Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 72
  1. #16
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    And here we have what I think is a pretty good example of what I mean, particularly the bolded. Where does this notion that post crisis Superman wasn't strong enough to deal with cosmic threats come from? Post crisis Superman took on and defeated the likes of Darkseid, Brainiac, Doomsday, Maxima, Zod and Mongul. He wasn't weak just because he had a more limited yet still very large and versatile power set. He was doing things like moving mountains and tanking nuclear blasts. Yeah he had to work a lot harder for his victories now but it didn't make him the weakling some people paint him as.

    If anything, the bolded criticism fits the Golden Age version better.



    All superheroes are champions of the oppressed. As for the immigrant story, that has the problem of applicability. Much like how the X-Men's "mutant metaphor" has been (not unjustly) criticized as a poor and at times incredibly insulting substitute for stories about real marginalized groups.
    I seem to remember him leading earth's heroes every time there was a cosmic threat post-crisis. Panic in the Sky - Superman gathers earth's heroes and leads them in an assault on War World. Zero Hour - he's front and center despite them going up against a universal-level threat and again the one who brings all the other heroes together. Even in his energy-powers phase he was the one at the forefront with the Genesis and Millennium Giants events.

  2. #17
    Astonishing Member Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,765

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    I don't think a "champion of the oppressed" take will ever be irrelevant, that along with the immigrant story are the most timeless elements of the core concepts.
    I mean, the two modern versions of that concept, New 52 and the DCEU floundered. The most critically successful variation on that is Superman Smashes the Klan, and even there half the book is focused on “irrelevant” side characters.

    And to add to that, I'm pretty far left myself, but superhero fans on average seem to be more conservative than general audiences. So if we are talking about comics, a socialist woke Superman likely would play even worse.

    Does he sell what he used to, relative to the respective time periods? Comics in general don't sell anywhere near as much as they did before, and Superman's been toppled by Batman for a while. "Successful" among the increasingly insular mainstream Wednesday Warriors isn't nearly as impressive as being the top seller back when comics were far more easily accessible.
    Well comics are themselves pretty irrelevant as we’ve seen in the last few weeks. WB’s and Disney aren’t doing anything to keep them afloat. Because even this idea that they are IP farms is probably not really a factor either. Batman isn’t as successful as he was years ago either, so there’s no magic formula that’s going to get anything selling 200,000 copies a month again. It’s just the comic market.

    But I wasn’t talking about comics anyways. I was talking about the Donner movies, Lois & Clark, Smallville, and the CW Superman. All versions that are mocked by large factions of Superman “fans” but are by far the most successful adaptations in the last 4 decades.
    Last edited by Yoda; 04-07-2020 at 07:59 AM.

  3. #18
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    I mean, the two modern versions of that concept, New 52 and the DCEU floundered. The most critically successful variation on that is Superman Smashes the Klan, and even there half the book is focused on “irrelevant” side characters.



    Well comics are themselves pretty irrelevant as we’ve seen in the last few weeks. WB’s and Disney aren’t doing anything to keep them afloat. Because even this idea that they are IP farms is probably not really a factor either. Batman isn’t as successful as he was years ago either, so there’s no magic formula that’s going to get anything selling 200,000 copies a month again. It’s just the comic market.

    But I wasn’t talking about comics anyways. I was talking about the Donner movies, Lois & Clark, Smallville, and the CW Superman. All versions that are mocked by large factions of Superman “fans” but are by far the most successful adaptations in the last 4 decades.
    Actually, dceu is an amalgam like bruce timm's superman . It's also based on postcrisis. And New52 well it only floundered with truth. Before that action comics was pretty darn good. Superman smashes the klan focuses on the children. Why? Because they are the core audience. And because it doesn't have to appease "teen movies" demographics. It didn't have much or any drama. Superman was still pretty much a focus. They even give him an arc.

    There is no superman without goldenage superman. Period. Byrne himself basically takes the structure of goldenage and twisted it his ways. Every superman is a deviation of that guy regarding attributes.

