Superman #42 discussion thread (spoilers)

[misslane]

"Better versions" are subjective. I am happy to see the Pre-Flashpoint version return, don't get me wrong,but aside from the Lois/Diana stuff and the costume,the current Superman (I mean the New 52/DC You as a whole, not the current TRUTH status quo) isn't that much different than the Pre-Flashpoint version, or at least the version of that character that existed up until the 8 years leading up to the relaunch (in other words, up until 2003/4 ish). The version that existed just prior to Flashpoint was one of the worst versions of the character we ever had IMO. I had plenty of issues with the New 52 Super-verse (I still do) but the one thing most of the New 52 writers had gotten right was give Superman back his balls. Scott Lobdell's version was a bridge too far though.

I find that each era has its ups and downs, and they don't even happen within one arc or run, but can happen anytime mainly because there are so many variables involved. There are things I like and dislike about pre-Flashpoint and post-Flashpoint Superman, for example. I'm no fan of using the term "balls," though, to refer to someone becoming seemingly more active and assertive, especially in light of comments I recently discovered of Jim Lee's from the time he was doing interviews for For Tomorrow where he basically agreed with a criticism that insulted Superman for being too feminine:

Interviewer: Personally, I don’t care for Lois Lane. TOO manly for me. Lois is the masculine part of the relationship. Superman, the nurturer, is the female. It doesn’t work.
Lee: I agree. I never had the hots for her either.

I don't believe that is what you meant by your comment, nor am I implying that it could have been. Rather, I just have developed this automatic cringe whenever I see that particular phrasing used.

[manofsteel1979]

I find that each era has its ups and downs, and they don't even happen within one arc or run, but can happen anytime mainly because there are so many variables involved. There are things I like and dislike about pre-Flashpoint and post-Flashpoint Superman, for example. I'm no fan of using the term "balls," though, to refer to someone becoming seemingly more active and assertive, especially in light of comments I recently discovered of Jim Lee's from the time he was doing interviews for For Tomorrow where he basically agreed with a criticism that insulted Superman for being too feminine:

Interviewer: Personally, I don’t care for Lois Lane. TOO manly for me. Lois is the masculine part of the relationship. Superman, the nurturer, is the female. It doesn’t work.
Lee: I agree. I never had the hots for her either.

I don't believe that is what you meant by your comment, nor am I implying that it could have been. Rather, I just have developed this automatic cringe whenever I see that particular phrasing used.

No, not at all. I could have phrased it better, but what I meant is, that by the time of the 2000's , particularly the later 2000's, the character had fallen into the cliche of constantly questioning his morals, his ethics, his importance, whatever...constantly soul searching....navel gazing...constantly retreading the whole "Must there be a Superman?" trope again and again to diminishing returns. Now, granted, if handled right, those kinds of stories can work and can yield some uplifting and powerful stuff,but it seemed that it became the default for the character, and having a year long story line where he litterally walked around moping and opining in between being preaching and coming off hollier than thou....well, that didn't help matters. Granted, Chris Robertson explained Superman's mopey behavior during the first part of GROUNDED with the whole Kryptonian thought crystal remains of New Krypton affecting his mood and behavior, and yes, not EVERY story from 2004 ish to 2011 portrayed Superman in such a manner ,but for whatever reason, that personality trait kept coming back again and again,like a mistracking vinyl record.

As much as I railed against the reboot in it's early days (and I still have some issues with it today) one thing that immediately was refreshing, at least as far as Grant Morrison's stories were concerned is seeing a little bit of assertiveness, joy, toughness, and a yes just a slight little bit of arrogance returned to Superman's personality that had slowly disappeared over the years, especially around the 2000's, and for the most part, aside from some weird detours here and there, the whole "woe is me...am I doing the right thing? Should I go on?" constant questioning and second guessing was finally gone, and it was because of that I was willing to overlook so much continuity trashed and the questionable costume he wore.

Should I have used the term "Got his balls back"? Probably not. I wasn't inferring that Superman Pre-Flashpoint was feminized. Poor attempt at short hand to convey everything I ended up having to specify in a paragraph and nothing more. I meant not to offend and if I did, I appologize.

[misslane]

No, not at all. I could have phrased it better,

It's okay, and I do apologize if I came across as preachy. Honestly, I bring it up because it's something I fall into the trap of saying myself sometimes. I'm trying to phase it out of my discourse, so I hold myself to that same standard and completely understand that people who do it rarely mean to offend; it's an honest mistake. No worries!

what I meant is, that by the time of the 2000's , particularly the later 2000's, the character had fallen into the cliche of constantly questioning his morals, his ethics, his importance, whatever...constantly soul searching....navel gazing...constantly retreading the whole "Must there be a Superman?" trope again and again to diminishing returns. Now, granted, if handled right, those kinds of stories can work and can yield some uplifting and powerful stuff,but it seemed that it became the default for the character, and having a year long story line where he litterally walked around moping and opining in between being preaching and coming off hollier than thou....well, that didn't help matters.

