect'. Especially for the time period we're talking about. Unlike current day, just the mere notion that a comic book character like Superman was going to be killed off, was something that had actual weight to it. As the notion of death was treated with much more earnest. Which I think served not only the story itself, but also the public and reader perception that Superman could and would be killed by a mysterious wrecking ball of a beast that not only decimates anything in it's path, but (evidently given the bird scene) thoroughly enjoys the destruction and agony that it wrecks. We as the readers already knew how this story was going to end. DC literally made no bones about that. The anticipation to that happening, along with the shrewd creative decision to, with each subsequent comic, reduce the panel count, subconsciously indicating to the reader that the 'countdown' to the Death of Superman is in full effect, and to where Superman Vol.2 #75 was only beautifully illustrated splash pages by Dan Jurgens, all played their part in what captivated and engrossed the readers during the entire "Doomsday" arc.

Something like this, with such unbridled anticipation, had never been handled with such precision before, and it was duly noted.

Sure, I can imagine a much more cerebral story involving Lex or whom have you, but personally, I wouldn't change a thing in this regard.

QuoteAnyway. That whole Doomsday/Funeral For A Friend/Reign Of The Supermen bit was the Post-Crisis Superman's high point for sure. Frankly, I don't think the Post-Crisis Superman ever recovered from it. Because I would say that starting with Byrne's Man Of Steel in 1986 to the end of Reign Of The Supermen is one of the best runs of any comic book EVER. But after ROTS, it was like the wheels came off the wagon for Superman. The stuff AFTER he came back from the dead just isn't as interesting as the pre-Doomsday stuff.

I think Batman enjoyed a more steady hand with Denny as the guiding hand, than what was going on with Superman at the time. As a kid reading this stuff back then, the whole Superman Blue/Red, Superman Forever, Wedding issue, Trial, Lex getting married, Lex becoming President, ect just kinda came across as stuff to keep the interest in the books alive, rather than what we got out of the Byrne reboot, the some years afterwards, where it came across as much more organicaly focused overall and not so scattershot. Jurgens leaving the Superman titles to jump over to Marvel probably didn't do the Superman books any favors either. Also, wasn't there a big pitch behind the scenes, only a year or two following the Wedding issue, that wanted to do away with the whole marriage thing, and revert back to the status quo where not only are Lois and Clark not married but she wouldn't even know Clark's identity as Superman any longer as well?

Course, something like "Doomsday/Death/Funeral/Reign/Return would be a very difficult act to follow.

Speaking of Reign of the Supermen .....

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnvsagMWIBky_ZC?format=jpg&name=large)

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 31 Jan  2023, 03:14Also, wasn't there a big pitch behind the scenes, only a year or two following the Wedding issue, that wanted to do away with the whole marriage thing, and revert back to the status quo where not only are Lois and Clark not married but she wouldn't even know Clark's identity as Superman any longer as well?

Superman 2000 (http://theages.superman.nu/History/2000/SUPERMAN2000.php) was a spec pitch assembled by Mark Waid, Grant Morrison, Mark Millar and Tom Peyer.

Their ambitions went far beyond simply removing the marriage from the equation. They were wholesale reinventing Superman. Byrne's 1986 origin would remain intact. Some people have described it as a reboot. But that was never anyone's intention. The idea was to take the existing continuity and move it in a decidedly more Pre-Crisis direction.

And to be fair to all parties involved, sales on (and interest in) the Superman titles had been waning since 1993. The various stunt storylines would temporarily spike sales. But then sales reverted to the mean. Superman 2000 would've at least been something more unique.

So, why didn't it happen? Well, it nearly did. But the reason it got cancelled is because Morrison, Waid, Peyer and Millar APPEAR to have gone over Mike Carlin's head in pitching Superman 2000 to higher level DC management (i.e., Jeanette Kahn and Paul Levitz). As I heard the story, Carlin was on vacation when the writers submitted their ideas. And it is fair to ask if they deliberately waited until Carlin was out of the picture to make their move. Because Superman 2000 would've steamrolled massive parts of Carlin's custodianship of the character. So, did they wait for him to leave town hoping to sneak by him?

For a lot of reasons, there was no love lost between Carlin and Waid. So, when Carlin came back from vacation and found out what was happening, he put the kibosh on the entire thing... which he had the executive authority to do as a senior DC editor. Apparently, all four writers were blackballed from mainstream Superman comics for as long as Carlin had anything to say about it. Indeed, all of them have written very little in-continuity Superman. It took Morrison years to finally get there.

Bits and pieces of Superman 2000 popped up in stuff like Waid's Birthright, Morrison's All-Star Superman and Mark Millar's Red Son. But honestly, I think fans are the ones who truly lost out on something here. Superman 2000 would at least have taken the character in a different direction rather than retreading old ideas (Doomsday, Dead Again, The Death Of Clark Kent, etc.). I just can't imagine Superman 2000 being worse than the Superman titles we DID get from, say, 1999-2003.