    And Not really, Iron giant is the best Superman movie . It focuses on the old guy. Furthermore, every attempt at recreating donner success was met with faliure. Even, donner movies lost steam after he himself went away.Superman is typecasted into that guy. The character can't even shake out of it. Superman cannot provide different types of stories because of this as well. Superman hasn't had the success he had. Smallville, lois and clark.. Etc all are mediocre series. They aren't iconic popculture shows. Smallville has cw audience. Other than that all of them hadn't had really great success. I wouldn't even call them "iconic" in pop culture sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Actually I think this is a good example of Gaiman meant, particularly the bolded. Where does this notion that post crisis Superman wasn't strong enough to deal with cosmic threats come from? Post crisis Superman took on and defeated the likes of Darkseid, Brainiac, Doomsday, Maxima, Zod and Mongul. He wasn't weak just because he had a more limited yet still very large and versatile power set. He was doing things like moving mountains and tanking nuclear blasts. Yeah he had to work a lot harder for his victories now but it didn't make him the weakling some people paint him as.

    If anything, the bolded criticism fits the Golden Age version better.
    Actually regarding power levels,postcrisis superman is able to take on guys you mention for two reason
    1)natural power creep happens and superman is propelled to higher levels
    2)the guys you mentioned are nerfed themselves
    See, mongul was creature was durable enough to make superman's hand throb. Now, he gets kicked around by almost everyone.
    Furthermore, goldenage superman had better tension and worked way better on grounded street stories which was what @seigeperlious said. He can't take on cosmic dudes and that was allright. I also prefer superman had actually worked out back then, there was no sun explanation.
    When Superman fights should be planetary level spectacles, With these villains nerfed it's no fun. With silverage guy that was possible.
    Post crisis is neither here nor there. Does superman fights feature more spectacular things in nature like breaking apart solar systems? Nope! Does superman have great close quarter combat on the ground, with great choreography? Nope! He is stuck in the middle with lame movement and powerset.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 04-07-2020 at 09:39 AM.

  4. #19
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,472

    Default

    It is pretty funny to consider how Byrne himself said his Superman was 'getting back to basics' of the original Superman without the irrelevant baggage of the silver age.

  5. #20
    Astonishing Member Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,765

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Actually, dceu is an amalgam like bruce timm's superman .
    What? I'm sure you'll have some YouTube video to back this up, but I don't think anyone thinks Timm's Superman is a major influence on the DCEU.

    It's also based on postcrisis.
    It's based on a lot of things, but it tried to get back to the a lot of the Golden Age elements as well. Centered on the outsider and tough guy aspects, particularly in the beginning.

    And New52 well it only floundered with truth. Before that action comics was pretty darn good.
    What you like is irrelevant to this. Action comics wasn't selling any better than Bendis was for most of it's run outside of Morrison. The New 52 Superman title sold even worse.

    Superman smashes the klan focuses on the children. Why? Because they are the core audience. And because it doesn't have to appease "teen movies" demographics. It didn't have much or any drama. Superman was still pretty much a focus. They even give him an arc.
    You constantly move goal posts. None of that is relevant. It was critically successful - among adult critics - not as a children's book, but as a great Superman story. It hasn't even been released in the Children's book market yet. And it's all ages. Move goalposts all you like but none of that changes the fact that it focused on side characters as much as Superman and the main narrative was centered on them.

    There is no superman without goldenage superman. Period. Byrne himself basically takes the structure of goldenage and twisted it his ways. Every superman is a deviation of that guy regarding attributes.
    None of that is relevant to what we are talking about, at all.

    And Not really, Iron giant is the best Superman movie . It focuses on the old guy. Furthermore, every attempt at recreating donner success was met with faliure. Even, donner movies lost steam after he himself went away.Superman is typecasted into that guy. The character can't even shake out of it. Superman cannot provide different types of stories because of this as well. Superman hasn't had the success he had. Smallville, lois and clark.. Etc all are mediocre series. They aren't iconic popculture shows. Smallville has cw audience. Other than that all of them hadn't had really great success. I wouldn't even call them "iconic" in pop culture sense.
    Again, it doesn't matter what you like or what you think the "real" Superman is. It doesn't matter what you think of the CW or Smallville or Lois & Clark. Those versions have more impact and success than you'll ever admit. They are definitely iconic pop culture shows because they've been off the air for decades and are still discussed, streamed, and liked. CW audience is in the millions. You like to dismiss it, but you're just proving my point.
    Last edited by Yoda; 04-07-2020 at 08:26 AM.

  6. #21
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Actually I think this is a good example of Gaiman meant, particularly the bolded. Where does this notion that post crisis Superman wasn't strong enough to deal with cosmic threats come from? Post crisis Superman took on and defeated the likes of Darkseid, Brainiac, Doomsday, Maxima, Zod and Mongul. He wasn't weak just because he had a more limited yet still very large and versatile power set. He was doing things like moving mountains and tanking nuclear blasts. Yeah he had to work a lot harder for his victories now but it didn't make him the weakling some people paint him as.

