Tom Brevoort on Superman

[Philosophía]

There have been several recent articles on why Superman has not been a very successful character is recent years. In print and in the theaters. From "too powerful" to just plain ole boring. Do u have an opinion on the matter...?

TB: Yeah, I think it's all crap. I think Superman is just as relevant and interesting today as at any other time in the character's history, and it only takes good creators with proper insight and skills to be able to bring that out. I think that most people who wave this opinion around have only a cartoonish viewpoint on Superman, what he does and what he stands for--but any character considered in such a cartoonish way won't be relevant. I would love to edit Superman at some point (though that's not likely.)

Re: Ur reply on Supes. If you did have the chance to edit, & were given the opportunity to make 1 wholesale & lasting change to the character, any idea what that would be? Did you like what Byrne did with the character all those years ago?

TB: Superman and Lois: not married.

I would submit that Superman being married - to Lois - does not damage the character, certainly not like Spider-Man being married did. Him being a bachelor just isn't important to his core appeal. "Single Superman" just sees superfluous now.

TB: I disagree. I think it's entirely the familiarity of a long-time audience that misses the forest for the trees on this one. Married Superman takes away one of the essential engines of the series: "And who disguised as Clark Kent.' The Clark-Lois-Superman triangle is one of the essential dynamics of that mythos, and it's only because people became so familiar with it that it became perceived to be old. Marrying Superman takes the romance out of the character, and also takes the sense of loneliness and alienation out of the character. It doesn't harm the series to the extent of Spider-Man, but it doesn't replace what it takes away with other, better stuff. It is a terrible mistake, and one that, again, no other medium that's adopted the character has seen fit to pursue (outside of the final ill-fated seasons of LOIS AND CLARK, when they were getting desperate.)

Why would you unmarry Clark and Lois? Don't you think the love triangle is done to death?

TB: It's not just the love triangle, though, it's the whole dynamic. On some level, Superman needs a sense of isolation, of loneliness, of loss. In my world, the Kents would both be dead as well.

What is with you guys and marriage? It's weird. I mean, Superman is the sappy, married type so being against a Superman marriage doesn't even make sense.

TB: The fact that you think Superman is the sappy, married type is the problem. And that's kind of a hard attitude to change if he is actually married.

You make a good point about the Clark-Lois-Superman triangle, and I'm willing to concede that that is a valuable missing element. But if Lois is going to be a smart, competent character in her own right, it only makes sense she would figure it out herself

TB: Only in the sense that there's something to figure out. How often have you met somebody who resembled a particular celebrity over the years? Now, you didn't think that person actually was that celebrity, right? Because that would be sort of crazy. Same thing. Superman doesn't wear a mask, so why would anybody think that he spends most of his time walkig around in glasses and a three-piece suit simply because Clark Kent resembles him/ It's much easier to believe that there's a resemblance than it is to believe that Clark is Superman (which is a perspective that's skewed for the audience, of course, because Clark IS Superman. But that's not a natural point of view.)

Re: Superman. I'm a big proponent of "Clark Kent is real, superman is the costume". Partly because when I grew up and partly because of my own secular humanism. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, though. There are pros and cons to both takes.

TB: Kal-El is real. Both Clark Kent and Superman are affectations of one kind or another.

"Kal-el is real" is he though? When he didn't know he was Kal for how many years, living as Clark? As an adoptee is my adopted name and life not "real"? The "real" me (and Superman) is the identity we didn't know of for years?

TB: The thing about Superman, though--and this is something that's always bubbling under the surface--is that he isn't human. So right from the start, he would have known that he was different from everybody else. THAT'S Kal-El. Clark is the mask, the trying to fit in, to conform to peer pressure (the peer pressure of every person on the planet) and be what you think you're spposed to be. In a ot of ways, it's analogous to a young person who's gay but doesn't quite realize it yet (or doesn't want to accept it yet) attempting to conform to society's notions of what is good and proper and acceptable. Superman doesn't even see or hear things the way the rest of us do--his life experiences from a very early age would have been very different from everyone around him, and would have been something that he couldn't explain to anybody he'd come in contact with. How do you describe a color that nobody else on Earth can see?

