Grant Morrison talks modern Superman and his politics

[Confuzzled]

I think Morrison was talking in very broad terms when he said that pre-52 Supes started to resemble a more right-wing figure (the establishment, the patriarch, the accepted "American" saviour). He was saying that crucial aspects of the character, like him actually being an alien and having to gain the trust and love of Americans, were increasingly getting marginalized because in many ways, he had already achieved the latter to such an extent that many (real-life) people forgot about the former element of the character and its deep implications.

[JBatmanFan05]

[post redacted, think I misread]

[superduperman]

What I would like to know is how did DC approach him about the reboot? What did they tell him in terms of what they wanted to do? "We're rebooting our universe again and we want you to reboot Superman"? Does he know whose idea it was and what the motives behind it were? How much leeway did he get and how much control did the higher ups exert? Stuff like that is the stuff that interests me.

[Frontier]

What I would like to know is how did DC approach him about the reboot? What did they tell him in terms of what they wanted to do? "We're rebooting our universe again and we want you to reboot Superman"? Does he know whose idea it was and what the motives behind it were? How much leeway did he get and how much control did the higher ups exert? Stuff like that is the stuff that interests me.

Given this is Morrison, and how Batman Inc. remained relatively intact after Flashpoint (that I can recall), I imagine they probably gave him a lot of leeway to do what he wanted to do with the character with the intention of going for a "back to basics" Superman for the New 52.

[Last Son of Krypton]

What I would like to know is how did DC approach him about the reboot? What did they tell him in terms of what they wanted to do? "We're rebooting our universe again and we want you to reboot Superman"? Does he know whose idea it was and what the motives behind it were? How much leeway did he get and how much control did the higher ups exert? Stuff like that is the stuff that interests me.

He said something about it a few years ago...

So it's a relaunch, starting over at ground zero for a lot of things and you've got a pretty blank canvas – does that mean you can do whatever you like?

Grant: Pretty much yeah, which was the reason I did it. And you know when Dan DiDio came over and said do you want to do this and I said well no' really but here's what I'd do and I thought there's no way he'll accept this and he kind of did! So that was it, it was really getting the chance to just recreate Superman from scratch and I do keep running up into things that are happening now because you know Superman's now... the story I'm telling is supposed to be set 5 years in the past of the current continuity so all this stuff's going on in the current continuity that I'm kinda trying to mix and match with while they're expecting me to come up with certain aspects of the lore that they haven't figured out yet. So it's been a weird kind of shuffle and once the first six issues are done I'm sort of moving forward through the present day of it and catching up with that.

Source: http://www.comicbookgrrrl.com/2011/0...rant-morrison/

[Robotman]

i think that's why Grant has been so loyal to DC over the years. Didio pretty much let's him do whatever the hell he wants. and because of that we've been treated to some amazing comics.

[Patrick Gerard]

You know, I respect Morrison but I think he's greatly exaggerated pre-52 Superman's "right wing" views. And what you're rebeling against is more important than being a rebel in general.

I don't think he's talking about the comic book Superman although I'd say the Byrne Superman was probably roughly the same, politically, as Bill Clinton. Which would be right wing from Grant's perspective (or mine).

I think he's talking about the iconographic Superman, devoid of any story or continuity, was a source of national pride, which is kind of a right wing idea. He'd become a "let's all work together inside the system" figure.

The 40s Superman would literally burn your house down, crush diamonds to create enough wealth to tank your business/bank, and while I think it's always overstated to what extent he was a killer (he was more careless than premeditated), he was the kind of guy who'd give you a verbal warning if you were engaged in financial crimes, beat you black and blue, and then not lose any sleep if you died.

The grand irony is, of course, that modern Republicans aren't really establishmentarians either. Grant is thinking of elite, pro-status quo types. Traditionally, sure, that was Republicans.

I think where we're at now, the grass roots of both parties is a stew of warring populist factions, the parties' senior leadership is mostly kind of establishmentarian, some of the campaign donors are, and most of the politicians in any major political party now are trying to balance disenfranchised populists with wealthy donors.

[Agent Z]

I don't think he's talking about the comic book Superman although I'd say the Byrne Superman was probably roughly the same, politically, as Bill Clinton. Which would be right wing from Grant's perspective (or mine).

I think he's talking about the iconographic Superman, devoid of any story or continuity, was a source of national pride, which is kind of a right wing idea. He'd become a "let's all work together inside the system" figure.

The 40s Superman would literally burn your house down, crush diamonds to create enough wealth to tank your business/bank, and while I think it's always overstated to what extent he was a killer (he was more careless than premeditated), he was the kind of guy who'd give you a verbal warning if you were engaged in financial crimes, beat you black and blue, and then not lose any sleep if you died.

The grand irony is, of course, that modern Republicans aren't really establishmentarians either. Grant is thinking of elite, pro-status quo types. Traditionally, sure, that was Republicans.

I think where we're at now, the grass roots of both parties is a stew of warring populist factions, the parties' senior leadership is mostly kind of establishmentarian, some of the campaign donors are, and most of the politicians in any major political party now are trying to balance disenfranchised populists with wealthy donors.

I also think people are a little too quick to ignore G.A Superman's sexist and racist tendencies when they talk about how great he is.