As a general thing, it seems like the common denominator with Mark Waid is that he makes enemies basically everywhere he goes. Whether it's DC, Marvel, Boom Studios or wherever else, sooner or later he seems to alienate people around him. It gets to a point where you sort of have to wonder if Waid himself might be the problem.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 31 Jan  2023, 03:14(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnvsagMWIBky_ZC?format=jpg&name=large)

Speaking of Carlin, he commissioned house ads like that all the time. He kept an eye on other DC offices and if Green Arrow, for example, had extra space for whatever reason, he'd ask them to include a Superman house ad in their book.

As a result, Superman had some amazing house ads during Carlin's tenure. But that ROTS house ad is one of the best.

What was cool (and what people seem to forget) is that Adventures Of Superman #500 came out, briefly introduced all four Supermen, there was a "lag week" where nothing came out and then Adventures Of Superman #501, Superman #78, Superman: The Man Of Steel #22 and Action Comics #687 all came out on the same day. It was a pretty effective way of stunning and confusing the audience, stoking interest in what was coming, etc.

For myself, the only "Superman" I didn't like was the Cyborg... which is funny considering the reveal that came later with him. I liked the other three Supermen and wanted them to stick around in some form or another... which is more or less what happened.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 31 Jan  2023, 04:19
Superman 2000 (http://theages.superman.nu/History/2000/SUPERMAN2000.php) was a spec pitch assembled by Mark Waid, Grant Morrison, Mark Millar and Tom Peyer.

Their ambitions went far beyond simply removing the marriage from the equation. They were wholesale reinventing Superman. Byrne's 1986 origin would remain intact. Some people have described it as a reboot. But that was never anyone's intention. The idea was to take the existing continuity and move it in a decidedly more Pre-Crisis direction.

And to be fair to all parties involved, sales on (and interest in) the Superman titles had been waning since 1993. The various stunt storylines would temporarily spike sales. But then sales reverted to the mean. Superman 2000 would've at least been something more unique.

Funny enough, that's pretty much what happened following "Infinite Crisis" back in 2005. Moving Superman into a more Pre-Crisis direction. Complete with Geoff Johns bringing in Richard Donner for a spell, the Superboy background being re-instated, the Jor-El hologram appearing now with a head full of white hair (surely a nod to Brando), the Fortress of Solitude being incredibly reminiscent of the Donnerverse Fortress, ect ect. Course all of this was basically paralleled with 2006's "Superman Returns", so the coordination was certainly on point.

QuoteSo, why didn't it happen? Well, it nearly did. But the reason it got cancelled is because Morrison, Waid, Peyer and Millar APPEAR to have gone over Mike Carlin's head in pitching Superman 2000 to higher level DC management (i.e., Jeanette Kahn and Paul Levitz). As I heard the story, Carlin was on vacation when the writers submitted their ideas. And it is fair to ask if they deliberately waited until Carlin was out of the picture to make their move. Because Superman 2000 would've steamrolled massive parts of Carlin's custodianship of the character. So, did they wait for him to leave town hoping to sneak by him?

For a lot of reasons, there was no love lost between Carlin and Waid. So, when Carlin came back from vacation and found out what was happening, he put the kibosh on the entire thing... which he had the executive authority to do as a senior DC editor. Apparently, all four writers were blackballed from mainstream Superman comics for as long as Carlin had anything to say about it. Indeed, all of them have written very little in-continuity Superman. It took Morrison years to finally get there.

Bits and pieces of Superman 2000 popped up in stuff like Waid's Birthright, Morrison's All-Star Superman and Mark Millar's Red Son. But honestly, I think fans are the ones who truly lost out on something here. Superman 2000 would at least have taken the character in a different direction rather than retreading old ideas (Doomsday, Dead Again, The Death Of Clark Kent, etc.). I just can't imagine Superman 2000 being worse than the Superman titles we DID get from, say, 1999-2003.

Interesting. Sounds like there were some shenanigans going on with the pitch being formally proposed at just the time Carlin was absent. I can only assume some of these ideas were previously brought up, perhaps casually, perhaps not, and immediately shot down by Carlin. Giving the group the idea that they can just wait till Carlin's on vacation, present the pitch to Kahn and Levitz, and bank on the notion that they would have plausible deniability on not following the direct chain of command due to Carlin's absence.

The pitch, had it been approved, definitely would have shook up the rather stagnated Superman line at the time, but who really knows where this would have gone? As "Infinite Crisis" (and the subsequent fallout of many Pre-Crisis elements returning as a consequence) would have surely taken place regardless.

QuoteAs a general thing, it seems like the common denominator with Mark Waid is that he makes enemies basically everywhere he goes. Whether it's DC, Marvel, Boom Studios or wherever else, sooner or later he seems to alienate people around him. It gets to a point where you sort of have to wonder if Waid himself might be the problem.

I can appreciate Waid's passion for Superman, and being a historian for the lore, but from what I understand about the guy's behavior behind the scenes, he's his own worst enemy.

QuoteSpeaking of Carlin, he commissioned house ads like that all the time. He kept an eye on other DC offices and if Green Arrow, for example, had extra space for whatever reason, he'd ask them to include a Superman house ad in their book.

