Page 129 of 148 FirstFirst ... 2979119125126127128129130131132133139 ... LastLast
Results 1,921 to 1,935 of 2209
  1. #1921
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    The Byrne reboot of Superman was very popular at that time, and he needed something because sales definitely weren't where they needed to be. But even if a revamp was unavoidable, it sucks that Byrne is the one that made the most sense to go with at that time. Frank Miller who hadn't completely gone over the edge at that point (and more importantly, would have had Steve Gerber as a co-pilot) would have likely created a comic that aged better than Byrne's stuff.
    It depends on what frank miller saw in superman, at that point . If miller saw the dark knight returns superman as something the character is or has become. Then i think the character might not have been for him. He might have done something that perpetuated that image. Miller seems to be nietzschean.He specifically targets superman's saviorness in that comic.

    Then again he might have torn down the character and rebuilt it a different way,Because the character might not have been for him at that point. I don't know what he feels about the original action comics superman. But, he seems to like a controversial character. So, maybe who knows. We might have gotten a full blown vigilante superman with some grit,instead of just a boyscout who hates seeing himself as one. But, that character would have had some "ugly" side to him as well as good that's for sure. It's part of nietzschean philosophy. You are to embrace both the light and the dark.

  2. #1922
    ...of the Black Priests Midnight_v's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    I don't know... I'd been mentioned the last few posts but when did superman have an edge to him again? I don't mean Nu52 edge I mean classically speaking.

    and I agree with you too on this part:
    It depends on what frank miller saw in superman, at that point .
    I can't help but think that everyone's looking at a different superman by some metric. Frank Miller and each of us.

    I'm just not a fan of people crying for "Bat-vengeance" either... its not to embrace that sort of thing. Its a low position, and I feel like it comes up every few pages here for some reason.

    But yeah... When I think of supes ultimate Supes... I admit I think of Kingdom Come superman and in some ways. . . "What so funny about truth, justice, and the American way"

    I think everyone else is looking somewhere. I'm just about ot watch JLark Apocalyse today and a part of me thought "Superman would NEVER lead the heroes to war to invade or "Take out" i.e. Kill the ruler of another world... but maybe thats the issue. They have played up that Naievte and being a good man to an extreme, and he wasn't "Metropolis Milquetoast" before a certain point.

    I should have clued in when you mentioned the golden age superman as an example.

    I think. I think the Ultimate just solution to this is simply to NEVER have the trinity fight each other or at least put an stall on it for decades.

    There's issues all around
    Last edited by Midnight_v; 05-23-2020 at 12:20 PM.
    My priority is enjoying and supporting stories of timeless heroism and conflict.
    Everything else is irrelevant.

  3. #1923
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzigone View Post
    Oh yeah, that rough and tumble side was long gone. It's sort of two-pronged. First, like you said, the increase in power - you just can't have someone that powerful punching wifebeaters and threatening two-bit thugs. Not only does it make a very unthrilling story*, but he also just looks bad for physically hurting people that much weaker than himself. He doesn't need to hurt them to stop them, so if he did, he'd just look he was hurting people for the joy of it. Kinda sadistic. Second prong is just the change in tone in superhero comics in general in the 1940s & 1950s. Batman was just as affected. Just he's swung the other way since. I've never gotten into the sweeping, silver-age mythology, much preferring golden or modern ages, with much less Kryptonite and Krypton and with Superman not viewing himself as not one of us and so forth, but I acknowledge many loved it were sorry to see it go.

    * On the topic of less-than-thrilling stories, I miss a handful of thugs being a challenge to Batman. The days when a lucky blow the head could take him down. When his Robin could save him as well as the other way around. When he didn't always have the upper hand, even against ordinary criminals. Seeing the hero win is fantastic - I want the hero to win. But doesn't necessarily need to be a breeze. Of course, that gets into the issue of ever-increasing power (and threat) levels all around.
    I think my problem with getting rid of the sprawling Silver Age lore while also not bringing it fully back to Golden Age level stuff is that it's a boring middle ground that isn't as interesting as either. He's strong but not too strong, all the "silly" stuff is gone like Krypto, Coluan Brainiac, the Legion and Bizarro World, but replaced with stuff like Sleeze and Rampage and Milton Fine Brainiac and all of that is played "serious" but doesn't come across as any less silly and comic book-y. The self seriousness tends to have the opposite effect and make it dumber. Clark viewing himself as human first might be more natural, but the execution where he less neurotic and quirky makes him less interesting. Losing the gas lighting of Lois is a good thing, but we still have the kind of sleazy way he takes over the Superman article from her that she has right to be pissed at him about, and he wants her to love Clark first by "wearing her down."

