Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 99
  1. #61
    Censorship Sucks
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    152

    Default

    My favorite was the golden age superman. Less boy scout, more justice. He was not above killing to serve justice. Good times.

  2. #62
    Astonishing Member Electricmastro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I'm always at war with myself over my extreme opinion, because it means that the Superman I love is not the authentic Superman. I can mediate my opinion and say that, in those first ten years of Superman, Siegel and Shuster introduced enough concepts that I can extrapolate from them a lot of what became my classic Superman. And I can further rationalize that Jerry returned to DC and he worked on that classic Superman.

    But at the end of the day, I have to be true to my own code. And my code says that the creators are the primary source of the character. I might not like the 1940s Superman as much as the 1960s, but my personal interests aren't germane. If Siegel and Shuster had had ownership and Superman ended not being the Superman I liked, then that's just the way it should have been.

    That being said, I think if Siegel and Shuster had their way, their Superman would have continued to develop and change. Maybe not in the direction that Mort Weisinger took him--but probably in some fantastic new direction. We can see that Jerry and Joe liked to do crazy and funny stories, so I expect that's what Superman would have been like in the 1950s. However, we'll never really know.
    And regardless of whatever people want to point out as flaws or the creators just not "properly" figuring out before tinkering with the concept enough, I still fell that the Golden Age Superman was ultimately an altruistic, well-intentioned figure that consistently always wanted to carry out justice for the greater good of mankind. At least, I think that Roy Thomas quite summed up that sort of feeling anyway.


  3. #63
    Fantastic Member Stick Figure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    311

    Default

    I don’t have a huge history with Superman so I guess I don’t have a “Classic” Version. I’ve read a few comics from the 70’s and couldn’t stand them. The few reprints I’ve seen from the 60’s aren’t my thing. I can’t connect at all with the 70’s movies. The only time the character felt seemed to have any depth & felt like a real person, would be Man of Steel. I really enjoyed that interpretation. Superman felt like a normal person who had lived with being an outsider but was still trying to do good. That may be in older versions but I just connected with the film. I’ve enjoyed Bendis work but that movie defines Superman for me.

  4. #64
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    The main point I was trying to make was that it doesn't matter if the Marston Wonder Woman or the Siegel Superman isn't popular anymore. I wasn't saying that the authentic character is always the most entertaining character for me--but it is the authentic character. You can't take away someone else's property just because you think you would take better care of it. From an ethical standpoint, when it comes to art, that work is what the creator wanted us to experience and I have to respect that.

  5. #65
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stick Figure View Post
    I don’t have a huge history with Superman so I guess I don’t have a “Classic” Version. I’ve read a few comics from the 70’s and couldn’t stand them. The few reprints I’ve seen from the 60’s aren’t my thing. I can’t connect at all with the 70’s movies. The only time the character felt seemed to have any depth & felt like a real person, would be Man of Steel. I really enjoyed that interpretation. Superman felt like a normal person who had lived with being an outsider but was still trying to do good. That may be in older versions but I just connected with the film. I’ve enjoyed Bendis work but that movie defines Superman for me.
    You do know man of steel is entirely influenced by superman comics from modern era. Birthright, secret origins, byrne man of steel, for tomorrow and earth one. If you like that superman, it isn't from thin air. Then you might like these versions of superman.

  6. #66
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    The main point I was trying to make was that it doesn't matter if the Marston Wonder Woman or the Siegel Superman isn't popular anymore. I wasn't saying that the authentic character is always the most entertaining character for me--but it is the authentic character. You can't take away someone else's property just because you think you would take better care of it. From an ethical standpoint, when it comes to art, that work is what the creator wanted us to experience and I have to respect that.
    I don't think that is the problem, either.At the very least, I think goldenage superman inspired take is or can get pretty popular, again. But, the problem is the "current" superman built-in fanbase isn't fan of that superman. They find it jarring. They only view him as a prototype that is not relevant to them. So, if i do a superman goldenage inpired take. I would have to alienate this built-in fanbase. It becomes a requirement and necessity. I will have expect the fan backlash and hope that the version finds new audiences. I believe, it can.Unlike the new52, we will need to market it right. And get rid of all the nonsensical gimmicks.

