Superman Year One: out now (Spoilers)

[Yoda]

Funny I remember this time when batman v superman came out and I was criticized for not giving Zack Snyder enough credit even though his film was pretty much a justification to have batman and superman punch each other or lift pages from the death of superman which is just a book of action panels with superman punching or being punched by a giant mindless creature.

I also remember the very film being defended by people on this thread complaining yet I wonder why as they seem to agreed with what Snyder did even though he admitted he lifted his scenes straight from millers book, and to go so far as to even post Gifs from that very film yet I see them turn up their nose at millars work.

I ask what could be so different? What difference is there between what both these men have created that I can't put my finger on? Even though zack pretty much admits he based his entire film off of millars work.

Shockingly, one can hold different opinions on different works by the same creators. More so when the work is in different contexts or interpreted by someone else. I'm sure someone could remake Year One without all of Miller's tropey nonsense and horrendous dialogue. But you'd have to go back to like the mid-90's for me to find anything of value in any of Miller's comics. If you scroll back a few pages you can read my thoughts on that, Don't see the point in rehasing that yet again.

[Annie Parker]

Someone on another forum told me that Miller' Superman is someone that has to compromise and never gets what he really wants. In TDKR he has to be a government lackey if he wants to still be a superhero and in TDKSA he has to lose to Brainiac's monster to save Kandor from destruction. In TDKIII he wants to stop Quar but can't fight his daughter. Her theory in the last issue Superman and Lois will be the OTP but in the future Superman will have to settle for Diana because of Lois dying as part of Luthor's plan to have control over Superman.

[misslane]

Funny I remember this time when batman v superman came out and I was criticized for not giving Zack Snyder enough credit even though his film was pretty much a justification to have batman and superman punch each other or lift pages from the death of superman which is just a book of action panels with superman punching or being punched by a giant mindless creature.

I also remember the very film being defended by people on this thread complaining yet I wonder why as they seem to agreed with what Snyder did even though he admitted he lifted his scenes straight from millers book, and to go so far as to even post Gifs from that very film yet I see them turn up their nose at millars work.

I ask what could be so different? What difference is there between what both these men have created that I can't put my finger on? Even though zack pretty much admits he based his entire film off of millars work.

Snyder deconstructed Miller's TDKR. He very much went out of his way to flip the entire nature of the conflict. Grant Morrison had this to say about the film:



The main difference in the two stories, of course, is Superman's role in the conflict. In both of Miller's stories, Superman's violent actions cannot be excused in any way as solely an act of self-defense. He's either taking on Batman for petty reasons or he's a morally ambiguous political actor. Bottom line: Superman is not sympathetic in Miller's stories. The only way he's sympathetic is if you genuinely believe that it's okay for Superman to "punch down."

Also, just to be clear, the purpose of Doomsday is to illustrate the futility of mindless violence because it only makes him stronger. The only way to destroy Doomsday is through an act of selfless sacrifice.

[Yoda]

Someone on another forum told me that Miller' Superman is someone that has to compromise and never gets what he really wants. In TDKR he has to be a government lackey if he wants to still be a superhero and in TDKSA he has to lose to Brainiac's monster to save Kandor from destruction. In TDKIII he wants to stop Quar but can't fight his daughter. Her theory in the last issue Superman and Lois will be the OTP but in the future Superman will have to settle for Diana because of Lois dying as part of Luthor's plan to have control over Superman.

That's reading far to much into Miller. What's likely going to happen is this. He's going to fall in love with Lois but won't be able to be with her because he's Superman. This will be presented as him making some comment on how fragile she is or humans are, but basically will mean Miller doesn't think he can sleep with her because she's human. Wonder Woman will be impressed by him because he's a big alpha male in their fight with Batman. And since he can have sex with Wonder Woman because she's a superhero, Miller will have him have sex with Wonder Woman. If you're looking for anything deeper than that, I think you're going to be disappointed.

By the way, the solicit for #3 just dropped and the climatic battle is against... The Joker. Nothing like a Superman origin that has him battling his arch enemy, the Joker. And needing Batman and Wonder Woman's help to do it.

[Sacred Knight]

I wouldn't be surprised if it even gets that far in. He'll probably have an attraction to both Lois and Diana, some scenes will establish that, and that will pretty much be it. I doubt he gets with either one of them on any level. Yes ther's a better chance of Diana because he's not a fan of the Clark/Lois pairing, but I still don't think anything solid comes out of anything. If it stays true to a Year One like format there's no reason to give resolution to anything in that vein, as by the end everything is actually just beginning.

But yes, too much Batman influence from the sounds of #3. Disappointing. But this is a DC-wide problem. Just sucks it can't even be escaped in alternate stories. It wouldn't bother me as much as it does if it were equal play. I still wouldn't prefer it, but if Superman showed up half as often as Batman and other stuff from his mythos showed up in Superman's at least you could just say "well they just really like the dynamic". But Superman rarely shows up in anything Batman-related so it just always reeks writers just needing to put Batman in every damn thing.

