My favorite was the golden age superman. Less boy scout, more justice. He was not above killing to serve justice. Good times.
My favorite was the golden age superman. Less boy scout, more justice. He was not above killing to serve justice. Good times.
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.
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.
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.
To me a lot of MAN OF STEEL felt like an abbreviated version of SMALLVILLE--at least the early seasons up until spoilers:end of spoilers.
Jonathan Kent dies
But, in my personal opinion, John Schneider made a better Dad Kent than Kevin Costner.
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.
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.
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
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