  7. #67
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    To me a lot of MAN OF STEEL felt like an abbreviated version of SMALLVILLE--at least the early seasons up until spoilers:
    Jonathan Kent dies
    end of spoilers.

    But, in my personal opinion, John Schneider made a better Dad Kent than Kevin Costner.

  8. #68
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    To me a lot of MAN OF STEEL felt like an abbreviated version of SMALLVILLE--at least the early seasons up until spoilers:
    Jonathan Kent dies
    end of spoilers.

    But, in my personal opinion, John Schneider made a better Dad Kent than Kevin Costner.
    Yeah! I don't see any resemblance. At all. Other than ofcourse the common link "donner" and some birthright.

  9. #69
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stick Figure View Post
    I don’t have a huge history with Superman so I guess I don’t have a “Classic” Version. I’ve read a few comics from the 70’s and couldn’t stand them. The few reprints I’ve seen from the 60’s aren’t my thing. I can’t connect at all with the 70’s movies. The only time the character felt seemed to have any depth & felt like a real person, would be Man of Steel. I really enjoyed that interpretation. Superman felt like a normal person who had lived with being an outsider but was still trying to do good. That may be in older versions but I just connected with the film. I’ve enjoyed Bendis work but that movie defines Superman for me.
    A classic Superman shouldn't be something a person has. It's more of a consensus thing.

    The classic version is the one the majority of people have in mind when they think of the character.

    It's the one a bunch of guys in a college dorm are thinking of when they debate "Could Superman beat X" or about Superman's sexual prowess.

    It's the guy who is implied in all the Superman jokes.

    It's the guy Hyperion, Gladiator, Plutonian, and Supreme are all based on.

  10. #70
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    I have more problem with people trying to make Superman an amorphous term that covers everything.

    If 20 people can sit in a room working quietly and independently to come up with 20 unique characters and yet you can argue every one of them is Superman- I seriously cannot understand you.

    I can vaguely understand the mindset that can see Adam West and Christian bale as both being "A" Batman. But too many Superman fans seem to use that logic to argue that everything using the name Superman is equal. As if Action #1 (1938), the wackiest 1950's/60's stories, the movie seriels, the George Reeves take, Bob Holliday's Broadway run, the guy in "Who took the Super out of Superman", the Donner film, the Lester film, Smallville, Lois & Clark … are all equally the same guy with none of them possibly getting stuff wrong.

    Siegel and Shuster were evolving the concept from 1932's evil mental dictator through his Action #1 debut and into the stories they got published. So while the basics were there by Action #1 there were some things not fully formed. It's possible that Superman's more violent ways in the early stories were not something crucial to the character. Superman as a bully on the side of good, isn't something I'd list as a defining trait of the character. So I don't think having his creators as author/artist makes it any more valid than later works, though I will say that stuff that shows up in their stories and is still a defining trait by 1948 hold more weight than stuff introduce post-2010.

    For me I'd say that Superman is a concept largely defined by the 1950's and 1960's. I'm not saying I don't have fondness for other tales or that there aren't things I'd leave out. Just that if you took every Superman story written between 1950 and 1970 and used them to create a blue print (stuff that shows up often stays, stuff that is used in a single issue and then forgotten or contradicted isn't counted) then those traits are the "common" Superman and the further you move from them the less valid your version.
    Exactly this! Thank you!!

  11. #71
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    A classic Superman shouldn't be something a person has. It's more of a consensus thing.

    The classic version is the one the majority of people have in mind when they think of the character.

    It's the one a bunch of guys in a college dorm are thinking of when they debate "Could Superman beat X" or about Superman's sexual prowess.

    It's the guy who is implied in all the Superman jokes.

