Marvelized Superman?

[Powerboy]

In discussions of Superman, one thing that often comes up on the part of some Superman fans is an almost pathological hatred of John Byrne's version of Superman. I have heard it referred to as ByrneMan and WeakMan and as Byrne's attempt to Marvelize Superman.

I am bringing it up on a Marvel forum to avoid the vitriol it seems to generate on some DC oriented boards and because the attitude that 'Marvelizing' him is somehow a bad thing is worth discussing.

The argument seems to be threefold:

Byrne depowered Superman;

Byrne turned him into a whimpering child running home to his adopted Mom and Dad for moral guidance whenever he needed it;

Byrne destroyed his moral authority by having him kill albeit once.

I don't know about the third one but the first two seem to be the examples some have of Marvelizing him. I think these first two are examples of improving him. Byrne said he wanted his Superman limited to lifting about a hundred thousand tons (that would be a thousand times stronger than most Marvel characters but still a finite limit). In my opinion, it improved him. He was still more powerful than other Earth-based heroes but couldn't walk over gods, space deities and beings wielding ring weapons that were the most powerful weapons in the universe built by the oldest and most advanced race in the universe, yes the Oans even older than Kryptonians. It added some logic to his power level and made it so he had to think, not just could think but had to. Yes he could only lift a hundred thousand tons but not move the planet. Poor WeakMan. :rolleyes:

Far from a whimpering child, I think he became a real person under Byrne's writing. What some fans dismiss as 'teenaged angst' was having real feelings and reactions.

For the first time in quite a while, Superman became interesting again because he became less two-dimensional. But these are just my thoughts on the matter.

[StoneGold]

It's only Marvelizing in the sense that it isn't writing Superman as a character devoid of any flaws. Which is only something Marvel popularized in regards to superheroes, but hardly anything Marvel has a copyright on.

[Deep_Sleeper]

My favourite version of Superman is the animated one, where he is very much not a god-like being, but a very powerful superhero.

[Expletive Deleted]

Since this is more about Superman than Marvelization . . .

[Adamantium_Avatar]

Funny you shold post this actually as the current 'so-called' Marvel Superman (Sentry) is actually suppose to be more powerful than Supes.

[Dark Ben]

Funny you shold post this actually as the current 'so-called' Marvel Superman (Sentry) is actually suppose to be more powerful than Supes.

Yeah sure "with Power of one million exploding suns" stuff but take a look at his mental state and he's not that powerful lol

[Adamantium_Avatar]

Well, Hulk's not exactly playing with a full set either and I reckon he could take Superman out these days and Sentry is alledgedly above the Hulk in terms of power...

Anyway.. I dont wanna accidentally make this into a rumble, lol


I personally prefer a Superman who is not juggling planets and using black holes to get grass stains out of his pants..

I think DC may have shot themselves in the foot with their God-like heroes in the past and so are trying to bring things down a few notches.

The fundamental difference that I can see between DC and Marvel is that DC heroes are heroes you can look up to, whereas Marvel heroes are heroes that you might one day be...

In that respect I dont think Superman had been 'Marvelized' so much as he had been made a little more believeable.. In so far as you can believe a man can lift a hundred thousand tonnes!! :eek:

[niall mc cann]

I have real fondness for Byrne's Superman run, but i think i'm one of the gang you're refering to, being that i do feel that Byrne's run represents a "marvelisation" of Superman.

He was weaker after Byrne... i don't generally pay much attention to figures, but Superman was really godlike in his powers before Byrne, and after wasn't. He did limit the power of a character whose powers were basically limitless beforehand, and that is a fundamental change in the nature of the character.

The whimpering child and moral authority issue are important as well, i think. Not because i have a problem with more human characters, but just because i think there's a time and place. Superman (up until Byrne) was supposed to be Atticus Finch, not Stephen Dedalus.

I think it's reasonable to accept, from this standpoint, that there's two types of literature: one is psychologically realistic, where the workings of a character's mind and personality are brought to the forefront and the main thrust of the story, the other is closer to a kind of "archetype play", where the characters are more representative of psychological archetypes and symbolic of things beyond themselves. It's a less literal form of storytelling that's been out of fashion for a century; Superheroes prior to Lee's reinvention of the genre were more the latter; if Stan Lee contributed nothing else to superheroes, he certainly contributed a more psychologically realistic take on what was previously a more archetypal form. It's reasonable, as a result of the way the superhero genre is structured, to call that process "marvelisation".

And that's what Byrne did to Superman, I think. You had a character who was basically an archetype, who Byrne decided to make a more human personality.

These days psychological realism has far more street cred than the other form, so the idea of returning superman to what he was before just won't fly, which is a pity i think, because its a type of storytelling i like and think is valid.

I actually did an essay on All-Star Superman for my masters that was basically about this, or at least related. ASS represents an attempt to move Superman back to a more pre-Byrne space, i think. And it's excellent, too.

[sheets]

It's not cutting his power levels (a good idea, I think) that irritates me about Byrne's Superman. What bugged me was how Byrne threw so much of the overall mythology out and didn't replace it with anything that I think is especially resonant. For instance, keeping Ma and Pa Kent around and turning Krypton from a utopia into an antiseptic world with a legacy of misery was a huge error because it completely eliminated the sense of loss that was at the heart of the character. There's nothing poignant about Byrne's Superman. He's just a bland, colorless "nice guy".

[King Krypton]

It's not cutting his power levels (a good idea, I think) that irritates me about Byrne's Superman. What bugged me was how Byrne threw so much of the overall mythology out and didn't replace it with anything that I think is especially resonant. For instance, keeping Ma and Pa Kent around and turning Krypton from a utopia into an antiseptic world with a legacy of misery was a huge error because it completely eliminated the sense of loss that was at the heart of the character. There's nothing poignant about Byrne's Superman. He's just a bland, colorless "nice guy".

I agree here, but I'd like to add to it.

I think a side effect of stripping Superman as his larger-than-life qualities was the increasing reliance on soap opera gimmicks, dead-weight supporting characters who ate up page time for no reason, and a sense that the stories should never be happy. After the "death of" thing was over, the stories were in a holding pattern of dumb "events" and angst, especially when DC had second thoughts about marrying Lois and Clark and turned Superman into a relationship abuse/spousal abuse victim. Superman himself at that point was so blah that the only way to make the books interesting was to tear him down and make him a supporting player in his own book.

Also, I think Byrne's rigidity on their being no other Kryptonians did some serious harm to General Zod and Supergirl. In order to use those characters again, we wound up with convoluted, tied-in-knots new versions whose origins you couldn't possibly explain to a non-comics reader. I'm not saying that there need to be a ton of living Kryptonians, but a small handful is appropriate, and Supergirl and Zod deserve to be Kryptonian. But with Byrne's restrictions (which I know he wasn't alone in), in order to follow the "ONE KRYPTONIAN" rule characters and stories had to be tied in impenetrable knots that would not only exclude new readers from coming in, but would even confuse longtime readers.

