All-Star Superman VS post-BND Amazing Spider-Man

[RDMacQ]

Yeah, but as a consumer I wouldn't even think about buying a purple Hulk rip-off.
I guess you can argue that Supreme was a rip-off, even under Moore's tenure, but it was written exceedingly well, and used alot of interesting techniques like the faux retro stories drawn by Rick Veitch, and also was using a version of the original inspiration that had been abandoned by DC (in favor of Byrne's interpretation).

You would think that after someone like Alan Moore breathed new life into his characters, that Liefeld would try to do something more respectable in order to increase readership.

Sadly, and I know that I am probably in the minority here, but I do regard Alan Moore's work on Supreme as a Superman rip-off. YES, I know, its well written and very "meta" but I regard it as more an interesting experiment rather than an engaging story. A lot of work was done to make Supreme more of a Superman analogue, but I was completely disconnected from the character of Ethan Crane. I know he was supposed to be a stand-in for Clark Kent, but I wasn't all that enthralled with the character of Clark Kent to begin with. And Ethan Crane basically just became an echo of an already established character.

I never got why Supreme would be interested in Diane Dane, aside from the fact that Superman was interested in Lois Lane and that's who they were standing in for. The same for Darius Dax, as a stand in for Lex Luthor. Yes, it was admirable that Alan Moore was able to tweak Superman's mythos to the character of Supreme and highlight some of the forgotten aspects of the character of Superman that had been forgotten over the years. But I felt that in the end that it was actually a disservice to the character of Supreme.

The fact of the matter is Supreme DID have a history beforehand. It may not have been a good one, but it was his own history, with his own characters and his own supporting cast. All of that was done away with, for better or for worse, to basically make Supreme into a secondary Superman. But his character didn't all of a sudden become more interesting or engaging. It was a fascinating experiment, but lacking in heart and emotion for a lack of a better term. Someone far more bitter would say that "it takes real talent to take a partial rip-off of Superman and turn him into a complete rip-off." But I think a better assessment would be that Alan Moore's tenure on the book was an intriguing effort on his part but did not succeed in making the audience more connected to the character and his world, and it primarily succeeded on the strength of Alan Moore's talent and ability.

[TROUBLEZ]

I know he was supposed to be a stand-in for Clark Kent, but I wasn't all that enthralled with the character of Clark Kent to begin with. And Ethan Crane basically just became an echo of an already established character.

Someone far more bitter would say that "it takes real talent to take a partial rip-off of Superman and turn him into a complete rip-off." But I think a better assessment would be that Alan Moore's tenure on the book was an intriguing effort on his part but did not succeed in making the audience more connected to the character and his world, and it primarily succeeded on the strength of Alan Moore's talent and ability.

I think most of your criticisms are on point, like with the examples of the Crane identity and his attraction to Diana Dane.

However, I found the character of Supreme and his supporting cast, far more interesting and likable than anything DC was doing then, or now. Same goes for Liefeld.

I had read Supreme on and off before Moore's run and I can't even remember anything good about the book and it's spin-offs. Even Surpeme's origin I believed changed before Moore came on.

The time paradoxes were very fun, as well as "idea space," the Time Tower and how it works, the ending that ties into the you-know-what. It was the most fun I've had reading a comic book.
I grew up reading ultra violent Image comics that consisted of nice art but forgettable stories, so his take was a breath of fresh air.

It's also interesting that Morrison did his Superman series in the same vein as Supreme, being that it embraces the Silver Age fantasy elements and light heartedness of the original Superman mythos.

Given Liefelds record, I really don't believe SMASH is anywhere near as inventive, or enjoyable a comic as Moore's take on the characters.

[RDMacQ]

I think most of your criticisms are on point, like with the examples of the Crane identity and his attraction to Diana Dane.

However, I found the character of Supreme and his supporting cast, far more interesting and likable than anything DC was doing then, or now. Same goes for Liefeld.

I had read Supreme on and off before Moore's run and I can't even remember anything good about the book and it's spin-offs. Even Surpeme's origin I believed changed before Moore came on.

The time paradoxes were very fun, as well as "idea space," the Time Tower and how it works, the ending that ties into the you-know-what. It was the most fun I've had reading a comic book.
I grew up reading ultra violent Image comics that consisted of nice art but forgettable stories, so his take was a breath of fresh air.

It's also interesting that Morrison did his Superman series in the same vein as Supreme, being that it embraces the Silver Age fantasy elements and light heartedness of the original Superman mythos.

Given Liefelds record, I really don't believe SMASH is anywhere near as inventive, or enjoyable a comic as Moore's take on the characters.

