Page 44 of 61 FirstFirst ... 3440414243444546474854 ... LastLast
Results 646 to 660 of 902
  1. #646
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,797

    Default

    I enjoyed the issue! Superman and the Authority was something that mostly flew under the radar for me, until I saw the preview and read the interview with Morrison, and decided to check it out. The issue itself is light on action, but between it and the interview, I'm mostly excited by Morrison's approach to a subject that is discussed ad nauseum within and outside the fandom, and particularly on this forum - should superheroes be 'fixing' the world by tackling real-world problems? and what would happen if they did?

    The Superman in this story is meant to be a logical progression of both the Golden Age Superman (who Morrison reinvented in his New 52 run) and the Silver Age Superman. I guess the idea is that Superman started out as a champion of the oppressed, a man of action who wasn't afraid to get sh#t done. He evolved from that into being a more idealistic and inspirational figure representative of the Space Age and JFK's ''New Frontier''. But somewhere along the way, Superman (and superheroes in general) got so used to being inspirational symbols, that they somehow ended up not doing the work of making a real difference. So, now older and a bit bruised and battered, Superman is going back to the proactive approach of his earliest days, in order to fulfil the Space Age-era promise he made to JFK.

    Manchester Black is a fitting recruit because he's not just the antithesis of the classic Silver Age ''Boy Scout'' incarnation of Superman, but also because you can argue that he's a more extreme and kill-happy version of the Golden Age Superman. I think working with Black, Superman is trying to arrive at a new synthesis, so to speak, in terms of his approach and his worldview. He doesn't want to be the unfettered vigilante who can easily become a tyrant (like Black was), but he can't just be a navel-gazing symbol anymore either. Will he find that middle ground? And what is it? I guess this is what Morrison will be trying to answer over the next three issues.

    As far as the explanation for Superman in 1963 goes - yeah, it feels a bit like a cop-out on one level, especially since the full 5G timeline was recently leaked. They almost certainly intended Superman to actually be around during JFK's era, and then Morrison had to throw in the time-travel bit to have it make sense in 'current' continuity. But the time-travel stuff does jibe well with Superman also visiting Camelot and meeting Arthur, so who knows?

    I love the suit! Its already one of my all-time favorite Superman outfits. It feels like a cross between the now-iconic T-shirt and jeans look from the New 52, as well as stuff like the Cavill's costume or Hoechlin's current suit on S & L. The short sleeves and the lack of a cape do sell the idea that this Superman isn't a savior looking down from the skies, but someone who's ready to get down and dirty.

    Look forward to seeing how this plays out!
    Last edited by bat39; 07-25-2021 at 12:12 AM.

  2. #647
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,460

    Default

    The criticisms about Superman's portrayal in terms his motives here....thing is I largely agree. This isn't how he usually is. But to be fair we know that's rather the point of the story being told. The hook is supposed to be an unnatural approach. I'm willing to see it out because I think Morrison gets that a flat out authoritarian nature is not Superman. Hell they've flat out said it. What they're trying to do is craft a story that will at least try and frame some of these desires of DC in a somewhat understandable way. To me that suggests compelling and not contrived context to be revealed. At least, I have more optimism than I normally would that this will be the case via what is a very strong track record with the writer. So we'll see. I've said it before but this whole thing has me massively worried once this mini ends, because there will be no buffer at all between DC's "Authoritarian Superman" desire if it still exists. But cross that bridge when it comes.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 07-24-2021 at 01:07 PM.
    "They can be a great people Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you. My only son." - Jor-El

    "“Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer!”

