Page 51 of 388 FirstFirst ... 4147484950515253545561101151 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 765 of 5810
  1. #751
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    Going back to basics is one of the most used moves for any super-heroes that have been around for awhile. Wonder Woman is the one who has probably gone back to basics more than any other. But Superman has certainly gone back to basics on many occasions.

    I wouldn't say going to the Earth-Two Kal-L Superman equates to the same thing. That's an invented character that never really existed before the idea was conjured around 1971. But I guess you could say that those stories also try to go back to basics, too.

    I mean, just off hand, there were various flashback stories that told about Superman's early days. Or origin stories that used bits from the Siegel and Shuster story. Then there was Denny O'Neil's Sand Superman Saga that had Superman leaping tall buildings in a single bound. The SUPERMAN 1978 movie is really in part a retelling of the ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN TV show pilot, which itself draws on the original Superman story. Certainly John Byrne used a lot of the Siegel and Shuster Superman as his inspiration for a back to basics Superman.

    Nobody goes whole hog back into the original Superman stories because for one thing those weren't that well-written, to be honest (even though I like them a lot)--so it's a stylized evocation of a back to basics Superman filtered through modern ideas about how to tell a picture story.

    And for another thing, and maybe more important to DC, there are certain elements of modern Superman that have to be retained. DC isn't going to throw away Perry White, the Daily Planet, the modern red S, Smallville, Metropolis, the Fortress of Solitude, Martha and Jonathan Kent, the super-vison powers, flight, the Phantom Zone, etc. It's not worth giving up all those properties just for the bragging rights that come with restoring the original Superman.

    The fact is the period of 1940 to 2016--which is the period of Superman after the admired original Superman (notably edited by Vin Sullivan)--that after period has been pretty good to the Man of Steel, too. And there's a lot of writers, artists, editors who have added to the Metropolis Marvel's mythology. So while it's a nice idea to go back to some basics, I don't think anyone would be happy about it for long, not in its raw form.

    So yes, there are moves to go back to basics, but there are other moves to restore some of those more refined elements invented by other people (or by Siegel and Shuster themselves) in the intervening 76 years.

  2. #752
    Savior of the Universe Flash Gordon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superlad93 View Post
    I think Kal-L/golden age Superman is the most overrated fallback in the Superman myth.

    I think golden age Superman is a fun idea, sure. I personally enjoy some of the concepts presented there. However, that doesn't mean that I think just bringing him back wholesale or invoking his likeness or attributes somehow enhances the story being told. I hate that some creators can just use his likeness to basically pacify readers while their story makes no real strides forward. Simply taking Superman back to that style of character DOESN'T fix whatever issues he has. Kal-L himself coming back won't magically fix everything.

    By all means, make use of the golden age's ideas, but please don't leave that as your big attention grabbing gimmick. I'd also like to point out that a writer can use concepts from the golden age without fully reverting back to it.

    PS. if you know me, then you know this isn't a jab at Morrison.
    I don't see any iteration of Superman as a separate entity.

  3. #753
    Mighty Member adkal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,276

    Default

    I don't think Clark would wear trousers (pants) as tight as the ones Byrne has him wearing on the cover of Man of Steel issue 1.

    Generally, I think he wears looser clothing and hardly anything that would be 'form-fitting'.

  4. #754
    Omnes Viae Ad Infernum 666MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    The legendary Fortress Of Solitude, the strangest place on earth
    Posts
    1,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stephens2177 View Post
    They could always decipher some of it, but yeah I don't want them to ever have a full clone that doesnt turn into a bizzaro.

    No Kon is humans trying to recreate the greatest hero on the planet,plain as that.made by humans,so he isn't a perfect copy,but humans don't just give up when things are hard.they took EVERYTHING that they knew about superman and made their own superman.

    So they put what they could.decipher(which wasn't enough to make a god,more a super soldier,and added it to their make shift TK field that they put together when they examined and figured out supermans aura.

