Superman Year One: out now (Spoilers)

[Kuwagaton]

Um... I'm not really sure what the idea or context is supposed to be supported in that clip. It's been a while since I've seen those shows. Is that supposed to be one of their earliest encounters for a comparison? Why did a single minute of not responding to his gloating upset Luthor, and what resolution did Superman make with his plain statement?

In Year One, Superman admits to entertaining the idea of a private conversation on working WITH (that word happens to be there specifically) the law, and he's cut off as he starts addressing the idea. He decides to go ahead with confronting Batman because it's actually what the people want and they all cheer him on. And he realizes there that Luthor has set him up, yeah. But entertaining the discussion of accountability/cooperation and the idea that "bad guys wear masks" as part of understanding how he views the back and forth, never ending battle for justice go deep into the character regardless of how far back they get explicitly said.



The idea that he'd pass on investigating Batman just to spite Luthor would probably happen under a writer like Priest, but there is a pretty solid backing to say the contrary.

Although Bruce is only smart to prepare for a fight, unfortunately being goaded into a fight and recognizing it doesn't actually stop Superman from fighting in many cases. It's a recurring point in the entire story, the character in a nutshell, and basically the whole genre. The difference with Clark is that as always he doesn't throw the first hit, or even the second hit. There was a pretty logical outcome years ago where he became a pacifist, but people just weren't trying to read that.

As of now we are on a road to Clark willingly giving up his secret identity and we'll see if it has to do with any of the issues raised in stories like this one.

[manwhohaseverything]

Um... I'm not really sure what the idea or context is supposed to be supported in that clip. It's been a while since I've seen those shows. Is that supposed to be one of their earliest encounters for a comparison? Why did a single minute of not responding to his gloating upset Luthor, and what resolution did Superman make with his plain statement?

In Year One, Superman admits to entertaining the idea of a private conversation on working WITH (that word happens to be there specifically) the law, and he's cut off as he starts addressing the idea. He decides to go ahead with confronting Batman because it's actually what the people want and they all cheer him on. And he realizes there that Luthor has set him up, yeah. But entertaining the discussion of accountability/cooperation and the idea that "bad guys wear masks" as part of understanding how he views the back and forth, never ending battle for justice go deep into the character regardless of how far back they get explicitly said.



The idea that he'd pass on investigating Batman just to spite Luthor would probably happen under a writer like Priest, but there is a pretty solid backing to say the contrary.

Although Bruce is only smart to prepare for a fight, unfortunately being goaded into a fight and recognizing it doesn't actually stop Superman from fighting in many cases. It's a recurring point in the entire story, the character in a nutshell, and basically the whole genre. The difference with Clark is that as always he doesn't throw the first hit, or even the second hit. There was a pretty logical outcome years ago where he became a pacifist, but people just weren't trying to read that.

As of now we are on a road to Clark willingly giving up his secret identity and we'll see if it has to do with any of the issues raised in stories like this one.

It's superman's first meeting with luthor. He tries to do everything to buy superman. He even uses kryptonite as bargaining chip. The one thing superman and joker have common is that they cannot be bought. Also, they have innate tendency for great evil and good respectively.
It's still effy to me. I have said this before. I will say it again reading the last issue takes me to Darknight returns. Him suddenly working with government from being a vigilante. And luthor basically made it seem like clark became a government employee. Clark allowing luther to cut him off didn't help either.That 'with' feels a lot like 'under' .especially, if you have dark knight returns back of the head.I will concede about the mask thing,though.Still having clark investigating things is something goldenage superman always did. Superman fixed things, clark identified things.
My problem isn't that clark fell for these things like fighting for lex and against batman. But, he couldn't get out of the mess with his own capability. Wonderwoman just basically swooped in out nowhere and saved the day. It removed any agency from clark.

[Kuwagaton]

If this story is an account of his life, then that ending where Diana comes in the name of peace is the first time he ever relented at an impasse. There's nothing of a boss fight in this story where he has to dig deep, really just double down on the same mindset he came in with and punch harder by most stories. The invincible Superman sort of gets in his own way for a minute and steps over it once he's presented with reason by a cool head.

Superman gets cut off all the time in speaking because if he tries to use speed or strength in an discussion it somehow doesn't work. It's fair to question what he will really stand to condone in speech, though, because if the situation doesn't offer him a reasonable new perspective to entertain then sure, I can't see him swallowing it either.

Miller says this ties into DKR and because of that I do get why it keeps coming up. But he also says that of the original Year One even though it feels entirely off. I don't care for that story and so it doesn't haunt me whenever I touch his other work.

[friendly-fire-press]

This as official origin. Are people out of their mind. This at best is above average. If this guy becomes the main superman. It will be an insult to siegel and shuster's superman. Last issue basically foreshadowed the government stooge of Darknight returns. Which is against everything superman stands for. Superman works for no government or bureaucrat. Period.

Well, the "government stooge" concept was only a temporary plot device anyway. He broke free of it in DKSA so there's really no issue there. Darwyn Cooke portrayed him in a similar light in New Frontier and (like with the DKU) it was short******d -- Clark realised what was happening and released himself from the government's clutches.

On the subject of "an insult to Jerry Seigel and Joe Shuster" ... there was time (pre-crisis) when Jerry Seigel was asked if Superman and Lois Lane should ever marry. He said emphatically: "No." He wasn't opposed to Imaginary/Elseworlds tales featuring Clark and Lois as a married couple but he never believed it should be cannon. Considering DC have had Clark and Lois as a married couple in cannon for the better part of 20+ years, I'd argue that that is more insulting to the creators than anything Frank Miller has done.

RCO076_1465810363.jpg


I really enjoyed Year One but I understand it received a mixed reaction so I don't see it becoming official cannon. But it's not like it's the only thing that shouldn't be cannon.

[manwhohaseverything]

Well, the "government stooge" concept was only a temporary plot device anyway. He broke free of it in DKSA so there's really no issue there. Darwyn Cooke portrayed him in a similar light in New Frontier and (like with the DKU) it was short-lived -- Clark realised what was happening and released himself from the government's clutches.

On the subject of "an insult to Jerry Seigel and Joe Shuster" ... there was time (pre-crisis) when Jerry Seigel was asked if Superman and Lois Lane should ever marry. He said emphatically: "No." He wasn't opposed to Imaginary/Elseworlds tales featuring Clark and Lois as a married couple but he never believed it should be cannon. Considering DC have had Clark and Lois as a married couple in cannon for the better part of 20+ years, I'd argue that that is more insulting to the creators than anything Frank Miller has done.




I really enjoyed Year One but I understand it received a mixed reaction so I don't see it becoming official cannon. But it's not like it's the only thing that shouldn't be cannon.

That's becuase of the thought process was marriage would end the triangle. He felt loss of secret identity means a loss of the mystique and tension that sold copies . But seeing as the secret identity itself doesn't have the mystique anymore is used as a joke for belittling both the characters.story side tension of that kind isn't needed anymore for the business .
This narrative that he hated the marriage itself otherwise is preposterous. Jerry siegel also married joanne who was model for lois lane. Also, this was published as well.
https://www.cbr.com/superman-lois-la...tten-marriage/
Marrying lois lane wasn't against the nature of the character itself, like this is. But, decision was made against it for the creative story and business side of things. To keep the story going without an ending. I imagine siegel and shuster would be more than ok to marry off clark and lois now. Because, triangle isn't needed for the story to continue with adversely affecting business . Heck! She would always be the first preference. Action comics will be incomplete without lois lane.
Also, clark can worry about the world. Mundane stuff like changing diapers has never been focused. If and when mundane drama starts to take precedence then i will agree that is also a betrayal of the character . i can also admit and concede that the perception of clark as an action hero has changed or has decreased. But, that was decreasing way before superman married lois lane.

[_Feely_]

This book wasn't worth the 2 decade wait for me.

[DochaDocha]

That's becuase of the thought process was marriage would end the triangle. He felt loss of secret identity means a loss of the mystique and tension that sold copies . But seeing as the secret identity itself doesn't have the mystique anymore is used as a joke for belittling both the characters.story side tension of that kind isn't needed anymore for the business .
This narrative that he hated the marriage itself otherwise is preposterous. Jerry siegel also married joanne who was model for lois lane. Also, this was published as well.
https://www.cbr.com/superman-lois-la...tten-marriage/
That wasn't against the nature of the character itself, like this is. But, decision for the creative story and business side of things. To keep the story going without an ending. I imagine siegel and shuster would be more than ok to marry off clark and lois now. Because, triangle isn't needed for the story to continue with adversely affecting business . Heck! She would always be the first preference. Action comics will be incomplete without lois lane.
Also, clark can worry about the world. Mundane stuff like changing diapers has never been focused. If and when mundane drama starts to take precedence then i will agree that is also a betrayal of the character . i can also admit and concede that the perception of clark as an action hero has changed or has decreased. But, that was decreasing way before superman married lois lane.

I hear you, but I hope people don't think that the triangle-for-two somehow held the character back for forty years. I understand the superhero comics genre changed and the kind of goofy humor you got back then wasn't going to fly in the 80s and 90s, but to me the triangle is one of the "classic" elements of the character that casuals can identify as a big part of Superman.

[manwhohaseverything]

I hear you, but I hope people don't think that the triangle-for-two somehow held the character back for forty years. I understand the superhero comics genre changed and the kind of goofy humor you got back then wasn't going to fly in the 80s and 90s, but to me the triangle is one of the "classic" elements of the character that casuals can identify as a big part of Superman.

I understand, i have no issues with it myself. I don't think that it held back superman at all. I just think era just changed. Triangle just needs a different way of existing now.

[Nelliebly]

You need to put Jerry Siegel’s words in the context and time from which they were shared.

Siegel lived during an era where women were not really socially allowed to be both “Career gals” and “wives.” It was often one or the other. Siegel once openly said that if Lois and Clark got married Lois would “have to quit her job” which he was, obviously, against. You see a lot of these biases play out in the way Lois is stripped of her job in most of the silver age imaginary stories.

An older man who grew up decades ago was genuinely taught that working girls and wives/mothers had distinctly different roles. It would have been hard for him to understand that we know now that that’s a very unfair thing to do to women and a cruel box to put them in. His comments about Superman changing diapers are also very much of their time. Again, you have to understand that in his time, marriage and the raising of children were kept very separate from “man’s work.” It would have been hard for him to understand that we now know that there are gender issues with that line of thinking. My own grandfather (who I love deeply) was raised just as poor as Jerry but even with the class issues that required literally all the women in my family to work ...he still holds these kinds of views.

Siegel’s daughter, Laura, who grew up in a different generation feels differently and has always deeply supported the marriage as the ideal evolution of the narrative.

Context is literally everything when it comes to using and processing the words of a lovely man who was sharing the only POV he could have possibly had based on the information he had at a very specific time in history. Using his words as a weapon against the marriage without understanding that context and just how much our views on women and domesticity and “man’s work” has changed (for the better I might add) in the last 40-50 years is crucial.

[Superbat]

You need to put Jerry Siegel’s words in the context and time from which they were shared.

Siegel lived during an era where women were not really socially allowed to be both “Career gals” and “wives.” It was often one or the other. Siegel once openly said that if Lois and Clark got married Lois would “have to quit her job” which he was, obviously, against. You see a lot of these biases play out in the way Lois is stripped of her job in most of the silver age imaginary stories.

An older man who grew up decades ago was genuinely taught that working girls and wives/mothers had distinctly different roles. It would have been hard for him to understand that we know now that that’s a very unfair thing to do to women and a cruel box to put them in. His comments about Superman changing diapers are also very much of their time. Again, you have to understand that in his time, marriage and the raising of children were kept very separate from “man’s work.” It would have been hard for him to understand that we now know that there are gender issues with that line of thinking. My own grandfather (who I love deeply) was raised just as poor as Jerry but even with the class issues that required literally all the women in my family to work ...he still holds these kinds of views.

Siegel’s daughter, Laura, who grew up in a different generation feels differently and has always deeply supported the marriage as the ideal evolution of the narrative.

Context is literally everything when it comes to using and processing the words of a lovely man who was sharing the only POV he could have possibly had based on the information he had at a very specific time in history. Using his words as a weapon against the marriage without understanding that context and just how much our views on women and domesticity and “man’s work” has changed (for the better I might add) in the last 40-50 years is crucial.

I saw you mention this way back in another topic and I tried looking for a source but found nothing. Can you provide a source for Siegel saying Lois would have to quit her job if she got married because it goes against what he wrote.

You're the only one who I've seen ever say this, and nothing about it comes up when I goggle it, and it becomes more unbelievable when you realize that Jerry Siegel wrote stories where Superman & Lois were married and Lois kept her job and finally, Joanne Siegel had a job while they were married.

The claim you're making needs a source because it goes against everything we know about the man.

[manwhohaseverything]

You need to put Jerry Siegel’s words in the context and time from which they were shared.

Siegel lived during an era where women were not really socially allowed to be both “Career gals” and “wives.” It was often one or the other. Siegel once openly said that if Lois and Clark got married Lois would “have to quit her job” which he was, obviously, against. You see a lot of these biases play out in the way Lois is stripped of her job in most of the silver age imaginary stories.

An older man who grew up decades ago was genuinely taught that working girls and wives/mothers had distinctly different roles. It would have been hard for him to understand that we know now that that’s a very unfair thing to do to women and a cruel box to put them in. His comments about Superman changing diapers are also very much of their time. Again, you have to understand that in his time, marriage and the raising of children were kept very separate from “man’s work.” It would have been hard for him to understand that we now know that there are gender issues with that line of thinking. My own grandfather (who I love deeply) was raised just as poor as Jerry but even with the class issues that required literally all the women in my family to work ...he still holds these kinds of views.