    If anything, the bolded criticism fits the Golden Age version better.
    Mongul and Brainiac at least were not as powerful initially in post-Crisis as they were earlier. There was definitely a power creep again as things went on, but the foundation was definitely more muted compared to what came before.

    The Golden Age power levels aren't what we're talking about. Bringing him back to that level with appropriate threats may have been interesting. This was in-between, and not as interesting as either extreme.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    All superheroes are champions of the oppressed. As for the immigrant story, that has the problem of applicability. Much like how the X-Men's "mutant metaphor" has been (not unjustly) criticized as a poor and at times incredibly insulting substitute for stories about real marginalized groups.
    But Superman in particular got the ball rolling on that. I don't care about other superheroes in this case. The fact that it's even shocking to people that Superman is a champion of the oppressed and not a maintainer of the status quo is a problem. We even have Wonder Woman stating she lost her attraction to him because he was too much a guard of the status quo whereas she wanted to be an agent of change, which goes against what Superman is meant to be about.

    The immigrant angle can be portrayed wrongly. But it's also a fundamental aspect of him. You remove it, and it's not the same character. It's not worth removing that for that reason (same with the X-men).

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    I mean, the two modern versions of that concept, New 52 and the DCEU floundered. The most critically successful variation on that is Superman Smashes the Klan, and even there half the book is focused on “irrelevant” side characters.

    And to add to that, I'm pretty far left myself, but superhero fans on average seem to be more conservative than general audiences. So if we are talking about comics, a socialist woke Superman likely would play even worse.
    New 52 didn't flounder initially, and I think you're forgetting how much in dire straits he was pre-Flashpoint. Dude was a joke at that point. And the DCEU didn't really go with that angle and failed for a multitude of other reasons. if anything, it pulled more from Byrne than the Golden Age.

    If comics are becoming increasingly irrelevant, I think getting that portrayal in a good movie would do wonders. Who cares what the comic nerds think as long as it's good. His fanbase is often his worst enemy these days.


    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    But I wasn’t talking about comics anyways. I was talking about the Donner movies, Lois & Clark, Smallville, and the CW Superman. All versions that are mocked by large factions of Superman “fans” but are by far the most successful adaptations in the last 4 decades.
    The Donner movies were the last straight up hits he's had at the cinemas...and it was back in the early 80s. The live action shows are nothing to sneeze at, but they don't make as much of an impact as movies, and now Superman is forced to sit out during the big Hollywood superhero boom. And I think a good series will get viewers, regardless of the take they pull from. I don't think the focus on the marriage or his parents are too major of a problem, just that they get too much focus. Let's show other angles to the character as actual Superman (not 10+ years of pre-Superman like Smallville).

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofdarkchild View Post
    It is pretty funny to consider how Byrne himself said his Superman was 'getting back to basics' of the original Superman without the irrelevant baggage of the silver age.
    A back to basics Superman wouldn't have been unable to topple Lex and forced to run away with his tail between his legs after Lex had Lana beaten.

    While Batman clears our the corrupt officials of Gotham within a year

  7. #22
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,472

    Default

    Batman has never, ever been able to clear out the corrupt officials in Gotham in a year. In Year 1 he manages to get a crook to testify against the commissioner, but the city's still a cesspool run by the mob. In the Dark Knight movie Gotham is so overrun with corruption Joker has no trouble recruiting from the police, even Gordon's hand-picked squad, and that is when Batman's been operating for a full year already.

    Batman has the same problem as any long-running superhero in that because of escalation things are constantly getting worse in Gotham. One of my many, many complaints about the War Games event was how useless it made Batman seem when a gang-war could be that bad when he'd been operating for so long by that point.

    At this point I feel like we're getting into 'Must there be a Superman' territory with the answer being that Superman must use his powers to fix every single problem.

  8. #23
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofdarkchild View Post
    Batman has never, ever been able to clear out the corrupt officials in Gotham in a year. In Year 1 he manages to get a crook to testify against the commissioner, but the city's still a cesspool run by the mob. In the Dark Knight movie Gotham is so overrun with corruption Joker has no trouble recruiting from the police, even Gordon's hand-picked squad, and that is when Batman's been operating for a full year already.

    Batman has the same problem as any long-running superhero in that because of escalation things are constantly getting worse in Gotham. One of my many, many complaints about the War Games event was how useless it made Batman seem when a gang-war could be that bad when he'd been operating for so long by that point.