It was an interesting read, and it was a breath of fresh air at the time that embraced and celebrated silver age traits, where most books were still trying to reinvent the wheel with Heroes Reborn/ Return or the post Zero Hour DC landscape. You brought up a good point that for someone like you that grew up reading the Image comics (which emphasized style over substance for the most part) Alan Moore's work on Supreme would be almost a revelation. And anything that gets readers to appreciate older comics and not dismiss them as irrelevant is pretty good in my book. I just feel that the character of Supreme would have been better serviced had Alan Moore crafted a new history from him using the elements he had available, rather than discard them and basically copy and paste another hero's history onto Supreme.

As for Grant Morrisons' All Star Superman, the thing with that is is that it is not just an updating of the Silver Age. Sure, it embraces the fun and spirit of the silver age Superman comics, but it also adapts aspects from all corners of Superman's history into its tale. Even Morrison admits it. He said in an interview on Newsarama that he agreed with John Byrne in not having Superman be Superboy earlier on in his life, and that if he had the time and could use Braniac he would use the Superman: The Animated Series version that had his origins on Krypton. And lets not forget the additions that Morrison himself added, like making Jimmy Olsen a columnist, or the Chronovore. It wasn't just an updating of the Silver Age tales in a new age, it was a celebration of all things that made Superman great over the years and did not ignore everything after 1985.

And to bring this point AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllll the way back home, this is what is the main problem with the Spider-Man books at this time, in that the creative forces have tried to simply reestablish a previous status quo from twenty years ago under the auspices that because it worked before it should work again to the same effect. In doing so they seemingly disregard every story from the past twenty years, except those with such major impact. Venom is too popular a character to ignore, and the have plans for Norman Osborn so those events can't be ignored. Instead of simply throwing everything out the window that didn't conform to their plans, Marvel should have taken the All Star Superman approach and embrace every aspect of Spider-Man's history, not just the stuff from before 1987.

[Mister Mets]

It was an interesting read, and it was a breath of fresh air at the time that embraced and celebrated silver age traits, where most books were still trying to reinvent the wheel with Heroes Reborn/ Return or the post Zero Hour DC landscape. You brought up a good point that for someone like you that grew up reading the Image comics (which emphasized style over substance for the most part) Alan Moore's work on Supreme would be almost a revelation. And anything that gets readers to appreciate older comics and not dismiss them as irrelevant is pretty good in my book. I just feel that the character of Supreme would have been better serviced had Alan Moore crafted a new history from him using the elements he had available, rather than discard them and basically copy and paste another hero's history onto Supreme.

As for Grant Morrisons' All Star Superman, the thing with that is is that it is not just an updating of the Silver Age. Sure, it embraces the fun and spirit of the silver age Superman comics, but it also adapts aspects from all corners of Superman's history into its tale. Even Morrison admits it. He said in an interview on Newsarama that he agreed with John Byrne in not having Superman be Superboy earlier on in his life, and that if he had the time and could use Braniac he would use the Superman: The Animated Series version that had his origins on Krypton. And lets not forget the additions that Morrison himself added, like making Jimmy Olsen a columnist, or the Chronovore. It wasn't just an updating of the Silver Age tales in a new age, it was a celebration of all things that made Superman great over the years and did not ignore everything after 1985.

And to bring this point AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllll the way back home, this is what is the main problem with the Spider-Man books at this time, in that the creative forces have tried to simply reestablish a previous status quo from twenty years ago under the auspices that because it worked before it should work again to the same effect. In doing so they seemingly disregard every story from the past twenty years, except those with such major impact. Venom is too popular a character to ignore, and the have plans for Norman Osborn so those events can't be ignored. Instead of simply throwing everything out the window that didn't conform to their plans, Marvel should have taken the All Star Superman approach and embrace every aspect of Spider-Man's history, not just the stuff from before 1987.

All-Star Superman didn't embrace every aspect of Superman's continuity, just the stuff Morrison wanted to use (for example, it doesn't feature Superman married to Lois Lane, or mention Lex Luthor's daughter.)

In that regard, Amazing Spider-Man is very close to All-Star Superman. It allows the writers to use whatever elements they want from the past and ignore the rest.

For all the claims that Amazing Spider-Man has regressed to the 70s, 80s or 60s, the writers have used more recent developments, including the resurrected Norman Osborn, the Mac Gargan Venom, Spider-Man's involvement in the Avengers and Charlie Wiederman (at least in passing.)

[RDMacQ]

All-Star Superman didn't embrace every aspect of Superman's continuity, just the stuff Morrison wanted to use (for example, it doesn't feature Superman married to Lois Lane, or mention Lex Luthor's daughter.)