As a result, Superman had some amazing house ads during Carlin's tenure. But that ROTS house ad is one of the best.

What was cool (and what people seem to forget) is that Adventures Of Superman #500 came out, briefly introduced all four Supermen, there was a "lag week" where nothing came out and then Adventures Of Superman #501, Superman #78, Superman: The Man Of Steel #22 and Action Comics #687 all came out on the same day. It was a pretty effective way of stunning and confusing the audience, stoking interest in what was coming, etc.

For myself, the only "Superman" I didn't like was the Cyborg... which is funny considering the reveal that came later with him. I liked the other three Supermen and wanted them to stick around in some form or another... which is more or less what happened.

I seem to remember some people at one of the LCS thinking Cyborg was actually the favorite in being Superman, out of the four Supermen introduced, but I never really could go along with it. Sure, DC did a good job in how they handled Cyborg's initial interaction with Lois, and his emotional response to seeing Doomsday again during Reign, ect. But it just seemed a bit too deliberate overall. Course Cyborg Supes obliterated that facade soon after in dramatic fashion, along with Coast City going boom. 

Another vintage ad.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqKglEdWYAQsXuz?format=jpg&name=large)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsaUgadWwAgD0mo?format=jpg&name=large)

George Perez ended up not sticking around very long. But the small amount of work he managed to do was awesome. Some of his very best.

https://youtu.be/Swh6qcDmZJk

Happy 85 for the big guy!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ft-KKg8XwAA1xGD?format=jpg&name=medium)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuACyCGakAAeYfy?format=jpg&name=large)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FoJWzNsWAAMVJVs?format=jpg&name=large)

I loved that character. In his original incarnation, when Kesel and Grummett were the pointmen for that version of Superboy, he was a very interesting character. A bit of Han Solo, a bit of Maverick, a bit of Superman, a bit of Spider-Man, very interesting character.

I've never seen a character fall apart so badly so quickly.

And the nadir of the character came when Geoff Johns decided that Superboy was a genetic cocktail of Superman and Lex Luthor. Who in his right mind would combine Superman's DNA with Lex Luthor's DNA? And that ridiculous "Kon-El" moniker...

But to start with, the idea of Superman's clone trying to live up to the legend of his "father" and maybe not always succeeding... I just always thought that idea had tons of dramatic potential. And most of it ultimately got squandered.

What a waste.

I love that poster tho. Silly haircut and all, those were Superboy's glory days.

Side note. Am I the only one who's absolutely in love with Tom Grummett's art? He's one of the few DC artists who could draw ANYBODY. Dan Jurgens drew a phenomenal Superman but I never thought much of his Flash. Jon Bogdanove drew a great Superman but his Batman was ultimately nothing to write home about. But Grummett drew Superman, Superboy, the Teen Titans, Robin, various Batman characters, all or most of the Justice League during the Panic In The Sky storyline and ALL of those characters look awesome.

Grummett has my vote for most underrated DC artist.

Excellent post!

I agree that Superboy, during the Post-Crisis era, definitely was an engaging character, and came across as something "new and different" for early/mid '90's Gen X/Millennial readers. Further cementing the idea that the Superman line of books at that time, was very much differentiated from what was put forth during the Pre-Crisis era. Despite the still lingering perception of what the public had.

Honestly, I haven't read that many Superboy comics, but would you say he's a character that was handled fairly well until the DNA deal with Johns, or was he mishandled before then?

I'll just place this here.

FLASHBACK 1997

Wizard Magazine's assessment on how Pre-Crisis JLA members vs their Post-Crisis counterparts would go down.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxA-hz9aMAUkAoU?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxBR0NoagAASSit?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxBgb4xaQAA977M?format=jpg&name=large)

I... don't disagree with very much of that. It is true that Bronze Age Superman would make short work of Post-Crisis Superman. The depowering thing was a key feature of Byrne's revamp. Byrne's Superman would put up a fight. But he'd lose.

The Flash thing tho MIGHT be a different story. If the showdown is 1977 Barry vs. 1997 Wally, yeah, it goes to Wally. Probably. But if it's 1977 Barry vs. 1987 Wally, I don't think Barry would break a sweat taking Wally out.

I always thought 1997 Batman would defeat 1977 Batman simply because Pre-Crisis Batman was shown more often to use John Wayne fisticuffs to win the day. I don't recall Batman have a major martial arts background until some time in the Eighties. It might even be a Post-Crisis thing. I would defer to SN on this tho. But I think the martial arts aspect alone would put Post-Crisis Batman ahead of Pre-Crisis Batman.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxKXICOWYAI84va?format=jpg&name=large)

This is me being picky. But that's not Ordway's Superman. That comes from the cover of Superman v2 #48 by Kerry Gammill.

The interiors were by Curt Swan, of course. At the time, Swan was doing a fair amount of Super stuff. Superman #48 is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to that. This was how I became introduced to his work, in fact.

But anyway, the cover itself is a Kerry Gammill joint.

In my opinion, it's a crying shame that Kerry Gammill didn't do more Superman stuff. Because his version of Superman had majesty, power and just plain awesomeness.