  3. #648
    Ultimate Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    12,001

    Default

    Had to shorten some of your boxes just to get all the dialogue to fit, apologies (…) is meant to refer to all of your post that I cut to get it to fit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Goblin of Sector 2814 View Post
    Subjective opinion and I’ll just say I disagree. Also a lot of what Manchester is saying actually feels pretty on brand for how a lot of people on Twitter talk.
    And for that matter, why is this Superman old? (…) A lot of the context you're pointing at here is stuff that doesn't make sense in the larger DCU context.
    Look if you’re approaching this story with an attitude of “how does this fit into DC continuity?” I think you’re approaching this all wrong. For one PKJ has been setting up that Clark is feeling his age and that his powers are fading, so you can take this as being set in the near future of Earth 0, or you can just as easily write this off as an Elseworld. We don’t know yet how this will connect, that’s something we are reading to find out. But frankly obsessing over the minutiae of continuity at this point has no benefit, it will all be broken in the next reboot anyway. None of Clark’s origins are canon right now as they are told in their stories because all of them feature elements that don’t line up with the current state of the DCU.
    Well, all I can say is that (...) Again, it goes back to the same issue that causes dialogue problem.
    Again subjective. Sorry it didn’t work for you but I and others found it quite amusing.
    I don't know (..)
    You really find Manchester’s reaction outrageous for a guy who has the Union Jack tattooed on his chest? For a guy whose reaction to Clark humiliating him was to pretend to kill his wife all in a plot to get Superman to kill him? He’s never been “restrained” that’s a big part of his character.
    Gonna disagree with you here (…)
    It’s not his character that’s shallow, he’s actually quite complex I agree, it’s his rebel persona that’s shallow. For all his punk rock attitude, he never tried to address the root causes of crime either. Like Clark he went after criminals, just used more lethal methods to do so. But that he posses a depth to him is why Clark is reaching out to Manchester in the first place in the hope of convincing him to join forces.
    Again, going to disagree, (…) "justice".
    Right but he was never able to really offer a rebuke to Manchester’s criticisms about supervillain tropes such as the revolving door prisons. Clark didn’t propose a way to rehabilitate criminals, he didn’t rebuke Manchester’s points about “well if you beat them up and then hand them over today all that’s going to happen is the government will offer them a contract in exchange for helping them out? What are you going to do about that?” and Clark doesn’t really have an answer other than “I’m just going to keep doing the same thing I always do until it works”:



    One take on the endgame of that attitude is what we’re seeing here. Clark never fixed the broken system that was built and he regrets that, so now he’s trying something else.
    I just don't think (…) than anyone.
    …which is all present here? Clark never pats himself on the back at all, the only one who is hyping him is JFK, and that’s only in the context of buttering Superman up before he asks Clark for a favor. Clark spends the whole issue ruefully talking about just how short he’s fallen of that title. Clark may view himself as just another guy, but he’s well aware that others don’t, Garth Ennis of all people wrote that great Hitman issue dealing with this.
    And indeed, most of the best Superman stories focus on the conflict between how the WORLD sees Superman and how Clark really is. He is rightfully an inspiration for people in the DC Universe, but he doesn't have all the answers and he experiences just as much doubt as the rest of us.
    Which is literally what this story is focusing on? Clark doubting that he’s made a difference, doubting that the way he went about being a hero was the right way to do it? Reaching out to Manchester Black, a guy he hates, because maybe he doesn’t have all the answers and bringing one of his greatest critics on board might give him some much needed perspective? It’s all there!
    That's where I think a story like Action 775 succeeded whereas this one fails. In 775, Superman grapples with real doubts and real concerns about his role as a hero and wonders if he can live up to the image of how the world sees him and if that image even has a place in modern society. We also see that he cares about things in his life OTHER than being Superman, like say, his wife. That internal struggle is what lays the foundation for his confrontation with The Elite.
    Yeah but the biggest criticism of Action 775 is that Clark never actually offers a reason why his way is better beyond just beating the hell out of the Elite and going “how do YOU like it?” which doesn’t refute their criticisms of his methods at all. I don’t agree with that criticism but that Clark essentially beats his opponents up and claims victory because he won their physical brawl is hard to deny. It can come across as “Clark is right because he’s the strongest so he makes the rules” which seemingly validates the Elites position that because they have the power to handle their business as they see it fit, that means they should.
    Here, however, we get the sense that Clark cares ONLY about being Superman. That mission that JFK gives him in the opening pages literally defines his whole personality.
    This feels like a weird argument to me, I’m not really sure how you think that 775 does a better job of showing Clark cares about “other things” when he spends the entire issue obsessing over how the rest of the planet thinks Manchester Black is cooler than him, and both of his conversations with his parents and his wife are about the Elite and his activities as Superman.