    It's the guy Hyperion, Gladiator, Plutonian, and Supreme are all based on.
    That's thing there is minimal consensus on that. And most of the current generation will point to either donner, dcau or snyder superman. With varying polarised opinion on the character. Each of these are different. They all want different things from the character and sees different things in the character. Some see jesus, others see satan(injustice. There are people who have begun to think of him like that)

    There is also a problem that "classic" itself changes with time and generation. Do you think 1970's kids thing "classic" superman as our guy? No. They would point to fleischer cartoons or george reveese or the og superman.so getting hung on that isnt it detrimental to the character? So much so, that we reject the original guy. Is'nt that bad?
    You mentioned the first idea. The problem is they changed the entire character. It wasn't an evolution. They scrapped the old one. From evil bald guy with mental powers to vigilante strongman from another planet. They didn't change much of the ethos of the character. If people don't see that in our superman. Then isn't it a betrayal of the character itself and was originally intended for.

  12. #72
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    That's thing there is minimal consensus on that. And most of the current generation will point to either donner, dcau or snyder superman. With varying polarised opinion on the character. Each of these are different. They all want different things from the character and sees different things in the character. Some see jesus, others see satan(injustice. There are people who have begun to think of him like that)

    There is also a problem that "classic" itself changes with time and generation. Do you think 1970's kids thing "classic" superman as our guy? No. They would point to fleischer cartoons or george reveese or the og superman.so getting hung on that isnt it detrimental to the character? So much so, that we reject the original guy. Is'nt that bad?
    You mentioned the first idea. The problem is they changed the entire character. It wasn't an evolution. They scrapped the old one. From evil bald guy with mental powers to vigilante strongman from another planet. They didn't change much of the ethos of the character. If people don't see that in our superman. Then isn't it a betrayal of the character itself and was originally intended for.
    I'm saying "classic" isn't the Fleischer cartoons or George Reeves or the DCAU or Donner. It's all of them and none of them at the same time. The "classic" Superman is somewhere between Morrison's 8-panel origin and most parodies. But there is no definitive published version of him because he isn't based on a specific incarnation. He's the general concept of Superman before you get into the minutia of his adventures. That's why something like Supreme is closer to the classic than any version actually published, because if you look at the Plutonian, Samaritan, Hyperion … they all are built off the classic Superman without actually being Superman. In the same way Byrne, Waid, Johns Morrison are all building their versions off the classic. The only differences are how far they wander from the base concept.

    My point with mentioning the first idea was that they were refining and revising the character. Originally they were thinking a mental rather than a physical superman. Superman briefly was from the future before they moved on to his being an alien. And someone other than Shuster was involved around that time. Krypton was originally was a tenth planet in our solar system, orbiting between Mars and Jupiter where the asteroid belt is. So the fact that they published in 1938 doesn't mean they had set in stone what the character was. That maybe there were things in Action Comics #1 (like George Taylor or the Daily Star) which were not meant to be part of the concept and other things like Jimmy or Luthor that were missing. Just where things like "champion of the oppressed" or "willing to let bad guys fall prey to their own devices" fall is questionable.

  13. #73
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    I'm saying "classic" isn't the Fleischer cartoons or George Reeves or the DCAU or Donner. It's all of them and none of them at the same time. The "classic" Superman is somewhere between Morrison's 8-panel origin and most parodies. But there is no definitive published version of him because he isn't based on a specific incarnation. He's the general concept of Superman before you get into the minutia of his adventures. That's why something like Supreme is closer to the classic than any version actually published, because if you look at the Plutonian, Samaritan, Hyperion … they all are built off the classic Superman without actually being Superman. In the same way Byrne, Waid, Johns Morrison are all building their versions off the classic. The only differences are how far they wander from the base concept.

    My point with mentioning the first idea was that they were refining and revising the character. Originally they were thinking a mental rather than a physical superman. Superman briefly was from the future before they moved on to his being an alien. And someone other than Shuster was involved around that time. Krypton was originally was a tenth planet in our solar system, orbiting between Mars and Jupiter where the asteroid belt is. So the fact that they published in 1938 doesn't mean they had set in stone what the character was. That maybe there were things in Action Comics #1 (like George Taylor or the Daily Star) which were not meant to be part of the concept and other things like Jimmy or Luthor that were missing. Just where things like "champion of the oppressed" or "willing to let bad guys fall prey to their own devices" fall is questionable.
    So, "classic" superman is vague genral set of ideas that people have that surrvived throughout the ages accumulated together, according to you. That's fine. But, that vague general set of ideas has to have a core.
    The original idea with the bald guy was scrapped. Sure, i never said they weren't refining the character world or powers. I am talking about the character's ethos. And i am not just talking about just action comics#1. It's the first 10 years and anything the creators had a hand in.that is a sizable amount of content. The character's personality, ethos, pathos didn't change much in those years. Clark had no problem in being "scary" to bad guys as well as kind to the "little" guy.he was a reporter as clark who played the idiot while winking to the camera . He was for all intents and purposes a vigilante strongman who protects and fights for the "little guy" as well as the guy who punched giant robots, godzilla.. Etc.