    It's John "Wonder Woman is a heterosexual virgin!" Byrne, he ruins every DC property he touches IMO. Cribbing from this take is why the DCAU version of Superman didn't excite me nearly as much as a kid as Spider-Man, Batman or the X-Men did. I think, though the era as a whole fell apart very quickly, early New 52 Action Comics marries the Golden and Silver age takes far more effectively than boring yuppie 80s Clark.

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    It depends on what frank miller saw in superman, at that point . If miller saw the dark knight returns superman as something the character is or has become. Then i think the character might not have been for him. He might have done something that perpetuated that image. Miller seems to be nietzschean.He specifically targets superman's saviorness in that comic.

    Then again he might have torn down the character and rebuilt it a different way,Because the character might not have been for him at that point. I don't know what he feels about the original action comics superman. But, he seems to like a controversial character. So, maybe who knows. We might have gotten a full blown vigilante superman with some grit,instead of just a boyscout who hates seeing himself as one. But, that character would have had some "ugly" side to him as well as good that's for sure. It's part of nietzschean philosophy. You are to embrace both the light and the dark.
    It's hard to know, as we can't get a time machine and change history. I think Miller portrayed Superman the way he did in TDKR to criticize a lot of the post-Golden Age directions, as Superman became a propaganda tool for WWII early on (but so did Batman) and isn't necessarily how he would have approached Superman otherwise if he could build him up himself. I think a post-COIE revamp by Miller would have skewed closer to Siegel and Shuster's creation than Byrne's ended up doing. And again, Gerber was involved, and he'd already written one great pre-COIE Superman story (Phantom Zone). So we wouldn't be getting a pure Miller Superman. Also, Gerber would have done Wonder Woman, and while she fared the best out of the Trinity with Perez, I would have liked to see what he would have done with her.

    I don't know if the "Alan Moore was approached to revamp Superman" thing was any more than an early rumor, but of course he would have destroyed all other takes.

  4. #1924
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight_v View Post
    I don't know... I'd been mentioned the last few posts but when did superman have an edge to him again? I don't mean Nu52 edge I mean classically speaking.

    and I agree with you too on this part:
    Superman isn't edgy persay. He is more of a swashbuckling hero like phantom, zorro, indiana Jones... Etc. He used to actually have a personality. It wasn't anywhere near close to a boyscout .He can get quite pissed off and get reckless, though. That isn't exactly him being edgy. It's just him being only human. He especially hated being boxed in, chained or some types of walls restricting movements.So,doing any kf that would quickly get you punched. But, His recklessness used to actually have him goof up from time to time. Since, the guy always lead with action its to be expected . You know how joker discribed batman in under the red hood as "the rootin tootin son of gun" . Well, that fits superman perfectly.So yeah! Superman was all about doing the right thing,not the exactly the appropriate thing. Hence, the goofups. A man who always does what is appropriate will seldom goof up.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 05-23-2020 at 01:24 PM.

  5. #1925
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    802

    Default



    Apropos of nothing this made me cry laughing

  6. #1926
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    From what I recall, you flat out admitted you didn't put much research into what you were saying and posted stuff that outright contradicted what you were saying.
    No and no, saying I don't research this extensively meant that I don't conduct research myself but I read a lot, but you don't argue in good faith, you will continue to see what you want to see as opposed to what is actually in front of you
    Last edited by yash; 05-24-2020 at 04:43 AM.

  7. #1927
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    23,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yash View Post
    No and no, saying I don't research this extensively meant that I don't conduct research myself but I read a lot, but you don't argue in good faith, you will continue to see what you want to see as opposed to what is actually in front of you
    Well if this ain't the pot calling the kettle black.