I agree. Good things and great things can be ruined by mishandling or overuse. I wonder if 9/11 inspired a more cynical age of comics that had creators using Superman as a vessel to explore the limits of power fantasies and even hope.

Granted, Chris Robertson explained Superman's mopey behavior during the first part of GROUNDED with the whole Kryptonian thought crystal remains of New Krypton affecting his mood and behavior, and yes, not EVERY story from 2004 ish to 2011 portrayed Superman in such a manner ,but for whatever reason, that personality trait kept coming back again and again,like a mistracking vinyl record.

It did get frustrating and exhausting, I agree.

As much as I railed against the reboot in it's early days (and I still have some issues with it today) one thing that immediately was refreshing, at least as far as Grant Morrison's stories were concerned is seeing a little bit of assertiveness, joy, toughness, and a yes just a slight little bit of arrogance returned to Superman's personality that had slowly disappeared over the years, especially around the 2000's, and for the most part, aside from some weird detours here and there, the whole "woe is me...am I doing the right thing? Should I go on?" constant questioning and second guessing was finally gone, and it was because of that I was willing to overlook so much continuity trashed and the questionable costume he wore.

I was initially skeptical of Morrison, but ultimately his take did win me over for the most part. I was disappointed that other New 52 creators weren't doing as good a job. Pak's come close, but I often feel letdown by his stories because they often feel mired in crossovers or editorial mandates (or alleged mandates, like why hasn't Lois been in Action Comics for what feels like forever?). I suppose, then, it will be interesting to see pre- and post-Flashpoint Superman in the same universe with Jurgens and Weeks' upcoming Superman: Lois & Clark, and hopefully both versions of the character will be treated fairly if comparisons and confrontations do arise.

Should I have used the term "Got his balls back"? Probably not. I wasn't inferring that Superman Pre-Flashpoint was feminized. Poor attempt at short hand to convey everything I ended up having to specify in a paragraph and nothing more. I meant not to offend and if I did, I appologize.

Again, no worries, and I apologize if I've taken us a bit off track of the thread's purpose. I am grateful to have had the chance to get more of your thoughts on Superman, though.

[manofsteel1979]

His balls back? like the balls that he didn't had to pursue a relationship with lois and tell her his secret? instead he did the easiest thing and hook up with wonder woman. it's not the superman I want to read.
Also a superman that likes to beat people, easy to get angry is not superman.
pre-flashpoint books were awful? screw that, editors made everything possible to make superman books awful like removing him from them for along time(who could had thought that was a bad idea). Like brevoort said (I'm agreeing with brevoort color me surprised): fix the damn toys, don't try to reinvent the wheel, this is the reason marvel still sell more than DC despite reboots and gimmicks. new 52 versions needs to grow up

Look, you won't find a bigger critic of how DC' nerfed the Lois and Clark dynamic going into the New 52 (and the obvious, marketing gimmick reasons why it was done) than me. I've ranted about it many times. I agree it was poorly handled to this day. However, I don't judge the entirety of the New 52 just based on who Superman is or isn't dating. I don't read Superman comics just for the Lois and Clark stuff. It's an aspect I enjoy and that I have found lacking in the current continuity.. If that is all that you read Superman comics for, then yes, I imagine the New 52/DC You version isn't to your liking. i've said it a hundred times before and I will say it a hundred times more, the New 52 Superman is not all that much different in personality or content, from the character as he has been for a majority of his 75 plus year publishing history.

Oh and If you think a slightly quicker to temper, less benign Superman isn't Superman...well, you better not read any Superman comics from the mid 90's. That Superman once threatened to put Bloodsport on a stretcher!!!! (GASP!!!! SHOCK!!!! HORROR!!!!) Oh, and the Golden Age Superman (as written by his original creators) that routinely killed gangsters and bullied his way around makes even this version look like John Tesh on valium.

[manofsteel1979]

It's okay, and I do apologize if I came across as preachy. Honestly, I bring it up because it's something I fall into the trap of saying myself sometimes. I'm trying to phase it out of my discourse, so I hold myself to that same standard and completely understand that people who do it rarely mean to offend; it's an honest mistake. No worries!

Yeah I'm trying not to use that term as much as I have in the past either.

I agree. Good things and great things can be ruined by mishandling or overuse. I wonder if 9/11 inspired a more cynical age of comics that had creators using Superman as a vessel to explore the limits of power fantasies and even hope.

Which, in of itself, wasn't bad. Superman is our myth. Myths have been used to explore the human condition and where we are at during a given time. It's logical that we use Superman to explore those questions and look at ourselves through him.