    At this point I feel like we're getting into 'Must there be a Superman' territory with the answer being that Superman must use his powers to fix every single problem.
    Still, Superman doesn't have a moment as cool as the "you've all feasted well.." speech Batman makes. It's little wonder Batman became cooler when he was doing something along the lines of what OG Superman used to do (among other reasons).

    Like which one of these stories is an evergreen seller that almost never goes out of print, has aged very well on a craft level and is held up as a mature and cool re invigoration of an icon..and which of these is Byrne's MOS?

  9. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    The Golden Age power levels aren't what we're talking about.
    I know that but I feel it was more fitting in description of what you said about being too powerful for street level threats and two weak for cosmic threats.
    Bringing him back to that level with appropriate threats may have been interesting. This was in-between, and not as interesting as either extreme.
    Let’s agree to disagree on this.



    We even have Wonder Woman stating she lost her attraction to him because he was too much a guard of the status quo whereas she wanted to be an agent of change, which goes against what Superman is meant to be about.
    When did she say this?
    Honestly, the less references to Diana and Clark’s relationship in the New 52 the better imo.

    The immigrant angle can be portrayed wrongly. But it's also a fundamental aspect of him. You remove it, and it's not the same character. It's not worth removing that for that reason (same with the X-men).
    Well at least with Clark it was done with him from the beginning as opposed to the X-Men.



    While Batman clears our the corrupt officials of Gotham within a year
    And yet Gotham is still a hell hole and arguably worse than ever.

  10. #25
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,472

    Default

    Byrne's MOS is not quite as highly regarded as Batman Year 1, but then, almost nothing is. It is still regarded as a classic comic and is highly praised and influential in the medium, receiving articles about its virtues even decades after it came out. It was also a huge sales success in its time.

    I will say that his work on the main Superman book after MOS was pretty hit and miss. The story you hate so much with Luthor was actually collected in a trade I had called 'the greatest Superman stories ever told' but then there was the Big Barda issue. In my opinion things really improved after Byrne left and the worldbuilding really picked up. It took an editorial team that really knew what it was doing to put out 4 books a month while keeping the continuity tight and keeping track of such a large cast for so long. It was when they started undoing those things in the 2000s, shrinking the world and bringing back many silver age elements, that I feel the quality really started to go downhill. There's a reason we had Superman, Adventures of Superman, Action Comics, and Man of Steel all coming out every month for so many years while there were also plenty of spinoffs.

  11. #26
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I know that but I feel it was more fitting in description of what you said about being too powerful for street level threats and two weak for cosmic threats.
    For me it's more that the more powerful Superman of Pre-COIE generally has a more bizarre mythos around him, so him being super powerful seems to fit in better there.
    His mythos just seems more...basic post-COIE. Not helped at all by the initial changes to Brainiac, Bizarro and Supergirl, the PZ criminals and the absence of the Legion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    When did she say this?
    Honestly, the less references to Diana and Clark’s relationship in the New 52 the better imo.
    It wasn't in the New 52, it was in the Perez run. She's thinking it to herself in issue #17 (I believe, the first issue of the Circe arc) when she and Vanessa are in a plane to Greece.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Well at least with Clark it was done with him from the beginning as opposed to the X-Men.
    The X-Men didn't really work as a concept until it was applied, so they are better with it than not. But I agree, how well it's executed depends on whose writing it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    And yet Gotham is still a hell hole and arguably worse than ever.
    Later stories don't matter as much. All eyes were on the reboots at the time, and in them the rich guy is the rebel who goes after the other corrupt rich and movers and shakers, while the embodiment of the working man's spirit doesn't get a singular cool moment like that in the era where edgy badass heroes were gaining traction. Despite the fact that, of the two, his concept leans more towards it than Batman (though they should both be doing it) and he did it first.

    Just after TDKR, where he was a tool for the establishment. This was a deadly combination of things, along with the lack of a good movie while Batman was getting '89.

  12. #27
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    What? I'm sure you'll have some YouTube video to back this up, but I don't think anyone thinks Timm's Superman is a major influence on the DCEU.



    It's based on a lot of things, but it tried to get back to the a lot of the Golden Age elements as well. Centered on the outsider and tough guy aspects, particularly in the beginning.



    What you like is irrelevant to this. Action comics wasn't selling any better than Bendis was for most of it's run outside of Morrison. The New 52 Superman title sold even worse.



