Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 99
  1. #31
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    has the post crisis superman and donner superman left such an impact that we find anything different jarring, even the original golden age take?
    Yes. Though I think the concept of Superman was already very solidified in the public consciousness by the 80's, I do think Donner and post-Crisis helped refine and harden the public's general idea of Superman, and it's since turned into something so firmly entrenched in our culture anything else seems off to the casual viewer.

    The Golden Age was so different from what we've had since the 50's I think that would be seen as jarring no matter what though.

    How much of it is superficial ? For example the trunks debate.
    Well, it's comics. It's *all* superficial.

    Is the impact detrimental to the character?
    Absolutely. If the public refuses to accept any other version of Superman, and the version they've latched onto is actually among the worst options out there (which it is, for lots of reasons) then yes this is detrimental as hell. It means that they're not going to easily accept anything else, like a kid who refuses to take their medicine.

    What version of the character do you think is the "classic superman" or you can say your favourite version ?
    I hate the term "classic." How are we defining it? The oldest version? The one stuck around the longest? The one that's most well known? Those all have different answers.

    I don't think there's a specific version of Superman that is the "classic." I mean, people might think of post-Crisis or pre-Crisis as "classic" but there's different mini-eras in both where the character is completely different (compare Byrne's Superman to Loeb's; very different people) I think the "classic" is a mishmash of everything; all the random stuff floating in the Super-verse that most people would point at and say "That's him."

    Speaking personally, I think Morrison probably did the best job of creating a "influenced by everything, it's all in the mix" Superman. His meta-Superman arc (JLA, Action, All-Star, 1 Million, etc) is probably the most brilliant specific version to see print (only because I havent had my turn yet! /s).

    If you are a new or postcrisis fan, are you familiar with older takes and differences with superman you grew up with?
    I grew up on the triangle era and was a hardcore post-Crisis defender for years. When the quality started to drop in the late 90's, and then again in the 00's, I had to go to older material for my Super kick. Which is where I discovered the Golden Age (my favorite era ever!) and everything else. I also learned that almost everything I thought I knew about Superman was, at best, a half-truth and at worst a full-blown detour in complete opposition to how the character had been built.

    What is your opinion on the "classic" superman or the not my superman debate itself(i mean it's tiring) ?
    I think we're all far too concerned with where Superman has been, and not nearly as concerned as we should be over where he's going.

    We all have our preferences. And there's nothing wrong with that. I lean heavily towards pre-Crisis trappings and am a very big fan of the "mixture" approach they're taking these days where they try to include both pre- and post-Crisis elements. But someone who's only into post-Crisis, or something else I'm not big on? Fine. I'll disagree with their opinions but they're allowed to have their favorite take too. We're all fans. Even if we're fans of different eras we're still all Superman fans, we all want to see the character do well.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

  2. #32
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    But, the issue is the core tone, philosophy, ethics and even parts personality of the character(like being man of action.he debuted in action comics ) . Not the other changes. Those changes happen. Heck! Siegel and shuster themselves would have changed some elements with time.but i think the core of the original should be there in any superman to be called superman. And morrison basically brought that with his superman.

    Pardon me, i have began to see more the original superman in all might than even in current modern versions we have. Ofcourse, allmight is still more tame and believes in the system. Which is a stark comparison.but the world is different. allmight had basically build that system and finished his predecessors works of creating a more just society. I believe, allmight will break the law if it meant protecting the weak. If the structure he built had become a shackle for the weak and the oppressed .The core of the original superman is protecting the weak because its the right thing to do. We have to ask is the current or modern superman's motivation and ethics based on that?
    The current Superman protects the weak because it is the right thing to do. That aspect exists in every version of Superman (except the evil versions).

    Regarding the aspects of fighting the system or doing what he thinks is right regardless of the rules, current Superman would probably do this if the writers put him in a situation where he had to.

    That said, current Superman isn't symbol of fear or a "good bullying".
    Last edited by Konja7; 09-23-2019 at 09:19 AM.

  3. #33
    Invincible Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    26,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    What examples are there of the current or modern Superman not protecting the weak because it's the right thing to do? I guess I see this complaint so much, but it basically comes down to Superman not punching Batman for being mean to him or something.

