Does anyone else dislike All Star Superman?

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Maybe he read them before eleven?

But, why would someone who hates Superman and superheroes be reading this thread? (Not even joking, The Beast, I'm genuinely interested what brought you, as a Superman-hater and superhero not-fan, to this thread.)

He's talked about this before; he doesn't hate superheroes/Superman, just the parts he considers silly and stupid. He's fine with MOS and stuff like that. Hence his reply to a thread asking about people who hate All-Star.

[manofsteel1979]

He's talked about this before; he doesn't hate superheroes/Superman, just the parts he considers silly and stupid. He's fine with MOS and stuff like that. Hence his reply to a thread asking about people who hate All-Star.

I can relate to the Beast as 15 years or so ago I was mostly in the same frame of mind. For instance you would have never caught me extolling the virtues of Pre-Crisis DCU and I was convinced that the 1986 relaunch "saved" Superman. Age has changed my outlook on a lot. You can certainly appreciate certain aspects of Superheroes without liking the silly and absurd elements of it or being selective about what tropes are tolerable to your personal sensibilities or not. It's all down to personal taste, and sometimes those tastes change.

For instance, had the SUPERMAN 2000 pitch actually happened in the year 2000, I think I would have blown a fuse and gone ape..er...stuff over Waid and Morrison re-imposing the "silly and stupid silver age" (which is how I saw anything pre MAN OF STEEL #1 in 1986) on the character. 15 years later, I would have given up a non-vital organ and my left big toe to make it happen.

[JackDaw]

He's talked about this before; he doesn't hate superheroes/Superman, just the parts he considers silly and stupid. He's fine with MOS and stuff like that. Hence his reply to a thread asking about people who hate All-Star.

Yes, but I think there was a clear suggestion that The Beast found aspects of Superman story telling particularly annoying.

I thought it particularly intriguing that he found that Superman stories were particularly prone to writing the villains as incompetent. I found that baffling...in normal order of things Superman's its easy to see how Superman can regularly and routinely see off even determined competent villains.

Far, far harder to understand how Batman can survive any encounter with a competent villain with decent energy powers. If a main "beef" is incompetent villains...better to avoid Batman stories, rather than Superman stories.

[Deniz Camp]

Good "last Superman story" but thats all it is. Wouldn't work as a template or anything.

Structurally I'd argue it's a near perfect template, actually. If I ever wrote the character I'd use almost exactly the same one.

[The Beast]

He's talked about this before; he doesn't hate superheroes/Superman, just the parts he considers silly and stupid. He's fine with MOS and stuff like that. Hence his reply to a thread asking about people who hate All-Star.

Pretty much. I started collecting Superman monthlies in '83 when Luthor and Brainiac got revamped. I pretty much enjoyed the Bronze Age, and there were some great Imaginary Stories and some gems in the Silver Age but for the most I don't have much use for it. I don't miss the love triangle, bumbling Kent, or outrageous power level stories at all.

All Star was in my pull box from day one, but I was not a discerning Superman fan back then. Between this and Final Crisis I soon became one but that's ok, I still have back issues and there's plenty of variety in how the character is depicted nowadays.

[The Beast]

Yes, but I think there was a clear suggestion that The Beast found aspects of Superman story telling particularly annoying.

I thought it particularly intriguing that he found that Superman stories were particularly prone to writing the villains as incompetent. I found that baffling...in normal order of things Superman's its easy to see how Superman can regularly and routinely see off even determined competent villains.

You find it baffling that a competent villain who provides a legitimate challenge could be more suspenseful and therefore more entertaining to others? Interesting.

Far, far harder to understand how Batman can survive any encounter with a competent villain with decent energy powers. If a main "beef" is incompetent villains...better to avoid Batman stories, rather than Superman stories.

I try to avoid all stories involving incompetent villains or heroes who rely on happenstance or deus ex machina's to win the day. Other's think those are the key components to comic book storytelling. Different Strokes.