    You constantly move goal posts. None of that is relevant. It was critically successful - among adult critics - not as a children's book, but as a great Superman story. It hasn't even been released in the Children's book market yet. And it's all ages. Move goalposts all you like but none of that changes the fact that it focused on side characters as much as Superman and the main narrative was centered on them.



    None of that is relevant to what we are talking about, at all.



    Again, it doesn't matter what you like or what you think the "real" Superman is. It doesn't matter what you think of the CW or Smallville or Lois & Clark. Those versions have more impact and success than you'll ever admit. They are definitely iconic pop culture shows because they've been off the air for decades and are still discussed, streamed, and liked. CW audience is in the millions. You like to dismiss it, but you're just proving my point.
    I didn't say bruce timm's superman was an influence for dceu superman. I said both of them are amalgam supermen. They tried to incorporate anything and everything.

    Decu superman didn't have an ounce of the kickass confident smiling strongman. He was shy and introverted. As for the outsider, yes that's present. Being an outsider has been part of postcrisis interpretations. But, dceu did take the "keep yourself hidden till right time" from the original story.

    What? Action is currently at 35k range. New52 never, ever sank that low in its worst phase as far as i am aware.

    You said, irrelevant apsects by that i thought you meant romance and drama.There wasn't much of that. Jimmy and the girl were the central characters to begin with, as well as clark. Where is the moving goal post in that?

    It was reply to an older post by you. Which said "goldenage superman was irrelevant" or something of the sort .

    Last time i checked, superman hasn't got a star in Hollywood walk of fame because of all these amazing iconic series. Am i wrong in that? max fleischer superman cartoons inspired a goldenage for animation. That guy has even inspired the great miyazaki who has won oscars. Tell me one good thing that these mediocre dated superman series has inspired ? Donner movie was pretty damn great, though for its time.40 years ago and can't be replicated.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 04-07-2020 at 09:31 AM.

  13. #28
    Father Son Kamehameha < Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The World View Post
    It's not what the character is about. Modern Superman's biggest flaw is that the focus is on irrelevant side elements and the central stuff this character is about is in total disregard and disrepair.
    If "Superman becomes a husband or father" was a drinking game, you'd die from the alcohol before getting to Vietnam era comics. If the quality of Superman in those roles is irrelevant then that includes everything you know? Super sons, 2965, 2020... all that stuff is based on Superman being a father and husband, doing those things you've been complaining about. It's a hard position to take seriously tbh.

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofdarkchild View Post
    It's Clark's relationships that show the positive impact he is having on the world and how he inspires people. That is the secret as to why the triangle era was so good. It wasn't just Ma and Pa and Lois. It was Maggie Sawyer and Dan Turpin adapting to a world of super-powered criminals and heroes and becoming better cops. It was Bibo becoming inspired to be more than just a drunk and become a pillar of his community because he met Superman. It was Emil Hamilton finding purpose in life. It was John Henry Irons and Linda Danvers seeking redemption for the sins of their pasts and becoming heroes thanks to his inspiration. Heck, it was even Batman learning to be a bit more hopeful thanks to Superman. This is a huge part of why I adore 90s Superman comics and can't stand 2000s Superman comics. Especially in comics which are long-form and don't end, this is how you show how Superman is making the world a better place, through the people he interacts with on a regular basis.
    All very much my same sentiment, even though I adore plenty of stuff before the 90s almost equally in a very different way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Neil Gaiman once said that whenever someone says they don't like something, they're always right, but when they explain why they don't like it, they're usually wrong. I think this applies to a lot of the people who claim post crisis Superman or Bendis' Superman isn't heroic for some reason.
    That's a pretty elegant quote. Obviously it's not just Superman but so much attention is paid to what he is or shouldn't be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    All superheroes are champions of the oppressed. As for the immigrant story, that has the problem of applicability. Much like how the X-Men's "mutant metaphor" has been (not unjustly) criticized as a poor and at times incredibly insulting substitute for stories about real marginalized groups.
    Also agreed. Superman as the ultimate immigrant is solid, but lean on it too heavily and it'll definitely break.