    If this "classic" superman doesn't atleast have the core of the guy in first years. so much so that people feel these are different guys altogether. Then is "classic" superman really 80 years old character by jerry, joe and co.

  14. #74
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    So, "classic" superman is vague genral set of ideas that people have that surrvived throughout the ages accumulated together, according to you. That's fine. But, that vague general set of ideas has to have a core.
    The original idea with the bald guy was scrapped. Sure, i never said they weren't refining the character world or powers. I am talking about the character's ethos. And i am not just talking about just action comics#1. It's the first 10 years and anything the creators had a hand in.that is a sizable amount of content. The character's personality, ethos, pathos didn't change much in those years. Clark had no problem in being "scary" to bad guys as well as kind to the "little" guy.he was a reporter as clark who played the idiot while winking to the camera . He was for all intents and purposes a vigilante strongman who protects and fights for the "little guy" as well as the guy who punched giant robots, godzilla.. Etc.

    If this "classic" superman doesn't atleast have the core of the guy in first years. so much so that people feel these are different guys altogether. Then is "classic" superman really 80 years old character by jerry, joe and co.
    I agree. I think it's fine to tack stuff on and whatever but there needs to be some kind of solid and tangible frame to which all of these things can be laid upon. Without something like that you get cacophony and Jerry and Joe are never given the significance within Superman that Marston has with Wonder Woman, Finger/Kane have with Batman, or Lee/Kirby have at Marvel. For some reason they're treated almost as if they lucked out or something.

    I think to be a truly great Superman writer you must posses humility, you must be willing to present yourself before the body of Siegel and Shuster's work and admit that all you see before you wouldn't be possible without these core tenets and ideas. Then you must put great effort into understanding their work and apply what you've learned to your own ideas. If you can't do that then there isn't much hope for you as a Superman writer.

    I'm reminded of Superman's first trip to Gotham during NML in which Superman goes to help the devastated city and when Superman goes to confront Batman Clark is shaking like a leaf, his internal dialogue has him absolutely terrified to even address Bats 1 on 1. It's pitiful and when he finally draws up the strength to do so he gives up an hour in classifying the situation as hopeless. If that had been S&S Superman he wouldn't have even bothered asking Bruce for permission and wouldn't have left until the job was done. At that point Superman was over 50 years removed from his origin and Jerry and Joe were long dead. The core of the character had badly degraded and thus other people begin to play around with what they see as a man who is largely defined by a set of superficial identifiers ie style of haircut, uniform, and an extremely vague disposition(happy).
    Last edited by The World; 09-25-2019 at 07:24 AM.
    Rules are for lesser men, Charlie - Grand Pa Joe ~ Willy Wonka & Chocolate Factory

  15. #75
    Father Son Kamehameha < Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,754

    Default

    That's a problem with defining a cutoff for classic where the character himself goes, as that example relies on defining the older takes on Superman by a situation that never did and never would happen. Golden age Batman didn't really share a universe, silver age Gotham never had to deal with the aftermath of a catastrophe. How does NML apply then?

    Also if it helps here's a recap of that story, where Superman refuses to leave without helping. His only failure is that he can't save people from themselves. "They're not ready."
    http://babblingsaboutdccomics.blogsp...-help.html?m=1

    He thinks to himself, "don't antagonize him" as he asserts that Batman can't stop him. Is that fear or just not being interested in unproductive conflict? I go with the latter considering what followed.
    Welcome or welcome back! Please check out the updated
    CBR Community STANDARDS & RULES

Posting Permissions

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