    What I was literally just talking about sort of touches on this. Morrison's Superman is a caricature not because of his demeanor, but because he's overly defined by one SINGLE aspect of his personality. Everything else has been stripped away and made irrelevant to how this character moves forward through life. I mean, can you really tell me what things in his personal life that this Superman cares about? Is Lois even around? What about Jon? What about his friends?
    Ultra-Humanite mentions Jon, so Clark and Lois had a son and were married. We don’t know what their current status is because it’s not relevant to the story yet. This criticism doesn’t make sense to me, should Clark have taken Manchester Black to the Kent farm and fed him some pie and told him what his family was doing He’s trying to recruit Manchester onto a team, this is ultimately a team book, not a solo, and this issue is all about setting up why Clark thinks he needs Manchester Black and why Black would accept. It’s Clark fervently making the pitch for a new Authority team. Why did Morrison devote a whole issue to just that? Well because Clark getting Manchester on board is the hardest part, most of the others will probably join up simply if Superman asks. But this isn’t a one and done single issue story like 775 was either, it’s part one of a four issue story. Perhaps Clark will talk to Lois or to Jon or the JL will cameo, we’re just getting started in the opening act where we’ve been dropped in media res.

    As for his friends, I’m assuming you mean the JL, we know exactly why they’re not here: Clark doesn't think the Justice League succeeded in what it set out to do. He thinks the League got caught up in dealing with its own crap and ultimately lost sight of what was important. So now he’s building a new team with a new mission. Maybe they’ll succeed or maybe they’ll fall flat on their face out of hubris.

    And I'm not mad that you like it, either. I just don't think Morrison is truly interested in writing a story about a Superman who has human wants, desires, and concerns, which is a shame since most of us read and watch stories because we WANT to see the protagonists express and struggle with their wants, desires, and concerns.
    He wants to leave the world in a better place than when he started, that’s a pretty human want especially for parents in regards to their children. His current attitude is caused by how he no longer feels he’s done that, and he believes that is a result of how he’s been going about his job before. He’s regretful but not nihilistic, he still thinks there’s a chance to save the world.

    Dealing with Crisies, Rebirths, Doomsday, Darkseid, none of those are “relatable” human concerns compared to climate change or corporate greed, or ethnic cleansening, or any of the stuff we deal with in the “real” world. The Authority’s whole deal is that it’s a team that will tackle those topics albeit through a superhero lens. How this incarnation will go about it is something we have yet to discover, the team isn’t even fully formed yet.
    For when my rants on the forums just aren’t enough: https://thevindicativevordan.tumblr.com/

  4. #649
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    7,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Goblin of Sector 2814 View Post
    Again, going to disagree, especially since Superman literally tells off Manchester at the end of that issue, saying that he will continue to fight for his dream of a world that has dignity, honor, and justice. That's literally him saying that he wants to see a world where everyone has dignity and everyone is respected, which sadly does not exist. That includes the villains that Manchester was ready to kill in the name of seeking "justice".
    Redhood says hi..I am sure joker gives plenty of dignity to people he kills.

    See this topic is fruitless..this is same old superhero kills debate.This ain't honest discussion it's same dogma.

    I will tell you this.greatest honor and responsibility for those weilding a sword is to protect those who cannot.baring in mind, it is a weapon for killing at the same time.The dishonor would be not to do so(protect) and just for blind violence.I am sure the guy you called a villain(atomic skull blowing up things if i remember) would listen to words and not attack defencless.If someone comes to kill you or anyone close to you.you defend.That's that.i am not going fault anyone for defending themselves.I do understand that life is precious.