    Pretty simple,Kon is a human created super clone made from the parts of superman that they could figure out,and part from human ingenuity and desire.
    Sounds fair enough. I think that aspect, then, should be enphasized enough. Like, after Superman's "death" they managed to get a *small* sample of his DNA, but after YEARS of trying to decode it, they just came up with like, 15 % of the whole thing /(at best), so they had to resort to human DNA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I totally agree that writers (and editors, artists and whoever else has a hand in the creative decision making) should put effort into developing the *entire* rogues gallery. Not just the big classic names like Lex and Metallo and Zod, but the lesser-known ones too. Just look at the villains Morrison used in his Action run; a revamped Terra Man, a whole squad of Kryptonite Men, and that shapeshifting dude who was based (I think?) on a Silver Age villain so obscure I dont even remember his name. Morrison barely did anything with those guys but they were full of potential and had some awesome scenes. Its a shame that no one ever picked those concepts back up (other than Xa-Du, thanks to Pak!). Someone really should have.
    Agreed. Morrison planted those ideas for someone else to use them later on, but sadly no one did. I'd bet that, had Morrison stayed, he would have continued with that trend.

    However, if a creative team *have* tried to do something with a villain and have come up empty handed, as with Henshaw in the late 90's, then I think it's actually for the best if that villain gets put away for a while. I'd rather see a villain not used until someone has a good idea for him/her, than see attempt after attempt fail to impress, and ultimately ruin the villain completely.
    Also agreed. What annoys me is that it seems that, aside from Morrison, no one's even trying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Superlad93 View Post
    Controversial Opinion 2: I don't think Superman should should look extra big as far as muscles go. Big sturdy guy, sure, but he shouldn't look as if he competes in bodybuilding shows. I think his size in All Star Superman and Secret Identity are just about perfect. I'd go smaller (not by much) when he's in his 20s. The term "big guy" shouldn't be in reference to his actual size as a humanoid. Batman is the guy with the 8 pack and 4% body fat.
    I disagree. Gary Frank thinks that way, and although he's a terrific artist his Supeman didn't stand out at all. And Superman has to stand out. His sole presence should command respect and awe, not only because of him being Superman, but because of his sheer physical size. Also, there's the point of him being an alien. His innate biology shouold play a part there.

  5. #755
    Omnes Viae Ad Infernum 666MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    The legendary Fortress Of Solitude, the strangest place on earth
    Posts
    1,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash Gordon View Post
    I hate when Superman loses his powers and is suddenly the weakest man on Earth.

    He's still 6'6 and 220+, he can handle himself fine. He also wouldn't just forget how to fight and land a knock out. Superman always uses his size, he'd still do that.

    Especially when he's drawn super muscular and over the top! I'm fine with that, 100%, but don't tell me that guy is going to fall to pieces under a red sun.
    You and me both. That's why I think that the sunlight thing has to be retooled. the red sun thing must go.

    As for his size, I'd go a bit further and put him at 7 feet tall at least, bodybuilder physique and at least 600 pounds. I've toyed with him weighing a ton, haven't decided yet.

    Y'know, "super-dense molecular structure" and all that jazz.

  6. #756
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    I think one of the reasons people were knocked out by the cover of ACTION COMICS No. 1, back in 1938, is that it showed an ordinary looking guy (albeit one in a circus outfit) doing an incredible thing--picking up a full-size automobile above his head, as if it were a sack of flour. It's that juxtapositioning of the ordinary with the amazing that made Shuster's art outstanding.

  7. #757
    Astonishing Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 666MasterOfPuppets View Post
    As for his size, I'd go a bit further and put him at 7 feet tall at least, bodybuilder physique and at least 600 pounds. I've toyed with him weighing a ton, haven't decided yet.

    Y'know, "super-dense molecular structure" and all that jazz.
    Quick question, you want Clark Kent to be that big, too?

  8. #758
    Incredible Member Jon-El's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    How much muscle mass? How much of anything on Superman is answered by one name: Jose Luis Garcia Lopez. If he looks like that then you're doing it right.
    With regards to physique, to me, Superman should be muscular without being a bodybuilder. He should be a bit bigger than Batman though. I always pictured Batman as muscular but fairly lean so he can move quickly & blend in to the background. Same with Flash. He runs constantly so he should be lean.