However, the problem is when we lose track of the fact that myths are also there to entertain us. Yeah, it's cool to use Superman to explore the cultural and spiritual zetigeist, but every now and then I want to see Superman foil Lex's latest scheme, outwit Mxy, and punch out a big honkin Kryptonite powered ape robot that was climbing the Daily Planet building.

It did get frustrating and exhausting, I agree.

I was starting to set my watch by when Clark's latest personal crisis of purpose would hit.

I was initially skeptical of Morrison, but ultimately his take did win me over for the most part. I was disappointed that other New 52 creators weren't doing as good a job. Pak's come close, but I often feel letdown by his stories because they often feel mired in crossovers or editorial mandates (or alleged mandates, like why hasn't Lois been in Action Comics for what feels like forever?). I suppose, then, it will be interesting to see pre- and post-Flashpoint Superman in the same universe with Jurgens and Weeks' upcoming Superman: Lois & Clark, and hopefully both versions of the character will be treated fairly if comparisons and confrontations do arise.

Yeah I agree. As I said, I wasn't a fan of the reboot at the start, but what Morrison did grew on me and he introduced a good strong blueprint going forward that sadly hasn't been explored as well as it should be. Pak is the closest successor and Yang shows promise,but instead of yet another "status quo" shift, how much more refreshing it would have been to see all the Superman writers given free reign to do a year or two to do their own thing without some sort of mandate to rock the apple cart? Let each writer build their own niche, develop their parts of Superman's world. Have Pak build on his new dynamic with Jimmy and Clark's neighbors in what becomes Kentville. Have Yang build up Clark and Lois' friendship and the whole Daily Planet side of things etc. Then...at the end of that, something like TRUTH would have had even more impact and meaning. As it is, the reveal scene in #42 just...well it's just there. What should be a punch to the gut is just an underwhelming shrug. Heck, allowing a six month build up of the status quo before tearing it down would have helped.

Again, no worries, and I apologize if I've taken us a bit off track of the thread's purpose. I am grateful to have had the chance to get more of your thoughts on Superman, though.

Thanks. I don't think I'm that profound when it comes to Superman,but I guess after reading thousands of Superman comics over 25 years, I've learned something.

[tabo61]

I enjoyed the Hordr storyline

[Tayswift]

Look, you won't find a bigger critic of how DC' nerfed the Lois and Clark dynamic going into the New 52 (and the obvious, marketing gimmick reasons why it was done) than me. I've ranted about it many times. I agree it was poorly handled to this day. However, I don't judge the entirety of the New 52 just based on who Superman is or isn't dating. I don't read Superman comics just for the Lois and Clark stuff. It's an aspect I enjoy and that I have found lacking in the current continuity.. If that is all that you read Superman comics for, then yes, I imagine the New 52/DC You version isn't to your liking. i've said it a hundred times before and I will say it a hundred times more, the New 52 Superman is not all that much different in personality or content, from the character as he has been for a majority of his 75 plus year publishing history.

Oh and If you think a slightly quicker to temper, less benign Superman isn't Superman...well, you better not read any Superman comics from the mid 90's. That Superman once threatened to put Bloodsport on a stretcher!!!! (GASP!!!! SHOCK!!!! HORROR!!!!) Oh, and the Golden Age Superman (as written by his original creators) that routinely killed gangsters and bullied his way around makes even this version look like John Tesh on valium.

allright, there is other things besides superman new love interest that bothers me. He also lost his parents, to be even more alone. I don't think new 52 isn't any superior that pre-flashpoint. I really don't like complete reboots just for the sake of tell again origins everyone knows about and just change what wasn't broken and then finally broke it.

90s is very violent time on comics. golden age was like 60 years ago, the character evolved or on new 52 not much

[adkal]

allright, there is other things besides superman new love interest that bothers me. He also lost his parents, to be even more alone. I don't think new 52 isn't any superior that pre-flashpoint. I really don't like complete reboots just for the sake of tell again origins everyone knows about and just change what wasn't broken and then finally broke it.

So you didn't like Byrne's version?

[DochaDocha]

So you didn't like Byrne's version?

And Birthright. And Secret Origins.

That's way too vague a rule to cite if unless you started reading Superman in the 1940's and think that's the one legit version of the character.

[Tayswift]

So you didn't like Byrne's version?

I liked, not everything but it was a good origin. it happened almost 30 years ago and since then we had a lot of origins on movies, cartoons, tv shows. It just got repetitive

[manofsteel1979]

allright, there is other things besides superman new love interest that bothers me. He also lost his parents, to be even more alone. I don't think new 52 isn't any superior that pre-flashpoint. I really don't like complete reboots just for the sake of tell again origins everyone knows about and just change what wasn't broken and then finally broke it.