    I will take your argument.why stop at killing?why not stop punching altogether?if your argument is violence is not a controllable thing.superman shouldn't punch darseid.And finally,Even when you don't intiate and the other guy can/might.Then violence would start.As you said, it's uncontrollable.So,the choice is be a victim or defend yourself.Since, violence is uncontrollable that may lead to death.the third approach is offcourse gandhi/christ take the beating and still be defiant with a smile.what i am saying is clark ain't even consistent with the violence argument.Eithet choose violence or non at all

    Even in that case,you can't expect people to just keep on doing that.If a mass murderers(let's take joker) runs around killing people and making a mockery of system.Then system failed in the first place.It's corrupt.superman, when he is himself is sword/power does not protect the weak.Then he is nothing but dishonorable.I don't care how he does itI don't care what limits he puts on himself as morality.

    Bare in mind,i don't care if superman has a code.But,he doesn't get to shove that code down others throught.That's my stance.Superman's Morality is for superman to limit himself.Not for others.Every individual gets to decide that their limits.All superman can do is express his opinion and act accordingly to what he thinks is right.

    Superman wasn't about "image of living up to an image of hero" or "projecting it".it was about actually being one.because that was the point of superman.he can be the outcast.Much like his fellow caped crusader zorro and batman.

    Also,do i have to think myself better to do what's right?i can assemble a computer.i made one and gave one to a broke kid who needs it to atudy.Does that make me better. than the kid? especially,when the kid has better iq than i can hope for.

    With all due respect,Superman is the titular hero.Clark and his house drama is just an aspect that.It has space and but necessary? I don't think so.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 07-24-2021 at 01:26 PM.
    "I swear to devote my life to the destruction of piracy, greed, cruelty and injustice! And my sons, and their sons, shall follow me!"

  5. #650
    Ultimate Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    12,001

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    The criticisms about Superman's portrayal in terms his motives here....thing is I largely agree. This isn't how he usually is.
    An interesting take for a fan of the New 52 incarnation . He feels very much like an older version of that Action Comics guy, who has come full circle back to where he began to me at least.
    But to be fair we know that's rather the point of the story being told. The hook is supposed to be an unnatural approach. I'm willing to see it out because I think Morrison gets that a flat out authoritarian nature is not Superman. Hell they've flat out said it. What they're trying to do is craft a story that will at least try and frame some of these desires of DC in a somewhat understandable way. To me that suggests compelling and not contrived context to be revealed. At least, I have more optimism than I normally would that this will be the case via what is a very strong track record with the writer. So we'll see. I've said it before but this whole thing has me massively worried once this mini ends, because there will be no buffer at all between DC's "Authoritarian Superman" desire if it still exists. But cross that bridge when it comes.
    I don’t think he’s going to be authoritarian at all. But if DC wants him to be, this isn’t going to change anything. After all, if they want evil Superman, they’ll just kill Lois, Injustice and the DCEU have established that as an easy, valid, storytelling device to get Supes to go nuts. There’s no buffer to that storyline anymore, not in the eyes of the general public. Originally, when this was a part of 5G, I suspect Jon and Clark were ultimately going to come to blows Invincible vs. Omni-Man style. Jon’s “superior” JL against Clark’s Authority. I don’t see that in the cards anymore.
    For when my rants on the forums just aren’t enough: https://thevindicativevordan.tumblr.com/

  6. #651
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Subjective opinion and I’ll just say I disagree. Also a lot of what Manchester is saying actually feels pretty on brand for how a lot of people on Twitter talk.
    No offense, but I don't think that's the justification you think it is. People don't even talk on Twitter the way they do when face to face. If you write a character the way that you would a Twitter post, that's a problem.