    The cover I my profile pic pretty much defined what the characters should look like with Flash being smaller than Superman.

  9. #759
    Amazing Member JamesC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Gorleston-on-Sea, England
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Superman should look like Clint Walker https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cl...jLjQCw#imgrc=_


    A big tough looking dude but, when wearing normal clothes, doesn't automatically make you think 'body buider'.

  10. #760
    Astonishing Member Francisco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,068

    Default

    It's simple guys. When he wears the Super suit he looks like a perfect specimen. When he wears his civilians cloths he looks like a tall but middly out of shape guy. He slouches as Clark but straightens and flexes his muscles as Superman
    "By force of will he turns his gaze upon the seething horror bellow us on the hillside.
    Yes, he feels the icy touch of fear, but he is not cowed. He is Superman!"

  11. #761
    Astonishing Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Francisco View Post
    It's simple guys. When he wears the Super suit he looks like a perfect specimen. When he wears his civilians cloths he looks like a tall but middly out of shape guy. He slouches as Clark but straightens and flexes his muscles as Superman
    I largely agree with this, but I wonder how practically this can be accomplished in live-action without

    a) having the actor wearing a molded, padded suit, the way Henry Cavill does

    or

    b) Having a guy look like an NFL middle linebacker in the costume or in civvies.

  12. #762
    Astonishing Member Francisco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DochaDocha View Post
    I largely agree with this, but I wonder how practically this can be accomplished in live-action without

    a) having the actor wearing a molded, padded suit, the way Henry Cavill does

    or

    b) Having a guy look like an NFL middle linebacker in the costume or in civvies.
    Movies are a whole different business. I think guys like Cavill, Affleck and Momoa are the closest we're going to get to a live action superhero looking actor. And I mean actors who can act. lol
    "By force of will he turns his gaze upon the seething horror bellow us on the hillside.
    Yes, he feels the icy touch of fear, but he is not cowed. He is Superman!"

  13. #763
    Astonishing Member Stanlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    4,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 666MasterOfPuppets View Post
    You and me both. That's why I think that the sunlight thing has to be retooled. the red sun thing must go.

    As for his size, I'd go a bit further and put him at 7 feet tall at least, bodybuilder physique and at least 600 pounds. I've toyed with him weighing a ton, haven't decided yet.

    Y'know, "super-dense molecular structure" and all that jazz.
    7 feet tall? In this take, do you still envision him as maintaining the Clark Kent identity?

  14. #764
    Father Son Kamehameha < Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I think one of the reasons people were knocked out by the cover of ACTION COMICS No. 1, back in 1938, is that it showed an ordinary looking guy (albeit one in a circus outfit) doing an incredible thing--picking up a full-size automobile above his head, as if it were a sack of flour. It's that juxtapositioning of the ordinary with the amazing that made Shuster's art outstanding.
    Interesting. Judging by the old pictures I always see, people back in those days looked really weak as a normal thing. The drawing of Superman by Shuster gives me an impression that he was intended to resemble that biggest, strongest guys of that era. Seemed like over the next few decades he morphed into the Reeves model... that is, somewhere along George, then Steve.

    When I was growing up, we had late stage Arnold in mainstream who was above a normal size but keeping his shirt on in more and more films (man he still looked huge when I was ten though), and the bodybuilders post Yates who were every bit as absurd as the comic characters were starting to look.

    I don't want Superman looking average or just plain angular in the suit, but wouldn't mind if they scaled it back some. I brought up some months ago that I'd really like to see Armie Hammer as Superman even without gaining any size to fill the suit.

  15. #765
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    Something I read somewhere, sometime was that Wayne Boring changed how many heads high Superman was. I'm not sure what it was--but I guess anyone would count--but let's say the Shuster style Superman was seven and a half heads high and Boring Superman was eight and a half heads high.

    To me the Shuster Superman looks like a back street scrapper. While the Boring Superman is like a Greek statue of a god.

Posting Permissions

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