  8. #1928
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    15,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight_v View Post
    I don't know... I'd been mentioned the last few posts but when did superman have an edge to him again? I don't mean Nu52 edge I mean classically speaking.
    Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age.....different kinds of "edge" in each. OG Superman is a bully of bullies, a rather classically macho man's man. Silver Age had, at times, an almost "mad scientist" vibe going on where a lot of the stuff he did, especially as it pertained to his human supporting cast, was almost like a large scale sociology experiment. Super Dickery at its finest. Bronze Age had a certain "unstoppable force" vibe; he would barrel into a situation and rarely ever consider whether he was up to the task, he had confidence for days and balls of steel.

    The post-Crisis version eventually got a little bit of his game back too, but it was at odds with a number of less appealing characterizations that cropped up through the era; the 80's yuppie, the impotent, useless god of the mid 00's, the weak willed and self-conscious, fretting of the late 00's.

    The Rebirth-current era has a little of his old edge. Not quite as much as I'd like, but it's better than we had.

    Doesn't help either that Superman is a more subtle, nuanced character than most of his peers. He's not like, say, Iron Man, where they slapped the "cocky billionaire" archetype on him then added "alcoholic" on top of that to make him seem well-rounded and flawed. Clark, like Wonder Woman, is a quieter character with more layers and it takes time to recognize them.

    I can't help but think that everyone's looking at a different superman by some metric. Frank Miller and each of us.
    Indeed. But the same can be said of any character who has lasted as long as Clark. We could say the same about Batman; some see the pulp vigilante of the Golden Age, some the Bat-ass of the 80's-00's, some the relatively balanced hero of the Bronze Age, etc.

    Superman's varying versions are just more pronounced than most, in large part because he's had several re-starts and reboots that began his character arc over from scratch. And because he's Superman and the godfather of the genre, everything about him, especially the differences between versions, gets lit up and magnified by the fandom's consciousness.

    But yeah... When I think of supes ultimate Supes... I admit I think of Kingdom Come superman and in some ways. . . "What so funny about truth, justice, and the American way"
    Case in point; I think those two stories are among the worst Superman stories of the modern age. Kingdom Come is a fantastic story, but an awful Superman story. And "What's So Funny..." is just plain awful. And I can cite all the reasons why, but the bottom line remains; you see those as being "proper" Superman tales, and I don't, but really, who's to say who is right?

    (I'm right, just so you know. )

    I think. I think the Ultimate just solution to this is simply to NEVER have the trinity fight each other or at least put an stall on it for decades.
    This is the correct answer. It does them no good to be put up against each other outside of very, very rare exceptions that have had a lot of buildup and thought put into it, and every time DC knocks one of them down it puts another dent in the IP's worth. Tiny dents, perhaps, insignificant on their own, but sh*t like that adds up over time.
    Last edited by Ascended; 05-24-2020 at 09:34 AM.
    Higher, Faster, Further....More.

    Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow!

    Bridge Four!

  9. #1929
    ...of the Black Priests Midnight_v's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Case in point; I think those two stories are among the worst Superman stories of the modern age. Kingdom Come is a fantastic story, but an awful Superman story. And "What's So Funny..." is just plain awful. And I can cite all the reasons why, but the bottom line remains; you see those as being "proper" Superman tales, and I don't, but really, who's to say who is right?

    (I'm right, just so you know. )
    Ok, Boomer. /10 Char


    (^_^) jokes aside let hear your top 2 stories for supes. I'm all ears but we should take this horse around back once and for all. There should be a reason why you feel the way you do about them, where as I feel the same.
    My priority is enjoying and supporting stories of timeless heroism and conflict.
    Everything else is irrelevant.

  10. #1930
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    15,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight_v View Post
    Ok, Boomer. /10 Char
    Hey now, those are fighting words! I'm Gen X, muthaf---er!

    .....or Gen Xenial, depending on which years you use to define this stuff.

    (^_^) jokes aside let hear your top 2 stories for supes. I'm all ears but we should take this horse around back once and for all. There should be a reason why you feel the way you do about them, where as I feel the same.
    Oh I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong. You like those stories, cool, they're very popular so you're not alone. My point is that, especially with Supes, there's a lot of flavors out there. Who am I to tell you you're wrong?

