Tom Brevoort on Superman

[NotSuper]

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.

You're confusing change with good change.

Having Batman start using guns to mow down criminals like the Punisher would also be a change, but would it be a change we'd want? No. Change is essential to the evolution of a character, but only if it's good. I'd argue that a lot of changes to Superman have not been good. I'd prefer for DIFFERENT changes to occur, DIFFERENT progression. Let's not pretend that there's an either/or situation here where you're either for change or against it.

I myself am against both bad changes and characters being trapped in amber forever. Thus, the binary some are proposing is simply false.

[NotSuper]

In regards to comic book marriages: I personally don't care one way or another and find it hard to understand people who do (that's not a criticism against them--I'm just explaining how I honestly feel). It's important to some fans (and their opinions are certainly just as valid as mine), but to me it's one of those things that just doesn't matter much. Part of this, I think, is because I know that nothing lasts forever in comics (it doesn't--sorry if you think it did), so getting attached to any one element is simply foolish.

Everything is transitory and NOTHING you like will last forever. So enjoy it while you can, but don't go axe-crazy when you lose it--because you will. Only the characters themselves will still be around, in some form or another. They're who I'm attached to.

[NotSuper]

This was the worst idea in the history of comics

So Siegel and Shuster got Superman wrong? LOL, okay dude.

[NotSuper]

My own view is that some ideas "compete" (in a metaphorical way) and "adapt" to eras and succeed or fail accordingly--this is true of the Superman mythos as well. Some ideas succeed because of the environment being hospitable to them (Luthor as a corporate villain, Superman's parents being alive, Krypton being cold and sterile, Clark being more important than Superman, ect.--all thriving because of the 80s zeitgeist--ditto with Clark as a TV reporter--part of the 70s zeitgeist). On the other hand, certain ideas tend to survive and thrive in almost all environments (i.e the love triangle, Krypton as a utopia, Superman losing one or both of his parents, ect), and I think those ideas are the ones that ultimately survive the test of time. We're just experiencing a memetic cataclysm where some ideas that had survived for a time are finding it hard to adapt to changes in culture. Think of it as Mythos Darwinism.

[KurtW95]

Unfortunately, pretty much everything Brevoort said came true.
I definitely prefer happy-golucky boy-scout Clark.
Well, c'est la vie.

[USERNAME TAKEN]

Unfortunately, pretty much everything Brevoort said came true.
I definitely prefer happy-golucky boy-scout Clark.
Well, c'est la vie.

Quoted for truth.

End of thread.

[NotSuper]

No. Fans who say they want forward movement really mean they want forward movement that they agree with. They champion changes that they like, but are all for undoing ones they dislike.

This. Personally, people who set up ridiculous strawman arguments based on false binaries (i.e. "You're either for change or against it") get an automatic spot on my ignore list. It smacks of intellectual dishonesty on their part that they have to resort to such tactics rather than engaging in honest discussion. Deep down they know this too, which makes it all the more sad.

[NotSuper]

Unfortunately, pretty much everything Brevoort said came true.
I definitely prefer happy-golucky boy-scout Clark.
Well, c'est la vie.

Like I was saying, certain ideas stand the test of time and others don't. It doesn't make sense to get upset about it.

[KurtW95]

Like I was saying, certain ideas stand the test of time and others don't. It doesn't make sense to get upset about it.

I just think DC should stay the way it is instead of trying to become more and more like Marvel. If it does that it will lose its uniqueness.

[NotSuper]

I remember right after OMD where Brevoort said he thought DC would soon undo the marriage of Lois and Superman. Anything he says on marriage of comic characters I take with a grain of salt.

Time to rethink your position?

[NotSuper]

Most of your reactions are the perfect examples of the pot calling the kettle black.

You accuse Tom of only wanting characters and stories to go back to how it was when he grew up, but yet you (comic fans in general) always get up in arms whenever there's a change. Whether it's a change in status quo, character design, story arc, etc. You can't have it both ways. We're all guilty of it, but don't accuse and get all bent over shape whenever someone do it all while we're doing it ourselves. It may take a while for you to realize it, but you come off even more ridiculous.

That's why it's always hard to take the false binary of "pro-change vs. anti-change." To me, both sides just want things to be the way they like--it has nothing to do with any other values than that. People are too afraid to admit that they're simply looking for a superior moral argument for their selfish desires.

[Sacred Knight]

I just think DC should stay the way it is instead of trying to become more and more like Marvel. If it does that it will lose its uniqueness.

What is it about Superman that's been "Marvelized" though in this new reboot? Nothing really. People focus so much on JL on him being more violent in the first few issues of Action and in JL, but the reality is he's done nothing in the relaunch he hasn't done before. In terms of both physical and mental aggression (the one caveat being his early fights in Action, but this is deliberate and quite acceptable seeing as he's not as powerful here: he can be portrayed as more fisticuffs in this time window with normal humans due to that lowered level). I've said it before but this goes back to my belief that Superman's changes outside his costume has been vastly, vastly overstated.

[NotSuper]

I just think DC should stay the way it is instead of trying to become more and more like Marvel. If it does that it will lose its uniqueness.

I can sympathize with that viewpoint. And I think you perfectly illustrate why this "change vs. anti-change" dichotomy is complete BS.

Personally, though, I think DC is actually REVERSING the Marvelization that started after the first Crisis. They're now free to develop their characters as logical extensions of what they actually are, rather than changing them to fit in with Marvel.

[NotSuper]

What we're currently experiencing is a DE-Marvelization of DC--and that's a good thing. Marvel and DC should both do their own thing and be different--that way, comic fans in general benefit.

[Mat001]

In regards to comic book marriages: I personally don't care one way or another and find it hard to understand people who do (that's not a criticism against them--I'm just explaining how I honestly feel). It's important to some fans (and their opinions are certainly just as valid as mine), but to me it's one of those things that just doesn't matter much. Part of this, I think, is because I know that nothing lasts forever in comics (it doesn't--sorry if you think it did), so getting attached to any one element is simply foolish.

Everything is transitory and NOTHING you like will last forever. So enjoy it while you can, but don't go axe-crazy when you lose it--because you will. Only the characters themselves will still be around, in some form or another. They're who I'm attached to.

The characters and the marriage were one in the same. It was part of who they were. It was a symbol of the growth of their relationship from where they started when they first met to where they had come after exchanging vows and rings. It meant that Clark realized that he could make a family of his own, just as his parents had with each other and him. It meant that Lois saw past the idea of Superman and saw the man that was underneath the public image. It meant new challenges awaited them and new situations to deal with. That's why so many were in favor it and not fond of it's ending.