Scott Snyder loves Superman IV and Talks About His New Superman Book

[Lexrules]

Or perhaps he just enjoys bad movies for their camp value? Many people do.

Comments like this only show fans (a) have no sense of humor, (b) take meaningless things far too seriously, and (c) need to loosen up pronto.

Write this date down. Me and King Krypton agree on something. I'll alert the media.

[B. Kuwanger]

You know what? I love III. And not ironically. Snyder can like IV if he really does, it's all good because he said some decent stuff in the interview.

I'm so glad the New 52 has chilled out with the "Oh he's a farmboy at heart" crap. I was re-reading Joe Kelly's JLA and there's a scene where they're all in a telepathic realm conversing so they're dressed symbolically, and you see Clark wearing overalls + cape. This is the kind of stuff that makes Superman look lame.

Doesn't come to mind immediately for me, but the way Kelly writes, it was probably a gag.

[Kurosawa]

Wow, I did not know any of this.

I really need to read some of Maggin's work, and probably some of Pre-Crisis Supes, in general.

Also try to read some of Marty Pasko's stories, he dealt a lot with the Kents as well. He doesn't get as much attention as Maggin and Cary Bates did, but he was a really great writer and he understood Superman.

The discussion of Lois is a separate discussion. It was mentioned that the "Smallville" nickname is unappealing, which is only part of the Post-Crisis era. I'm explaining why it worked in that context. The discussion of the Clark/Superman/Kal name is a discussion about what makes sense in the contexts mentioned. I understand what the actual Pre-Crisis dynamic was with regards to Superman's name and identity. What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense for Superman to privilege Kal over Clark. Furthermore, this whole conversation is about Snyder calling his Superman "Clark," and his Superman in not in the past. It is possible, you know, that Snyder has his own unique spin on Superman's identity and relationship with his human alter ego that is neither Post-Crisis farmboy or Pre-Crisis mask.



Clark is a character Superman created, and he lives half of his life as this character he created. The name is his and it is a name of a man he loves whether it is a mask or not.



But that's BS. Snyder is writing Clark/Superman in the New 52. He's talking about his Superman not historical Superman. Snyder isn't talking about Pre-Crisis Superman, so he's not getting his facts wrong. The only time I call Superman "Clark" is when I'm referring to the other side of his dual identity (i.e. his relationships and life as Clark Kent) or when I'm referring to him the way he sees himself in a particular continuity. So, I'll call him Clark in Post-Crisis continuity and I'll call him Clark in the New 52 because so far it doesn't seem like Superman's relationship with Clark is quite as bifurcated as it was in the Silver Age.



I find it troubling, to be honest. The idea that Superman -- the greatest hero that ever lived -- essentially has two distinct personalities and one is just a hobby like golf is odd and disconcerting. I believe Superman should be a Super Man. He should see himself as both Super and a Man, or at the very least he would not discard his entire formative years as only worthwhile in creating a mask. If the Kents moral guidance helped shaped the hero Superman becomes, then there is some Clark Kent in Superman. For Superman to see Clark as a thing outside of himself is too strange and makes the character truly alien.



Please. Pre-Crisis Superman only suffered in his youth when he lost his parents. All of his other "suffering" was self-imposed. He was a coward, so he never made the connections that would expose him to emotional risks. As you keep saying, the Silver Age Superman was a lighthearted and upbeat fellow who was hardly ever emo or brooding. If he suffered or was deeply troubled on an emotional level, it was a rare occurrence indeed. The "real pain" you yearned for in the Pre-Flashpoint era was not ever present in the Pre-Crisis era. It is disingenuous, in my opinion, to paint that era's Superman as a suffering figure. He lost his home planet and his adoptive parents at a young age, and that was pretty much the end of his suffering.



I don't find emotional cowards who never grow or change to be compelling characters. Flaws are interesting, but Peter Pan man-children are not. Superman's fear about his enemies hurting his loved ones was always so ridiculous for two reasons: those people were already frequently targets of villains and those people would be protected as long as Superman got closer to them as Clark Kent. Moore touched on this in his "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" Post-Crisis Superman had to cope with the same fears, but he overcame them. And there were times where he questioned his decision (e.g. when Emil Hamilton's Ruin and Manchester Black discovered Superman's human identity and began attacking the people he loved). Superman is a hero who should live in hope. For him to not apply the same philosophy to his personal life is sad and unappealing.



For heaven's sake, I know that. We were talking about the Post-Crisis Lois who called Clark "Smallville," so of course I'm not referring to any other version of the character besides that one.



And, personally, I find the fact that Superman distanced himself from his human parents, past, and identity just because he had issues with loss to be quite scary. Superman should not disconnect himself from his own humanity because of fear and grief. That sort of reaction makes sense in the immediate aftermath of a loss. Yet to have loss trigger a habitual pattern of distancing himself from love or other human connections, including connecting with the memory of a humanized version of one's self, is troubling behavior for a Superman.



Until we see actual evidence that this is how Snyder views the Superman/Clark identity, I think it is foolish to assume that is what he intends to communicate by using one name more than the other.

We get it. You think Pre-Crisis Superman sucks. I disagree. No reason to go point-for-point again because we have such different feelings-yours molded by Post-Crisis and Smallville, mine molded by Pre-Crisis, Jerry Siegel and Elliot Maggin.

[Mr. Holmes]

Satan is a boss. Especially if we're talking about Lucifer.

[misslane38]

We get it. You think Pre-Crisis Superman sucks. I disagree. No reason to go point-for-point again because we have such different feelings-yours molded by Post-Crisis and Smallville, mine molded by Pre-Crisis, Jerry Siegel and Elliot Maggin.

I don't think everything about Pre-Crisis Superman sucks, and I love Maggin's stories. I just happen to think that there isn't just ONE WAY to tell a Superman story, and I definitely believe there is a way to marry what was great about the Pre-Crisis era with the more mature aspects of the Post-Crisis era. For you, it is ALL or NOTHING. It is not the same for me. I believe there is something of merit in almost every Superman story, which can be pulled together to create new and better stories in the future.

[Mat001]

Nooo... Moore displayed a surface knowledge of current-at-the-time continuity at best. He came in and wrote a completely separate story without regard for where the characters had been going and recent events that had occurred in the ongoing series. He touched on a couple key things to make it feel more relevant, but for the most part, it was a love letter to the Silver Age stories HE had grown up reading.

To be fair, before it was Moore, it was Siegel who was the first choice. Either way, they weren't going to be wrapping off specific plot points. That didn't even happen in the books that were published before and concurrent to Moore's story. If they were concerned about wrapping off plot points, they would have done so.

Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing about you. He asked, "Aren't they all?" to excuse the fact he was ending the era on an Imaginary Story, and tell us not to worry too much about it not fitting into established continuity.

It was more of the fact that all stories are imaginary and not real.

Sadly the current regime should have done the same thing with the Byrne Superman for fans of that take on the character. It was around for 25 years for the most part or a take of how that character acted. Most fans I think like closer before entering another take of a character they love. I think it may have made the New 52 go down smoother for a few fans who are not happy with it.

I'm content with "Reign Of The Doomsdays", "Grounded" and "The Black Rings" being the finale. It's not perfect, but it did well in certain areas and then I look at "DC 1 Million" with Morrison's ending and that works for me.

"Silver," huh?

At the time, using the term Bronze Age wasn't as important as it's become in the years since. It became an important dividing point between the two, for purists of both eras.

That's not the point. It's just that working on a character doesn't mean that you like him or care for him.

The reverse holds true.

Denny O'Neil said that Frank Miller hates superheroes.

His opinion based on what he believes. Not solid proof from Miller himself.

I just cannot see anyone who likes Superman as a character reading that story and it not pissing them off. I don't understand how it cannot.

Because most Superman fans aren't closed-minded enough to see it as "Batman is better than Superman", because Miller apparently hates Superman. We're mature and intelligent enough to grasp the bigger picture. Superman fans, the rational ones, can see the things the others such as yourself turn a blind eye to.

And think of me what you will, and if I offend you that much then certainly feel free to put me on ignore and never respond to anything else I post. I don't mind one bit.

Why should he ignore you? If you want to change opinions, then you should confront it head on.

It didn't used to be.

Key word, didn't. Times change. All writers see him as Clark Kent and Kal-El as his Kryptonian identity amongst others of his kind.

In other words, I'm not going to cave in and sell out what I like and what I believe in just so some people on a message board won't criticize me. I like what I like and dislike what I dislike. I'm not going to lie just because people disagree with me.

Who said that you had to sell out? At no point did I criticize you for your likes. I, at least, have pointed out that there is a larger world that you refuse to look at.

I'm so glad the New 52 has chilled out with the "Oh he's a farmboy at heart" crap. I was re-reading Joe Kelly's JLA and there's a scene where they're all in a telepathic realm conversing so they're dressed symbolically, and you see Clark wearing overalls + cape. This is the kind of stuff that makes Superman look lame.

The design was pretty bad. At least it was handled correctly in "Sandman: The Wake", when we see Clark in the dreamworld dressed as Clark Kent, while Bruce Wayne was dressed as Batman and J'onn J'onzz had his public appearance instead of his true Martian form, or his John Jones guise.

When I see someone call Superman Clark, that just tells me that they don't know enough about the character to know that Clark Kent and Superman are two completely different characters, and that Superman (Clark's creator) regards them as such.

No, it just means that Superman changed in 1986 and even though he changed again in 2011, many writers are still using what Byrne set up in that regard.

Pre-Crisis Lois never judged Clark as a hick from a small town because she had that same background-her parents were horse farmers from Iowa.

Neither did Post Crisis Lois. It started with "Lois & Clark", because it was a sarcastic nickname Lois gave Clark, in a few episodes. It became popular in S:TAS due to Lois being based more on the Byrne/Wolfman version who saw Clark as competition and they both traded barbs at each other. It carried over into the comics because Loeb, a long time friend of Maggin and a Pre-Crisis Superman fan, liked S:TAS and began incorporating elements of it into the main continuity. Just as he did with the Donner film. It continued beyond that because of the respect the writers had for the media and for Loeb.

Always felt oversimplistic to me, to be honest. I mean, who would even think of saying Batman is "a urban kid" at heart? That's silly, nobody would believe it explains a thing about the character, or that it even mean something. Same for "farmboy". What is that supposed to mean?
Not to mention how it implies that people who lives in the country all have somehow the same mentality. That's stupid. My family lives in the country, I lived there for 20 years and I still spend quite some time there, and I have no idea of the signification of being a "farmboy at heart", and I know real farmers.

True, but then most writers who weren't country kids don't really know how one feels and thinks. So they use simplistic terminology and make stuff up that they don't understand. It's the same with newspapers. JMS pointed out that the way it's portrayed in most Superman comics is the opposite of how it was in real life, based on his own experiences. I think the point is that Clark's views are those of a simple man, who can stop and smell the roses. Who can appreciate life and see things in the most simplest terms and the most basic definitions. That goes to the Donner film, where Superman believes in the right and wrong of the world and when he says that he will fight for truth, justice and the American way, Lois laughs at him because it's naive given what happened in recent years.

Well, misslan38, theoretically there isn't really anything wrong with calling Superman "Clark". The problem is that, as experience has shown, people who refer to him that way have a very specific (wrong) view of Superman which translates into "farmboy", "Superman Is What I Do, Clark Kent Is Who I Am" and that stuff that plagued us since 1986.

Why is it wrong? How is it wrong? Clark Kent and Superman are the same person, when you get down to it. Saying that Superman is what he does, is a simple way of defining what it is he does. When he is Superman, he can say and do things that he cannot do as Clark Kent, in order to maintain his privacy. Superman is the outlet for his battle for truth, justice and the American way. Clark can do things with the power of the press, but when it comes to making a difference beyond the press, he applies what he believes in a more aggressive way.

Loves Superman IV? Might as well admit to loving Satan.

Why? I can watch that film and not feel the urge to kick my television over compared to "Batman & Robin". It's why I own the fourth film and have seen it many times, compared to Batman's fourth outing which I've seen only three times all the way through.

You know what? I love III. And not ironically.

"Superman III" is fairly good. Better than what it would have been if Ilya Salkind had his way. With Brainiac using a satellite to make Superman evil, including having an evil Clark Kent slap Perry White out of the blue. Better than having Lois running away because she couldn't deal with the relationship with Superman not going anywhere. And better than Supergirl not being his cousin, but a female Kryptonian that Superman winds up falling in love with and a finale involving time travel. The Newmans saved that film and gave us one that drew off of what was done in the first film, without insulting our intelligence beyond having Richard Pryor's humor.

[stk]

At the time, using the term Bronze Age wasn't as important as it's become in the years since.

At the time of Julie's death, when that statement was made? I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense.

[Kurosawa]

I don't think everything about Pre-Crisis Superman sucks, and I love Maggin's stories. I just happen to think that there isn't just ONE WAY to tell a Superman story, and I definitely believe there is a way to marry what was great about the Pre-Crisis era with the more mature aspects of the Post-Crisis era. For you, it is ALL or NOTHING. It is not the same for me. I believe there is something of merit in almost every Superman story, which can be pulled together to create new and better stories in the future.