From the May 31st 1942 Superman newspaper strip.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxeyPc3XsAERsJO?format=jpg&name=large)

Walt Simonson's Silver Age/Bronze Age/Pre-Crisis/Earth-One Superman.

(yeah he had a number of monikers)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fxxwei1XwAIEx35?format=jpg&name=medium)

As a kid, checking out all the "Zero Hour" tie-in's were a lot of fun.

This particular one was no exception.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1HCxRdX0AERJks?format=jpg&name=large)

I always thought the Zero Hour tie-ins were more interesting than the Zero Hour event itself.

I have a hard time buying the core conflict of the Dan Jurgens/SUPERMAN Zero Hour tie-in issue tho. Post-Crisis Superman just wouldn't be that invested in meeting Jor-El and Lara. I suppose he'd be curious about them. But it wouldn't rock his world to miss out on a chance to get to know them. In his mind, Jonathan and Martha are his parents, biology aside.

But yes, the Superboy issue is awesome. I knew basically nothing about the Pre-Crisis Superboy stuff and that issue was a great sample of it. It also did a lot to emphasize how much weaker clone Superboy is than Pre-Crisis Superboy.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 17 Jul  2023, 03:02I always thought the Zero Hour tie-ins were more interesting than the Zero Hour event itself.

That's understandable. Absolutely. I mean, "Zero Hour" isn't perfect by any stretch, but as you stated, the tie-ins, and for me, the unique countdown of the event from 4 to 0 gave it a air of urgency that left an impression on my kid self. Honestly, at the time, I wasn't really knowledgeable about "Crisis on Infinite Earths". If at all really. So I credit "Zero Hour" to opening the doors to a more multiversial take that wasn't strictly grounded in the Post-Crisis DCU.

QuoteI have a hard time buying the core conflict of the Dan Jurgens/SUPERMAN Zero Hour tie-in issue tho. Post-Crisis Superman just wouldn't be that invested in meeting Jor-El and Lara. I suppose he'd be curious about them. But it wouldn't rock his world to miss out on a chance to get to know them. In his mind, Jonathan and Martha are his parents, biology aside.

Indeed, and this divide of Kryptonian interest was another aspect that differentiated the Pre-Crisis Superman, with that of the Post-Crisis Superman. Pre-Crisis Superman exclaiming, "Thank, Rao!" is ok, but would feel incredibly out of place with Post-Crisis Superman saying that. Especially following what Byrne and company firmly established during the MOS mini-series, and the years afterwards.

QuoteBut yes, the Superboy issue is awesome. I knew basically nothing about the Pre-Crisis Superboy stuff and that issue was a great sample of it. It also did a lot to emphasize how much weaker clone Superboy is than Pre-Crisis Superboy.

Honestly, same. At the time, I was not well versed in the Pre-Crisis continuity whatsoever. So this was neat to see these two interact. The differences in power levels between Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis Superboy's was also emphasized during the "Infinite Crisis"event. Where Superboy-Prime absolutely trounced Kon-El, and viciously tore thru the Teen Titans.

FLASHBACK 1998!

Wizard Magazine surmises that a theoretical Hulk vs Doomsday fight, Doomsday would ultimately be declared the victor.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F6kk7T9a8AA6s5-?format=jpg&name=large)

FLASHBACK 1998

Wizard Magazine art contest to Redesign Supes' costume.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7Hw3KsWsAALsc8?format=jpg&name=large)

In context, this was the '90's, and A LOT of Superheroes received costume makeovers. Some more dramatic than others, but it was one of the many prevalent gimmicks of the era.

Given that Colors is the resident Superman guy around here, I wonder if he ever had any ideas on the matter? Given costume alterations was very much a thing at the time.

I don't remember ever really having much of an opinion on this one way or the other. I do recall thinking the Eradicator's "Reign of the Supermen" costume was pretty cool back then. Though the visor shades would have to go.

There was some demand back then (even among fans) to update/modernize Superman's outfit.

A big push for that was the Reign Of The Supermen storyline. Superboy (clone) and the Eradicator had their own costumes and they both looked great in their time. That encouraged fans (and the fan press, such as Wizard) to gently campaign for a new outfit for Superman.

The online fan community agreed to disagree agreeably on this subject. Some fans believed it was foolish. "Why mess with a proven classic?" The other side thought different. "His underpants are on the outside, even Batman jettisoned that! What's the argument against modernization?"

This wasn't a case of blood running through the streets at all as far as I remember. The conversations that I was privy to (or active in) were mostly levelheaded, calm affairs of point and counterpoint.

At the time, I thought a uniform that blending the red and black "Krypton Man" outfit with the conventional Superman outfit could be a winner. Perhaps a blue body suit with black accents, white piping on the arms, the Superman symbol shrunk down and positioned on the left breast with a longer, flowing cape had potential.

My rationale is that this Post-Crisis version of Superman had plenty of time to get comfortable with his Kryptonian heritage. You could craft a decent story where Superman discovers something new about Krypton that changes his perceptions of it to something maybe a little more positive.

I thought it was doable at the time.

These days, my viewpoint has shifted completely the other way. I say go classic or go home. No need to change his uniform in any substantial way.

