PKJ Action Comics Discussion and Spoilers

[Myskin]

Never mind. Useless post.

[Robanker]

That's kind of ironic given he was building on New 52 Lana who was probably the most distinctive version of the character in comics at that point.

I think SO had a better Lois (and Lois and Clark dynamic).

I know people harp on Johns for just writing the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeves Superman but darn it he was a man of action!

So Tomasi/Gleason/Jurgens are the JJ Abrams of this scenario and Bendis Rian Johnson?

Secret Origin isn't bad. The thing Johns gets tasked most over is that his Clark is basically an amalgam Superman with no real distinct qualities. He's the default model. There's not a ton of depth. He still does quintessential Superman stuff but you won't get Busiek characterization or Morrison high concept. At best, you get Brainiac. At worst, you get New 52.

I like SO, but it does feel the most generic of Clark's big origin stories. Say what you will about Birthright, Waid swung for the fences. Is there a perfect origin for Clark? No, but I've read enough for a while. They can do a new one in 2030. Just do new stories for a while.

The Kent storefront is a cool idea, though. Not sure I want to lose the farm so maybe Martha opens it up when Clark leaves because she and Jonathan have a lot of free time on their hands now?

[Myskin]

I think Myskin's point (not that I wanna put words in his mouth) isn't so much that Krypton was no longer a monolithic culture, but that it had no culture at all, merely some token hodgepodge attempt to play into our nostalgia that had no voice of it's own, no purpose, no reason for existing and no truly unifying thematic elements.

Yeah, it was great that we had different clothes in the "everything counts" phase. It sure *looked* like (new) Krypton was a more fleshed out world right? Except none of it really fit together. Those post-Crisis robes? Originally they had a purpose, steeped in the history and environment of Krypton. But in the New Krypton era? Why did the science guild wear them? Everything about those robes, what they said about Krypton and the people who lived there, was taken away by forcing other versions of Krypton, with different aesthetics and rationalizations, into the same space.

It's the appearance of depth, but there's actually nothing there. Maybe you're thinking "I read those post-Crisis books and I don't remember why the robes were a thing. Who cares?" but the point isn't the robes, it's that the robes were built into a deeper foundation and world building that explained the "why" of the robes. There was an identity there. What we get now across the whole mythos is a narrative blob of a Frankenstein's monster; made up of different parts that don't fit together, mindless, with no voice or identity of its own.

Look at John's Secret Origin. Other origins, like Birthright or Byrne, might not be to your liking but there's a distinct sense of identity to them. Secret Origin? Didn't have an identity, it just had a checklist of various things from across the publication history thrown together; so bland as to be inoffensive but offering no sustenance or flavor.

Yes, that's the point. Exactly.
I kind of agree on the corporation part, even if I think that it is a bit more complex too. Let me focus on one topic at a time though.:-P

[Myskin]

Oh I totally get that. But the presumption there is that itÂ’s impossible to write a Krypton that could be home to all these different iterations and that I donÂ’t agree with. What could have, should have been done was something like ByrneÂ’s World of Krypton mini that went into the backstory of this new version. Or instead of wasting the Superbooks on the adventures of Mon-El and aged up Chris Kent, we shouldÂ’ve gotten books focusing on different aspects of Kryptonian culture during the New Krypton arc. They could have done some worldbuilding, perhaps those who wear robes belong to the Kryptonian equivalent of a religious order or a philosophical sect that mimics the Byrne era mandates against physical contact or emotions without turning Krypton as a whole into a Vulcan rip off. Look at Earth: thereÂ’s tons of groups here that believe different things and maintain different practices alongside one another. So I donÂ’t find it unbelievable at all that the Byrne, Silver Age, Morrison, or any Krypton version couldnÂ’t co-exist alongside one another, and a book exploring how that works would be fascinating to read.

