Grant Morrison talks modern Superman and his politics

[Ascended]

what? I can't believe marvel printed that story.

some friends said that morrison wanted to do a rape story with wonder woman, but I think they mixed and it is Millar. he uses rape like it was nothing, like a punch. no ownder morrison parted ways with him

Oh, Marvel was really terrible with things like this for many, many, many years. Beyond not being able to have a female hold down a solo title for more than five seconds, they were always doing horrible things to their female characters.

Its one of the reasons I roll my eyes when people claim that Marvel is more feminist than DC. Anyone who says that doesnt really know either company's history. Both of them have made some great choices and some terrible ones, and both have done things to women that are beyond wrong.

[Tayswift]

Oh, Marvel was really terrible with things like this for many, many, many years. Beyond not being able to have a female hold down a solo title for more than five seconds, they were always doing horrible things to their female characters.

Its one of the reasons I roll my eyes when people claim that Marvel is more feminist than DC. Anyone who says that doesnt really know either company's history. Both of them have made some great choices and some terrible ones, and both have done things to women that are beyond wrong.

well marvel really changed after Alonso. I really think DC did a better job of getting solo for their female characters, but I won't pretend DC never had problems. for example girlfriend on refrigerator, black canary and sue dibny getting rape on main continuity, stephanie brown torture porn. she hulk and hulk incest rape happened on old man logan AU, sure it doesn't excuse anything especially but not being main continutiy means that I can read she hulk and hulk without thinking about it. I didn't even knew old man logan existed before secret wars

Alonso get a lot of things wrong, but I also got great female solos and start liking marvel even more than DC. And I never thought i would read marvel. so good job didio and lee for ruining DC for me natalieportmanclapping.jpg

It's kind of funny how guys like millar and alan moore look back and said "WTH I did!?" because superheroes are so dark now. specially moore that watchmen that was heroes for the real world and killing joke that still haunts barbara gordon.

[Ascended]

well marvel really changed after Alonso.

It certainly has. That company has really turned itself around. Im reading more Marvel titles today than I have in....geez, fifteen years maybe? Ten at least. Not bad for a company that was inches away from shutting down in the late 90's.

I think DC has done some great things too these last few years. Lot more chances taken, lot more off-the-wall titles being published. The competition from Image and the indies is forcing the Big 2 to step up their game, which is good for everyone.

[jaybay]

But to spend such a length of time doing things like Kick-Ass and then turn around and say that MoS went too far is pretty hypocritical. Yeah, KA isnt Superman and the rules and expectations are different.....but Millar's work has had a pretty huge impact on comics, so he shouldnt be surprised when those sensibilities are adapted beyond his own projects.

I don't think Millar is surprised but displeased and, as he himself puts it, desperate for something better.

These grown-up themes and situations opened us up to a whole generation of people who would never have considered buying a comic-book in the past and this new seriousness in superhero cinema, particularly in the past fourteen years, seemed appropriate in a world that had been hammered by terror attacks and financial crises.

But we have to remember that these characters were created in the Great Depression to lift our spirits in the darkest times. When things are tough we maybe need a nice, uncomplicated hero a little more and so, like I said, I’m trying this once just to see what happens. As a reader I’m desperate for it.

I can’t be alone in my need for something a bit more uplifting in my comic books and my superhero cinema. I went to see Guardians of the Galaxy last year and was blown away not just by an incredibly fun and upbeat movie, but by the sheer joy on the faces of the audience. That movie, featuring characters nobody had ever heard of, out-grossed even Spider-Man in 2014 because people, I think, are just needing a good time and a smile again.

We really need something to make us feel good right now, this week perhaps more than any other in recent memory.

I also don't see how he's a hypocrite. Superman and heroes in general as icons and idols is what they're meant to be and, more importantly, keep being played up to be, but Millar writes his own characters and things to contrast that. You can admire the good and still revel in the bad yourself, if that's where you make your home. When the grass on the other side is as dead as your own, then those icons have crumbled.

There never were simpler times. Superman was first published during the Great Depression. Superman is meant to be something we can aspire to, someone we can look towards as a symbol of the better times to come if we all just persevere and fight through the bad times. Comics were never harkening back to 'simpler times' because those times never existed. Instead they were suggestive of a better tomorrow which has, as of yet, not actually arrived. Eventually people started to place the heroes in the context of the real world because comics were no longer marketed to children, so they naturally got darker. But superheroes were supposed to inspire people to be better, not remind them of what they had lost.