If we're talking the most nineties Superman redesign, I'd like to nominate the armoured costume the Mother Box created for him in Superman/Doomsday: Hunter/Prey Vol 1 #3 (June 1994). This has all the marks of a nineties eXtreme Liefeldian makeover: lots of straps/belts, unnecessary pouches, shoulder pad, armour plating, etc.


It even has weapons built into it, including a sonic gun and a sword.


It looks like an action figure. In fact an action figure was produced based on it.


It doesn't get more nineties than that.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  2 Oct  2023, 00:52These days, my viewpoint has shifted completely the other way. I say go classic or go home. No need to change his uniform in any substantial way.

I feel that way about both Superman and Batman's costumes. Stick to the classic designs, including the trunks.

I always thought the Hunter/Prey action figure was interesting. Because in the comic book, one of the gold chest straps partially obscures the symbol on his chest.

Clearly, someone in the food chain decided that was no bueno. I'm assuming for branding purposes, the strap was moved down a bit to allow the chest symbol to be completely visible.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  3 Oct  2023, 10:19I feel that way about both Superman and Batman's costumes. Stick to the classic designs, including the trunks.

Same. And incidentally, I extend that to Dick and Jason's Robin outfits. That original Golden Age design endured for decades as a vital component of Robin's aesthetic. That original outfit should always be preserved for Dick and Jason. I always thought it showed a lot of insecurity on DC's part that they frequently show Dick and Jason wearing alternate designs.

I was reading a trade paperback copy of Superman/Wonder Woman Vol. 1 from the New 52 era, and I was reminded that Clark had already quit the Daily Planet to enter a partnership with Cat Grant to run an independent news blog. I remember Clark's career change was made into a big deal at the time.

On one hand, I can see the logic behind it. Newspaper journalism isn't as strong as it used to be with the rise of digital media and Clark is disillusioned with the state of journalism itself, and how ethics are sacrificed for entertainment and opinion pieces. On the other hand, Clark and Cat's news blog, in SM/WW Vol. 1, is called Clarkcatropolis.com. I hear a URL address like that, it reminds me of gossip. It doesn't really give me confidence it's an aspiring blogsite, haha. Had it not been for the anonymous scoop of Superman and Wonder Woman as a romantic couple, the blog would've been dead.

I know it's not the deepest observation in the world, but I think it's funny that for all of Clark's ambitions of journalistic integrity, he settled for such a tacky URL name.

Well, I can't fault the New 52 for trying to do new things for Superman. Whether or not these changes are good or bad is up for debate.

Vintage 1982/1983 advertisement for the Superman line of books at DC Comics. Just a few short years before "Crisis on Infinite Earths".

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-iBv7HX0AAe6-Q?format=jpg&name=900x900)

Jerry Ordway's Superman

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GABjSfIXUAAYchS?format=jpg&name=medium)

1998 Wizard Magazine promotion for "Superman For All Seasons".

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GANY1kkb0AA8279?format=jpg&name=large)

I find For All Seasons to be decent. Not great. But decent.

Still, it is a pivotal Superman story for many people. Plus, it was a gigantic influence on the first season of Smallville. Not for nothing did Gough and Millar seek out Jeph Loeb to lead the writers room in the second season of the show.

Big stuff came out of For All Seasons for sure.

For some reason, the first thing that comes to mind with "For All Seasons" is the kid remarking about how cool Superman's costume is, and the splash page of Supes responding, "Thanks! My Mom made it for me."

Personally, I like what Loeb/Sale did with the series. It does have charm.

--------------

Back in the early 2000's, DC Comics had a advertising campaign slogan that DC were "The Original Universe".

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAbtrhRbIAEzCz-?format=jpg&name=large)

1961 advert.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAg4sWHWgAEGtGZ?format=jpg&name=large)

Wizard Magazine takes a look at the DC Comics Superman line back in 1998, points out perceived problems, and how they would have fixed them.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GDq70GybQAACsv8?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GDq70GwbwAA79y1?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GDq70GybgAAdZ6x?format=jpg&name=large)

Fair criticisms for the most part.

Honestly, I think the Superman creative teams were sort of stuck in a rut after the conclusion of Reign Of The Supermen in 1993. And it's not hard to see why.

When you kill off your main character and then bring him back from the dead, what's left? In a dramatic sense, you can't really top death.

Something else, I think they got addicted to the success and mainstream press that the whole Doomsday/Funeral For A Friend/Reign Of The Supermen trilogy brought them. So, they started telling stunts rather than stories hoping to reclaim the 1992/1993 glory days. The results of that were mixed. Yes, some of the stories and concepts coming out for Superman back then were solid. But a lot of them weren't. And fair or not, many of them were regarded as derivates of the trilogy.

Another thing to bear in mind is what appears to be Superman's natural lifecycle. Superman's participation in the Silver Age lasted roughly twelve years. His participation in the Bronze Age lasted fifteen years. By 1998, Post-Crisis Superman had been rolling along for twelve years. So, there's an argument that at the very least, it was time to bring in a completely new creative team and let them have a turn at bat by 1998. And that eventually did indeed happen. But my contention would be that it should've happened in 1994. 1996 at the absolute latest.