OK, but diversified culture wasn't actually the reason why they created merged Krypton. It was the moment when the "everything counts" stuff was beginning to appear in the stories (in the same period we had robotic Toyman and human Toyman, Brainiac drones and clones, Legion of three worlds et cetera). If they had really wanted to create a complex, diversified Krypton I guess that they could have done it - in the same vein of Frank Herbert's Dune or Martin's Song of Ice and Fire - but it would have taken a lot of time and efforts, probably more than Superman stories themselves.
The point is that merged Krypton actually looks more colorful than each of the previous versions, but it is actually SMALLER than Silver Age Krypton or Byrne Krypton. Byrne Krypton apparently looks more monotonous than all of the previous versions. However, it is the one with the richest and most complex mythology. A lot of important Superman characters (Doomsday, Eradicator, Cyborg Superman, Conner Kent, Kelex) are directly or indirectly linked to that specific Krypton.

I can see why relatively few readers have a problem with merged Krypton, but IMHO that's part of the problem. I was OK with it too actually. It took me years to realize what kind of hellish trap DC had, maybe unwillingly, created.

Basically I see merged Krypton - and, in general, the way this approach applies in EVERY aspect of Superman's stories - as a huge glass showcase full of one million action figures. One action figure is headband Jor-El, one is Krypto, one is sterile Jor-El. And you also have socialist Superman, electric Superman etc. Every fan can take a look at the showcase and find something which he or she may like. Maybe just ONE action figure, but he/she really likes it. And it surely gives a sense of satisfaction and completeness to contemplate the showcase, and that's why few people have problems with it.

But the problem is - the showcase is not a story. And you can't create a story with ALL of the action figures, or even 80% of them, and IMHO not even 50% of them. You will spend all of your efforts in trying to find a place for each figure and not enough efforts for the characters to develop and have a purpose in the story. So basically what they should do is taking 5, or 6 action figures from the showcase and give them a direction and a meaning. Or - even better - they should just leave all of the action figures behind the glass and create new action figures, maybe keeping some specific, isolated features which could still work and throwing everything else into a wood chipper. But the story created with those few action figures will have a unique, recognizable direction, and if it doesn't really take everything which came before into account, well, fine. It won't. But maybe it will be something.
(to be continued in my next post...)

[Myskin]

(continuing from my previous post...)

In terms of “everything counts” they were more successful with Batman, but mostly because of different reasons. Firstly, Batman had the long series of deconstructions and restructuring I have talked about in my earlier posts. Secondly, they actually did something clever - they somehow connected the different versions of Gotham to specific periods in Batman's life. It’s not entirely written in stone and they took some liberties, but in general that’s what they did. So we have a joyful Gotham, filled of giant typewriters when Batman went around with Robin, and it is somehow coherent with the character's development because Batman had finally someone in his life (and it is actually what happened in the real world, because Batman's silliest stories came out when we had Adam West on TV and the dynamic duo in comic books). And we have a grim Gotham and a more bloodthirsty Joker after Jason Todd's death. There are even more reasons why Batman generally works better than Superman, but these actually count a lot too.

And please remember - merged Krypton is actually one aspect of the problem because what I have described in my post above actually applies to a lot of different aspects of Superman comic books now. You have Golden Age socialist Superman, and boy scout, All-American as*hole Superman in the 1950s, and yuppie Superman in the 1980s and even more versions but it is actually pretty impossible to find a good way to merge all of these versions in one character. There is stuff which All-American Silver Age Superman does, but Golden Age Superman would have never done. And vice versa. Could they have created a version of Superman who goes through different phases, so he's a socialist in his early age, and an All-American conservative later in his life? Maybe. I mean, it would have taken a lot of effort but it would have been interesting. But it is actually pretty difficult to do, because - if you really want to follow the stories - you see that they are way harder to reconcile than Batman stories. Byrne Superman was already a 1980s yuppie when he started his career. Silver Age Superman wasn't. So? Well, they choose not to create a bible in which all of the versions would reconcile with each other AND give Superman a coherent, well-fleshed out personality (I am not saying that it would be successful, but it would be interesting). Instead, their answer was...

HOPE.
HOPEHOPEHOPE.