    What exactly does that look like with the "modern" Superman. Should he be demolishing credit card companies and destroying the insurance industry? Taking out Congress and replacing it with a new one? Restructuring the economy? Because that's Miracle Man basically. And both Moore and Gaiman weren't going to have that end pleasantly if it ever finishes. It's basically a benevolent dictatorship.
    Yeah even in Morrison’s run, one of the key lessons Supes learns is that he can’t force the world to change into what he wants it to be. The actions he takes at the start of the run are the actions of a cocksure rookie who isn’t really considering the repercussions of what he does. By the end of the run he’s become much more like the “traditional” Superman we know.

    I do want Clark to utilize his journalism more to help people. Like I love how Clark takes the factory owner to task about the economic repercussions of his automated workforce and outsourcing in Morrison’s run. And then they get attacked by the automated machinery lol, that’s how you tie social issues and superhero stuff together without it feeling like preaching. More stuff like that is what I want and it’s part of why I’m enjoying Bendis’ Action run. I don’t really like Clark writing articles about Superman because it’s unethical. It’s fine if the writers actually acknowledged the unethical side of that but most of the times they don’t. It’s why I loved Jeff Loveness’ “Glasses” story because he tackled that head on and showed that yeah, Lois would be mad at Clark for deceiving her initially before she came to understand why he lived a double life.

  4. #34
    Astonishing Member Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,765

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Yeah even in Morrison’s run, one of the key lessons Supes learns is that he can’t force the world to change into what he wants it to be. The actions he takes at the start of the run are the actions of a cocksure rookie who isn’t really considering the repercussions of what he does. By the end of the run he’s become much more like the “traditional” Superman we know.

    I do want Clark to utilize his journalism more to help people. Like I love how Clark takes the factory owner to task about the economic repercussions of his automated workforce and outsourcing in Morrison’s run. And then they get attacked by the automated machinery lol, that’s how you tie social issues and superhero stuff together without it feeling like preaching. More stuff like that is what I want and it’s part of why I’m enjoying Bendis’ Action run. I don’t really like Clark writing articles about Superman because it’s unethical. It’s fine if the writers actually acknowledged the unethical side of that but most of the times they don’t. It’s why I loved Jeff Loveness’ “Glasses” story because he tackled that head on and showed that yeah, Lois would be mad at Clark for deceiving her initially before she came to understand why he lived a double life.
    And some of that is fine, but it's still not real social change. The cops in Truth weren't racists or fascists, they were possessed by shadow monsters. Over in Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man they just had an arc about crowd funding and how the company was headed by some meta that preyed on the misery of people. It's a little allegorical I guess, but it's not enacting any real social change on the planet. It's beating a siloed bad guy.

    And yes, you can hit the social issues a lot harder with the Daily Planet angle. I don't see any issue with Clark, Lois, Jimmy, and Perry being aspirational journalists either. Just because the real world jouralists are enforcing some status quo doesn't mean you dump that. It's aspirational. Like Bendis has said, it's fun to write Lois & Clark as the journalists we want there to be in the real world.

    The ethics thing has never bothered me. There are ethical implications to every Superhero that wouldn't work if real world rules apply. Every criminal Batman catches would walk most likely because you can't beat a confession out of someone in the real world either.

  5. #35
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Korath View Post
    For me, while I really can't like (or even outright hate some of those depictions), it's clear that the "classic" Superman is the one molded around the old movies, All-Star Superman and the like. The original take, while really interesting as an actual Champion of the Oppressed instead of Defender of the Status-Quo that he has turned into (because, let's face it, even in Bendis's run, he isn't doing **** to change the world for the better by getting ride of the corrupt and inept trappings of our current Western society and culture - then again, he IS married to a journalist, and they rarely if ever want the world to change anyway, at least those as high profile as Lois Lane).
    If you're saying Superman's a bootlicker, I agree.

  6. #36
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    What examples are there of the current or modern Superman not protecting the weak because it's the right thing to do? I guess I see this complaint so much, but it basically comes down to Superman not punching Batman for being mean to him or something.

    What exactly does that look like with the "modern" Superman. Should he be demolishing credit card companies and destroying the insurance industry? Taking out Congress and replacing it with a new one? Restructuring the economy? Because that's Miracle Man basically. And both Moore and Gaiman weren't going to have that end pleasantly if it ever finishes. It's basically a benevolent dictatorship.
    All i am saying is that if a person says golden age supes or the guy 30's and 40's has no semblance of the current take.is he right? if people don't see the vigilante strongman in the modern takes. Are they wrong?
    This is just a thought experiment on Superman being literal ship of theseus . I am not doing this to hurt any sentiments or their notion of "classic" superman . So if i have,I apologise.