Superman's two biggest problems; perception that he is a boy scout, and perception that he is too powerful. Both solved by his original incarnation where he knocks around crooked politicians and dictators, and can be hurt by a "bursting shell". Thoughts?

TB: I don't know that I'd take him back to "bursting shell" levels--I don't think that you could at this point. But my Superman would definitely have a strong streak of Siegel & Shuster's in him. Superman is an activist for justice, not the status quo.

I disagree on what you said about the superman marriage. Being married doesn't change the fact that he's completely alone in the universe. In fact it kinda reminds him of the thing he can never be, human. Having tons of kryptonians ruins thing more.

TB: Being married totally changes thathe's alone in the universe--because he isn't at that point! I agree with you about the tons of Kryptonians.

Glad to see that my question re Superman has birthed such a spirited debate. Those Gambit qstns were getting tedious. Sadly, I don't find Superman, as he's written today, to be an interesting character. I mentioned b4, I've penned 2 eps of Smallville.

TB: I'd have to say that that's teh fault of the writing, rather than the character. And i think there have been good Superman stories over the last few years--just not enough of them. At some point, the right person is going to come along and really nail Superman again for the 21st century, and everybody will read it and go, "Of course..."

"And really nail Superman again for the 21st century". And there in lies the rub. Writing for Smallville was a Herculean task. Boundaries and rules. Did you like what Byrne did with his revamp, that was eventually re-revamped?

TB: I liked bits of it, but especially at the time, I thought it caused as many problems as it solved, and that some of it was wrong-headed. Still, it was very successful in making Superman successful and relevant again for a time, so who can argue with that?

Clark Kent is the mask? I don't know about this Physically he's very much alien, but his morals and values have conflicted with his alien heritage Whether with kryptonians, kal, or humans,Clark, he is an isolated character Batman calls him Clark as do I

TB: Well, there's also the difference between "Real Clark" and "Mask Clark". The Clark that most of his normal human associates know is a concoction, a part he plays, to prevent anybody from realizing that he's Superman. So he can't really be himself among ordinary people, he's always got a degree of play-acting going on. And when you get down to 'Real Clark", I consider that Kal-El. He's informed by all of his life experiences, but this is who he is to himself, in his own mind.

Doesn't being married just remind Superman of the fact that he can never ever be human no matter how much he tries to fit in? To me it kinda accentuates the tragic elements of the character.

TB: I'm not sure how being happily married would make the character feel more alienated and alone and tragic--but if it works for you, so be it.

What did you think of Superman: Secret Origin? And why no love for the JLI?

TB: I thought Secret Origin was pretty good. As for the JLI, two things: I suspect I would have liked the original 1987 version better had it not been called Justice League, as what i wanted out of a Justice League book was all of the A-listers together, not a random assortment of whomever-we-can-get. That also would have made the strong comedy approach go down easier with me, I suspect. but even with that, the use of those characters in generation Lost is fundamentally 180 degrees from what was done with them back then--it's not fun, it's not bouncy, and it's not upbeat. Nothing wrong with that if it works for you, but for me, it's a series about characters I don't much care for dealing with stuff I don't much care about. So it's hard to care, y'know?

I'd think that both Superman and Clark are masks. Each an exaggeration of some aspects of his personality to the exclusion of others. He's most himself around, say, the Kents, but not even they can fully understand what his life is.

TB: I agree mostly--except that, to me, Superman is the best outward expression of who he genuinely is inside, the person he can't be all the time, and the person who can't truly relate meaningfully with all of the ordinary people around him. Making that a mask or a put-on makes the whole character seem phony, in my opinion. When he's Superman, he can drop all the pretences and be who he truly is--but his superhuman attributes inevitably make him an outsider.

Agree/Disagree?