    Look if you’re approaching this story with an attitude of “how does this fit into DC continuity?” I think you’re approaching this all wrong. For one PKJ has been setting up that Clark is feeling his age and that his powers are fading, so you can take this as being set in the near future of Earth 0, or you can just as easily write this off as an Elseworld. We don’t know yet how this will connect, that’s something we are reading to find out... None of Clark’s origins are canon right now as they are told in their stories because all of them feature elements that don’t line up with the current state of the DCU.
    Again, don't think that really justifies what happens in this issue. It's one thing to say that continuity is fluid. It's another to write something that doesn't make logical sense. Morrison having Superman pal around with JFK is akin to saying that Peter Parker served in Vietnam. Obviously, Peter's age, as portrayed in-universe is way too young for him to have gone to serve in Vietnam. The same is true here.

    Superman is supposed to be a guy in like his mid-to-late 40s. Maybe 50 at most. However, JFK was assassinated almost 60 years ago and would never have crossed paths with Superman. And I understand obviously that the character of Superman has been around since the 1930s, but in-universe, Superman is not that old. In-universe in the year 2021, Superman is too young to have been friends with JFK.

    And I don't think it's subjective to point that out and say "hey, this doesn't make sense."

    So, IMO, this book would be better served as being completely non-canon, even though interviews have suggested that is is SUPPOSED to be in-continuity. And honestly, that's a bit frustrating.

    Morrison, for some reason, tends to disregard that sort of stuff a lot and doesn't like to play with others and that's not right honestly. It'd be one thing if they were writing their own thing or if this was an Elseworlds, but it doesn't seem that it is. And, tough toenails, but playing with others is part of the job. When you are writing characters like Superman or Batman or Spider-Man, who are part of a shared universe that is the product a lot of writers and editors and other professionals working hard to ensure that things make at least some sort of sense, it just seems inconsiderate to be like "oh well, screw that, I'm gonna do what I want."

    You really find Manchester’s reaction outrageous for a guy who has the Union Jack tattooed on his chest? He’s never been “restrained” that’s a big part of his character.
    Dude. None of that is at all consistent with pretending that you have a "disease" that requires you to drink alcohol every hour. Again, that is just not funny. That is literally cringey dad-joke territory. And why would Manchester feel comfortable enough to joke around with Superman like that anyway? They're not friends. Wasn't that a point you made earlier? How does it make sense for Manchester to go from essentially calling him a fascist a few pages earlier to "I'm gonna joke around with my buddy Superman" despite having not meaningfully bonded in the interim. So, you see how the things that Morrison has these characters do just comes across as disjointed and unrealistic?

    Right but he was never able to really offer a rebuke to Manchester’s criticisms about supervillain tropes such as the revolving door prisons. Clark didn’t propose a way to rehabilitate criminals, he didn’t rebuke Manchester’s points...

    One take on the endgame of that attitude is what we’re seeing here. Clark never fixed the broken system that was built and he regrets that, so now he’s trying something else.
    I'd think the rebuke would be obvious: i.e. that Superman is not going to become a one-man hit squad and unilaterally deal out corporal punishment to people as he sees fit, even if he has the power to do so. I mean, does it really need to be explained as why that would be a bad idea? Again, Superman doesn't see it as his place to govern humanity or fix the system. Nobody elected him to do that. Nobody chose him to be their leader.

    He also makes it a point to criticize Manchester's thinking by saying that he's melting people into slag "for kicks." He's basically saying that when you do the things the Elite's doing, you basically become the very thing you claim to hate. He's calls out Manchester for being a sadistic hypocrite.

    So, yeah, I'd hate to think that Morrison is saying that Superman has now come around to Manchester's point of view in that or any regard.

    …which is all present here? Clark never pats himself on the back at all, the only one who is hyping him is JFK, and that’s only in the context of buttering Superman up before he asks Clark for a favor. Clark spends the whole issue ruefully talking about just how short he’s fallen of that title. Clark may view himself as just another guy, but he’s well aware that others don’t, Garth Ennis of all people wrote that great Hitman issue dealing with this.
    Yes, I know of the issue. But the point is that Superman would never try to then take over and assume leadership of humanity, even if his intentions were noble. An in-character Superman would have said "I appreciate the compliments, Mr. President but I can't end war itself or take humanity to the stars. Not only can I not do that, but it wouldn't even be my place to do it if I could. Humanity can and will solve their own problems and achieve their own dreams. I can only help where I can." Maybe not exactly that way, but something to that effect.