I think the real problem with Byrne's Superman is not that he revamped the character at all, but in how he did it and what it gave rise to. We ended up with an emasculated hero, a hopelessly convoluted continuity, a lack of emotional resonance, and dead weight and soap opera gimmicks in place of storytelling. Those, above all else, are what was wrong with his take.

[Gernot]

The funny thing about Superman being the sole survivor of Krypton is that DC had DONE that BEFORE Byrne's revamp of the character.

Supergirl was dead, the Kandorians were in a dimension that Superman could only access every few years, and Myxyzptlk destroyed The Phantom Zone in the final issue of DC Comics Presents.

To de-power Superman, all they'd have had to do is say the Crisis altered Sol, so it didn't power Superman to the levels he'd once had. That would have made him a more tragic character, too: "I once could move planets, but now it's taking everything I have to move this mountain!"

We'd still have tales of Krypton and Supergirl, and Superman would've been a lot closer to what he once was.

[brahmabull]

He messed up Superman and Spiderman with his chapter 1 stuff

[Ravenheart]

I liked Byrne's run on Superman and I liked that he depowered him.Its been said here,I'm sure many times that a character that was as powerful as Superman was before Byrne's Man of Steel mini got boring very fast.

[Harding Prime]

I opened this thread because I figured that the question was about Sentry, whom I loath, but it is a good question, better maybe 20 years ago since this is out of continuity and Superman is better then ever, IME, but I think he wanted to change the first true Super Hero, to make him anything less is just wrong. That is like depowering Jesus to Christians. He is the first and the best, just leave him that way. The state he is in now is where he should always be.

[dupersuper]

His power fluctuates over time, but as long as I'm enjoying the stories, I don't especially care.

[Heraclevs]

Byrne's Man of Steel came out just when I got back into comics. I appreciated his stripped down version of Superman as compared to what came before.

Artistic merits aside, I remember very clearly the statement made by my lcs owner who said that, before John Byrne came along, they couldn't even give Superman comics away. If that was consistent throughout the market, then DC had to do something drastic out of economic necessity at the very least to pump new life into their flagship character.


- Romans 9

[Powerboy]

Actually it wasn't you or anyone on this board I had in mind. It was certain people on another (for all practical purposes unmoderated) board that approach the whole issue with an infantile 'You aren't a real Superman fan if you like Byrne's Superman' mentality. 'And, oh yeah, you're probably a morally relativistic and whimpering weakling if you like Byrne's Superman'. That sort of emotionally dysfunctional fan that can't tolerate or respect any opinion that is not his own is what led to this thread.

Back to what you were saying. :)

It is true that Byrne powered him down from his Silver Age heights but you said it best- limitless power. It had become so extreme that it no longer appealed much to an adult audience.

I like your ideas about archetypes versus more psychologically realistic characters. I think both are archetypes to some degree. But Spider-Man, for example, is more an archetype for certain types of feelings and situations a person might find himself in while Superman is more an archetype for higher concepts.

But, as you said, in terms of sales nowadays, the more realistc characters are what sell.

I have real fondness for Byrne's Superman run, but i think i'm one of the gang you're refering to, being that i do feel that Byrne's run represents a "marvelisation" of Superman.

He was weaker after Byrne... i don't generally pay much attention to figures, but Superman was really godlike in his powers before Byrne, and after wasn't. He did limit the power of a character whose powers were basically limitless beforehand, and that is a fundamental change in the nature of the character.

The whimpering child and moral authority issue are important as well, i think. Not because i have a problem with more human characters, but just because i think there's a time and place. Superman (up until Byrne) was supposed to be Atticus Finch, not Stephen Dedalus.

I think it's reasonable to accept, from this standpoint, that there's two types of literature: one is psychologically realistic, where the workings of a character's mind and personality are brought to the forefront and the main thrust of the story, the other is closer to a kind of "archetype play", where the characters are more representative of psychological archetypes and symbolic of things beyond themselves. It's a less literal form of storytelling that's been out of fashion for a century; Superheroes prior to Lee's reinvention of the genre were more the latter; if Stan Lee contributed nothing else to superheroes, he certainly contributed a more psychologically realistic take on what was previously a more archetypal form. It's reasonable, as a result of the way the superhero genre is structured, to call that process "marvelisation".

And that's what Byrne did to Superman, I think. You had a character who was basically an archetype, who Byrne decided to make a more human personality.

These days psychological realism has far more street cred than the other form, so the idea of returning superman to what he was before just won't fly, which is a pity i think, because its a type of storytelling i like and think is valid.

I actually did an essay on All-Star Superman for my masters that was basically about this, or at least related. ASS represents an attempt to move Superman back to a more pre-Byrne space, i think. And it's excellent, too.

[niall mc cann]

Actually it wasn't you or anyone on this board I had in mind. It was certain people on another (for all practical purposes unmoderated) board that approach the whole issue with an infantile 'You aren't a real Superman fan if you like Byrne's Superman' mentality. 'And, oh yeah, you're probably a morally relativistic and whimpering weakling if you like Byrne's Superman'. That sort of emotionally dysfunctional fan that can't tolerate or respect any opinion that is not his own is what led to this thread.

Well, no doubt they're probably right.:rolleyes:

I actually like Byrne's Superman run, but i think King Krypton made a good point; the problems i really have with Byrne's reinvention only really told themselves after he left. The nineties were a decade of Byrne's Superman, and i really couldn't pick out a superman story from that decade that i really liked, to be honest.

How long was Byrne on Superman? Two years? two and a half? It was a good run, but i think it's argueable that it laid the groundwork for a very lacklustre period of Superman stories.

Back to what you were saying. :)

It is true that Byrne powered him down from his Silver Age heights but you said it best- limitless power. It had become so extreme that it no longer appealed much to an adult audience.

I'm not 110% certain about that... by the eighties, weren't DC distancing themselves from the more extreme Superman? Wasn't he being quietly, informally de-powered prior to Byrne's run? I was a kid, someone else will have to confirm or deny that. I think it's fair to say that the wild excesses of the fifties were long gone by the time byrne came along.

I like your ideas about archetypes versus more psychologically realistic characters. I think both are archetypes to some degree. But Spider-Man, for example, is more an archetype for certain types of feelings and situations a person might find himself in while Superman is more an archetype for higher concepts.

But, as you said, in terms of sales nowadays, the more realistc characters are what sell.

Well, probably every fictional character has an element of both types of storytelling. It just comes down to how it's negotiated. It just p's me off sometimes when people dismiss more archetypal storytelling as inherently vacuous, but that does tend to be the opinion of the masses these days, i must concede. Though i'd be interested in finding out how much All-Star Superman is selling, compared to other books out there.

[dancj]

Actually it wasn't you or anyone on this board I had in mind. It was certain people on another (for all practical purposes unmoderated) board that approach the whole issue with an infantile 'You aren't a real Superman fan if you like Byrne's Superman' mentality.
I've seen that mentality from one particular member of this board - who I haven't seen around recently.

[dupersuper]

The nineties were a decade of Byrne's Superman, and i really couldn't pick out a superman story from that decade that i really liked, to be honest.