A problem that doesn't get remarked upon a whole lot these days is Superman's rogue's gallery. Specifically, how wonky it is. Superman's enemies need to pose a specific kind of threat. Ideally, an enemy of Superman threatens either Superman himself, Clark himself or the city of Metropolis as a whole. But beginning in the Nineties, some of Superman's rogues seem to take a few too many cues from Batman's rogues. Toyman is a good example. For as silly as that character has the potential to be, he can also pose a real threat. But in the Nineties, the Toyman was reimagined as a Norman Bates serial killer figure. He kidnapped and even murdered children. In my opinion, a character like that is *WAY* too balls out for a Superman comic book. Maybe I'm old fashioned. But I tend to think that even Superman's villains usually need to have a certain amount of wholesomeness to them. A serial killer who targets children is just plain over the line.

All of the above led to my emerging headcanon that started in the early 2000's, where I began thinking that maybe Superman really did die in Superman #75 from 1992 and he never really did come back from the dead. Because if the post-1993 storylines were as good as it gets when it comes to Superman, then maybe it's better for everyone that he sacrificed his life to save the world and then stayed dead after that.

If nothing else, I've always found it interesting that the most enjoyable Superman stuff that come out from 1993 until 2001 or so was stuff that existed outside the mainstream DC Comics continuity. Stuff like Kingdom Come, For All Seasons, Lois & Clark, STAS, Smallville, the animated Justice League, etc. That should tell you something right there.

...

Sorry, didn't meant to turn this into a rant.

I was debating starting a new thread for general comic book discussion. Stuff I (or you) (or whoever) has just finished reading that was enjoyable. Or at least fodder for discussion.

And I may yet do that if it seems like others might be interested.

But in the end, I figured this is probably the best thread at least for Superman-related discussion. And so, here are some thoughts about Superman v1 246, Danger -- Monster At Work, December 1971.

I guess I wanted to talk about this issue because it's sort of exemplary of the period. Superman tackles a genuine menace to Metropolis. Which is a big deal. But at the same time, this really is just another night on the job in Superman's weird life. This story probably isn't the weirdest thing that happened to Superman this entire week.

And this story does a lot to reinforce my belief that Bronze Age Superman is quickly becoming the most underappreciated era of Superman's publishing history.


First off, I just love the atmosphere of this whole story. Lots of rain and clouds. No, I wouldn't want every Superman story to be like this. But it's great for a novelty.


More lovely atmosphere in panel 01.

Something else the Bronze Age did well was show occasional glimpses into Clark's private life. And there's quite a bit of that in this issue.


This story also has a sort of preachy message about gun ownership. Now, I can understand where this might be a point of confusion for Europeans. But if you accept the premise that Metropolis is a surrogate for New York City (which I've never liked, personally), then you have to acknowledge that New York was facing a pretty serious crime problem in the Seventies. And it wouldn't get better any time soon.

It stands to reason that people would want to protect themselves. And this is why I think comics shouldn't get preachy. Because complex issues like this are hard to do justice while giving both sides a fair voice.

Also, some of this dialogue is pretty clunky, let's face it.


That final panel there has always interested me. It looks the general background isn't drawn. If anything, it looks like a tweaked photograph that's been manipulated using whatever technology was available for such a thing back in the Seventies. Other comics occasionally did the same thing and I've always been curious about the technique behind this.


This whole page shows Superman taking a creative approach to solving the problem. Yes, the blob is a threat to Metropolis. But at the same time, why not let it clean the sewers a bit before wrapping it up and taking it back to STAR Labs?


Of course, nothing is ever that simple and the blob eventually makes its way to the surface. Superman isn't infallible after all.

Also, this page kind of makes me wonder how long "Metropolis Marvel" has been one of Superman's monikers. And if it wasn't meant to be a jab at the other comic book company.


And now it's time to circle back to the neighborhood watch/vigilante group introduced earlier in the story. There was an accident and, naturally, private gunowners can't be trusted to use their weapons properly.

*sigh*

Anyway. The gun control thing doesn't bother me too much. #1, it's just Len Wein's opinion. And #2, this subplot does touch upon something relevant to society at the time (and now). But the one-sided presentation does a lot to damage Wein's own point.

Even so, this is a fun issue and, for some strange reason, I have a major soft spot for it.

As to the other, does anybody want a thread for discussing random back issues (or new issues) of something? Or am I the only one who has an interest in that?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 18 Jan  2024, 00:17As to the other, does anybody want a thread for discussing random back issues (or new issues) of something? Or am I the only one who has an interest in that?

That's a good idea. Just the other day I was thinking about some old standalone Batman stories I'd like to highlight, but they're not really significant enough to justify separate threads. A general thread for fans to discuss lesser known issues would provide a venue for such posts.

Since this is a Batman site, it might be better to have a separate thread for highlighting standalone Batman issues and then another thread for non-Batman comics. Or they could all go in one place.