    That's something that even Siegel and Shuster recognized back in the day. And that's the inherent conflict that makes Superman so interesting: the fact that people look at him as the savior of humanity, but in actuality he's just a guy from Kansas. And that is something Morrison doesn't seem to grasp.

    Which is literally what this story is focusing on? Clark doubting that he’s made a difference, doubting that the way he went about being a hero was the right way to do it? Reaching out to Manchester Black, a guy he hates, because maybe he doesn’t have all the answers and bringing one of his greatest critics on board might give him some much needed perspective? It’s all there!
    Not really, since the entire premise of the book seems to be Superman thinking that his vision for humanity is the best one, despite nobody electing him to such a leadership role.

    In 775, Clark's doubt came from his internal struggle as to whether his ideals were consistent with what the world wanted anymore. Here, his "doubt" is coming from his methodology of bringing about what he thinks is a better world, and he doesn't seem to care if the rest of the world agrees. In other words, here he has no doubts that it's his place to guide humanity, he just thinks he could have gone about it in a different way.

    Yeah but the biggest criticism of Action 775 is that Clark never actually offers a reason why his way is better beyond just beating the hell out of the Elite and going “how do YOU like it?” which doesn’t refute their criticisms of his methods at all.
    Sorry, dude. You are mischaracterizing the climax of that story. The climax serves as an example of what it would look like if Superman DID go about things the way that the Elite did. He scared Manchester into thinking that he was ready and willing to kill him and anybody who got in his way. And Manchester was rightfully terrified of that. Because nobody should be in that position of power without meaningful checks on them.

    THAT is why Superman goes about things the way he does.

    ...he spends the entire issue obsessing over how the rest of the planet thinks Manchester Black is cooler than him, and both of his conversations with his parents and his wife are about the Elite and his activities as Superman.
    Well, I dont think he's actually worried about people thinking the Elite are "cooler" than him. Clark is not nearly that shallow. But, 775 does a better job of showing he cares about things other than being Superman by the mere fact that we SEE him do other things than be Superman. He actually ya know, does talk to his wife and to his parents. Cuz they exist.

    In this issue, I honestly could not tell you if Lois was even still alive.

    Also, going back to the continuity thing, it now seems like a creepy case of robbing the cradle that Superman is apparently so much older than Lois now...

    Ultra-Humanite mentions Jon, so Clark and Lois had a son and were married. We don’t know what their current status is because it’s not relevant to the story yet. This criticism doesn’t make sense to me, should Clark have taken Manchester Black to the Kent farm and fed him some pie and told him what his family was doing
    We could at least SEE them. He could maybe ask Lois what she thinks of this idea, given that she's quite smart. It's just a confluence of the fact that this Superman seems 100% focused on this mission that JFK gave him (despite the fact that he should have never met JFK) and that he never even mentions the fact that he has a wife and a son or parents. He acts as if he's a man who has nobody or anything in his life other than being Superman. That's why it seems that he has no human desires or wants or concerns. Because all he seems to care about is being Superman.
    Last edited by Green Goblin of Sector 2814; 07-24-2021 at 04:00 PM.

  7. #652
    Incredible Member witchboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    891

    Default

    Understanding the placement of when this is for Superman is frustrating.
    I've heard it said it's near future, which pretty much always winds up being an alternate universe. I thought this might be a young Future State Superman.

  8. #653
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    An interesting take for a fan of the New 52 incarnation . He feels very much like an older version of that Action Comics guy, who has come full circle back to where he began to me at least.
    Well I didn't say I hated it or anything, I just said its not how he usually is, and in large part it isn't for this Superman. Even New 52 Superman mellowed out some from his first year exploits. But that's of course assuming this is indeed the main line Superman. I mean if it isn't, that's a bit of a different story. But for now I'm working with him still being the post-Reborn guy.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 07-24-2021 at 05:21 PM.
    "They can be a great people Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you. My only son." - Jor-El

    "“Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer!”