[Yoda]

Not according to the Military Times interview:

He will eventually end up romancing Lois Lane, and alludes to Superman and Wonder Woman knocking super-boots in a third volume superhero sexcapade.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...kent-as-man-of

[Sacred Knight]

Ah, I missed that article. I stand corrected.

[Vordan]

Oh God, a modern Romita Jr. sex scene? That’s going to be horrifying.

Also I’m very conflicted about Supes taking on the Joker. On one hand, yeah I hate the Joker’s overuse and I don’t like that Miller couldn’t be bothered to use one of Supes’ other Rogues. But on the other hand if Supes puts up a good show against the Joker I’ll be happy, ever since Injustice people have been staying that Joker can easily beat Superman because Supes is stupid. Obviously Supes has traditionally easily beaten the Joker (another wonderful little “mishandling” of Supes Injustice gave us), so maybe seeing him beat the Joker in his first year will get it into people’s heads that Supes is not the idiot he’s been portrayed as in other stories.

Of course it could also end with Clark being a totoal moron and getting trounced by the Joker, in which case I’ll just totally disregard this story like pretty much everyone else already has. I don’t think there’s any chance this gets brought into canon, so Miller can do whatever he wants, at this point I doubt anyone is going to really view his Superman as anywhere close to an authoritative take on Supes these days.

[EsotericFailures]

Miller seemingly can't write solo superhero comics anymore, the Dark Knight sequels were Superman focused Justice League stories (especially III, where Batman has almost no relevance to the actual plot) and ASBAR's story was meant to be about Batman being hunted by the Justice League. This now applies to his Superman origin story as well.

Frank Miller positioned Superman as a conservative figure to write a dystopian story where much of the DCU meets bad ends. And it works as a parody of mainstream Superman's shift away from a Jewish anti-establishment rebellious figure to a more mainstream Christian conservative figure (much of that finds it's way in Snyder's vision).

As to what happens in #3... I dunno, we'll just have to wait until we read it.

[misslane]

Frank Miller positioned Superman as a conservative figure to write a dystopian story where much of the DCU meets bad ends. And it works as a parody of mainstream Superman's shift away from a Jewish anti-establishment rebellious figure to a more mainstream Christian conservative figure (much of that finds it's way in Snyder's vision)

I really can't agree that there's any Christian or conservative characterization of Superman in the DCEU. Not only is Snyder's storytelling, especially in BvS, an explicit rejection of Superman as a savior or god, but one of Clark's central arcs in BvS was him serving as a champion of the poor and oppressed people of Gotham. Clark and Perry's relationship in BvS is quite fraught explicitly because Clark is on a muckraking streak. Superman also goes out of his way to eschew any particular attachment to the government: he destroys a drone in Nairomi and is actually scrutinized by the government because the public begins to question to whom he answers. There's even a moment when Clark smiles at a gay couple kissing on the ferry to Gotham. What elements of Snyder's Superman read as conservative or Christian to you? I hope it's not the fallacious charge that Snyder's Superman is an objectivist icon of some sort because there's nothing less Randian than a hero who sacrifices his life for others.

[Vordan]

I really can't agree that there's any Christian or conservative characterization of Superman in the DCEU. Not only is Snyder's storytelling, especially in BvS, an explicit rejection of Superman as a savior or god, but one of Clark's central arcs in BvS was him serving as a champion of the poor and oppressed people of Gotham. Clark and Perry's relationship in BvS is quite fraught explicitly because Clark is on a muckraking streak. Superman also goes out of his way to eschew any particular attachment to the government: he destroys a drone in Nairomi and is actually scrutinized by the government because the public begins to question to whom he answers. There's even a moment when Clark smiles at a gay couple kissing on the ferry to Gotham. What elements of Snyder's Superman read as conservative or Christian to you? I hope it's not the fallacious charge that Snyder's Superman is an objectivist icon of some sort because there's nothing less Randian than a hero who sacrifices his life for others.

He literally had Batman use a spear as a homage to Jesus getting speared on the cross by the centurion, he posted that on his Vero. Did you miss the blatantly unsubtle Garden of Gethesme shot in Man of Steel? Or the crucifixion T-pose Supes did when his Heavenly Father Jor-El told him he could save everyone?

Most of the Randian stuff came from Pa Kent who has got to be the worst role model ever. “Make one person your world and the reason you do everything Clark”. Oops Darkseid killed Lois and Clark went insane (the only hero to succumb to the Anti-Life Equation I might add) thanks to Pa Kent’s godawful advice. Gee, who could have foreseen THAT might happen? Thanks Pa you idiot. The DCEU Kents are **** people and every bit of advice they give Clark just makes him more unstable.

BD33C00E-10A0-417F-9EBA-DF0E81626ADB.jpg

[DochaDocha]

He literally had Batman use a spear as a homage to Jesus getting speared on the cross by the centurion, he posted that on his Vero. Did you miss the blatantly unsubtle Garden of Gethesme shot in Man of Steel? Or the crucifixion T-pose Supes did when his Heavenly Father Jor-El told him he could save everyone?