In that regard, Amazing Spider-Man is very close to All-Star Superman. It allows the writers to use whatever elements they want from the past and ignore the rest.

For all the claims that Amazing Spider-Man has regressed to the 70s, 80s or 60s, the writers have used more recent developments, including the resurrected Norman Osborn, the Mac Gargan Venom, Spider-Man's involvement in the Avengers and Charlie Wiederman (at least in passing.)

(Loud whistle blowing)

WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! Back up there. I'm calling a foul here Mets, raise the flag. Amazing Spider-Man is in NO WAY close to All Star Superman. Not in quality. Not in intent. Not in execution. Not even in alliteration.

All Star Superman had Morrison cherry pick the best elements of all of Superman's history to create something new. OMD and BND regressed Spider-Man back twenty years, putting Spider-Man back in a previous status quo that seemingly ignores everything past 1980. Sure, things like Norman Osborn and Venom are used, but these are very popular characters that have impact in other books. Getting rid of things like Osborn's resurrection, Venom's introduction, Spidey's involvement in the Avengers, and other would create a lot of current continuity problems for other Marvel books.

If AMZ WAS a celebration of all things Spider-Man, then more than just a couple of popular events from the past twenty years would be embraced. Given the information we have at hand, AMZ is less of a celebration and more of a regression trying to repeat past success rather than try something new and forge ahead.

[Alan2099]

Sure, things like Norman Osborn and Venom are used, but these are very popular characters that have impact in other books. Getting rid of things like Osborn's resurrection, Venom's introduction, Spidey's involvement in the Avengers, and other would create a lot of current continuity problems for other Marvel books.

So basically NOT the status qou it was 20 years ago.

[RDMacQ]

So basically NOT the status qou it was 20 years ago.

Hey, if they could get away with wiping away both Venom and Norman Osborn and completely resetting Spider-Man back to the 70's I wouldn't be surprised if some at Marvel would be willing to do it. But like I pointed out, Norman Osborn's got too many ties to other books at this point, and Venom is too popular a character to completely abolish. Again, this may be a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. They may want to keep certain elements from the past twenty years because of their popularity, but still want to wind things back to a specific point and ignore everything past a certain point.

[Mister Mets]

(Loud whistle blowing)

WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! Back up there. I'm calling a foul here Mets, raise the flag. Amazing Spider-Man is in NO WAY close to All Star Superman. Not in quality. Not in intent. Not in execution. Not even in alliteration.

All Star Superman had Morrison cherry pick the best elements of all of Superman's history to create something new. OMD and BND regressed Spider-Man back twenty years, putting Spider-Man back in a previous status quo that seemingly ignores everything past 1980. Sure, things like Norman Osborn and Venom are used, but these are very popular characters that have impact in other books. Getting rid of things like Osborn's resurrection, Venom's introduction, Spidey's involvement in the Avengers, and other would create a lot of current continuity problems for other Marvel books.

If AMZ WAS a celebration of all things Spider-Man, then more than just a couple of popular events from the past twenty years would be embraced. Given the information we have at hand, AMZ is less of a celebration and more of a regression trying to repeat past success rather than try something new and forge ahead.

I'm not the first one to make the argument that the Brand New Day Spider-Man is essentially an All-Star Superman type approach to Spider-Man (at least looking at the first ten issues of All-Star Superman.) The essential approach of ASS (what an unfortunate acroynm) was "What if Crisis of Infinite Earths never happened?" The essential approach of the current Amazing Spider-Man seems to be "What if the writers had always used the illusion of change approach to Spider-Man?"

All-Star Superman is one of my favorite comics ever, and I agree that it's on a different level in quality from the current Spider-Man run (or any recent Spider-Man run, since Stern was on ASM.)

Has All-Star Superman used more than a couple of elements from the Superman comics from the last twenty years? There was Doomsday and references to DC One Million (a story Morrison wrote) and what else?

[Mister Mets]

Hey, if they could get away with wiping away both Venom and Norman Osborn and completely resetting Spider-Man back to the 70's I wouldn't be surprised if some at Marvel would be willing to do it. But like I pointed out, Norman Osborn's got too many ties to other books at this point, and Venom is too popular a character to completely abolish. Again, this may be a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. They may want to keep certain elements from the past twenty years because of their popularity, but still want to wind things back to a specific point and ignore everything past a certain point.

What has Marvel wanted to get rid of, aside from the marriage?

[RDMacQ]

What has Marvel wanted to get rid of, aside from the marriage?