[CBikle]

Mostly disagree, but I do agree with him about Superman being more an activist for justice instead of the status quo.

[md62]

Disagree. Especially about the marriage, killing off both Kents. But I'm not surprised. That's the way the current Marvel editors think: have their heroes face tragedy over & over again until it becomes a joke. And that idea has caused me to drop Marvel titles the last few years.

[Zero Hunter]

I pretty much stopped caring about anything Brevoort said when he started being nothing but the company mouth piece years ago when Joe Q got tired of taking all the heat for things. I used to really respect the guy, but those days are long past.

[Finganforn]

I stopped right there when he said about their marriage. The only problem I see with it is the same I saw on Pete's marriage: people didn't bother writing it, they tried to write the character as it was 60 years ago (rather, how they idealize how it was back when they were children, selective memory kicking in and changing everything). Really, has anyone watched Lois & Clark? Yeah, I guess everyone here. Some may not like the series, but bam, that is something you do when you have a married couple in a story (though there was a lot of humor there): you write about the chemistry between the couple.

We don't need to have Superman titles becoming Clark & Lois, but the writers must make it relevant from time to time (more than just damsel in distress, that is not writing the couple). If writers don't do that then surely it becomes irrelevant and a hindrance, things are just as relevant as creators make it to be. Now comes the problem about editorial not casting writers who can't do that and then blaming the element for any possible failure, what remarkably reminds me about a certain Editor in Chief & His Amazing Friends who hated a certain character's marriage and of course made all they could to fuck it up until the point they mandated it to be undone to fix what they actually broke by their incompetence in handling the issue.

[md62]

I pretty much stopped caring about anything Brevoort said when he started being nothing but the company mouth piece years ago when Joe Q got tired of taking all the heat for things. I used to really respect the guy, but those days are long past.

I feel the same way...

[CBikle]

Lois & Superman being married isn't a change that necessarily has to impact Superman stories in a negative way.

Under Brevoort's watch, there have been a lot of changes to the status quo that have worked very well for Marvel; Spidey & Wolverine both in the Avengers ! Bucky brought back as a brainwashed, cyborg assassin !

Both of those ideas are goofy on the surface, but Marvel had talented writers to make them work.

When Brevoort talks about Superman losing his lonely/isolated nature by being married and having a family, you could also argue that Spider Man and Wolverine (both notorious loners) have lost that same quality by being in the Marvel Universe's premier superhero team.

[carabas]

Heh. Tom Brevoort gets Superman about as well as Quention Tarantino does.

He gets Superman better than he does Spider-Man though.

[RDMacQ]

Under Brevoort's watch, there have been a lot of changes to the status quo that have worked very well for Marvel; Spidey & Wolverine both in the Avengers ! Bucky brought back as a brainwashed, cyborg assassin !

Actually, I think that was Axel Alonso who oversaw that.

As for Brevoort's thought's on Superman's marriage and the Kent's, it's no surprise. He seems to be all about turning back the clock to the time when HE was growing up, and that status quo. Because- heaven forbid- there should actually be deviation from that and people actually have their OWN status quo to bond with instead of someone else's.

[stk]

I think he's completely right on pretty much every point.

As a longtime reader, I enjoy the marriage. And I liked when both Kent parents were alive. But I can understand a difference between what I enjoy and what serves the character best in the long term. The marriage works for me because I can also remember a time when he wasn't married. But for new kids coming in who see marriage as his single state of being -- as how he has always been -- I think it distorts the character.

I agree about making him more Siegel-ish activist again, and I agree that while parts of MoS worked very well, especially for the time, there are also parts of it that were completely wrong-headed.

I also agree that Clark is the mask. That is probably the biggest thing... something that Byrne reversed in his reimagining. It was an interesting take, but completely the opposite of how the character was as created. From the very first issue of Action Comics, it's clear that "Superman" is his true personality. Throughout the story, he is completely himself as he goes around as Superman, and he's playing a part as he's disguised as Clark.