Check Superman comic books in the latest decade or so. The word "hope" is almost an obsession. It's everywhere. I'd say that it is mentioned way more often than in any other past Superman eras. So they can't, or don't want to find a specific, coherent direction with the character (socialist? Yuppie? Boyscout?), but they made him THE hope bringer. Basically the most hopeful superhopeful hero of Hopeville who gives infinite hope to all hopeful people in the land of hope.

But "hope" actually doesn't mean anything. It's another trap. It's one of those generic terms which gives a sense of vague satisfaction - I mean, what kind of jerk reader could be against !11!HOPE!!1? - but you actually never understand how it really applies. So they don't, or they can't make him kick rich privileged people's ass, and they don't, or they can't make him move planets, or - thankfully - they don't or they can't make him defend American people against buck-toothed Japanese soldiers, but they constantly make him smile and make character say that Superman brings hope.

What makes me said is that - if memory doesn't fail me - the "HOPE" nonsense actually started with Waid in Kingdom Come and Birthright. I think that Waid can be a good writer, and sometimes an excellent writer, but it's as if he's so fond of Superman that he can't really see when he does something too on the nose or irritatingly redundant such as making the character say that his S-shield LITERALLY means "hope".

[Alpha]

So Tomasi/Gleason/Jurgens are the JJ Abrams of this scenario and Bendis Rian Johnson?

Hey watch it there buddy! The Last Jedi was the best of the sequel trilogy.

[Prime]

Bring Chris back

[Sam]

Oh my god can we get that?

Glad to see I’m not the only one who’d be into that.

[Frontier]

Secret Origin isn't bad. The thing Johns gets tasked most over is that his Clark is basically an amalgam Superman with no real distinct qualities. He's the default model. There's not a ton of depth. He still does quintessential Superman stuff but you won't get Busiek characterization or Morrison high concept. At best, you get Brainiac. At worst, you get New 52.

I feel like his distinct qualities are his Superman qualities, but that's just me. I guess I just like the "default" models.

(continuing from my previous post...)

In terms of “everything counts” they were more successful with Batman, but mostly because of different reasons. Firstly, Batman had the long series of deconstructions and restructuring I have talked about in my earlier posts. Secondly, they actually did something clever - they somehow connected the different versions of Gotham to specific periods in Batman's life. It’s not entirely written in stone and they took some liberties, but in general that’s what they did. So we have a joyful Gotham, filled of giant typewriters when Batman went around with Robin, and it is somehow coherent with the character's development because Batman had finally someone in his life (and it is actually what happened in the real world, because Batman's silliest stories came out when we had Adam West on TV and the dynamic duo in comic books). And we have a grim Gotham and a more bloodthirsty Joker after Jason Todd's death. There are even more reasons why Batman generally works better than Superman, but these actually count a lot too.

And please remember - merged Krypton is actually one aspect of the problem because what I have described in my post above actually applies to a lot of different aspects of Superman comic books now. You have Golden Age socialist Superman, and boy scout, All-American as*hole Superman in the 1950s, and yuppie Superman in the 1980s and even more versions but it is actually pretty impossible to find a good way to merge all of these versions in one character. There is stuff which All-American Silver Age Superman does, but Golden Age Superman would have never done. And vice versa. Could they have created a version of Superman who goes through different phases, so he's a socialist in his early age, and an All-American conservative later in his life? Maybe. I mean, it would have taken a lot of effort but it would have been interesting. But it is actually pretty difficult to do, because - if you really want to follow the stories - you see that they are way harder to reconcile than Batman stories. Byrne Superman was already a 1980s yuppie when he started his career. Silver Age Superman wasn't. So? Well, they choose not to create a bible in which all of the versions would reconcile with each other AND give Superman a coherent, well-fleshed out personality (I am not saying that it would be successful, but it would be interesting). Instead, their answer was...

HOPE.
HOPEHOPEHOPE.

Check Superman comic books in the latest decade or so. The word "hope" is almost an obsession. It's everywhere. I'd say that it is mentioned way more often than in any other past Superman eras. So they can't, or don't want to find a specific, coherent direction with the character (socialist? Yuppie? Boyscout?), but they made him THE hope bringer. Basically the most hopeful superhopeful hero of Hopeville who gives infinite hope to all hopeful people in the land of hope.