    As for the rest of your argument. Isn't that just a slippery slop argument. Superman/clark in the goldenage is still the virtuous and moral person his nature and nurture from john and mary allowed him to be. Ofcourses there are chances of that happening. And i never said it wasn't complicated what that superman does?but,he is for all intents and purposes a vigilante. Someone who takes law into their own hands. Morality of that is for the readers to decide.should'nt we or the writer just present the character as is or was or originally intended ? . i have mentioned this in the old thread. His first chest emblem being a symbolic police badge.

  7. #37
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Yes. Though I think the concept of Superman was already very solidified in the public consciousness by the 80's, I do think Donner and post-Crisis helped refine and harden the public's general idea of Superman, and it's since turned into something so firmly entrenched in our culture anything else seems off to the casual viewer.

    The Golden Age was so different from what we've had since the 50's I think that would be seen as jarring no matter what though.



    Well, it's comics. It's *all* superficial.



    Absolutely. If the public refuses to accept any other version of Superman, and the version they've latched onto is actually among the worst options out there (which it is, for lots of reasons) then yes this is detrimental as hell. It means that they're not going to easily accept anything else, like a kid who refuses to take their medicine.



    I hate the term "classic." How are we defining it? The oldest version? The one stuck around the longest? The one that's most well known? Those all have different answers.

    I don't think there's a specific version of Superman that is the "classic." I mean, people might think of post-Crisis or pre-Crisis as "classic" but there's different mini-eras in both where the character is completely different (compare Byrne's Superman to Loeb's; very different people) I think the "classic" is a mishmash of everything; all the random stuff floating in the Super-verse that most people would point at and say "That's him."

    Speaking personally, I think Morrison probably did the best job of creating a "influenced by everything, it's all in the mix" Superman. His meta-Superman arc (JLA, Action, All-Star, 1 Million, etc) is probably the most brilliant specific version to see print (only because I havent had my turn yet! /s).



    I grew up on the triangle era and was a hardcore post-Crisis defender for years. When the quality started to drop in the late 90's, and then again in the 00's, I had to go to older material for my Super kick. Which is where I discovered the Golden Age (my favorite era ever!) and everything else. I also learned that almost everything I thought I knew about Superman was, at best, a half-truth and at worst a full-blown detour in complete opposition to how the character had been built.



    I think we're all far too concerned with where Superman has been, and not nearly as concerned as we should be over where he's going.

    We all have our preferences. And there's nothing wrong with that. I lean heavily towards pre-Crisis trappings and am a very big fan of the "mixture" approach they're taking these days where they try to include both pre- and post-Crisis elements. But someone who's only into post-Crisis, or something else I'm not big on? Fine. I'll disagree with their opinions but they're allowed to have their favorite take too. We're all fans. Even if we're fans of different eras we're still all Superman fans, we all want to see the character do well.
    Thank you for the reply. This was most clear cut reply i got.

  8. #38
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    Exactly. You can do those types of stories with the Golden Age/Morrison level character. Once you amp up his powers, it changes the context. He either becomes a ruler or leads by example.
    Yeah. It seems the power would be an issue if you want to write Superman as someone who doesn't care about rules or what others think.

    I mean Superman with that attitude almost always has to be right about his decisions. If he does something wrong with that attitude (and doesn't change after that), it could generate a terrible impression between readers.
    Last edited by Konja7; 09-23-2019 at 09:46 AM.

  9. #39
    Invincible Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    26,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    And some of that is fine, but it's still not real social change. The cops in Truth weren't racists or fascists, they were possessed by shadow monsters. Over in Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man they just had an arc about crowd funding and how the company was headed by some meta that preyed on the misery of people. It's a little allegorical I guess, but it's not enacting any real social change on the planet. It's beating a siloed bad guy.

    And yes, you can hit the social issues a lot harder with the Daily Planet angle. I don't see any issue with Clark, Lois, Jimmy, and Perry being aspirational journalists either. Just because the real world jouralists are enforcing some status quo doesn't mean you dump that. It's aspirational. Like Bendis has said, it's fun to write Lois & Clark as the journalists we want there to be in the real world.

    The ethics thing has never bothered me. There are ethical implications to every Superhero that wouldn't work if real world rules apply. Every criminal Batman catches would walk most likely because you can't beat a confession out of someone in the real world either.
    Yeah much as I enjoy social crusader Supes, he can’t really tackle meaningful change and that’s a product of Staus Quo is God that comes with Big 2 storytelling.

