Jurgens Wraps SUPERMAN as Lobdell Takes Over. INTERVIEW

[Desaad]

It does matter, though. DC doesn't want Perez or Jurgens reintroducing an important part of Superman's mythos unless Grant Morrison isn't going to do it, because Morrison's take is not only likely to be more creatively successful, it's also likely to bring in more sales.

The problem is that Morrison tends to be a very improvisational writer, so even he isn't sure what he is going to do. You can see it on Batman, as they launch a Batwing title just before they reveal an entirely different origin for the character, and so forth.

Again, it's a limitation, it's just not one that excuses such poor output.

[Auguste Dupin]

Man, thanks for saying this because it reminded me of another general complaint I have with the Superman book: Clark has nearly 0 page time. He's basically back to being in the silver age as far as his job only existing as a cover for his Superman identity. Morrison's new status quo of Clark Kent being the other side of the coin of Superman as far as being able to deliver truth/justice goes is almost completely ignored. It's hard to take the idea that a writer is being held back when he isn't even using all of the basic tools in the box. There is no reason for Clark Kent to be boring. At all. There are just as many ways his scenes can be action-packed without him even needing to rip open his shirt.

Well, technically, Clark does have page time, it's just they're not doing anything with it. To give Perez it's due, he did try to portray Clark as a socialist crusader, but he did a very poor job of it by forgetting the "show, don't tell" rule (and that's why I've never been convinced the weakness of his run could be entirely explained by editorial interference: part of it was also due to objective problems in the narration and the story). But Griffen and Jurgens didn't even try.
I mean, it's not so much about Clark being a leftie or whatever, it's about giving him a purpose as Clark Kent, especially if the socialist angle is put aside when he is Superman. I remember reading the Perez interview when he talked about Superman becoming the flagship of a modernized Metropolis while Clark was criticizing the shortcomings of such an attitude (like not giving poor people places to live and so forth...), and I was like "yeah, that's a cool idea". It opens up lots of possibilities and questions. Is he aware of it? Is it deliberate? Is it a paradox that troubles him, or does he just assume the apparent inconstistencies?
There also was a lot of possibilities with the "bought by Galaxy" plot. But Perez prefered to dwelve on space monsters (which is all right.....just not six issues in a row), and love interests that ended up being defused. If the Morrison's supposed " interferences " consisted on the Galaxy plot and the attempts to portray a Clark trying to showcase the oppressed, then it was the best part of the book.

[Dr. Hurt]

Why cant the editorial find a writer that gets this new 52 Superman, and place him on the book for a long period of time? This book is mess.

[RoughNTumble]

I think I would feel better if in that interview lobdell did on this, he demonstrated some kind of grasp on the character, or a vision I could get on board with.

[Minerboh]

I find it amusing that you can just characterize the book the way you do and offer no support for your opinion. Try doing that with Action and see what happens.

I think your assessment of this book is undeserved and misinformed. Did you read the book?

Actually i have! In this book, Superman haven't even smiled not even once. He is always grimmy and posseses a cloudy look. Compare him with Post Crisis Superman and then go ahead and say whatever you like! And where on Earth Jurgens came up with the suit? From Extremis or from Power Rangers (all though he lucks a morphing device).
Did you read the book or better yet did you bothered to read my post before attepting to go all smarty on me? I do not remember writing something for Action.
Oh...did you noticed that there is a different creative team on Action and there is a 5 year gap between the books?
Try to take that into account and then try to find a different source of amusement!

[OldSchoolfan]

Define meaningful.

What I am talking about here is the inability to use particular characters, or go a particular direction because it might upset the applecart in Action.For example, Lobdell wants to use the Legion, can he? Or Mxyszptlic(spelling, sorry)? I don't think so.

Even the simplest things got a little messed up....in the first Superman arc, Lois and Clark look like they are in their early thirties and Jimmy still looks like he's twenty. Whereas in Action, they are supposed to be close to the same age.

A lot of posters have pointed out the bit about Lucy...and that is a good point, I cede that one. But its just hard to tell a story about a character whose foundation isn't completely set up...yet you have to defer to that very foundation.