But "hope" actually doesn't mean anything. It's another trap. It's one of those generic terms which gives a sense of vague satisfaction - I mean, what kind of jerk reader could be against !11!HOPE!!1? - but you actually never understand how it really applies. So they don't, or they can't make him kick rich privileged people's ass, and they don't, or they can't make him move planets, or - thankfully - they don't or they can't make him defend American people against buck-toothed Japanese soldiers, but they constantly make him smile and make character say that Superman brings hope.

What makes me said is that - if memory doesn't fail me - the "HOPE" nonsense actually started with Waid in Kingdom Come and Birthright. I think that Waid can be a good writer, and sometimes an excellent writer, but it's as if he's so fond of Superman that he can't really see when he does something too on the nose or irritatingly redundant such as making the character say that his S-shield LITERALLY means "hope".

So basically Superman has become Kamen Rider Wizard?

For me, merged Krypton gets my creativity going and offers up more variety with what you can do with Krypton, but to each their own.

[Myskin]

For me, merged Krypton gets my creativity going and offers up more variety with what you can do with Krypton

That would be true if we had seen it in the stories and not just in our minds/headcanon.

[Quinlan58]

Bring Chris back

Would lock Zod's characterization into an unsympathetic monster forever, and as far as I've seen the best received versions of Zod have been the ones that were still somewhat sympathetic.

So, much as I loved how Busiek wrote their relationship... probably not the best idea.

[Frontier]

That would be true if we had seen it in the stories and not just in our minds/headcanon.

I guess I haven't read enough of New Krytpon to see how they handled the culture there but I'm fine with the story potential as is.

[Ascended]

Yes, that's the point. Exactly.
I kind of agree on the corporation part, even if I think that it is a bit more complex too. Let me focus on one topic at a time though.:-P

The corporate stuff is *way* more complex than that. But that is a entire thread in and of itself so I didn't wanna get too deep into it.

I guess I haven't read enough of New Krytpon to see how they handled the culture there but I'm fine with the story potential as is.

There's definitely potential in the basic idea. That was never really the problem.

But what was the *history* of New Krypton? What was the culture? *Why* did the science guild wear those robes? What kind of stories, characters, plots, themes, etc., could you pull from *that* specific version that would fuel an actual story, and what did merged Krypton actually tell us about where Clark came from and what kind of place it was? Specifically? Hypothetically asking since you didn't read much of New Krypton, but the answer is "not much."

That was the problem, not the merger itself; DC pretended that all these different versions being smooshed together would mean it was a rich, developed world. And it *could* have been, if DC had bothered to actually *world build.* But they didn't, "potential" is all it ever was and that's not really enough to make a good story. It's great that we can sit here and think about how interesting merged Krypton *could* have been (and it could have been). But *could have* does not make good stories. For that you need "did." And DC didn't.

[Frontier]

There's definitely potential in the basic idea. That was never really the problem.

But what was the *history* of New Krypton? What was the culture? *Why* did the science guild wear those robes? What kind of stories, characters, plots, themes, etc., could you pull from *that* specific version that would fuel an actual story, and what did merged Krypton actually tell us about where Clark came from and what kind of place it was? Specifically? Hypothetically asking since you didn't read much of New Krypton, but the answer is "not much."

That was the problem, not the merger itself; DC pretended that all these different versions being smooshed together would mean it was a rich, developed world. And it *could* have been, if DC had bothered to actually *world build.* But they didn't, "potential" is all it ever was and that's not really enough to make a good story. It's great that we can sit here and think about how interesting merged Krypton *could* have been (and it could have been). But *could have* does not make good stories. For that you need "did." And DC didn't.

I feel like we got into at least some of this in Sterling Gates' Supergirl run but I'm not 100% sure.

[Prime]

Would lock Zod's characterization into an unsympathetic monster forever, and as far as I've seen the best received versions of Zod have been the ones that were still somewhat sympathetic.

So, much as I loved how Busiek wrote their relationship... probably not the best idea.

Zod is a bad guy?