  10. #40
    Astonishing Member Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,765

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    All i am saying is that if a person says golden age supes or the guy 30's and 40's has no semblance of the current take.is he right? if people don't see the vigilante strongman in the modern takes. Are they wrong?
    This is just a thought experiment on Superman being literal ship of theseus . I am not doing this to hurt any sentiments or their notion of "classic" superman . So if i have,I apologise.

    As for the rest of your argument. Isn't that just a slippery slop argument. Superman/clark in the goldenage is still the virtuous and moral person his nature and nurture from john and mary allowed him to be. Ofcourses there are chances of that happening. And i never said it wasn't complicated what that superman does?but,he is for all intents and purposes a vigilante. Someone who takes law into their own hands. Morality of that is for the readers to decide.should'nt we or the writer just present the character as is or was or originally intended ? . i have mentioned this in the old thread. His first chest emblem being a symbolic police badge.
    I get what you mean, I'm just trying to understand the complaints that people raise. The vigilante strongman aspect isn't consistent with the godlike power levels. Because yes, the vigilante strongman can go around fighting landlords or beating up wife beaters, etc. But once you power him up, the scope of those actions has to change. And it's at that point that you have to work out how far that can go. It's not really a slippery slope argument to the extent that this is what some seem to want to see. If you want a Superman that has godlike abilities and enacts radical social change you either have Miracle Man who does in fact resturture the planet or you have the modern version that tries to be an example that people will emulate of their own free will an not through force which by it's nature a more passive take.

    Golden Age Superman isn't curing cancer with the science in the fortress. He's not creating zero point clean energy to power the world. Or food replicators to do away with hunger, terraform the Sahara, and do away with a monetary economy. He's a "man of action" because the actions he can take are limited in scope to those that aren't beyond the acceptable realm. Once you scale up the powers, that scales up to. You either dismantle society - through force - or you lead by example.

    And I wasn't saying he's on a slippery slope to becoming evil, but the scope has to scale up with the powers.

  11. #41
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Konja7 View Post
    The current Superman protects the weak because it is the right thing to do. That aspect exists in every version of Superman (except the evil versions).

    Regarding the aspects of fighting the system or doing what he thinks is right regardless of the rules, current Superman would probably do this if the writers put him in a situation where he had to.

    That said, current Superman isn't symbol of fear or a "good bullying".
    Goldenage Superman doesn't just bully people. He isn't just a symbol of fear. He is that for the people who use their power to oppress people. He is also a symbol of hope. especially, for the weak. Clark in those stories isn't like batman. His smile and his maskless face conveys that. The first thing he says to lois is "you need'nt be afraid of me.I won't harm you".batman wasn't that. He had to get a robin for that.

  12. #42
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    I get what you mean, I'm just trying to understand the complaints that people raise. The vigilante strongman aspect isn't consistent with the godlike power levels. Because yes, the vigilante strongman can go around fighting landlords or beating up wife beaters, etc. But once you power him up, the scope of those actions has to change. And it's at that point that you have to work out how far that can go. It's not really a slippery slope argument to the extent that this is what some seem to want to see. If you want a Superman that has godlike abilities and enacts radical social change you either have Miracle Man who does in fact resturture the planet or you have the modern version that tries to be an example that people will emulate of their own free will an not through force which by it's nature a more passive take.

    Golden Age Superman isn't curing cancer with the science in the fortress. He's not creating zero point clean energy to power the world. Or food replicators to do away with hunger, terraform the Sahara, and do away with a monetary economy. He's a "man of action" because the actions he can take are limited in scope to those that aren't beyond the acceptable realm. Once you scale up the powers, that scales up to. You either dismantle society - through force - or you lead by example.

    And I wasn't saying he's on a slippery slope to becoming evil, but the scope has to scale up with the powers.
    I agree, with your assessment. I guess clark has just decided to reign in ala "cardboard" speech because his powers make him more responsible.
    But, i disagree with the part of him not being a vigilante strongman. He is still that.i mean every version of the character has taken the law in his own hand. As for being strongman, that is definitely missing. We see glimpses of him Here and there. I wish we had that aspect back full-time.
    Still though,i think superman audiences shouldn't find siegel and shuster's superman jarring. A modern take closer to that should always be available around the corner for the public. That's just my opinion. Morrison superman should be given a place in dc universe.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 09-23-2019 at 10:10 AM.