  9. #654
    Ultimate Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    12,001

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    Well I didn't say I hated it or anything, I just said its not how he usually is, and in large part it isn't for this Superman. Even New 52 Superman mellowed out some from his first year exploits. But that's of course assuming this is indeed the main line Superman. I mean if it isn't, that's a bit of a different story. But for now I'm working with him still being the post-Reborn guy.
    So it’s been confirmed to take place in the main continuity, a little further in the future and this is indeed the main guy, not an Elseworld version. The SDCC thread has a summary from Quinlan of what Morrison, Taylor, and Johnson have said.
    For when my rants on the forums just aren’t enough: https://thevindicativevordan.tumblr.com/

  10. #655
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,460

    Default

    Ah okay then, I missed that, I'll go read it.
    "They can be a great people Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you. My only son." - Jor-El

    "“Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer!”

  11. #656
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,670

    Default

    Finally got to the LCS yesterday.

    And yeah, this was everything I expected, hoped for, and wanted. If the New52 t-shirt Superman woke up one day to realize that he was 50, past his prime, and hadn't achieved his goals....it'd be this guy right here. And since t-shirt Superman is spiritually just the original with a fresh coat of paint and new sparkplugs, S&tA is really the original Superman examining his own modern failure and the false promise of the Silver Age peak. It is meta and self aware as f*ck. Old Man Kent. And I f*cking love it. Sorry to those who aren't feeling it, but I'm SO down for this.

    And that art, am I right? Janin and everyone just nail this. Talented bastards. I think Janin makes Black too pretty and handsome, but that's whatever. And I find I'm really getting attached to the costume. I feel like everything we need to know about this Superman, the costume tells us. Sleeves up, ready to finish what he started, the New52/OG cut. But in Silver Age materials and modern Age flourish, bearing the shield of another old Kent who was past his prime and trying to make up for lost time.

    Morrison's take on Black is arguably too meta for its own good. I feel like Morrison gets the gist of who Black is, but they write dialogue in exclamations and commentary, and that doesn't jive with the Guy Ritchie quips we're used to. Close enough for me, but I definitely see why it grates on other folk.

    People always get jittery when Clark decides to actually *do* something. When did we forget that Superman was supposed to work to change the world?
    Last edited by Ascended; 07-24-2021 at 07:48 PM.
    "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.

  12. #657
    Ultimate Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    12,001

    Default

    I really liked that bit from Morrison about how it’s not so much about Clark doubting that he’s accomplished everything, previously I had taken this to be Clark doubting exactly that, but moreso looking at his son being in his 20s and asking himself if he accomplished what he had wanted to do back in his 20s. Supes having a mid-life crisis you could say
    For when my rants on the forums just aren’t enough: https://thevindicativevordan.tumblr.com/

  13. #658
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    The criticisms about Superman's portrayal in terms his motives here....thing is I largely agree. This isn't how he usually is. But to be fair we know that's rather the point of the story being told. The hook is supposed to be an unnatural approach. I'm willing to see it out because I think Morrison gets that a flat out authoritarian nature is not Superman. Hell they've flat out said it. What they're trying to do is craft a story that will at least try and frame some of these desires of DC in a somewhat understandable way. To me that suggests compelling and not contrived context to be revealed. At least, I have more optimism than I normally would that this will be the case via what is a very strong track record with the writer. So we'll see. I've said it before but this whole thing has me massively worried once this mini ends, because there will be no buffer at all between DC's "Authoritarian Superman" desire if it still exists. But cross that bridge when it comes.
    A word about the 'authoritarian' bit. I think Morrison is using it in a context which a lot of people here haven't grasped.