To put a bow around my other comment, sometimes you read ancient letter columns and see future comic pros in there. Superman #250 showcased the reactions to Superman #246. One respondent was Marty Pasko. And he didn't get into the story pretty much at all.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 19 Jan  2024, 22:01That's a good idea. Just the other day I was thinking about some old standalone Batman stories I'd like to highlight, but they're not really significant enough to justify separate threads. A general thread for fans to discuss lesser known issues would provide a venue for such posts.

Since this is a Batman site, it might be better to have a separate thread for highlighting standalone Batman issues and then another thread for non-Batman comics. Or they could all go in one place.

I wondered the same thing. But I didn't want to turn my comment into War & Peace.

Still, there's merit to the idea of a separate thread for Batman issues. Because as you say, this is a Batman site and he should always have a more prominent position.

Personally, I'm fine with having a thread dedicated to Batman comics and a separate thread for Everything Else. Worst case, the two separate threads could always be merged together later on if necessary.

I remember picking up Superman #51 (January 1991) off the comic book spinner rack (remember those?) when it was brand new at a bookstore.

This issue is auspicious for many reasons. One of them is that this issue inaugurated the famous Triangle Numbering System. See, there were three ongoing monthly Superman comics coming out at the time. And they were interwoven with each other. What happened in an issue of Action Comics would reverberate in The Adventures Of Superman and then get carried on in Superman. So, a common complaint among readers was the lack of an easy way to figure out which order the comics should be read in.

Hence, the triangle number on the cover to guide readers. And I have to say, I found it very convenient.

Another reason this issue is special is because it's the first appearance of Mr. Z. Now, Mr. Z isn't a massively important Superman baddie. But the nature of his introduction certainly raises a lot of questions. Mr. Z has clearly met Superman before. As far as Mr. Z is concerned, Superman #51 isn't their first meeting. But Superman sure can't remember ever encountering Mr. Z before. So, what gives?

If I'm being honest, this is probably the only thing that makes Mr. Z even remotely interesting. Because he never amounted to very much as a character. But this is still a fun story. I get the impression that Ordway originally wanted Mr. Z to be Vandal Savage. But the nature of office politics required him to create a mostly original character. And tbh, I think that's better anyway. Maybe I'm just an old fart. But I always thought of Savage as a JSA villain more than anything else. So, by all means, make a (mostly) new character and call him Mr. Z. That works for me just fine.

And a great cover!


Even when I was a little kid, this cover demanded that I read the issue and figure out what's even going on with this.

But Jerry Ordway, the auteur behind this issue, takes his time in getting into all that. First, there's a nuclear meltdown that Superman has to deal with.


One of the reasons that I always loved Ordway's Superman in general is because his interpretation of the character is that Superman is LARGE AND IN CHARGE. But another cool aspect of this issue in particular is the amount of shadow and blackness. It creates a sort of foreboding atmosphere... which isn't something you want to see in every single Superman story that comes along. But it's definitely a welcome change of pace every once in a while.

To tangent for a moment, I always sort of regarded Ordway's Superman to be an interesting amalgamation of Wayne Boring and Curt Swan. Boring's barrel-chested powerhouse combined with Swan's nack for grace and expressiveness. Certain artists seem like they were genetically engineered to draw certain characters. And when it comes to Superman, I would say Ordway belongs on that list.


After Superman gets the nuclear meltdown under some kind of control, he takes a minute to give the facility director a safety lecture. I just adore the Adam West flavor of this little moment.

Since the Superman titles were so deeply intertwined with each other at the time, subplots could be explored in a much deeper fashion. For example, Lex Luthor died in a previous issue of Action Comics. His death has resulted in a lot of problems around Lexcorp and Metropolis.

It's meant to be a twist that this nuclear meltdown was occurring right there in the middle of everything in downtown Metropolis.


After assuming the guise of Clark and returning to the Daily Planet for some more subplot dumping (Perry is taking a leave of absence), Mr. Z telepathically contacts him. The act of touching Mr. Z's mind is enough to floor even him. So, he knows it's time to switch to Superman and fly to the museum.

It's worth noting that while Lois and Clark were definitely an item during this era, she didn't yet know that Clark was Superman. That was to be revealed to her in the VERY near future at the time. But not quite yet.


Anyway, Superman no sooner arrives at the museum than Mr. Z pounces, imprisoning Superman's soul inside his mysterious jewel. While inside the jewel, Superman meets many other souls from history. European kings from the Middle Ages, ancient Romans, American frontiersmen, a sort of obvious stand-in for Rasputin, etc.

All of it is enough to make you wonder just who the heck Mr. Z is and how long he's been alive if he's met and imprisoned all these people.

In any case, the jewel isn't quite powerful enough to contain Superman's alien essence. So, Superman eventually figures out a way to destroy the jewel, freeing himself and his fellow captives in the process.

The blast also kills Mr. Z. But does it?


All in all, this issue whetted my appetite to learn about this strange Mr. Z person and find out what the deal is with his relationship with Superman. But that's a story for another time. The explanation is both as simple and complex as you might expect.