Well aside from the hypocrasy of some of the violence he's known for in stories, I think part of the problem with Superman and why fans are so divided is that there seems this weird double standard with him that doesn't seem to apply to any other superhero. For instance. I can't remember the last time anyone mentioned, say, Batman or Green Lantern in the same breath as Porky Pig, or Captain America in the same breath as the road runner or even Spider-man in the same breath with fill in the blank cartoon character...yet for some reason Superman gets lumped in by some in the same class as Bugs Bunny. It's a small thing to be sure, I admit ,but I think it's telling that Millar sees Superman as purely a simple childrens character and should always be portrayed in that mold and it's blasphemy to do otherwise, and there are obviously a lot of people that agree with that mindset. Now, I'm not saying Superman shouldn't have product out there aimed for kids, as all the superheroes I mentioned do have or have had kid friendly portrayles,but there is room for both SUPERMAN ADVENTURES and something more adult and complex like MAN OF STEEL. Superman shouldn't be just for kids...he should appeal to everyone. That requires different portrayles and thinking outside of a narrow box.

I wish we could get to the point with Superman that we've gotten with Batman...where something like the Brave and the Bold cartoon exists side by side with Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy...and no one bats an eye. Superman should have that kind of diversity across media. Most other of the big name characters have seen that occur, yet Superman is stuck in this box we fans tend to keep him in. I am not saying MOS is perfect or he should kill etc... just that we have to open our minds to other takes that may not line up perfectly 100 percent with our personal preferences to that we idealize the character to be.

Something unambiguously good doesn't equate to "for children only", simplistic, or devoid of knowledge of the real world and I don't think Millar is advocating that by mentioning him with a children's cartoon. I think he's saying Superman was designed to go against the mold of being dark or edgy or solemn, not tout the line.

Why is this only really a problem Superman goes through? Because other heroes who aren't Superman aren't hammed up to the 1,000th degree of being "The Greatest Superhero of Them All", "The one everyone else follows", "The pinnacle of human idealism", "Jesus", "Literally GOD", "A Samaritan", "A angel", "A always do the right thing kinda guy". They aren't an ideal. No one cares if Iron "Weapons dealers" Man kills or drinks, people are expecting that of Batman to some degree, Captain America is a solider and so on.

Attachment 29329

You can make a complex story that still uplift people and keep the themes the character are showcased with in tact. You can make a story as realistic as you want and still have Superman be at the center of it whose the genuinely good guy you are pushing and an inspiration. I didn't go into MOS twice and give them money already hating it to hate it more because it wasn't exactly what I wanted. I hate it because it went too far with it's message that Superman as is, his special brand of heroism as Pak puts it, his dominating themes, his make up as a character as far as powers, intelligence, morality, values goes are invalid and outdated. Time to grow up now.


Batman the Brave and the Bold and Nolan's Dark Knight are congruent with how they show case Batman as he's still intelligence, resourceful, never gives up, serious, respected, etc even though the mediums and audiences are totally different. And they aren't claiming things about the character and showing something completely different. They are still appeasing some expectations.

Personally, I don't think it's a problem with the fans because, let's face it, there aren't alot of us and anyone can somewhat respect anything if the execution is good enough. You can be a devout, fanatic Christian who sees a drawing of incest and still appreciate the lines, colors, proportions, level of detail and like the picture if only for that reason. Alot of people argued that Orson Scott Card should be allowed to write his Superman stories despite him having real blood on his hands because of his merit as an artist. But I think there's a need to make a Superman you can legitimately root against for the drama and laziness while hammering that this guy is Jesus and that's just fail. Giving a character to people who think he's outdated or confusing on a fundamental level is fail.

[Rory]

I am actually reading Action comics right now and while I love most of what I've read, I have to admit that I find some of Grant Morrison's comics a bit confusing. I mean, I get he gist of the story but I really have to go over it in my head.

Reading an issue where Clark from the present goes back five years with the Legion of Superheroes to find the Anti Superman army (I've no idea where they've come from) who end up being in Clark's head in a small pellet that contains Kryptonite. That story just made me very confused. Most of the time I get what he's saying though.

Let me know if I wasn't supposed to post that in case it was a spoiler.

[Ascended]

Its only a spoiler if you're four years behind.

Around here it seems like common courtesy to not post spoilers for a week or so after an issue comes out (or at least a few days), so people who are delayed (work/school schedule, paycheck, whatever) can get around to the issue. But after that, well, if you want to avoid spoilers you shouldn't be posting on the boards to begin with.

And you're not supposed to easily understand Morrison. His work is something you're supposed to read two or three times, and then re-visit as new issues come out, in order to get the whole picture. Sometimes it works better than others, and that sort of style isnt for everyone, but dont feel bad for not "getting" Morrison without a little work, most of us dont.