  13. #43
    Astonishing Member Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,765

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    I agree, with your assessment. I guess clark has just decided to reign in ala "cardboard" speech because his powers make him more responsible.
    But, i disagree with the part of him not being a vigilante strongman. He is still that.i mean every version of the character has taken the law in his own hand. As for being strongman, that is definitely missing. We see glimpses of him Here and there. I wish we had that aspect back full-time.
    Still though,i think superman audiences shouldn't find siegel and shuster's superman jarring. A modern take closer to that should always be available around the corner for the public. That's just my opinion. Morrison superman should be given a place in dc universe.
    In what capacity do you mean though? Like a constant social crusader Superman like in t-shirt and jeans part of Morrison's run? Because like Vordon pointed out, Morrison's Superman grew out of that aspect within Morrison's run. He wasn't dangling landlords off buildings by the time he was fighting SuperDoom. Bendis' Superman worked with the fire department to deal with arsonists. He stopped looters by just showing up. Don't get me wrong, I think that having expanded adventures of a t-shirt & jeans type of Superman would be a hell of a lot of fun. Mix in some more crusading journalism from Clark and I'm in as well. That'd be a Year One I'd like to see.

    If we're just talking personality, making him have a little more swagger or enjoy his powers more, I think we've seen that in modern takes as well. And I don't think people necessarily find those aspect jarring. Again, a lot of the rejection of New 52 Superman comes down to DC's edgier than thou marketing versus the actual stories. They poisoned their own well by selling him as Poochie basically.
    Last edited by Yoda; 09-23-2019 at 10:18 AM.

  14. #44
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    I'm always at war with myself over my extreme opinion, because it means that the Superman I love is not the authentic Superman. I can mediate my opinion and say that, in those first ten years of Superman, Siegel and Shuster introduced enough concepts that I can extrapolate from them a lot of what became my classic Superman. And I can further rationalize that Jerry returned to DC and he worked on that classic Superman.

    But at the end of the day, I have to be true to my own code. And my code says that the creators are the primary source of the character. I might not like the 1940s Superman as much as the 1960s, but my personal interests aren't germane. If Siegel and Shuster had had ownership and Superman ended not being the Superman I liked, then that's just the way it should have been.

    That being said, I think if Siegel and Shuster had their way, their Superman would have continued to develop and change. Maybe not in the direction that Mort Weisinger took him--but probably in some fantastic new direction. We can see that Jerry and Joe liked to do crazy and funny stories, so I expect that's what Superman would have been like in the 1950s. However, we'll never really know.

  15. #45
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    I get what you mean, I'm just trying to understand the complaints that people raise. The vigilante strongman aspect isn't consistent with the godlike power levels. Because yes, the vigilante strongman can go around fighting landlords or beating up wife beaters, etc. But once you power him up, the scope of those actions has to change. And it's at that point that you have to work out how far that can go. It's not really a slippery slope argument to the extent that this is what some seem to want to see. If you want a Superman that has godlike abilities and enacts radical social change you either have Miracle Man who does in fact resturture the planet or you have the modern version that tries to be an example that people will emulate of their own free will an not through force which by it's nature a more passive take.

    Golden Age Superman isn't curing cancer with the science in the fortress. He's not creating zero point clean energy to power the world. Or food replicators to do away with hunger, terraform the Sahara, and do away with a monetary economy. He's a "man of action" because the actions he can take are limited in scope to those that aren't beyond the acceptable realm. Once you scale up the powers, that scales up to. You either dismantle society - through force - or you lead by example.

    And I wasn't saying he's on a slippery slope to becoming evil, but the scope has to scale up with the powers.
    This is what Clark Kent is for.

    You're right; once Superman becomes more powerful and becomes capable of enacting real, world-wide change, you have to shift the narrative. You either have to find a reason for him to not interfere or you have to accept that the entire setting is going to change dramatically, and Superman's role will change with that (for good or bad).

    Or, you just use Clark Kent. In this, Superman is the guy who keeps the planet spinning but it's Clark who makes the real, long-lasting change. You can use the Morrison excuse for Superman to not get deeply involved in social issues and politics, and have Clark pick up that crusade, using his journalism to expose corruption and force policy change.

    So you sort of get to have both. You can have a Superman with godlike ability who is both changing the world and not changing it at the same time, and you can justify the setting remaining largely unchanged just by saying "it takes time for new laws and social norms to take effect and even longer before those effects are visible."
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

Posting Permissions

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