It's odd that Byrne reversed that right about at the same time that Batman's paradigm got reversed. Suddenly, writers decided that "Batman" was the true personality and that "Bruce Wayne" was the mask. I think that is completely wrong-headed, too.

[Ramage]

Taking Marvel's advice is something I would be wary of considering the loss of their market share over the past five years. They don't know what they are doing probably even worse than DC's management.

[Finganforn]

Lois & Superman being married isn't a change that necessarily has to impact Superman stories in a negative way.

Under Brevoort's watch, there have been a lot of changes to the status quo that have worked very well for Marvel; Spidey & Wolverine both in the Avengers ! Bucky brought back as a brainwashed, cyborg assassin !

Both of those ideas are goofy on the surface, but Marvel had talented writers to make them work.

When Brevoort talks about Superman losing his lonely/isolated nature by being married and having a family, you could also argue that Spider Man and Wolverine (both notorious loners) have lost that same quality by being in the Marvel Universe's premier superhero team.

In the case of Super, the relationship can actually add to the isolated nature, just need writers fit for the job. I remember reading a story once (and that is pretty much all I remember of it) where Batman comments on Super spending a week or so in space reflecting about whatever. He points out that the deafening silence and isolating would drive any human being completely crazy, a reminder that even if he has 'human culture' he is not human (cough, as if there was such a thing when we have so many cultures on the planet, but lets skip that dense part). A partner can work as a way to contrast him with the common people, so much in common and so much love most times, but still he is alone in the sense even someone so dear and so close is still distant in many aspects.

Funny thing about Super being a being with godly powers and a sort of human emotional link and having Tom B. crap about it is that Marvel also had/has that too with Thor. His love live has never being properly used ever since Stan Lee imo (and Lee gets a freecard here cause he was the creator and everything was on its first steps with him). It is not because romantic or emotional relationships doesn't work for these characters, see the excellent Thor - I, Whom the Gods Would Destroy, which imo superbly explores that dual natural combining into one very unique person. The reason is that few writers bother doing it and fewer seem able to actually do it right. Most of time it is all monster crushing and frenetic action, no things that make one stop and think - I guess people aren't good with that last part.

[Silver_Leopard]

Killing off Superman's marriage is like killing off the entire reason why Lois was trying to figure out that the man she loves is both in one same body.

It makes a hero proud to have a love one with him routing him on and also she helped him and even recovered his body in Return of Superman with John and Conner.

What makes me irate about Tom is that he is the reason they killed Spider-Man's marriage. He rid Scarlet Witch because he felt the Avengers needed more A-Listers. Well, the Justice League started out as A-LISTERS!!! They revamped the series in 1987 with Batman the leader. It's these things to the reason why comic companies should never have guys like this making crazy decisions. That's what will kill comic sales.

Most people like the Superman/Lois marriage. Most people like the mix grouping on the Justice League. Oh, and in late 1991-1992, Superman joined the Justice League with the B-Listers if I remember ^_^. Batman had his own team in 1983 called, "Batman and the Outsiders." I don't think Tom looks at the history. He makes unethical judgments just to please himself and not the fans who buy the book.

[Mia]

What is with you guys and marriage? It's weird. I mean, Superman is the sappy, married type so being against a Superman marriage doesn't even make sense.

TB: The fact that you think Superman is the sappy, married type is the problem. And that's kind of a hard attitude to change if he is actually married.

To me Brevoort sounds like your typical bitter middle aged man, who can't get over the fact that his wife left him and took him to the cleaners.

[J. Robb]

As a longtime reader, I enjoy the marriage. And I liked when both Kent parents were alive. But I can understand a difference between what I enjoy and what serves the character best in the long term. The marriage works for me because I can also remember a time when he wasn't married. But for new kids coming in who see marriage as his single state of being -- as how he has always been -- I think it distorts the character.

There's nothing wrong with that, it shows the character has progressed. When I started reading Marvel comics in the 80s, I liked that things have changed since the 60s, they weren't frozen in time like Archie comics.