Also as a side note, I tend to favor one-and-done Superman stories. Yeah, I like the big, sweeping, epic stuff as much as the next guy. But I always thought there was something cool and magical about putting a massive character like Superman into short run stories that span a single day.

I get the impression that "Mister Z!" takes place over maybe three or four hours tops.

All in all, this issue is a blast and I think it's great if you're looking for a fun, low-calorie Superman story.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 20 Jan  2024, 19:22I remember picking up Superman #51 (January 1991) off the comic book spinner rack (remember those?) when it was brand new at a bookstore.

This issue is auspicious for many reasons. One of them is that this issue inaugurated the famous Triangle Numbering System. See, there were three ongoing monthly Superman comics coming out at the time. And they were interwoven with each other. What happened in an issue of Action Comics would reverberate in The Adventures Of Superman and then get carried on in Superman. So, a common complaint among readers was the lack of an easy way to figure out which order the comics should be read in.

Hence, the triangle number on the cover to guide readers. And I have to say, I found it very convenient.

Honestly, the first time I ever saw this issue, was within Wizard magazine as the publication had a "Speculation" section on comics that could very well increase in value due to particulars, and this was one of them. Mainly because, as you mentioned, the Triangle numbering system starting with this issue. Which I thought was neat. Course, this was pre-internet, and I never found the comic until much, much later, but I do remember this being one I sought out for awhile. In addition, since I really didn't start reading Superman until right when Doomsday made his 1st appearance, any back issues featuring what some may consider regular Superman stories, had a particular "mystique" about them to me as kid. As, again, when I got into Superman comics, I didn't have him for very long, then there was a hiatus. Retroactively making previous past comics kinda special to me in some ways.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGR369JXoAA9jzn?format=jpg&name=900x900)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHjo-QnXYAAeVPc?format=jpg&name=large)

It's funny. I've seen the SNL Superman's 50th Anniversary special a few times. But until now, I guess I didn't realize that the bald guy was always supposed to be Lex Luthor.

Strange.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  3 Mar  2024, 03:40It's funny. I've seen the SNL Superman's 50th Anniversary special a few times. But until now, I guess I didn't realize that the bald guy was always supposed to be Lex Luthor.

Strange.

In the credits of the special itself, Robert Smigel is listed as The Brainwave, not Lex Luthor. This was just a case of misidentification.

Via the Wizard Magazine Superman Special from 1998, this was a look at the history of Superman as it stood during the 60th Anniversary in 1998.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GICIAi-acAEszOt?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GICJDYwaEAAvj3L?format=jpg&name=large)

A look at the Post-Crisis Superman era in 1998.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIGJiJ7aEAA5kce?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIGJiKAaAAA_xuL?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIGJiJ8agAAyYKF?format=jpg&name=large)


A write up on the state of the DC Comics Superman line following the "Superman Forever" one shot.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIBMxO0asAAWOqL?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIBMxO1bUAAaskw?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIBMxO1bgAADDBD?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIBMxOzasAA5Cg3?format=jpg&name=large)

Superman Roll Call

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIKk5JfboAAlwR1?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIKuA2FbEAAssfd?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GILNtrAbwAASKiJ?format=jpg&name=large)

Fortress of Solitude checklist.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIGmMQ4XsAEYxIP?format=jpg&name=large)

Interesting time capsule brief write-up announcing that there was going to be a dramatic creator writer/artist shift on the horizon in 1999 with the Superman books at DC Comics.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMgwnCJbMAAmwxf?format=jpg&name=large)

The timing sounds like that's when the Superman 2000 fiasco (http://theages.superman.nu/History/2000) went down.

It's clear that Eddie Berganza maybe spoke a little out of turn when he offered the Superman titles to Waid, Peyer, Morrison and Millar. The story goes that when Mike Carlin came back from vacation and found out what Berganza had authorized, he personally cancelled the entire Superman 2000 program.

In retrospect, I see this as a great tragedy. Considering how mediocre to awful the Superman line of comics were in the early to mid 2000's, it's hard to imagine that the Superman 2000 relaunch would've somehow been worse.

"The things we could've done together..."

I found a couple of videos reacting to the Death of Superman storyline back in 1992. The first video includes snippets of Roger Stern explaining how the concept was conceived and claimed Superman comics at the time were creator-driven, but John Byrne simply sees it as a gimmicky marketing ploy to sell comics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNJTdhLSIjo&ab_channel=crowT10

The next couple of videos are news reports gathering reactions to the storyline; one of them claiming Superman had an image problem and popularity was dwindling compared to the grittier characters at the time.

https://youtu.be/ovqnWgRNmZ4

https://youtu.be/dG9yH_EVI0U

The concept for the whole saga may have been a marketing gimmick, but it still doesn't take away from some of the most emotional moments ever read in comics. Such as the scenes in Funeral For a Friend, when Ma and Pa Kent couldn't attend the public memorial so they said goodbye to Clark their own way by burying mementos in the same area they found him as an infant, and Jonathan's near-death experience finds him in an afterlife world where he fights hard to convince Clark not to give into death, culminating in Superman's coffin suddenly found empty. It's these sorts of moments that make Superman and his world greater than  even his own fans give him credit for.