Really? Not Sterns' space opera? Morrisons' JLA? JLA year1? Year 1 annuals? The wedding? Death/funeral/return? Gibbons' Worlds Finest? Superman For Earth? Armagedon annuals? Kingdom Come?

[Harding Prime]

Kingdom Come doesn't count, Morrison JLA doesn't count. But on the other hand, I'm reading the Return of Superman right now, the Death was a good brawl for it all arc, everything else was kinda drap until Our Worlds at War.

[Sijo]

As a fan of the Pre-Crisis Superman (who loathed the "Last Superman Story") I was surprised that I didn't hate Byrne's version of Superman as much as I thought, and in fact liked several things, like explaining his powers better and keeping his folks alive. Besides, it was supposed to be a new start, I had to give him a chance. Things I didn't like included the "Vulcanized" Kryptonians (What was the point of that? Making us feel less sorry that they all got killed?) and the execution of the Phantom Zone villains. A least the former was used for many interesting stories like the Krypton Man Saga, but the latter just doesn't make sense, Superman doesn't kill (it's what keeps people from fearing him) and the fact that the 'Zoners MIGHT recover their powers someday and MIGHT endanger his home universe were too unlikely to justify killing them. There's many more villains that Superman would also have to kill if he felt that way. At worst, Supes should've abandoned them to die in the World they ravaged, and even that's a stretch. (I understand bringing them back to Earth and proving they were guilty would have been almost impossible, but that's what true heroes do.) Maybe he should've just returned them to the PZ and left them there for eternity.

[niall mc cann]

Really? Not Sterns' space opera? Morrisons' JLA? JLA year1? Year 1 annuals? The wedding? Death/funeral/return? Gibbons' Worlds Finest? Superman For Earth? Armagedon annuals? Kingdom Come?

well, it's possibly argueable that KC is a superman story, but only possibly, and the JLAs definitely aren't, so they don't count.

And nope, i see nothing worth reading in any of the big Supes stories of the nineties. The death and return remains one of the most overhyped wastes of paper in history, imo.

[dockwats]

Depowering Superman takes away much of the wonder and awe of the character. Despite the addage "it's the symbol, not the power", it's not how it works in application for target audiences (Aka, younger generation). With a bevy of heroes from which to choose, all of which essentially have a cloned power from early Superman, it's important that Superman, as one of the original heroes, maintains a physical, mental and moral superiority to other characters.

When one starts stripping him down, likely in attempts to make him more "human" and vulnerable, thus making it easier to write longer stories, it also makes the audience go "whatever, so and so could deal with this" and before long, you may lose out on people. I think the run mentioned in this thread, coupled with Dini/Timm's somewhat appealing (though somewhat flawed, imo) animated run, could be interpreted as a type of "Marvelized" treatment of the character.

I think in humanizing Superman, the better option is spending more time focused on Clark (who is all a simple farm-boy at heart) and letting him interact and form dynamics with emotionally complex friends (Lois, Jimmy, Perry...add more everyday folks) to humanize the character. As Superman, a continually stronger, cunning and dangerous rogues gallery is needed. "Up the ante" so to speak. Superman should be kept far larger than life, even when compared to other heroes. Otherwise, I think the big guy will continually lose his appeal to audiences as time goes along.

[Powerboy]

Depowering Superman takes away much of the wonder and awe of the character. Despite the addage "it's the symbol, not the power", it's not how it works in application for target audiences (Aka, younger generation). With a bevy of heroes from which to choose, all of which essentially have a cloned power from early Superman, it's important that Superman, as one of the original heroes, maintains a physical, mental and moral superiority to other characters.

When one starts stripping him down, likely in attempts to make him more "human" and vulnerable, thus making it easier to write longer stories, it also makes the audience go "whatever, so and so could deal with this" and before long, you may lose out on people. I think the run mentioned in this thread, coupled with Dini/Timm's somewhat appealing (though somewhat flawed, imo) animated run, could be interpreted as a type of "Marvelized" treatment of the character.

I think in humanizing Superman, the better option is spending more time focused on Clark (who is all a simple farm-boy at heart) and letting him interact and form dynamics with emotionally complex friends (Lois, Jimmy, Perry...add more everyday folks) to humanize the character. As Superman, a continually stronger, cunning and dangerous rogues gallery is needed. "Up the ante" so to speak. Superman should be kept far larger than life, even when compared to other heroes. Otherwise, I think the big guy will continually lose his appeal to audiences as time goes along.

That's interesting because for me and a friend of mine, the response was precisely the opposite back in 1986 or 1987, whenever 'Man of Steel' was done. Before that, the attitude was, "Yeah, yeah, he can move planets and juggle moons. If he was on the far side of the universe and someone fired a gun at Lois from across the room, he could probably get there soon enough to stop the bullet. Yawn. We get it. He's so overpowered its ridiculous. He's powered himself into irrelevance." This stuff was great when I was ten years old. In my twenties, I just drifted away and realized one day I hadn't read a Superman story in years.

Meanwhile, all these Marvel characters who were allegedly just another fish in the pond in terms of power were destroying him in terms of popularity. They couldn't just walk through everything, smiling and posing with hands on hips. They were INTERESTING. Yes what one of them could do, most of the others could also do and yet, somehow, that was far more interesting than the caped kryptonian who could do it all.

When Byrne started writing Superman, he was still way up there in power but he became interesting for the first time in a very long time. The comic audience that liked Superman in theory but had long stopped actually reading his comics were drawn back to him and he gained a new audience.

But then time went on. Other writers took over. Some of them had ideas that Superman should be what they read about as kids. Within a few years, he was getting more and more powerful. The Golden Age was long gone and very few wanted to bring that back. The Silver Age one, the one that was the most powerful, seemed the big interest of the writers. I don't know if sales dropped or not. I know I found him less interesting.

I think its just very hard to combine 'realism' with a character that nobody can challenge. Very few writers are up to that task.

I don't know how popular the more powerful Superman is. I would say that I think he is very popular with the people that are still reading his adventures at all. The real question is how much of a dropoff in readership there was as he drifted back into being so much more powerful than everybody else.

[niall mc cann]

But then time went on. Other writers took over. Some of them had ideas that Superman should be what they read about as kids. Within a few years, he was getting more and more powerful. The Golden Age was long gone and very few wanted to bring that back. The Silver Age one, the one that was the most powerful, seemed the big interest of the writers. I don't know if sales dropped or not. I know I found him less interesting.

Superman during the nineties drifted back to his silver age power levels? That was never my impression, though i didn't read him closely during those years... when did it happen, do you reckon? To me, that's a process that's just started happening lately, as in the last two or three years, though i think the seeds were possibly sown a bit in Morrisons JLA...

I think its just very hard to combine 'realism' with a character that nobody can challenge. Very few writers are up to that task.

You say that like realism is the only option... there's no such thing as a Superman story that is "realistic". It's Superman.

I have to confess that i read very little realist literature - there are realist books that i hold very dear and consider personal favourites, but they're not the main body of my reading material.