90s is very violent time on comics. golden age was like 60 years ago, the character evolved or on new 52 not much

You do know that for the first 50 years of the character, pretty much every version of the origin depicted either one or both is earth parents were dead prior to him becoming Superman, right? In the comics it was both. I can understand if all you grew up with and knew for most of your life was the Byrne origin...but the idea of alive and well foster parents was a blip in the scheme of things when taking the entirety of his 77 years into account. All the New 52 did was revert to the older version of events.


Also the blanket statement of "well the 90's was a violent time in comics" doesn't change the fact that the benign, gentle and passive Superman of the later Post-Crisis era wasn't the only way Superman was portrayed over his existance. He's been everything from a two fisted gangster killing borderline socialist bully in the 40's to the milk drinking flag waving slogan spouting patriotic capitalist and fatherly boy scout of the 1950's and 60's and everything in between. The personality of the Superman we have now (at least prior to TRUTH) is pretty much the personality Superman had when I started reading him in the early 90's just portrayed perhaps a few years younger. With one glaring exception (SUPERMAN #27), I can't think of a time in the New 52 Superman had acted out of the basic characterization of Superman and who he is.

[Tayswift]

You do know that for the first 50 years of the character, pretty much every version of the origin depicted either one or both is earth parents were dead prior to him becoming Superman, right? In the comics it was both. I can understand if all you grew up with and knew for most of your life was the Byrne origin...but the idea of alive and well foster parents was a blip in the scheme of things when taking the entirety of his 77 years into account. All the New 52 did was revert to the older version of events.


Also the blanket statement of "well the 90's was a violent time in comics" doesn't change the fact that the benign, gentle and passive Superman of the later Post-Crisis era wasn't the only way Superman was portrayed over his existance. He's been everything from a two fisted gangster killing borderline socialist bully in the 40's to the milk drinking flag waving slogan spouting patriotic capitalist and fatherly boy scout of the 1950's and 60's and everything in between. The personality of the Superman we have now (at least prior to TRUTH) is pretty much the personality Superman had when I started reading him in the early 90's just portrayed perhaps a few years younger. With one glaring exception (SUPERMAN #27), I can't think of a time in the New 52 Superman had acted out of the basic characterization of Superman and who he is.

I grew up with versions of both parents and later pa kent dies. and I like much more these versions. For me their dead on new 52 is just to bring more darkness and alienation, they were even zombiefieds for a arc.

for me new 52 superman failed many times to show me that he is the man of tomorrow

[misslane]

I grew up with versions of both parents and later pa kent dies. and I like much more these versions. For me their dead on new 52 is just to bring more darkness and alienation, they were even zombiefieds for a arc.

for me new 52 superman failed many times to show that he is the man of tomorrow

I think for me it feels a bit like overkill...literally, I suppose. He already has a dead set of biological parents and a dead home world. Plus, even though it was a common part of his origin, shifting away from it felt like one of those "bold" and "new" moves given how cliche and ubiquitous dead parents are in hero stories. Killing them both (I'm okay with one) just doesn't feel like something that is necessary, especially when it's done as the New 52 did it: murder. It doesn't really serve any narrative purpose that isn't already being served and mostly feels like it takes away more than it adds.

[Tayswift]

I think for me it feels a bit like overkill...literally, I suppose. He already has a dead set of biological parents and a dead home world. Plus, even though it was a common part of his origin, shifting away from it felt like one of those "bold" and "new" moves given how cliche and ubiquitous dead parents are in hero stories. Killing them both (I'm okay with one) just doesn't feel like something that is necessary, especially when it's done as the New 52 did it: murder. It doesn't really serve any narrative purpose that isn't already being served and mostly feels like it takes away more than it adds.

for me is enough that his planet exploded, his parents died,and only his cousin survived. I'm not sure what was the point of both parents dying, it was suppossed to be a gwen or uncle ben moment? because there wasn't enough time to develop it.
Dc just wanteda shift to a cooler superman, not parents, alone, nobody understands me. you know, the standart male hero stuff for the new generation

[adkal]

for me is enough that his planet exploded, his parents died,and only his cousin survived. I'm not sure what was the point of both parents dying, it was suppossed to be a gwen or uncle ben moment?

Both parents dying predates any 'Gwen or Uncle Ben moment'.

because there wasn't enough time to develop it.

How was there any for Uncle Ben in Amazing Fantasy 15?

Dc just wanteda shift to a cooler superman, not parents, alone, nobody understands me. you know, the standart male hero stuff for the new generation

Respectfully, you're ignoring the previous (and various) incarnations of the character.

The Earth One version still has Martha Kent, as does the Man of Steel version.

Haven't been reading Ultimate Spider-Man for a while but doesn't Miles still have both parents? Is he failing as a male hero 'for the new generation'?