The marriage in and of itself is big enough. It affects all aspects of Spider-Man's life from the past twenty years, big or small. It can't just be "overlooked" like Jimmy Olsen knowing Superman's secret ID in the DC books hoping it will go away. And treating it like would is just plain insulting to the intelligence to the reading audience. Like I said, given the evidence we have available, it looks as if Marvel was trying to do too much with too little effort, or simply expected their reading audience to just go along with what they wanted and not ask too many questions. That way Marvel could keep aspects like Venom who was still a popular and memorable villain, and Norman Osborn's resurrection which was affecting a lot of other books outside the Spider-titles. Again, based on what we know so far.

[Alan2099]

It affects all aspects of Spider-Man's life from the past twenty years, big or small.

Juding from various threads we've had, I've seen suprisingly little that absolultely had to have Spider-man married to make sense, and out of those few things, several of them are things that probably should be forgotten anyway.

And treating it like would is just plain insulting to the intelligence to the reading audience.

I'm not insulted at all.

That way Marvel could keep aspects like Venom who was still a popular and memorable villain, and Norman Osborn's resurrection which was affecting a lot of other books outside the Spider-titles. Again, based on what we know so far.

I'm still not getting what point you have here. What makes you think for a second that they want to get rid of Venom or Norman at all? I mean they recently repowered Venom for crying out loud. That doesn't sound like a character they want to go away.

They changed the marriage and got rid of how scrwed up they messed up his secret identity, and everybody was guessing how they'd fix thaat one since they announced they were revealing it.

What suggests to you that they want everything back like it was?

[RDMacQ]

Juding from various threads we've had, I've seen suprisingly little that absolultely had to have Spider-man married to make sense, and out of those few things, several of them are things that probably should be forgotten anyway.

And after what I've seen of the Spider-Man comics of the past year, surprisingly little of what was done had to have Spider-Man be single in order to make sense. And in many ways the stories could have been improved if Spider-Man was still married.

I'm not insulted at all.

"Well, that's just super." to quote Reverend Lovejoy.

I'm still not getting what point you have here. What makes you think for a second that they want to get rid of Venom or Norman at all? I mean they recently repowered Venom for crying out loud. That doesn't sound like a character they want to go away.

They changed the marriage and got rid of how scrwed up they messed up his secret identity, and everybody was guessing how they'd fix thaat one since they announced they were revealing it.

What suggests to you that they want everything back like it was?

Okay, now here we go.

I don't think that they wanted to get rid of Norman or Venom. Quite the opposite in fact. However, both Norman and Venom have very close ties to Spider-Man's history in the past 20 years- Venom himself being a creation of the post marriage period and Norman being resurrected at the end of the Clone Saga. So you have these very popular characters that either came into prominence in the past twenty years or were resurrected in that time as well. At the same time, Marvel wanted to get rid of something that was a major aspect of the history of Spider-Man's life in the past twenty years but did not want it to affect continuity too much which is in and of itself an almost impossible task. It seemed like Marvel wanted to abolish pretty much a lot of the past twenty years, but cherry pick things here and there that it liked and not have it be a big deal.

What makes me think that they wanted to regress things back to the status quo of the seventies and early eighties, Marvel deliberately made things darker and more depressing for Spider-Man right before OMD. I would argue under the assumption that people would be so happy to get rid of such a depressing turn of events that they would simply accept anything to get rid of them, like getting rid of the marriage and taking things back twenty years.

And I do think that there would be some people who would be happy if Spider-Man could be completely regressed to his college days, or at the very least be in a very similar position to his days as being written by Roger Stern under the assumption that Spider-Man would be magically better if that was his status quo. However, characters like Venom or Norman Osborn are obstacles to this tactic as they were not around in those days. It seems like wanting to have it both ways- there is a desire to reset things back to an earlier status quo but keep the modern additions to the mythos like Venom or a resurrected Osborn. That was basically the goal for John Byrne's and Howard Mackie's run on Spider-Man.

And on a side note, HORRAY! MY FIRST NEW THREAD DRIFT OF THE YEAR! Five more thread drifts and I get to be guest moderator for a day, right Mets?

[Patrick Hultquist]

The funny thing about this regression - taking it back to the status quo of ASM ~150 - 289(?), is there were plenty of clunkers written in that time. I'm sure even Uncle Rog could admit to one. Maybe. (Not trying to tick him off, just trying to make a point.) The point is, the status quo at the time didn't prevent crap coming out. (Big Wheel? Hypno Hustler? Really? Sheesh.) I don't understand why bringing back that status quo, as opposed to a Brand New Direction wasn't explored. Inventive storytelling is what the discerning customer deserves. Especially at $3.99 an issue. Double sheesh.