I don't know how popular the more powerful Superman is. I would say that I think he is very popular with the people that are still reading his adventures at all. The real question is how much of a dropoff in readership there was as he drifted back into being so much more powerful than everybody else.

To me, he's gotten much more powerful in the last handful of years than he had been in the guts of two decades. It'd be interesting in terms of your debate to see what direction the sales have gone.

Ultimately though, i think you're couching the terms of your debate too narrowly - you write like the only change Byrne made was a depowering - that's not true. Putting aside the differences in power levels, the character "Superman" post-crisis is hugely different to the character "Superman" pre-crisis.

Pre-crisis he was a wise and powerful father god, an agent of order and balance as decided by earnest consideration and a fervent desire to do right by the people he lived amongst. This was partly because of his naturally compassionate temprament, and partly because he was weighed down by history and destiny - the legacy of his vanished people was manifested in the universe through him.

Post-crisis he was an ordinary guy from Kansas who just happened to have superhuman powers and felt like he should use them to help people as a result of the innate wholesomness of a midwestern american upbringing.

Now, you can say that you prefer the second character to the first and that's perfectly valid, but completely regardless of each one's relative power levels, you surely can't claim that they're the same character?

[Powerboy]

Superman during the nineties drifted back to his silver age power levels? That was never my impression, though i didn't read him closely during those years... when did it happen, do you reckon? To me, that's a process that's just started happening lately, as in the last two or three years, though i think the seeds were possibly sown a bit in Morrisons JLA...

Well, more accurately, the Silver Age paraphenalia started drifting back in. Maybe that's my impression of the 1990s because I didn't follow him closely then either. When I did look at a Superman comic, it just seemed all the SA stuff had crept back in. Definitely now, when we see him punch someone hard enough to knock them across the solar system, it seems that way.

You say that like realism is the only option... there's no such thing as a Superman story that is "realistic". It's Superman.

Realism in fiction is relative. There's no such thing as a realistic Spider-Man story if we are adhering to the word realism in its none quote marks or absolute sense. The real question is comparative power levels with other characters and when does the character become uninteresting to the reader.

Ultimately though, i think you're couching the terms of your debate too narrowly - you write like the only change Byrne made was a depowering - that's not true. Putting aside the differences in power levels, the character "Superman" post-crisis is hugely different to the character "Superman" pre-crisis.

Pre-crisis he was a wise and powerful father god, an agent of order and balance as decided by earnest consideration and a fervent desire to do right by the people he lived amongst. This was partly because of his naturally compassionate temprament, and partly because he was weighed down by history and destiny - the legacy of his vanished people was manifested in the universe through him.

Post-crisis he was an ordinary guy from Kansas who just happened to have superhuman powers and felt like he should use them to help people as a result of the innate wholesomness of a midwestern american upbringing.

Now, you can say that you prefer the second character to the first and that's perfectly valid, but completely regardless of each one's relative power levels, you surely can't claim that they're the same character?

I personally think its questionable to say that "Pre-COIE" he was a wise and powerful God/ Father figure who did what he did from a sense of destiny. I don't believe those were the motives of the Golden Age Superman as written by Siegal, revisionist history that came later notwithstanding. I think that originally, Superman was a farmboy from Kansas who knew he had great powers and his good American upbringing made him feel he should use his powers to do what good he could do. He sort of knew he had been rocketed here from another planet but didn't even know the word 'Krypton' until well into his career as Superman.

Clearly, the Silver Age Superman is a very different character from that. He is the character you described or evolved into that character. That Superman has many excellent merits. He is the being from a perfect world that shows us that we can potentially be what he is and shows us by example. It really is possible to be that good because we see him doing it right in front of us.

I would say that the Byrne/ Wolfman Superman is an amalgamation of both of them combined with new stuff. Everybody forgets Wolfman but, if memory serves me, he reintroduced some old Superman tactics like flying (though it was leaping in the GA) around with some criminal scaring him into spilling information, tactics from the GA. The Byrne Superman also finds out about his Kryptonian heritage after starting his career as Superman. Its really a combination of both versions of Superman.

Possibly the most profound difference is Superman's reaction to the knowledge of Krypton which in turn is affected by how Krypton is presented. In the GA stories, I think Krypton represented the late 1930s view of science and technology and the future. You know, in fifty years, we'll have flying cars and technology will solve all our problems. People will overcome their darker sides and become near perfect. Drawbacks? What drawbacks? That's exxagerating of course but I suspect it represents a common attitude (maybe not the 'perfect people' part but the rest).

I think Byrne's view of Krypton was a topical one for the 1980s as Siegal's was for the 1930s. By the 1980s, people were thinking, "Hmm, didn't consider the environmental and overpopulation problems and the feelings of being desentisized to the natural world because of all this." In other words, we were beginning to see the drawbacks.

So the more standard Superman always looked to Krypton as an ideal. Humans had great potential, his upbringing proved their potential. But Krypton was the ideal. He can inspire them and they may eventually develop a world and a nature as perfect as Krypton.

The Byrne Superman feels that he never wants humans to develop that sterile, antiseptic world that is a Krypton for the 1980s. This Krypton is a cautionary tale saying there are drawbacks. This is because it is written after almost 50 extra years to see the results, good and bad, of technological advancements.

So, yes, the biggest difference between SA and Byrne is that Byrne's Superman does not see himself as a representative of a perfect heaven. He sees himself as a man with powers and responsibilities to use it for the good. I guess GA Superman is somewhere between.

[niall mc cann]

I personally think its questionable to say that "Pre-COIE" he was a wise and powerful God/ Father figure who did what he did from a sense of destiny. I don't believe those were the motives of the Golden Age Superman as written by Siegal, revisionist history that came later notwithstanding. I think that originally, Superman was a farmboy from Kansas who knew he had great powers and his good American upbringing made him feel he should use his powers to do what good he could do. He sort of knew he had been rocketed here from another planet but didn't even know the word 'Krypton' until well into his career as Superman.

Clearly, the Silver Age Superman is a very different character from that. He is the character you described or evolved into that character. That Superman has many excellent merits. He is the being from a perfect world that shows us that we can potentially be what he is and shows us by example. It really is possible to be that good because we see him doing it right in front of us.

I would say that the Byrne/ Wolfman Superman is an amalgamation of both of them combined with new stuff. Everybody forgets Wolfman but, if memory serves me, he reintroduced some old Superman tactics like flying (though it was leaping in the GA) around with some criminal scaring him into spilling information, tactics from the GA. The Byrne Superman also finds out about his Kryptonian heritage after starting his career as Superman. Its really a combination of both versions of Superman.

Possibly the most profound difference is Superman's reaction to the knowledge of Krypton which in turn is affected by how Krypton is presented. In the GA stories, I think Krypton represented the late 1930s view of science and technology and the future. You know, in fifty years, we'll have flying cars and technology will solve all our problems. People will overcome their darker sides and become near perfect. Drawbacks? What drawbacks? That's exxagerating of course but I suspect it represents a common attitude (maybe not the 'perfect people' part but the rest).