    But if you really wanna know...I don't really have a "Top 10" list but right now, my top 2 are probably All-Star and Smashes the Klan. Both capture the nuance and complexity of the character, All-Star makes great use of the weirder aspects of the mythos and injects tons of pathos and Smash has one of the best takes on the alienation of Superman I've ever seen. But neither story is perfect; All-Star is too much of a pacifist and Smash has a limited scope and neither really delve into the divide between Clark Kent and Superman.

    My issues with Kingdom Come and Action 775 (What's So Funny...) are these; in KC roughly half of Clark's actions are out of character. That's to be expected, this is a story about what happens when heroes fail, and it's a fantastic story, but because of the premise it's not a good measurement for Clark's (or anyone's) characterizations. Waid gets Superman but to make the story work he had to break the character. For example, Clark wouldn't retire just because the public disagrees with him about lethal force, he isn't Superman because it makes him popular. Action 775 is framed as a political debate and, at every single turn, Clark loses the argument. He provides an opinion in each scene, Manchester Black counters with valid arguments and Clark, not once, has a good rebuttal. Then at the end he beats everyone up and preens as if he won the debate. Clark's argument ultimately boils down to "getting murdered is scary!" while Black can cite multiple, logical (cold blooded, but logical) reasons why lethal force saves lives in the long run. But Clark beats him up in the end and calls himself the winner. Imagine if Biden and trump got on the debate stage, and after two hours of losing arguments trump walked over and punched Biden in the nose. That's basically the plot of Action 775.
    Higher, Faster, Further....More.

    Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow!

    Bridge Four!

  11. #1931
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4,698

    Default

    I am a sucker for old pulp fiction. So, superman of the old days. I grew up with the phantom and one piece. So, that superman just felt like everything i would want. An outlaw who fights for truth and justice in a swashbuckling style.i love moore's superman as well For the man who has everything. I also have wierd love for action comics#188. Superman gets irradiated so he has to live life alone. He kills everything he comes in contact with. He laments his loneliness . It also has subtext theme of people's fickleness.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 05-25-2020 at 10:07 AM.

  12. #1932
    Astonishing Member Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Hey now, those are fighting words! I'm Gen X, muthaf---er!

    .....or Gen Xenial, depending on which years you use to define this stuff.



    Oh I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong. You like those stories, cool, they're very popular so you're not alone. My point is that, especially with Supes, there's a lot of flavors out there. Who am I to tell you you're wrong?

    But if you really wanna know...I don't really have a "Top 10" list but right now, my top 2 are probably All-Star and Smashes the Klan. Both capture the nuance and complexity of the character, All-Star makes great use of the weirder aspects of the mythos and injects tons of pathos and Smash has one of the best takes on the alienation of Superman I've ever seen. But neither story is perfect; All-Star is too much of a pacifist and Smash has a limited scope and neither really delve into the divide between Clark Kent and Superman.

    My issues with Kingdom Come and Action 775 (What's So Funny...) are these; in KC roughly half of Clark's actions are out of character. That's to be expected, this is a story about what happens when heroes fail, and it's a fantastic story, but because of the premise it's not a good measurement for Clark's (or anyone's) characterizations. Waid gets Superman but to make the story work he had to break the character. For example, Clark wouldn't retire just because the public disagrees with him about lethal force, he isn't Superman because it makes him popular. Action 775 is framed as a political debate and, at every single turn, Clark loses the argument. He provides an opinion in each scene, Manchester Black counters with valid arguments and Clark, not once, has a good rebuttal. Then at the end he beats everyone up and preens as if he won the debate. Clark's argument ultimately boils down to "getting murdered is scary!" while Black can cite multiple, logical (cold blooded, but logical) reasons why lethal force saves lives in the long run. But Clark beats him up in the end and calls himself the winner. Imagine if Biden and trump got on the debate stage, and after two hours of losing arguments trump walked over and punched Biden in the nose. That's basically the plot of Action 775.
    While I don't hate 775 as much as you do, and I agree with a lot of your criticisms, I will add that Clark originated as the bully in your corner (I know you are aware of this, but go with me). He made the rules based on his moral compass and he then punched people who challenged them, justification be damned, because he was in your corner. I think the interesting thing about your reaction to 775 in particular is what happens when that bully may not be in exactly your corner; he's using might to right what he feels is a moral wrong, but if you don't share same mindset, he comes across as a goon who has no great reasoning behind his moral compass. Ultimately, what it comes down to is that 775 is Clark trying desperately to hold together the fundamental flaw of cape comics (villains being too valuable for the IP to kill off) where any real justification would feel flimsy (Batman's Murder Pringles can, the concept of the universe making something worse to fill the void, etc). You mention that a debate is solved by one candidate coming across and punching the other in the nose, but isn't that exactly Superman's move, especially from the Golden Age? Clark likes to talk his problems out, but eventually he's going to back it up with a fist. One of the most criticized takes of Superman is when all he does is speak in moral platitudes like some disappointed patriarch. He's a man of action. Eventually he's going to deck someone, as he did Black. The big failure of that story was, as you noted, he never had any rebuttal up until that point. He just came across as extremely put-upon and disappointed.