    When we hear the word 'authoritarian' we tend to think in terms of a dictator or tyrant. Or some figure of the establishment. Or (as is increasingly the case these days), 'authoritarian' is sometimes conflated with 'right-wing' (because in a lot of people's minds 'left-wing' = 'liberal').

    But I think Morrison is using the term 'authoritarian' simply in the sense of using power to enforce one's will on society. One can make an argument that the Golden Age Superman had a bit of an 'authoritarian' streak, because he's imposing his sense of justice through brute force. Hell, equally, one can say that even more contemporary versions of Superman have been 'authoritarian' because he's imposing his code on other superheroes.

    Superman, as the most powerful or most respected figure in the world (often both at the same time) has a degree of authority and the power to enforce it on others. Not to mention, there is a bit of a paternalistic aspect to him. That's what Morrison means when he says that ''Superman is like your dad who decides to step in when you screw up''.

    Superman has always had an element of authoritarianism, in some form or the other. This series might be making it a bit more overt, as he's decided to stop hiding behind niceties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Finally got to the LCS yesterday.

    And yeah, this was everything I expected, hoped for, and wanted. If the New52 t-shirt Superman woke up one day to realize that he was 50, past his prime, and hadn't achieved his goals....it'd be this guy right here. And since t-shirt Superman is spiritually just the original with a fresh coat of paint and new sparkplugs, S&tA is really the original Superman examining his own modern failure and the false promise of the Silver Age peak. It is meta and self aware as f*ck. Old Man Kent. And I f*cking love it. Sorry to those who aren't feeling it, but I'm SO down for this.

    And that art, am I right? Janin and everyone just nail this. Talented bastards. I think Janin makes Black too pretty and handsome, but that's whatever. And I find I'm really getting attached to the costume. I feel like everything we need to know about this Superman, the costume tells us. Sleeves up, ready to finish what he started, the New52/OG cut. But in Silver Age materials and modern Age flourish, bearing the shield of another old Kent who was past his prime and trying to make up for lost time.

    Morrison's take on Black is arguably too meta for its own good. I feel like Morrison gets the gist of who Black is, but they write dialogue in exclamations and commentary, and that doesn't jive with the Guy Ritchie quips we're used to. Close enough for me, but I definitely see why it grates on other folk.

    People always get jittery when Clark decides to actually *do* something. When did we forget that Superman was supposed to work to change the world?
    Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it.

    He started out as a firebrand wanting to ''change'' the world (Golden Age), sought to become more of an inspirational figure (Silver Age), then got caught up in all the superhero stuff, and now, decades later, has realized that he didn't end up changing the world much after all. So now he's decided to stop being an inspirational figure and go back to getting his hands dirty, but obviously changing the world isn't quiet the same as threatening corrupt politicians and businessmen. Hence the need for a team, and people like Manchester Black to offer a fresh perspective.

  14. #659
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    13,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    People always get jittery when Clark decides to actually *do* something. When did we forget that Superman was supposed to work to change the world?
    The 80s-the 2000s, if the roots for that way of viewing him didn't emerge in the 50s/60s People have been conditioned to view Superman a certain way at this point, and don't react well when we are reminded about the original ideas that went into him.

    Glad the feedback of this is mostly positive, I should be picking this up this week at my LCS (hope they still have copies). I don't even care about the continuity issues, because DC continuity has been a joke since the 80s and has gradually gotten worse. I can't imagine really trying to make it all fit at this point, it'd be an exercise in frustration and the company clearly doesn't care anyway

  15. #660
    Fellow Traveler Venceremos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Meh, I just prefer Superman having cool super adventures and fighting the super bad guy of the week, along with slice-of-life bits with Lois and the cast in between, and the occasional A Very Special Episode. I find the whole "why hasn't superhero x actually changed the world with their powers/resources?" deconstructionist thing to be the laziest, navel gazing-iest, boring, pseudointellectual take and is downright a cliche at this point.

    Also Manchester is basically early 90s Lobo in this.
    End the embargo

Posting Permissions

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