I think Byrne's view of Krypton was a topical one for the 1980s as Siegal's was for the 1930s. By the 1980s, people were thinking, "Hmm, didn't consider the environmental and overpopulation problems and the feelings of being desentisized to the natural world because of all this." In other words, we were beginning to see the drawbacks.

So the more standard Superman always looked to Krypton as an ideal. Humans had great potential, his upbringing proved their potential. But Krypton was the ideal. He can inspire them and they may eventually develop a world and a nature as perfect as Krypton.

The Byrne Superman feels that he never wants humans to develop that sterile, antiseptic world that is a Krypton for the 1980s. This Krypton is a cautionary tale saying there are drawbacks. This is because it is written after almost 50 extra years to see the results, good and bad, of technological advancements.

So, yes, the biggest difference between SA and Byrne is that Byrne's Superman does not see himself as a representative of a perfect heaven. He sees himself as a man with powers and responsibilities to use it for the good. I guess GA Superman is somewhere between.


Yeah, that's fair enough. The fetishisation of technology and the firm belief in engneering a better society are classically golden age ideas (and may i say, betray a certain socialist, even marxist:eek: element of golden age Superman). Byrne's Superman does take a post-cold war cynisism to that very "of-its-time" aesthetic.

However, it seems to me that if that aesthetic had dated, it was not beyond anyone's ability to re-envision that in such a way that it would work for its time, rather than simply saying "no! make it a crazy antiseptic dictatorship!". Byrne has a habit of doing that - that is, completely missing the point. He did something similar to Namor, imo, taking one look at the character and saying "well, he would be great if he wasn't so angry all the time!".

So while it's true to say that there was no single precrisis supes, there were very cool mythological elements that i think over the years became fundamental to how Superman was percieved by the public at large. I genuinely don't see what's so interesting or readable about post-crisis supes. As a character, he's just a nice guy... maybe quite worthy of being a supporting character in the JLA, but hardly the epic force for justice he was before.

[niall mc cann]

i'm sorry, i missed these elements of your reply first time, so i'll quickly answer them here:



Well, more accurately, the Silver Age paraphenalia started drifting back in. Maybe that's my impression of the 1990s because I didn't follow him closely then either. When I did look at a Superman comic, it just seemed all the SA stuff had crept back in. Definitely now, when we see him punch someone hard enough to knock them across the solar system, it seems that way.

i don't really know, mate. I don't know what elements your talking about, so i can't answer. If you mean he got progressively more powerful, that's possible, but i wonder if that's not mirrored in all the other characters... Did Wonder Woman go that way as well? Did J'onn J'onnz? I think they probably did. If realism, as you claim later, is relative, then i doubt there was much change, relatively speaking...

I think the real telling line in there is the fact that though you claim that 90s supes is more appealing to you than Superman pre-Byrne, you still weren't buying his titles regularly.

Realism in fiction is relative. There's no such thing as a realistic Spider-Man story if we are adhering to the word realism in its none quote marks or absolute sense. The real question is comparative power levels with other characters and when does the character become uninteresting to the reader.

well, again, how much stronger Superman is compared to Batman isn't such a big deal to me, once the guys he's fighting are strong enough to challenge him. Look at All-Star Superman - he's powerful enough to shift planets in their orbit (#7) and literally fly into the sun (#1), but the problems and opponents he contends with in that book are still challenges (his strength does him no good against the Ultra-Sphinx in #3, and in #7 he's fighting what basically amounts to a predator planet!). You have to think big to write Superman, or there's no point in writing him, is my feeling.

Depowering him and giving him weaker and less imaginative enemies to compensate is a strange respone to that, to me.

I recall hearing an interview with Neil Gaiman, who was remembering at the time that he was coming up with his concept for Sandman there was a lot of debate about superman's direction. He recalled that he often heard it remarked at the time that if a character was too powerful, then you couldn't write good stories about him/her. Gaiman's response to this was to create a comic were the main character started out basically omnipotent, and comics history was made!

[Powerboy]

So while it's true to say that there was no single precrisis supes, there were very cool mythological elements that i think over the years became fundamental to how Superman was percieved by the public at large. I genuinely don't see what's so interesting or readable about post-crisis supes. As a character, he's just a nice guy... maybe quite worthy of being a supporting character in the JLA, but hardly the epic force for justice he was before.

After my last response, I started thinking about Star Trek, especially the Next Generation, which gained immense popularity for a number of reasons but one of them was its positive view of the future.

It would have been nice if Byrne had taken a new approach that both Earth and Krypton had good qualities and that "Utopia" was in finding the best in both. To some degree, maybe he was into the idea that humans should make their own good future which is very Star Trek. Ahem, except that what started humans on that path in ST was meeting the vulcans and seeing that peace in a world was possible- kind of like finding out about the kryptonians.

I really do like Byrne's Superman. At the time it was being published, I really liked it. Nowadays, there's a bit more ability to see it in the context of its time and I'm also more aware of the mythical aspects of Superman.

[Powerboy]

I think the real telling line in there is the fact that though you claim that 90s supes is more appealing to you than Superman pre-Byrne, you still weren't buying his titles regularly.

I recall hearing an interview with Neil Gaiman, who was remembering at the time that he was coming up with his concept for Sandman there was a lot of debate about superman's direction. He recalled that he often heard it remarked at the time that if a character was too powerful, then you couldn't write good stories about him/her. Gaiman's response to this was to create a comic were the main character started out basically omnipotent, and comics history was made!

I spliced these quotes together because they make a good point. The main reason I drifted away after Byrne and Wolfman left was simply that the quality didn't seem to be there nearly as much. The stories started feeling more generic and unimaginative. It may very well be that Byrne simply came along and revived my interest in him when he seemed uninteresting most of the times I read him in recent years- pre-COIE recent years. I was also familiar with O'Neill's run which involved depowering him and had loved that one. In the last few days, I've seen a number of good stories, mostly Bronze Age ones, where he was unstoppably powerful and still interesting so I suppose it does come down to who is writing him.

[niall mc cann]

After my last response, I started thinking about Star Trek, especially the Next Generation, which gained immense popularity for a number of reasons but one of them was its positive view of the future.

It would have been nice if Byrne had taken a new approach that both Earth and Krypton had good qualities and that "Utopia" was in finding the best in both. To some degree, maybe he was into the idea that humans should make their own good future which is very Star Trek. Ahem, except that what started humans on that path in ST was meeting the vulcans and seeing that peace in a world was possible- kind of like finding out about the kryptonians.

I really do like Byrne's Superman. At the time it was being published, I really liked it. Nowadays, there's a bit more ability to see it in the context of its time and I'm also more aware of the mythical aspects of Superman.

I enjoyed Byrne's Superman too, and i'm sure were i to check it out today, i still would.

I just feel that it's reasonable to call the changes that he made - stripping the character of his explicitly mythological aspects, emphasising a more psychologically realistic aspect, could be reasonably called a "marvelisation".