I'm passionate about the subject because I'm a cartoonist. Believe me, I love super heroes.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I just haven't read a more forward thinking, completely faithful, and inspiring story about Superman since. Tell me the book, the only other one I can think of is Superman Beyond, or 1,000,000. The Art, I'm not sure what Quitely does, but it puts you in a fully realized world. Even "Bumbling Kent", that's a Golden Age Convention, as is Mxyzptlk. It does a version of Superman that is more or as true as The Dark Knight Returns or Year One for Batman. Morrison does not hesitate when creating a modern Superman.

[JackDaw]

You find it baffling that a competent villain who provides a legitimate challenge could be more suspenseful and therefore more entertaining to others? Interesting.

Nothing like what I actually wrote.

I commented that it was far easier to see how Superman might more easily overcome a determined competent villain than most other heroes (especially Batman). Certainly I think Batman by his very nature relies on a steady supply of incompetent villains, and super powered allies who don't have a clue.

Indeed, many have said that one of difficulties of writing Superman well is creating villains that present credible threats. Obviously you do meet incompetent villains in Superman stories...but they aren't needed to give Superman an easy win. And I'm surprised that you believe that its a constant weakness (i.e. writing villains as blunderers) of Grant Morrison. Certainly not a favourite writer of mine...but I think his main weaknesses lie elsewhere.

[t hedge coke]

He's talked about this before; he doesn't hate superheroes/Superman, just the parts he considers silly and stupid. He's fine with MOS and stuff like that. Hence his reply to a thread asking about people who hate All-Star.

Ah, okeh. Fair enough, then.

[Carabas]

Nothing like what I actually wrote.

I commented that it was far easier to see how Superman might more easily overcome a determined competent villain than most other heroes (especially Batman). Certainly I think Batman by his very nature relies on a steady supply of incompetent villains, and super powered allies who don't have a clue.

Batman has this in common with Captain America, James Bond, and every other non-powered hero ever, including not in a small degree, Tommy Monaghan.

[JackDaw]

Batman has this in common with Captain America, James Bond, and every other non-powered hero ever, including not in a small degree, Tommy Monaghan.

I know you and the Beast are pulling my leg, but....

I like the low powered guys. But they work far better (in most circumstances) set in their own self contained worlds.

But put them in a shared universe in stories...where we are told some villains can bench press planets, move at near light speeds with reactions to match...then only way you can show the low powered guys duking it out against heavy hitters is by a steady stream of poor writing. If Black Adam hits Batman...and the respective power sets are taken seriously, then Batman dies.

I'm assuming here...of course...that some attempt is being made to stick to the implied assumption in "serious" super hero stories. (i.e. That writer is making an attempt to portray what might realistically happen ONCE the assumption had been made that action is taking place on an earth where humans have super powers.)

Tommy Monaghan featured in great stories, despite the low-ish power set for a variety of reasons. Hitman was just about 2 series rather than one. In the first where Tommy M featured a few few other DC heroes...Garth Ennis (blessings upon him) made relatively little attempt to write a serious story, it was all about using cartoon conventions to have fun. And that worked well.

Then as series progressed...and Garth moved onto more serious issues...the DC heavy hitters disappeared and Tommy went up against foes and situations more suited to his own power-set. Yes...even then he needed outrageous luck to survive more than a couple of adventures. But then outrageous luck can get people through situations even on our own mundane Earth (look at true life war exploits)...and the series ended "realistically", with the luck running out after several adventures. This part of the series (the part where effectively Tommy was in "monaghan-verse") worked even better for me than first part of series set in DCU.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I guess the delays between issues were annoying. I thought it was cancelled at one point.

[The Beast]

Nothing like what I actually wrote.

I commented that it was far easier to see how Superman might more easily overcome a determined competent villain than most other heroes (especially Batman).

Which had nothing to do with my comments about All-Star Superman.