Most of the Randian stuff came from Pa Kent who has got to be the worst role model ever. “Make one person your world and the reason you do everything Clark”. Oops Darkseid killed Lois and Clark went insane (the only hero to succumb to the Anti-Life Equation I might add) thanks to Pa Kent’s godawful advice. Gee, who could have foreseen THAT might happen? Thanks Pa you idiot. The DCEU Kents are **** people and every bit of advice they give Clark just makes him more unstable.

BD33C00E-10A0-417F-9EBA-DF0E81626ADB.jpg

To boot.


"When we started to examine the Superman mythology, in the most classic sense, I really wanted to press upon the film the 'why' of him, which has been 75 years in the making," Snyder told CNN. "The Christ-like parallels, I didn't make that stuff up. We weren't like, 'Hey, let's add this!' That stuff is there, in the mythology. That is the tried-and-true Superman metaphor. So rather than be snarky and say that doesn't exist, we thought it would be fun to allow that mythology to be woven through."

Clark's age of 33 in MoS is also not randomly assigned.

Miller's Superman is a hard sell for me, but making the Joker a primary villain is all sorts of uninteresting. He's a superb villain, but not a super villain (or a Super villain, if you care for a pun). I wasn't really that interested in the series, but I was rather neutral on it with no strong feelings either way. It may now be a hard pass for me.

[misslane]

He literally had Batman use a spear as a homage to Jesus getting speared on the cross by the centurion, he posted that on his Vero. Did you miss the blatantly unsubtle Garden of Gethesme shot in Man of Steel? Or the crucifixion T-pose Supes did when his Heavenly Father Jor-El told him he could save everyone?

Most of the Randian stuff came from Pa Kent who has got to be the worst role model ever. “Make one person your world and the reason you do everything Clark”. Oops Darkseid killed Lois and Clark went insane (the only hero to succumb to the Anti-Life Equation I might add) thanks to Pa Kent’s godawful advice. Gee, who could have foreseen THAT might happen? Thanks Pa you idiot. The DCEU Kents are **** people and every bit of advice they give Clark just makes him more unstable.

BD33C00E-10A0-417F-9EBA-DF0E81626ADB.jpg

So, you want to play that game? Okay. Did you miss how the Day of the Dead people's worship of Superman makes him uncomfortable? Did you miss the entire montage narration where this is said, "We have always created icons in our own image. What we've done is we project ourselves on to him. The fact is, maybe he's not some sort of Devil or Jesus character. Maybe he’s just a guy trying to do the right thing." Did you miss what the post I was responding to actually said? It said that the film made Superman a Christian conservative. It didn't argue that it made him a Christ figure. He wasn't a Christian conservative the way that poster saw Miller's Superman as representing. More importantly, Christ was infallible. Superman was not. That was the point of BvS. Superman can't be all powerful and all good. He can't make that promise. Snyder wasn't suggesting that Superman WAS god or Christ, but that the parallels make it tempting for people to view him and treat him as such, and that doing so is what is wrong and dangerous because he is not infallible or divine.

Your Randian argument is equally flawed. Even if one acted out of love for one person, Rand would argue that it should only be yourself. You also missed the whole content and meaning of Jonathan Kent's story, which inspired Superman. He tells Clark, or Clark recalls the story, of when young Jonathan saved his farm from a flood and got a cake for his heroism. Yet, tragically, that act led to the flooding of the Lang farm. In his earlier advice to Clark about keeping his secret, he tells him it's about more than just their lives or the lives of those close to them. It's about the whole world. Each of these lessons is about how Clark needs to always consider how his choices, even a small one that is intended to help, can have negative consequences, but to not let that discourage him from doing good. Jonathan once described how Clark would one day see his gifts as a "blessing" he could share with the world. That is not something a Randian would say. A Randian Superman would have also just killed Batman to save his own mother.

[misslane]

To boot.


"When we started to examine the Superman mythology, in the most classic sense, I really wanted to press upon the film the 'why' of him, which has been 75 years in the making," Snyder told CNN. "The Christ-like parallels, I didn't make that stuff up. We weren't like, 'Hey, let's add this!' That stuff is there, in the mythology. That is the tried-and-true Superman metaphor. So rather than be snarky and say that doesn't exist, we thought it would be fun to allow that mythology to be woven through.

Christ-like is not analogous to "Christian" or "conservative". Snyder used Christian symbolism to tell a three part narrative about how humanity would relate to Superman and ultimately deconstructs that symbolism in BvS, a film that interrogates the existence of Superman by analyzing how humans project godhood onto him. The above image from MoS is a particularly poor example to cite as it is used in a scene that highlights Snyder's transgressive Christ-like allusions. If you recall, in Gethsemane Jesus cries out to God, his Father, while Clark consults a human priest who gives him faith.

[Conn Seanery]

Hey folks, when your posts are being deleted one after the other? Take the hint before you earn yourselves a ban.