I accused him of missing the point, and that's maybe harsh, but given Byrne's approach to other heroes (again, i'm thinking of Namor) it's not necessarily wrong. Byrne had an idea of what a "hero" should be, and if Superman didn't fit it, or Namor didn't, well, when he came to write them, Superman gets reimagined as a powerful everyman, and Namor has his personality written away as an "oxygen imbalance". His work on those characters was still readable, despite that, i think.

I spliced these quotes together because they make a good point. The main reason I drifted away after Byrne and Wolfman left was simply that the quality didn't seem to be there nearly as much. The stories started feeling more generic and unimaginative. It may very well be that Byrne simply came along and revived my interest in him when he seemed uninteresting most of the times I read him in recent years- pre-COIE recent years. I was also familiar with O'Neill's run which involved depowering him and had loved that one. In the last few days, I've seen a number of good stories, mostly Bronze Age ones, where he was unstoppably powerful and still interesting so I suppose it does come down to who is writing him.

Well, yeah, that's true of every character, i suppose. It's about the quality of story. Once Byrne left the quality nosedived and didn't recover until recently, i feel. It's left me with very little love for post-crisis supes, but i enjoyed Byrne's run, so you're right, i suppose.

i still believe there's better potential for stories in the mythological incarnation of the character.

[CaptChucky]

I think Superman started becoming Marvelized with Jack Kirby's Fourth World books. I don't think Superman was ever quite the same after those early 1970's issues. Neal Adams also started Marvelizing the key DC character during the same era, especially with all those dramatic covers he drew. John Byrne wasn't the first to change the nature of those characters.

[karasu]

Superman and Jack Kirby? Where?

[karasu]

Superman and Jack Kirby? Where?

[chrismileslord]

It's only Marvelizing in the sense that it isn't writing Superman as a character devoid of any flaws. Which is only something Marvel popularized in regards to superheroes, but hardly anything Marvel has a copyright on.

And that is exactly why I like Marvel more than DC. I don't want my characters to be perfect. I like my flaws.

[CaptChucky]

Superman and Jack Kirby? Where?
Jimmy Olsen #133 and up (in the early 70's.) These stories are still referenced in the DCU. (New Gods, Morgan Edge, etc.)

[itsyaboy]

Personally, I like my Superman powerful and almost infallible. In my opinion that's what made him the superhero's superhero. The more human, flawed, and relatable level should fall on Clark Kent.

As far as Marvel, they seem to over do it. The characters have so many flaws and go through so much drama, it's like reading a cheesy soap opera sometimes. I remember having to stop reading Spider-Man when I was a kid because it was just too depressing. Every other issue he was flunking out, getting crapped on by the public, about to be evicted, break up with his girlfriend, quit being Spider-Man, and pretty much just being a whipping boy for the writers of the Spidey books. Scott Lobdell on X-Men, some of the most boring crap I ever read. It went from action packed to the Real World.

I don't mind Superman being so powerful, because I don't root for the underdog....I root for the hero.

[niall mc cann]

And that is exactly why I like Marvel more than DC. I don't want my characters to be perfect. I like my flaws.

I think there's often too much of an emphasis with the whole "flawed" notion of character. I think more mediocre writers tend to think that if they write a guy who's kind of a dick that's their job done - i'm thinking of certain wolverine stories from the nineties where he'd gone feral; there was nothing in those stories but cliched bloodlust; there was a flawed character at the heart of it, but the story needed more.

Superman's not a flawed character; he's noble, he's heroic, he only wants to do his best for us, but he's not settled, he's not boring. There's a wonderful dichotomy in the heart of his character, and it's how he wrestles with that dichotomy (of staying true to his humanity without forgetting the magnificent heritage of which he is the last lingering remnant) that creates drama in his character.

Wolverine's a great character not because he's flawed, it's because he wrestles with those flaws, that's where the drama comes from. Supes has to wrestle with his issues too; look at All-Star Superman #3 where Lois calls him on his "lies" - pretending to be Clark Kent when he's really Superman, and Supes has to literally go check himself in a mirror; there's a level in his soul where it's clear that he's a man who doesn't know who he is. Figuring that out, for superman or wolverine, that's what creates drama. That's what makes a good story.

[karasu]

Jimmy Olsen #133 and up (in the early 70's.) These stories are still referenced in the DCU. (New Gods, Morgan Edge, etc.)



Man Kirby's superman rocks. He speaks in some serious 70's slang haha.

[Dussan]

Superman's not a flawed character; he's noble, he's heroic, he only wants to do his best for us, but he's not settled, he's not boring. There's a wonderful dichotomy in the heart of his character, and it's how he wrestles with that dichotomy (of staying true to his humanity without forgetting the magnificent heritage of which he is the last lingering remnant) that creates drama in his character.

Wolverine's a great character not because he's flawed, it's because he wrestles with those flaws, that's where the drama comes from. Supes has to wrestle with his issues too; look at All-Star Superman #3 where Lois calls him on his "lies" - pretending to be Clark Kent when he's really Superman, and Supes has to literally go check himself in a mirror; there's a level in his soul where it's clear that he's a man who doesn't know who he is. Figuring that out, for superman or wolverine, that's what creates drama. That's what makes a good story.

DC Animated Universe Superman is the only way to go.

Noble, powerful, HUMAN.

I love how every negatve human emotion or interaction is considered a flaw. Supes was raised by humans, and human behaviour is all he knows.

He should get jealous.
He should get pissed.
He should want revenge
He should feel wrath
He should feel lust.

That the earlier incarnation of Supes before Byrne did not explore these areas made the character flat and pitiful.

[itsyaboy]

DC Animated Universe Superman is the only way to go.

Noble, powerful, HUMAN.

I love how every negatve human emotion or interaction is considered a flaw. Supes was raised by humans, and human behaviour is all he knows.

He should get jealous.
He should get pissed.
He should want revenge
He should feel wrath
He should feel lust.

That the earlier incarnation of Supes before Byrne did not explore these areas made the character flat and pitiful.

I thought JLU Superman was a bit of an ass sometimes, but that's me.

Anyway, if Supes acted on all those feelings you mentioned, he'd be no different than any Wildstorm character and we know most of them are jerks.

I don't see what the big deal is about Superman being above those kind of emotions. Noble heroes don't act out of lust, revenge, wrath, etc.

[Dussan]

I thought JLU Superman was a bit of an ass sometimes, but that's me.

Anyway, if Supes acted on all those feelings you mentioned, he'd be no different than any Wildstorm character and we know most of them are jerks.

I don't see what the big deal is about Superman being above those kind of emotions. Noble heroes don't act out of lust, revenge, wrath, etc.

Because if he feels and at least acknowledges them then I can relate. If he doesn't then I think of him as a overbearing boring prude.

He should have the hots for or had them for Wonder Woman. Why not, she is almost as strong as he is, and he should want to dive in on that. But nooo, we get some weird spiel about her being too glorious for his infatuation.

He should be ticked off with Luthor when he kills people cause they are in his way. He should be thinking about stomping on that clowns neck.

It's this elevation of absolute divinity and sainthood that maks Supes boring and predictable. Make him a noble stoic figure, with no flaws you know exactly how he will react to almost every situation. Boring.

When you throw a human morality into the mix with soeone with powers like that then you get some variety, some excitement. Reason why everyone identifies with Spidey is that he is noble and all that, but he has sometimes foolishly acted on those "base" human emotions of his and he has always tried to do better. SPidey could have all of Supes powers and more and the character would still work cause he isn't a freakin machine.

[Froggy]

Man Kirby's superman rocks. He speaks in some serious 70's slang haha.

I know.......I wlike making a diff voice for him when i read those issues :

[DaeJi]

I think Superman should be presented differently in different books. Outside the core Superman titles and Batman and Wonder Woman, Superman should come off as flawless, perfection, powerful, the height of what a hero should be. But in his own books, and the books of the heroes closest to him, we should see his flaws, his weaknesses and his follies. We all have them, and seeing them in our characters allows up to invest emotional in them.

[3D Master]

Superman noble and good pre-crisis? www.superdickery.com I don't think so.

I think these two illustrate it the best:

http://www.superdickery.com/dick/17.html

http://www.superdickery.com/dick/9.html

[3D Master]

Superman noble and good pre-crisis? www.superdickery.com I don't think so.

I think these two illustrate it the best:

http://www.superdickery.com/dick/17.html

http://www.superdickery.com/dick/9.html

[niall mc cann]

DC Animated Universe Superman is the only way to go.

Noble, powerful, HUMAN.

I love how every negatve human emotion or interaction is considered a flaw. Supes was raised by humans, and human behaviour is all he knows.

He should get jealous.
He should get pissed.
He should want revenge
He should feel wrath
He should feel lust.

That the earlier incarnation of Supes before Byrne did not explore these areas made the character flat and pitiful.

Superman is probably my least favourite of DC's animated toons. I love their Batman, i love their Teen Titans. Superman... it was just one more adventure cartoon, not that remarkable or interesting.

If a chimp is raised by humans, it doesn't make it human. That's a fact, it's been tried.

Superman was raised amongst us, he understands us and loves us, and he even identifies with us... on some level he considers himself one of us.

There are other levels to his character, though. And on those levels, he's not like us at all. And that's cool. There's stories in that kind of inner conflict. the idea of internal forces pulling in different directions is a very human experience, no? i can certainly relate to that. If you can't, well... i'm jealous, i suppose. :D

As opposed to depowering him, chopping out a huge element of the character and declaring it as useless, and turning him into one more Spider-man clone, like there's not enough out there.

[Dussan]

Superman is probably my least favourite of DC's animated toons. I love their Batman, i love their Teen Titans. Superman... it was just one more adventure cartoon, not that remarkable or interesting.

If a chimp is raised by humans, it doesn't make it human. That's a fact, it's been tried.

Superman was raised amongst us, he understands us and loves us, and he even identifies with us... on some level he considers himself one of us.

There are other levels to his character, though. And on those levels, he's not like us at all. And that's cool. There's stories in that kind of inner conflict. the idea of internal forces pulling in different directions is a very human experience, no? i can certainly relate to that. If you can't, well... i'm jealous, i suppose. :D

As opposed to depowering him, chopping out a huge element of the character and declaring it as useless, and turning him into one more Spider-man clone, like there's not enough out there.

My suggestion isn't to depower him. My reasons for not really caring about a Superman comic is his overall characterization, from the very beginning.

I too like how noble and stoic Supes is. I love his character in the movies, and I loved him in Justice League (animated) because he was raised with human values and morals and is trying his best to fit in. But in his fight with Darkseid he was going to kill him but was stopped because he knew Darkseid would never stop trying to destroy the world.

Almost every Superman analogue created by others, The Samaritan from Astro City, Alan Moore's Supreme, Hyperion from Squadron Supreme have shown the duality that Superman faces as being someone not of this world trying to fit. It's like writers are afraid they will break the Superman character if they go too far. Another thing Marvel has been willing to do is take chances with their characters that DC never would.

[niall mc cann]

My suggestion isn't to depower him. My reasons for not really caring about a Superman comic is his overall characterization, from the very beginning.

I too like how noble and stoic Supes is. I love his character in the movies, and I loved him in Justice League (animated) because he was raised with human values and morals and is trying his best to fit in. But in his fight with Darkseid he was going to kill him but was stopped because he knew Darkseid would never stop trying to destroy the world.

Almost every Superman analogue created by others, The Samaritan from Astro City, Alan Moore's Supreme, Hyperion from Squadron Supreme have shown the duality that Superman faces as being someone not of this world trying to fit. It's like writers are afraid they will break the Superman character if they go too far. Another thing Marvel has been willing to do is take chances with their characters that DC never would.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here... i mean, i agree with you, but that seems different to what you were saying before, so i don't know what to say.

I understood from your first post that you wanted superman experiencing lust, revenge, wrath, a sexual desire for wonder woman... none of which would really be difficult for Supes as i understand him to deal with. he knows the difference between right and wrong, and he wouldn't give in to any of those urges. He's superman.

His real weakness is the duality you talk about - he doesn't know who he is, when it comes down to it. I agree, without that character trait he'd be boring, but thats a trait that Superman always had until the byrne reinvention. Byrne was the one who said, "all right, enough of that, he's human now, and krypton was a terrible place that he's glad to be rid of". Which seems the opposite to what you're saying now, to me.:confused:

[moviewizard]

I have never been a huge fan of Marvel they always kill off a superhero and then bring them back ina a un-realalistic way

[erzan]

Because if he feels and at least acknowledges them then I can relate. If he doesn't then I think of him as a overbearing boring prude.

He should have the hots for or had them for Wonder Woman. Why not, she is almost as strong as he is, and he should want to dive in on that. But nooo, we get some weird spiel about her being too glorious for his infatuation.

He should be ticked off with Luthor when he kills people cause they are in his way. He should be thinking about stomping on that clowns neck.

It's this elevation of absolute divinity and sainthood that maks Supes boring and predictable. Make him a noble stoic figure, with no flaws you know exactly how he will react to almost every situation. Boring.

When you throw a human morality into the mix with soeone with powers like that then you get some variety, some excitement. Reason why everyone identifies with Spidey is that he is noble and all that, but he has sometimes foolishly acted on those "base" human emotions of his and he has always tried to do better. SPidey could have all of Supes powers and more and the character would still work cause he isn't a freakin machine. And that is what so much people i know hate superman for. Being too perfect. Even i, a long life Superman fan can understand the reasons behind finding him a boring character, because sadly i am slowly becoming bored of the 'noble, god, above human emotions, unrelateable Superman'

I am starting to find other Superheroes more interesting because of the lack of 'i am perfect' aura. I want Heroes i can relate too. Simple.

[3D Master]

I have never been a huge fan of Marvel they always kill off a superhero and then bring them back ina a un-realalistic way

Dang, hell! They really DID Marvelize Superman! :p

[yourverysilly]

The fundamental difference that I can see between DC and Marvel is that DC heroes are heroes you can look up to, whereas Marvel heroes are heroes that you might one day be...


I like that. I think it's a good analyzation. it does make me wonder which I'd rather have...than I remember which one has that dude with the bat on his chest, and the wondering stops.

[King Krypton]

And that is what so much people i know hate superman for. Being too perfect. Even i, a long life Superman fan can understand the reasons behind finding him a boring character, because sadly i am slowly becoming bored of the 'noble, god, above human emotions, unrelateable Superman'

I am starting to find other Superheroes more interesting because of the lack of 'i am perfect' aura. I want Heroes i can relate too. Simple.

But for 90% of the Iron Age, we had the "relatable" Superman you're demanding. A guy who took spousal abuse for years on end and never once stood up for himself. A guy eaten alive by contant insecurity and self-doubt. A guy who, for all his powers, considered himself a failure and was even regarded as such by his own peers ("the last time you inspired anyone was when you died"). He was basically a poor man's Spider-Man in a cape. How much more "relatable" does he have to get? Normal people are weak-willed and spineless. That doesn't mean Superman should be.

Superman should NOT be "relatable." We should feel for him when he feels aienated from hunaity due to his dual heritage, we should feel for him when his heart's broken or when he suffers setbacks, but "relate" to him? Sorry, that's not Superman. Been there, done that, seen how damaging it is, don't want it anywhere near the series ever again.

[chriskenny]

While King Krypton might be overstating his case a tad, I do agree with him in spirit.

One should aspire to be like Superman. One shouldn't want Superman to be like us.

I think the thing that John Byrne really took away from the mythos, the thing that truly "Marvel-ized" him, was making Clark Kent the real person. Making him like a real human being who happened to have powers undercut a lot of the mystique and appealing qualities of the mythos. Superman should be the person, Clark Kent is the mask. Now, some people would say that this keeps you from being connected to the character, but I don't think so. Just look at Superman: The Movie to see how sympathetic the character can be by embracing the idea that Clark Kent was a fabrication. It made him unique; the idea that this lonely god disguised among men was seeking some kind of sense of belonging in a world he could conquer in a matter of hours seems like a Greek tragedy. It really works.

Then, as King Krypton said, Byrne kind of made forced Clark Kent into the Peter Parker mold. But Peter Parker, the psychologically realistic kid who happened to wear a mask, was the anti-Clark Kent. He REALLY was a nerdy, picked on kid who gained powers and struggled with being a hero. His drama, his uniqueness, was being a strange inversion of Superman. What if Superman was as geeky and downtrodden as he pretended to be when he was Clark Kent? That conciet holds it together.

But Byrne did something weird. He made Clark kind of a smooth operator. When we first see him he is the star of the football team. He is dating Lana Lang, who is madly in love with him. Even when he moves into the Daily Planet, it isn't long before he is dating Betty Brant--er, I mean Cat Grant. Clark Kent isn't a nerd-- he is a successful novelist, a lady's man, and a very well-adjusted guy. And this is who he is. Oh, and the concept of him being alone-well, he can always talk to his seemingly immortal Rockwellian guardians whenever he feels the itch.

So, where is the drama in that? Where is the pathos? It just kind of sucked all the interesting elements out of Superman and substituted them with elements that worked on other characters. But what works effectively on some characters doesn't work well on others.

The limitations on powers isn't the main "Marvel-ization" of Superman. To be honest, that is the least of it. I kind of like his power levels in the Bruce Timm cartoon, to be honest. It adds more drama to physical conflicts and stuff like that. However, where they really went astray is in making Clark Kent part of the Peter Parker mold of secret identities. Prior to that Clark Kent was in a class all his own as a secret identity--an identity that was human but phony, whereas the costumed superhero was the true persona of the character.

All-Star Superman demonstrates how that view of Superman still has juice left in it. It demonstrates how unique and wonderdul Superman can be when you embrace what differentiates him from other heroes and not what makes him similar.

[Ult. Fireboy]

Yeah, as people had said, Sentry is supposedly the Marvelized Version of Superman, but I don't think that he is that powerful. I think that Superman could seriously beat up Sentry.

600th Post!!!:D :D :D

[kdoggz]

I personally only liked the entire "Superman" concept during the period just subsequent to his ressurection when his powers were energy-based. I thought he had the coolest outfit, powerset, and like any very powerful being requires, an accessible weakness. I thought that he was most "Marvelized" then, when his powers followed a thematic logic, rather than just attaching the prefix "super" to any verb he was currrently executing. I loved the blue "energy" superman. I've always hated the man of steel simply because his iconic stature renders him invincible, and indispensible to the DC universe. His entire concept is absurd; he simply represents the over-developed superiority complex intrinsic to the American psyche that was critical during the Post-WWI/Depression/WWII years (minus the deep-seated paranoia that drove it). Anyway, that was and will always be my favorite incarnation of Superman. Any comments, thoughts, whatever?:cool:

[marshal99]

What exactly is a "marvelized" superman ? Does it mean that he would regularly be beaten up by Venom ? ;)

http://pics.livejournal.com/wal_lace/pic/000drg6t

[Superman Priime]

But for 90% of the Iron Age, we had the "relatable" Superman you're demanding. A guy who took spousal abuse for years on end and never once stood up for himself. A guy eaten alive by contant insecurity and self-doubt. A guy who, for all his powers, considered himself a failure and was even regarded as such by his own peers ("the last time you inspired anyone was when you died"). He was basically a poor man's Spider-Man in a cape. How much more "relatable" does he have to get? Normal people are weak-willed and spineless. That doesn't mean Superman should be.

Superman should NOT be "relatable." We should feel for him when he feels aienated from hunaity due to his dual heritage, we should feel for him when his heart's broken or when he suffers setbacks, but "relate" to him? Sorry, that's not Superman. Been there, done that, seen how damaging it is, don't want it anywhere near the series ever again.


Well said, King.

[Dr. Drake Ramoray]

I like the current Superman, where Clark is who he is, and Superman is what he can do. Realisticly, just how mournful should Clark be about Krypton? By virtue of time dialation, the planet has been gone for a few thousand years, he has no real memories of his parents or the world. What's so bad about the Kents being alive? Why make him an orphan twice over? The tragic orphan schtick is Bruce's thing, why have Clark horn in on it? Hell, I'm in my mid forties, somewhat older than Clark is in the current continuity, both of my parents are still alive.

And I don't really see Superman as a victim of spousal abuse so much as I see Clark and Lois' relationship is a victim of writer abuse.

And as someone mentioned before, the whole power levels and Clark / Kal-El / Superman identity thing was kind of in a state of flux before the '85-'86 Crisis and Byrne's subsequent re-boot.

I think some really big things are in store for Superman over the next couple of years, and I'm really looking forward to them.

[smoothjokes]

What exactly is a "marvelized" superman ? Does it mean that he would regularly be beaten up by Venom ? ;)

http://pics.livejournal.com/wal_lace/pic/000drg6t

:eek: HOLY BALONEY, BATMAN!