[Mister Mets]

The funny thing about this regression - taking it back to the status quo of ASM ~150 - 289(?), is there were plenty of clunkers written in that time. I'm sure even Uncle Rog could admit to one. Maybe. (Not trying to tick him off, just trying to make a point.) The point is, the status quo at the time didn't prevent crap coming out. (Big Wheel? Hypno Hustler? Really? Sheesh.) I don't understand why bringing back that status quo, as opposed to a Brand New Direction wasn't explored. Inventive storytelling is what the discerning customer deserves. Especially at $3.99 an issue. Double sheesh.

First, the book's $2.99 an issue. With the current schedule, it will likely be the last of the Marvel titles to make the leap to $3.99 a pop.

While there were some clunkers with the single Spider-Man, those still compare favorably to the worst comics published with the married Spider-Man (the worst of the Clone Saga, the worst of Howard Mackie's Spider-Man, "The Other".) Granted, I think it's better to compare the best of one to the best of the other, an argument that still doesn't favor the married Spider-Man (although there was some good stuff in the period.)

While writing All-Star Superman, I'm certain Morrison was aware that there was some sub-par material produced with the Pre-Crisis Superman, just as there was some great material with the Post-Crisis Superman. That didn't prevent him from writing what may be the best superhero story published while I've been reading comics.

But what exactly do you mean by Brand New Direction? Because at the moment, we're looking at a binary choice: a married Spider-Man, or a bachelor Spider-Man. Were you referring to divorce, Peter Parker being a widower, Peter Parker and Mary Jane having kids, or something else?

[Mister Mets]

And after what I've seen of the Spider-Man comics of the past year, surprisingly little of what was done had to have Spider-Man be single in order to make sense. And in many ways the stories could have been improved if Spider-Man was still married.

I think Mary Jane's presence would have caused the stories to occur differently. To suggest otherwise might indicate that she adds nothing as a character.

"Well, that's just super." to quote Reverend Lovejoy.

It is, isn't it? A guy's able to accept that the majority of stories with a married Spider-Man could have occurred almost the same if the stories featured Peter and Mary Jane in a committed monogamous relationship.

Thus, Peter Parker's girlfriend was scared in their apartment by Venom.
He was watching a Hugh Grant film with his girlfriend when he saw an emergency that led to his joining the New Avengers.
Peter's girlfriend Mary Jane was with Normie, heading towards a building wired with explosives, before Harry decided to save the two.

It's fairly easy to wrap your head around, the same way the Lee/ Romita issue in which Flash Thompson gets his draft card is still in continuity, even though he now had to enlist in the military.

Okay, now here we go.

I don't think that they wanted to get rid of Norman or Venom. Quite the opposite in fact. However, both Norman and Venom have very close ties to Spider-Man's history in the past 20 years- Venom himself being a creation of the post marriage period and Norman being resurrected at the end of the Clone Saga. So you have these very popular characters that either came into prominence in the past twenty years or were resurrected in that time as well. At the same time, Marvel wanted to get rid of something that was a major aspect of the history of Spider-Man's life in the past twenty years but did not want it to affect continuity too much which is in and of itself an almost impossible task. It seemed like Marvel wanted to abolish pretty much a lot of the past twenty years, but cherry pick things here and there that it liked and not have it be a big deal.

What makes me think that they wanted to regress things back to the status quo of the seventies and early eighties, Marvel deliberately made things darker and more depressing for Spider-Man right before OMD. I would argue under the assumption that people would be so happy to get rid of such a depressing turn of events that they would simply accept anything to get rid of them, like getting rid of the marriage and taking things back twenty years.

And I do think that there would be some people who would be happy if Spider-Man could be completely regressed to his college days, or at the very least be in a very similar position to his days as being written by Roger Stern under the assumption that Spider-Man would be magically better if that was his status quo. However, characters like Venom or Norman Osborn are obstacles to this tactic as they were not around in those days. It seems like wanting to have it both ways- there is a desire to reset things back to an earlier status quo but keep the modern additions to the mythos like Venom or a resurrected Osborn. That was basically the goal for John Byrne's and Howard Mackie's run on Spider-Man.

The failure of Byrne and Mackie's run had little to do with its fairly noble goal.

If Marvel wanted to return Peter to where he was during Roger Stern's run, they could do that easily, as Peter Parker never finished Graduate School.

While One More Day got rid of more than just the marriage (notably powers acquired during Disassembled and "The Other") it kept most of the developments of the last twenty years intact (Peter Parker was still a teacher, Charlie Wiederman still burned down Aunt May's house, etc.)

And on a side note, HORRAY! MY FIRST NEW THREAD DRIFT OF THE YEAR! Five more thread drifts and I get to be guest moderator for a day, right Mets?

No.