    I don't mean to take a jab or anything either but I think it's pretty funny that Byrne (English born Canadian who moved to the US) was like the most prominent immigrant writer, the only one I can even name from older generations, and his view of Superman as an immigrant is said to have gotten it wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofdarkchild View Post
    DC sales as a whole were so pitiful in the early 80s even compared to today. Here's a chart of the top 100 best-selling comics from June 1984.

    https://comixace.tumblr.com/post/103...1984-junes-top

    Note how Superman is selling under 15K and Batman and Detective Comics are both selling under 20k. Batman and Superman. And this was after Batman had been reinvented and brought into a darker and more respectable tone in the 70s.
    Wow. I knew that Superman was shakier than it seems people want to admit (in fairness that's not so much a quality issue but you have to listen to the numbers), and that Batman was actually pretty modest with B&B as his best title for a while, but I didn't quite know it was like that for the two characters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post

    And to add to that, I'm pretty far left myself, but superhero fans on average seem to be more conservative than general audiences. So if we are talking about comics, a socialist woke Superman likely would play even worse.
    It's weird because it's an understandable impression even though most creators either "lean left" or are just so deeply dissatisfied with the current office.

    Superman though... I think if political parties come up with him then something is wrong. He should dwarf the smaller debates.

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Post crisis is neither here nor there. Does superman fights feature more spectacular things in nature like breaking apart solar systems? Nope! Does superman have great close quarter combat on the ground, with great choreography? Nope! He is stuck in the middle with lame movement and powerset.
    Is the choreography a problem specific to one phase of Superman or the American comic industry, though?

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    A back to basics Superman wouldn't have been unable to topple Lex and forced to run away with his tail between his legs after Lex had Lana beaten.
    Many of his golden and silver age encounters with Luthor were pretty unglamorous.

    Sometimes I see it mentioned that golden age Superman wouldn't stand for ____ or would do away with ____, and it's just not how the stories were told. Superman takes too much crap from Batman? I mean, let me know when Batman literally slaps him across the face and he's understanding about it.
    Welcome or welcome back! Please check out the updated
    CBR Community STANDARDS & RULES

  14. #29
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofdarkchild View Post
    Byrne's MOS is not quite as highly regarded as Batman Year 1, but then, almost nothing is. It is still regarded as a classic comic and is highly praised and influential in the medium, receiving articles about its virtues even decades after it came out. It was also a huge sales success in its time.

    I will say that his work on the main Superman book after MOS was pretty hit and miss. The story you hate so much with Luthor was actually collected in a trade I had called 'the greatest Superman stories ever told' but then there was the Big Barda issue. In my opinion things really improved after Byrne left and the worldbuilding really picked up. It took an editorial team that really knew what it was doing to put out 4 books a month while keeping the continuity tight and keeping track of such a large cast for so long. It was when they started undoing those things in the 2000s, shrinking the world and bringing back many silver age elements, that I feel the quality really started to go downhill. There's a reason we had Superman, Adventures of Superman, Action Comics, and Man of Steel all coming out every month for so many years while there were also plenty of spinoffs.
    No disputing that it was a sales success at the time, and what they thought the character needed. In the short term, I think it worked. But IMO, it not only doesn't hold up to YO, it also falls short of even Perez's Wonder Woman. Which sort of feels like a cross between an 80s superhero book and a Vertigo book (must be the Karen Berger influence).

    I knew that issue was in the regular series (and it's kind of a joke that it's in a trade about the "greatest stories."), but the whole thing is just unimpressive to me. I made it three trades in before I had to tap out because they were just so boring, but then I don't think I've liked anything by Byrne save his X-Men run with Claremont. I didn't even get to the Barda porn lol because...yeah.

    I won't bash the Triangle era because I've read so little of it. I've made it deeper into Byrne and the early 2000s and post-Infinite Crisis, all of which are low points for me. Triangle at least seemed to backtrack on some Byrne's ideas ("f*** Krypton, I'm an American!") so there's that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuwagaton View Post
    Sometimes I see it mentioned that golden age Superman wouldn't stand for ____ or would do away with ____, and it's just not how the stories were told. Superman takes too much crap from Batman? I mean, let me know when Batman literally slaps him across the face and he's understanding about it.
    Who slapped him?
    If it was Lois, does it count and was it undeserved (probably not)?

  15. #30
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuwagaton View Post
    Is the choreography a problem specific to one phase of Superman or the American comic industry, though?
    .
    Spidey seems to do decntly. Batman stories and live action does as well. That fight with batman and shredder was pretty damn good. Its not like superman is less agile than these guys.He is more, yet his movements are nowhere near as impressive as goldenage guy. The best he has did was pull of some kicks, which even looked wierd.That's another thing i wonder. I had no problem with goldenage guy clinging on walls, running on electric lines, running up a building , doing flips, dives and kicks..etc.yet,when postcrisis superman does it in modern stories, it feels wierd. Its like someone is doing something that he isn't supposed to. I don't particularly know why that is.

Posting Permissions

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