    I hate that you made me put Clark in Trump's position, by the way. Just for that, I'm cursing you to another three years of living Kents.

    It's not unique to Action 775, but it has the dubious honor of being an example of trying to justify the hokier nature of superhero comics. Sometimes it can be fun to explore, but making a grand statement of it is always going to fall flat because nobody can see through secret IDs, people come back from the dead all the time, the universe reboots itself, physics only apply when convenient and villains never get killed because reasons. It's never really going to make a ton of sense, and the explanations for them that we tend to enjoy we don't examine further because those too will fall apart.

    It's why I'm softer on 775. I can't in good conscience take it to task over something that I let pass elsewhere, though I admit your critique of it is pretty solid.

  13. #1933
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    15,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robanker View Post
    I hate that you made me put Clark in Trump's position, by the way. Just for that, I'm cursing you to another three years of living Kents.
    That's cold bro.

    Stone cold.

    It's why I'm softer on 775. I can't in good conscience take it to task over something that I let pass elsewhere, though I admit your critique of it is pretty solid.
    You're right, punching is usually Superman's way. And usually I give that a free pass because he's a man of action and gratuitous violence is how we solve our problems in the DCU. But the fatal flaw with 775 is that it's not framed the same way other superhero narratives are; it's literally a debate; not a metaphor or allegory or escapist fantasy, but a straight up conversation/argument about a real-world issue, with two sides trying to prove their stance to the other. That changes the rules of engagement in my mind. If you're gonna write a story where Clark argues instead of fights, the endgame can't be "Clark punches his problems away." Or, if you're gonna stick to that endgame, then Clark should at least get a few good points into his argument first.

    Besides, there *are* valid reasons and arguments against capital punishment and lethal force. They're easy to Google, and were easy to find back in '01 when 775 came out. That's the thing that really kills me with that issue; there *were* good arguments Clark could have made. But he didnt make them.

    But again, this is just me. If you or Midnight or whoever likes the issue I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there's a lot of ways to look at these characters and "my" Superman might not be "your" Superman, but that doesn't mean one of us is wrong.
    Higher, Faster, Further....More.

    Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow!

    Bridge Four!

  14. #1934
    Standing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,659

    Default

    While I respect the reaction anyone would have nowadays to reading something from the before times, I think half of the fun of reading books and comics or watching movies and TV shows from before you were born is putting yourself in the shoes of those people. It's a chance for you to time travel and you don't need to split any atoms to do it. Yet a lot of people rigidly hold onto their "I'm a person in 2020" outlook and refuse to see the past from any other perspective.

    Someone picking up a Superman comic in 1938 would have their socks knocked off. That has so much edge because it's a vision of reality that no one had experienced before. I can just imagine the excitement those comics must have generated. They challenged all the accepted norms.
    🇨🇦

  15. #1935
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    1,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    While I respect the reaction anyone would have nowadays to reading something from the before times, I think half of the fun of reading books and comics or watching movies and TV shows from before you were born is putting yourself in the shoes of those people. It's a chance for you to time travel and you don't need to split any atoms to do it. Yet a lot of people rigidly hold onto their "I'm a person in 2020" outlook and refuse to see the past from any other perspective.

    Someone picking up a Superman comic in 1938 would have their socks knocked off. That has so much edge because it's a vision of reality that no one had experienced before. I can just imagine the excitement those comics must have generated. They challenged all the accepted norms.
    Part of it is the Information Age. For the last twenty years you could get a synopsis of what those issues were about by just clicking online. Even read other people’s reviews on them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •