Superman Year One: out now (Spoilers)

[friendly-fire-press]

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's likely that a sequel is being planned or pitched. There's plenty of room for more stories, as the ending clearly indicates. And even tho it probably didn't sell quite as well as hoped, it still outsold most other Superman books.

Yes. There are some who are saying it's unlikely but I suspect that's mostly just wishful thinking on their part (and it's pretty much what some were saying the first time it was rumoured Frank was going to write a Superman story, and look how that turned out). The truth is, it hasn't been confirmed either way at this stage. So no one knows for sure.

Still, I'm willing to bet that Superman Year Two will be announced sometime next year. I just hope it's the same format and the same creative team.

[Crabble]

I wouldn't recommend this comic to those who aren't already a fan of Frank Miller's work.
It was pretty lackluster to me.

Edit: Then again. There were some things I did enjoy.

[manwhohaseverything]

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)
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)
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.
It hasn't exactly helped.

How does lyla lerrol negate anything i said?in that story he married lyla. Does that mean lois won't be first preference?clark can marry the hulk. And it still won't matter. Lois will always be first preference.

Where did i try to reach?i didn't even have to think to reply. The secret identity and triangle have reached its full story potential in that form. It could not have helped the continued existence of superman franchise. No, it isn't. If lois and Clark's marriage was so insulting they wouldn't themselves have done it. No, that wasn't authors quote. It was a line from superman's thought. Superman's thought isn't jerry siegel's thought. Superman can have misunderstanding in story. Jerry as the author and creator who control everything in the superman's world. Cannot. I can give superman have thought bubble that said "wow! Batman is lame". Does that mean i think batman is lame?. It doesn't.it means the character thought that at the point of time. By, your logic alan moore believes in everything v for vendetta does. And incase you didn't notice my avatar is "man who has everything". I know the importance of lyla in superman stories. I don't think it trumps lois.lyla is Clark's fantasy. His image of a girl just made for him. Lois is his reality. And If you have direct quotation from jerry with a source. I will grant you supermarriage is against the nature of the character.

And frank miller doesn't honor or respect lois. She was barely relevant in the issue unlike lana and lori . It is very much evident.right,married couples have no stories to tell. Get out of here with that. As i said, when the mundanity takea over i will raise objection.
regardless this is a "what about" argument. It is of no quality. If i say supermarriage is insulting to the author, would you say the same for this. Then i say supermarriage is bad, remove it. Would you say the samething for this. Because to tell you tge truth i have no skin in the game. I want good stories. The triangle does not do that. Marriage atleast reasonably works. If you someway of modernising triangle. I will be more than happy with that.

[Sacred Knight]

I wouldn't recommend this comic to those who aren't already a fan of Frank Miller's work.
It was pretty lackluster to me.

Edit: Then again. There were some things I did enjoy.

I'd recommend anyone who's a fan of different takes on Superman to at least give it a try, providing they could get past the weird narrative style, and I'd warn it reads rushed after issue #1 as its something that really warranted more than 3 issues. Beyond this recent stuff I've never been much a fan of Miller and I enjoyed it well enough.

[Crabble]

I noticed an Easter egg in Superman Year One.

In issue #1, when Jonathan Kent is driving Clark to high school, in the background there's a building called "The Talon"(which has the same name as the destroyed, theater turned coffee house from Smallville TV show).

I wonder if there's more?

[Kuwagaton]

And If you have direct quotation from jerry with a source. I will grant you supermarriage is against the nature of the character.

I saw someone repost part of it recently. A shame because as I remember it was in the back of a completely random bronze age comic. It would take me forever to dig through and find out.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

This was a real mixed bag. There was some great stuff in here and some truly bad stuff, too. Can't say I'd really recommend this to anyone. It's an interesting failure though, mostly buoyed by the amazing art.

[Powerboy]

This was a real mixed bag. There was some great stuff in here and some truly bad stuff, too. Can't say I'd really recommend this to anyone. It's an interesting failure though, mostly buoyed by the amazing art.

I've met to bring that up.

The art alone is stellar and worth the price. The story has it's moments but it's nothing all that outstanding. In fact, without the Frank Miller name attached, it wouldn't get much attention especially with "Superman Smashes the Klan" out and vastly surpassing it.

It's a nice presentation of Superman though it sort of comes across like segments of his life that never quite connect. Part One is nice. Part 2 is nice if we forget completely about Lana as Clark seems to have done. There clearly needed to be a Part One A and a lot of filling in the blanks.

It presents Superman at mostly his best but it really doesn't do anything that hasn't been done before except that one little touch of his being really smart even when young and a bit telepathic.

It's decent, just overhyped. It definitely does not do for Superman what DKR did for Batman though it does treat Superman very respectfully.

[Vordan]

It reminds me a lot of Secret Origin in the same way it fails. Like Secret Origin the first parts are tightly connected and decent and then it goes to Metropolis and promptly falls off a cliff quality wise. The third issue feels weirdly disconnected from what came before in the same way that the mildly interesting Smallville Clark of Johns and Frank doesn’t at all feel connected to the Donner expy Superman who shows up in the latter half of Secret Origin.

The best attempt at doing a “Year One” copy structure wise for Superman was Man and Superman by Wolfman imo. That started in Metropolis too like how Year One starts with Bruce arriving back in Gotham, has the hero start off in civilian wear with a mask and fail, thus forcing them to invent the superhero identity, which is then followed by a much stronger second public debut.

[manwhohaseverything]

I saw someone repost part of it recently. A shame because as I remember it was in the back of a completely random bronze age comic. It would take me forever to dig through and find out.

It's cool, dude. I had read the comic ages ago. I know it’s inspired for "the man who has everything" . I looked everywhere online. I couldn't find a direct quote. There is nothing that suggested that in editors answering question. It is always superman thinking that.ok, and finally i definitely don't think moore would have married of clark with lois and gave him a kid. If it was against the nature of the character the authors built. From what i know moore is very particular about honoring authors visions. That's why i don't think,there is anything wrong.
Hey! If it exists. It exits and i am wrong. Supermarriage is bad.For what's it worth, i feel like lyla is not given her due in books.

[Crabble]

"Lois only loves Superman, even though Superman is indeed my true self, I gaslight Lois every time she comes close to discovering Clark is Superman and vice versa. All while I portray Clark Kent as a coward."

Thanks for reminding me why I used to really freaking loathe Superman. He does this to himself. Every. Time. CHRIST.

[manwhohaseverything]

"Lois only loves Superman, even though Superman is indeed my true self, I gaslight Lois every time she comes close to discovering Clark is Superman and vice versa. All while I portray Clark Kent as a coward."

Thanks for reminding me why I used to really freaking loathe Superman. He does this to himself. Every. Time. CHRIST.

Your loathing doesn't change facts. Our hate is not a factor. As a manga guy author's vision means alot to me. I don't view clark as something that can be anything. I loathe superman being turned into my liking or anyone's liking. modernising things is one, Changing the character is another. For instance, goku being turned to superman-esque hope.
They turned this
"As you are surely well aware... I am the Saiyan who came from earth to defeat you. Despite my calm, quiet heart, I am the legendary warrior awakened by intense anger... I AM THE SUPER SAIYAN, SON GOKU!”
To this,
“I am the hope of the universe. I am the answer to all living things that cry out for peace. I am protector of the innocent. I am the light in the darkness. I am truth... Ally to good! Nightmare to you!”
What a joke.

[Crabble]

Your loathing doesn't change facts. Our hate is not a factor. As a manga guy author's vision means alot to me. I don't view clark as something that can be anything. I loathe superman being turned into my liking or anyone's liking. modernising things is one, Changing the character is another. For instance, goku being turned to superman-esque hope.
They turned this
"As you are surely well aware... I am the Saiyan who came from earth to defeat you. Despite my calm, quiet heart, I am the legendary warrior awakened by intense anger... I AM THE SUPER SAIYAN, SON GOKU!”
To this,
“I am the hope of the universe. I am the answer to all living things that cry out for peace. I am protector of the innocent. I am the light in the darkness. I am truth... Ally to good! Nightmare to you!”
What a joke.

Ha ha. I understand what you're saying. Though I still consider him getting over himself and trusting/talking to Lois like an adult to be good character development for him.

[manwhohaseverything]

Ha ha. I understand what you're saying. Though I still consider him getting over himself and trusting/talking to Lois like an adult to be good character development for him.

Yeah! I get that. Clark has to play the wimp, though.it is what the dual identity was all about, something tgat kept it going and a solid reason why lois didn't give hin time of the day. In action comics he basically pushed lois into another man's arm. The guy was clearly misbehaving. But, clark did nothing and instead said something like" its just one dance, lois". Lois isn't the reason for Clark's heartbreaks. Clark's himself is.And then he goes on about fantasising a perfect love in lyla. It's pretty realistic and complex.they say Superman is a simple character.

[Crabble]

Yeah! I get that. Clark has to play the wimp, though.it is what the dual identity was all about, something tgat kept it going and a solid reason why lois didn't give hin time of the day. In action comics he basically pushed lois into another man's arm. The guy was clearly misbehaving. But, clark did nothing and instead said something like" its just one dance, lois". Lois isn't the reason for Clark's heartbreaks. Clark's himself is.And then he goes on about fantasising a perfect love in lyla. It's pretty realistic and complex. And they say Superman is a simple character.

Ha! That's so true.

Edit: Though Lois does indeed push it too far/get annoying when it comes to uncovering the big guy's secret ID in both personas. Especially the silver age version of her. However, the Smallville version of her is incredibly chill about it (considering how it usually turns out on that show), so it allows Clark that space to tell her (either season 9 or 10).