Siegel’s daughter, Laura, who grew up in a different generation feels differently and has always deeply supported the marriage as the ideal evolution of the narrative.

Context is literally everything when it comes to using and processing the words of a lovely man who was sharing the only POV he could have possibly had based on the information he had at a very specific time in history. Using his words as a weapon against the marriage without understanding that context and just how much our views on women and domesticity and “man’s work” has changed (for the better I might add) in the last 40-50 years is crucial.

I agree, with what you said regarding siegel's comments. But, i do think he has point regarding mundanity of daily life creeping in and being more important. I have been having the debate cw thread as well. I love rebirth. But, was clark or lois action hero or heroine in those books? No. I would say lois had more threat level, had key action moments and moments of growth regarding action(she learned to use batman's tech and new gods weapons) . For clark there wasn't much of a threat or growth.But, for the most part both of them were just supermom and superdad. That's great. They were great.but, the action hero became jon kent. You cannot divorce "action" from these characters. They are first and foremost "action" characters. Cw show just focusing on the mundanity without making it a priority to make action look good is a very bad way of approaching things. Especially, in current environment when captain america is kicking ass inside an elevator and Jessica johns is picking up cars. For these characters action came first, romance came later. That's how it should be treated.

[ssupes]

The final issue was fun, it did feel rushed and maybe it should have been four or five issues but he it was still good. It does seem that he's going to bring in brainiac for year two when he begins work on it since it was pretty obvious with that end that he plans to do a sequel.

[_Beautiful_Temptress_]

The final issue was fun, it did feel rushed and maybe it should have been four or five issues but he it was still good. It does seem that he's going to bring in brainiac for year two when he begins work on it since it was pretty obvious with that end that he plans to do a sequel.

It is unlikely to be. Superman: Year One has the worst results. So that giphy.jpg

[Sacred Knight]

If he were to pitch it and wanted to do it, its in fact incredibly likely. He's already doing another DK entry. Regardless of the fact you hate the very concept there's really no reason to blind yourself to the fact that DC seems perfectly fine with and willing to let him add to his DKverse in the Black Label imprint.

[friendly-fire-press]

That's becuase of the thought process was marriage would end the triangle. He felt loss of secret identity means a loss of the mystique and tension that sold copies . But seeing as the secret identity itself doesn't have the mystique anymore is used as a joke for belittling both the characters.story side tension of that kind isn't needed anymore for the business .
This narrative that he hated the marriage itself otherwise is preposterous. Jerry siegel also married joanne who was model for lois lane. Also, this was published as well.
https://www.cbr.com/superman-lois-la...tten-marriage/
Marrying lois lane wasn't against the nature of the character itself, like this is. But, decision was made against it for the creative story and business side of things. To keep the story going without an ending. I imagine siegel and shuster would be more than ok to marry off clark and lois now. Because, triangle isn't needed for the story to continue with adversely affecting business

With respect, you're really reaching right now. Jerry Seigel said in his own words that he was against the marriage. DC have implemented it anyway. If you think Miller's style of telling a Superman story is more insulting, well, that's your opinion and you're totally entitled to it. I disagree. I think DC implented Clark and Lois's marriage is far more insulting to the creators (and I've provided some evidence to back up my claim)

Heck! She would always be the first preference.

Not necessarily. There was a story in Superman #141 (1960) called 'Superman's Return to Krypton' written by Jerry Seigel and drawn by Wayne Boring.



On the first page of Part 3, in the third panel, Superman is kissing Lyla Lerrol and thinking: "Lois loved me because I was Superman but Lyla loves me for myself!" (This is a direct quote from the writer himself)

I realise the context of the time in which this was written ... nevertheless, it does suggest that he was open to the idea of Superman having more than just one love interest in cannon. In Superman Year One, he does have more than one love interest. In this context Frank Miller is, in fact, honouring Jerry Seigel's memory. (And as I said earlier, he didn't remain a "government stooge" for long so that's not really insulting the creators either)

Action comics will be incomplete without lois lane.

Of course. But criticising the marriage isn't a criticism of Lois. It's a criticism of overusing her in just one singular way. The marriage handicaps both Superman and Lois because it restricts their dimensions and depth as characters and it limits the number of stories that be told with them.

Also, clark can worry about the world. Mundane stuff like changing diapers has never been focused. If and when mundane drama starts to take precedence then i will agree that is also a betrayal of the character . i can also admit and concede that the perception of clark as an action hero has changed or has decreased. But, that was decreasing way before superman married lois lane.

It hasn't exactly helped.