[Patrick Gerard]

They've admitted as much - according to a few accounts, Nolan said 'no' to the killing approach but then said that if they could convince him then they could do it...apparently they convinced him.

From what I heard, they didn't convince him. He just gave up after they deadlocked over it and he said, "Fine. It's your movie. You own that creative choice. I wouldn't do it but it's not my movie."

[Carabas]

I also think people are a little too quick to ignore G.A Superman's sexist and racist tendencies when they talk about how great he is.

To be fair, it was the 30's and 40's.

You're going to have to look far and hard to find any character from that era that is free from racist/sexist tendencies.

[Agent Z]

To be fair, it was the 30's and 40's.

You're going to have to look far and hard to find any character from that era that is free from racist/sexist tendencies.

True. I just noticed that people on this board seem more forgiving of this era for Superman than most characters.

[Patrick Gerard]

True. I just noticed that people on this board seem more forgiving of this era for Superman than most characters.

I have friends who think of Reed Richards as an abusive sexist. Personally, I pretend that anything period specific or rooted in the culture of the era as sliding out of continuity.

Also, the one time I can really think of 40s characters being played period accurate in terms of values was in DC 2000 by Tom Peyer and people lost their crap over that. (Brubaker's Cap did some of that too but I don't think.)

I think in general, the tendency is to basically pretend that comics from the past are treated as having an unreliable narrator and anything that clashes with modern values is a blip that didn't happen. People are usually defensive of portrayals like that. So whatever the Golden-Age Superman would have been to an average guy in the 40s, the "brand preservation" mindset would be to make sure the audience REACTION to him is the same. And I think that's kind of fair with these characters since they are brands that exist to fill an emotional need or generate a certain kind of reaction.

[Agent Z]

I have friends who think of Reed Richards as an abusive sexist. Personally, I pretend that anything period specific or rooted in the culture of the era as sliding out of continuity.

Also, the one time I can really think of 40s characters being played period accurate in terms of values was in DC 2000 by Tom Peyer and people lost their crap over that. (Brubaker's Cap did some of that too but I don't think.)

I think in general, the tendency is to basically pretend that comics from the past are treated as having an unreliable narrator and anything that clashes with modern values is a blip that didn't happen. People are usually defensive of portrayals like that. So whatever the Golden-Age Superman would have been to an average guy in the 40s, the "brand preservation" mindset would be to make sure the audience REACTION to him is the same. And I think that's kind of fair with these characters since they are brands that exist to fill an emotional need or generate a certain kind of reaction.

That's fair. I have faves of mine that have been portrayed problematically by today's standards. I was really just trying to defend post-crisis Superman and I guess I just got carried away.

[t hedge coke]

I have friends who think of Reed Richards as an abusive sexist. Personally, I pretend that anything period specific or rooted in the culture of the era as sliding out of continuity.

What's funny is that most of the "Reed is sexist and slaps his wife all the time" stuff is either Reed possessed, impersonators, or Reed deliberately acting out of character. Mostly, because otherwise you're left with "Reed doesn't pay attention to people" and "Reed's gonna get everybody killed some day." Or, the delicious Unstable Molecules, where he is a total douche.

But like Warren Ellis is doing with his Bond comic right now, yeah, you've got to keep marching the characters into the modern day without losing their personality as it stands in reflection to the era. What's widely socially acceptable for a "good man" in 1952 America as defined by Mort Weisinger, isn't necessarily what's acceptable in this era or twenty years ago, and vice versa.

[Patrick Gerard]

What's funny is that most of the "Reed is sexist and slaps his wife all the time" stuff is either Reed possessed, impersonators, or Reed deliberately acting out of character. Mostly, because otherwise you're left with "Reed doesn't pay attention to people" and "Reed's gonna get everybody killed some day." Or, the delicious Unstable Molecules, where he is a total douche.

But like Warren Ellis is doing with his Bond comic right now, yeah, you've got to keep marching the characters into the modern day without losing their personality as it stands in reflection to the era. What's widely socially acceptable for a "good man" in 1952 America as defined by Mort Weisinger, isn't necessarily what's acceptable in this era or twenty years ago, and vice versa.

That said, I miss what I perceive as the "neurotic Superman", particularly in the Weisinger era but really continuing in Bates and Pasko's books. Maybe not quite as much with Maggin. I think Maggin was really just 20 years ahead of his time for the most part with his take on Superman. It wasn't JARRING next to Pasko because I think Maggin's take was, at least, sentimental. Deeply sentimental, in fact. He developed some quirks like an obsession with thrift shops and a favorite food.

But I like the almost Aspergian Superman we sometimes got, most often in the second Siegel run but I'd guess especially in comics by Hamilton and others.

I think Superman in the 60s and 70s in particular really was kind of a geek. Reeve emphasized the geek thing but made it enough of an act that people treated it as false. Reeves played the role with macho vigor. I don't think we've had an actor (outside of maybe animation) who really did the "Superman is a socially awkward nerd".

But that 60s version was a giant nerd. So bad with people he had conversations with statues. He kept a big diary. There's a loneliness there. Sure, he cried a lot but that was dramatic.

I think the post-Crisis Superman was a little too smiley. The 2000s and current take is a bit too angry and know-it-all.

For me, I know a story is going to be good when Superman cries or at the very least displays emotions that aren't just happy, angry, or patronizingly frustrated.