[OldSchoolfan]

Actually i have! In this book, Superman haven't even smiled not even once. He is always grimmy and posseses a cloudy look. Compare him with Post Crisis Superman and then go ahead and say whatever you like! And where on Earth Jurgens came up with the suit? From Extremis or from Power Rangers (all though he lucks a morphing device).

I think there is some miscommunication going on here, I think my tone caught you offguard. Fair enough.
Let's start over, I don't agree with your assessment of Superman in your original post at all. Jugens is using the costume design that was handed to him by, I assume, Jim Lee. It's not his design. I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by Superman not smiling....how is that significant to your point? I am asking because I don't understand...just to be clear.

Did you read the book or better yet did you bothered to read my post before attepting to go all smarty on me? I do not remember writing something for Action.

My point about Action comics was that if you you were to try to state your opinion that strongly about Action comics, people wouldn't like it and be responding right and left....like has happened here in this thread. The good thing about this thread is that people are arguing points of view with reasons and its a discussion...sometimes the threads happen to devolve into something much less interesting.

I read your post. I didn't agree with you and I wanted you to explain yourself.....because just based on what I read, it didn't sound like you had read the book.....that was my genuine impression.

Oh...did you noticed that there is a different creative team on Action and there is a 5 year gap between the books?
Try to take that into account and then try to find a different source of amusement!

I wasn't trying to find amusement in my response....you stated your opinion very strongly with what I felt was little evidence to support it and so I replied strongly.

I am sorry people don't like the Superman book, I happen to find it way more accessable and understandable than Action.


As far as the miscommunication goes, I don't agree with you but I am sorry to make you think I was posting back in sarcastic sport.

[C. Earl]

I really didn't get a sense in the interview of Jurgens being unhappy writing this current version of Superman. He acknowledged that it was different (more isolated, not having the Kents to depend on), and he did have to find that balance between a Supes that had been around and one that was still fairly new at this, but otherwise he didn't seem critical about his time on the book at all.

[Space_Butler]

What I am talking about here is the inability to use particular characters, or go a particular direction because it might upset the applecart in Action.For example, Lobdell wants to use the Legion, can he? Or Mxyszptlic(spelling, sorry)? I don't think so.

Even the simplest things got a little messed up....in the first Superman arc, Lois and Clark look like they are in their early thirties and Jimmy still looks like he's twenty. Whereas in Action, they are supposed to be close to the same age.

A lot of posters have pointed out the bit about Lucy...and that is a good point, I cede that one. But its just hard to tell a story about a character whose foundation isn't completely set up...yet you have to defer to that very foundation.

Lobdell could absolutely use the Legion. Morrison already revealed their involvement in Clark's childhood, and we saw in Action 5 & 6 that Superman of the present still interacts with the Legion when necessary. Not to mention Levitz seems perfectly content with continuing to write a Legion ongoing without worrying about contradicting anything Morrison does (and in terms of sales Morrison's Action heavily outweighs Levitz's legion title). It's NOT a good idea to use Mxy because he is actively being used. But that doesn't mean the entirety of his rogues gallery is off-limits. And even if (IF!) it were, that doesn't excuse the fact that Perez wasted SIX issues on a bunch of space bugs. If he was on unsure footing, there's no reason he couldn't have made six bite-sized issues with individual challenges.

As far as the art, I don't think I've ever seen anyone in their late 20's adequately drawn in a comic. Comic art is mostly about the explosively obvious, and it's easier to draw someone in vague age groups (child, teen, twentysomething, matured adult, middle aged). Merino probably erred on the side of caution and drew Lois & Clark as matured adults despite neither of them having hit 30 yet, because the alternative would be to draw them like they are in Action, at which point fans would wonder why they're eternally youthful post-grads.

[Rainzo]

I have not felt one bit of truly focused storytelling in this entire series so far, and THAT is the problem. Neither Perez or Jurgens actually has anything to SAY with this Superman. They said everything about Superman that they wanted to years ago. I don't fault them for it, they were great runs. In that regard, I don't even blame Perez or Jurgens for these 9 issues of mediocrity, I blame DC itself. They were so concerned with attaching huge names to books for the relaunch to get older fans interested that they didn't really care if the writers were a) willing to work under any conditions or restrictions with the character, and b) had stories they were really dying to say.

Love him or hate him, Morrison DOES have something to say with his run, going all the way back to his Superman 2000 proposal. And even after doing All-Star Superman, he still had more he wanted to do with the character. That's why we need a writer on the Superman book, big or small, who has an idea in their head and doesn't just want, but NEEDS to put it on paper. Lobdell seems like the kind of guy that has a million ideas in his A.D.D. head. I'll take a guy with a ton of not-that-great ideas over someone who treads water because they were thrown on a book before realizing their heart wasnt in it.

This exactly!

[OldSchoolfan]

Well, technically, Clark does have page time, it's just they're not doing anything with it. To give Perez it's due, he did try to portray Clark as a socialist crusader, but he did a very poor job of it by forgetting the "show, don't tell" rule (and that's why I've never been convinced the weakness of his run could be entirely explained by editorial interference: part of it was also due to objective problems in the narration and the story). But Griffen and Jurgens didn't even try.

Again, I am not sure if what was going on in Action didn't prevent the team on Superman from doing too much with the character. Perez was trying to tell a different story, and maybe showing the "socialist crusader" aspect of the character wasn't as important as someother things that needed to be taken care of....Perez's portrayal of the Lois/Clark relationship sure seems like its coming from Morrison...as there was that same angst again in the latest issue of Action.

What Jurgens and Giffen did give us though, was one of the funniest office conversations that I can remember. The whole confusion between Lucy/Lois and Jimmy was funny and there was a story point there....unfortunately I don't know if it will get developed because Jurgens is leaving the book already.

I mean, it's not so much about Clark being a leftie or whatever, it's about giving him a purpose as Clark Kent, especially if the socialist angle is put aside when he is Superman. I remember reading the Perez interview when he talked about Superman becoming the flagship of a modernized Metropolis while Clark was criticizing the shortcomings of such an attitude (like not giving poor people places to live and so forth...), and I was like "yeah, that's a cool idea". It opens up lots of possibilities and questions. Is he aware of it? Is it deliberate? Is it a paradox that troubles him, or does he just assume the apparent inconstistencies?

I think this is a really interesting aspect of Clarks career to explore....I just simply think Perez wanted to tell a Superman story where this particular aspect of Clark wasn't as important to the telling of that story. I don't really think there was much internal conflict for George and his writing sensibility. I just think he made a decision to go in a direction and went there...

There also was a lot of possibilities with the "bought by Galaxy" plot. But Perez prefered to dwelve on space monsters (which is all right.....just not six issues in a row), and love interests that ended up being defused. If the Morrison's supposed " interferences " consisted on the Galaxy plot and the attempts to portray a Clark trying to showcase the oppressed, then it was the best part of the book.

If you consider those things weaknesses I will respect that, I love it when Superman fights space monsters....its why I read Superman. If I wanted mergers and acquisitions stories I will read "Barbarian at the Gates".

As far as the love interests being diffused I still think that the people over at Action are saying stuff like...you can do this/but you can't do that. And its that kind of dynamic that is creating a revolving door of creators on this title.

It's funny because if those things are Morrissons contributions, I think they are the weakest part of the book. They are interesting, but like I said, they are background bits that aren't really the reason that I like Superman stories.

All in all, I will still take these 9 issues of Superman over "Grounded" any day of the week. This is an improvement, but I just worry about where its going when I know what writer is in charge.

[OldSchoolfan]

It does matter, though. DC doesn't want Perez or Jurgens reintroducing an important part of Superman's mythos unless Grant Morrison isn't going to do it, because Morrison's take is not only likely to be more creatively successful, it's also likely to bring in more sales.

The problem is that Morrison tends to be a very improvisational writer, so even he isn't sure what he is going to do. You can see it on Batman, as they launch a Batwing title just before they reveal an entirely different origin for the character, and so forth.

Again, it's a limitation, it's just not one that excuses such poor output.

It sure seems like this is an accurate picture of whats going on. The best evidence for it is the constantly changing talent.

I know I repeating myself, but I'll still take this over "Grounded".

[Auguste Dupin]

Again, I am not sure if what was going on in Action didn't prevent the team on Superman from doing too much with the character. Perez was trying to tell a different story, and maybe showing the "socialist crusader" aspect of the character wasn't as important as someother things that needed to be taken care of....Perez's portrayal of the Lois/Clark relationship sure seems like its coming from Morrison...as there was that same angst again in the latest issue of Action.

What Jurgens and Giffen did give us though, was one of the funniest office conversations that I can remember. The whole confusion between Lucy/Lois and Jimmy was funny and there was a story point there....unfortunately I don't know if it will get developed because Jurgens is leaving the book already.



I think this is a really interesting aspect of Clarks career to explore....I just simply think Perez wanted to tell a Superman story where this particular aspect of Clark wasn't as important to the telling of that story. I don't really think there was much internal conflict for George and his writing sensibility. I just think he made a decision to go in a direction and went there...



If you consider those things weaknesses I will respect that, I love it when Superman fights space monsters....its why I read Superman. If I wanted mergers and acquisitions stories I will read "Barbarian at the Gates".

As far as the love interests being diffused I still think that the people over at Action are saying stuff like...you can do this/but you can't do that. And its that kind of dynamic that is creating a revolving door of creators on this title.

It's funny because if those things are Morrissons contributions, I think they are the weakest part of the book. They are interesting, but like I said, they are background bits that aren't really the reason that I like Superman stories.

All in all, I will still take these 9 issues of Superman over "Grounded" any day of the week. This is an improvement, but I just worry about where its going when I know what writer is in charge.

-There was angst in the latest Action issue? (well, there was the back up "Clark is dead" thing, but that felt acceptable)
Well, it's not so much that I think there's no way Morrison would interfere with Perez than that I really doubt he would interfere to make these kind of stories. The Lois/Clark relationship felt like an editorial interference, but I don't see any similarities with Morrison's portrayal of the two (there's even a small inconsticency in issue 2, when Lois says "when I first saw you enter at the office of the PLANET", a sentence that implies she first met him there, while she knew him from his time at the Star). They were much more friendly in Superman (she was still calling him "Kent" in Action 3). Maybe the "social crusader thing was strongly suggested by Morrison, though. However, that's more something that would open new stories than preventing them. And he could have just said he was one a few times and moved on (which he did, anyway).
The office conversation was hilarious though.

- Well, he was the one who brought that up in that interview, hence my little deception he made so little out of it . I would have understand he didn't want to go the social road, but he mentionned it, basically made a nice comment on the paradox between his new position as Superman and his status as Clark, and didn't do much with it. It was his "road" (or at least part of the road he said he was going to).

-Well, I love space monsters (against Superman and in general) as much as any one, but I really felt that story shouldn't have happened in a first arc (I mean, a posessed Superman? Fir the first arc? Seriously? Dude, you're supposed to be an experienced writer, don't make a rookie mistake), and it shouldn't have been that long. Fights against space monsters six issues in a row was really too much and too repetitive.
What I really don't get is your persistence in blaming Morrison for every obvious editorial interferences from Dc (because yes, the "can't use Lois and Clark's love interests anymore is clearly not Perez's thing, I think we all agree with that). Honestly, the love interests is really not the sort of things he would interfere about. To give you an example, while he was working on Batman, he didn't interfere with Paul Dini's storyline "Heart of Hush", where Catwoman is basically explained to be Batman's one and only true love.....while in his storyline, Bruce had a completely different love interest at the time. Why would he interfere with the inclusion of romantic subplot with people that aren't in his book and who have no bearing on his story when he allowed a romantic subplot interfered in some ways with his own story in the past? I just don't buy it. Not without evidences. You know I respect your opinion, but that always sounds like "let's blame Morrison for everything that went wrong with the book without explaining why or how" to me. But it's not Morrison that made Perez' first arc overwritten, it's not Morrison that forced Perez to use a 3 issue storyline into a 6 issues "epic". It's not Morrison that decided to have a mindcontrolled Clark in the very first arc of a reboot. All of this is either Perez or Dc's fault, probably a bit of both. The book had his problems, and editorial interference isn't a magic excuse that explains all of them.