There isn't just one way, but there is a way and an interpretation of the character that makes him one I can care about (Pre-Crisis and Post-Flashpoint), and there is an interpretation that does not move me personally because I feel there is no depth, conflict, complexity or soul (Post-Crisis). This is just my personal feeling. But there are things in Post-Crisis era that do interest me and I do think are of value. No matter how much I disliked that period and am glad that it is over, I always wanted to see Superman do well. I don't find Post-Crisis particular mature, however. I think that's a codeword people who don't like Pre-Crisis use to infer that those stories were stupid. The Big Barda porno story, the brothers story and the PZ villains murder story were all just as stupid as the dumbest Silver Age stories even if the content of them was nastier. Well, not the brothers story...it was just plain stupid, period and actually came off like something that could have been done Pre-Crisis..it was sorta old-school stupid as opposed to the Barda porno which was more modern stupid.

[Mat001]

At the time of Julie's death, when that statement was made? I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense.

At the time the story was conceived.

There isn't just one way, but there is a way and an interpretation of the character that makes him one I can care about (Pre-Crisis and Post-Flashpoint), and there is an interpretation that does not move me personally because I feel there is no depth, conflict, complexity or soul (Post-Crisis).

There is much in the Post Crisis era that had depth, conflict and complexity.

This is just my personal feeling. But there are things in Post-Crisis era that do interest me and I do think are of value. No matter how much I disliked that period and am glad that it is over, I always wanted to see Superman do well. I don't find Post-Crisis particular mature, however. I think that's a codeword people who don't like Pre-Crisis use to infer that those stories were stupid.

You would be wrong. Pre-Crisis and Post Crisis is a term to benchmark what was done before and after the Crisis, which is no different from using Golden, Silver, Bronze, Iron and Platinum Age. Here, Post Crisis Superman is different from Pre-Crisis. We do not infer that those stories were stupid or genius. We use the same way DC uses it.

The Big Barda porno story, the brothers story and the PZ villains murder story were all just as stupid as the dumbest Silver Age stories even if the content of them was nastier. Well, not the brothers story...it was just plain stupid, period and actually came off like something that could have been done Pre-Crisis..it was sorta old-school stupid as opposed to the Barda porno which was more modern stupid.

So then, what's the problem? If you don't mind the existence of the dumbest Silver Age stories, then why can't you mind the existence of the Post Crisis stories that you mentioned?

[stk]

At the time the story was conceived.

What does that have to do with the statement we're discussing? And by the way, Bronze Age was in wide usage at the time anyway.

[misslane38]

There isn't just one way, but there is a way and an interpretation of the character that makes him one I can care about (Pre-Crisis and Post-Flashpoint), and there is an interpretation that does not move me personally because I feel there is no depth, conflict, complexity or soul (Post-Crisis). This is just my personal feeling.

I understand that's how you feel. Yet, I cannot understand how anyone can read Silver Age comics and Iron Age comics and ultimately come away with the idea that Silver Age comics are deeper, more complex, and have more soul. Maggin's stories have that quality, to be sure, but most Silver Age comics do not. Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, like Maggin, found ways of making Pre-Crisis Superman more complex and soulful. Most of the actual comics during that time period were not of the same quality, however, which is why I cannot see them as having the same depth of emotion or complexity as the Post-Crisis/Pre-Flashpoint era.

I don't find Post-Crisis particular mature, however.

What, in particular, about the character did you find to be immature? More specifically, how did Post-Crisis Superman portray a lack of maturity that made him less mature than his Pre-Crisis counterpart?

I think that's a codeword people who don't like Pre-Crisis use to infer that those stories were stupid.

Not exactly. What I said, essentially, was that Pre-Crisis stories were very child-like, shallow, and had a disturbing way of characterizing their protagonist as a Peter Pan figure with a split personality problem. Despite those issues, though, I can still see their charm. It's only when writers like Maggin, Moore, and Morrison get their hands on Silver Age concepts that those types of stories and characterizations work for me.

The Big Barda porno story, the brothers story and the PZ villains murder story were all just as stupid as the dumbest Silver Age stories even if the content of them was nastier. Well, not the brothers story...it was just plain stupid, period and actually came off like something that could have been done Pre-Crisis..it was sorta old-school stupid as opposed to the Barda porno which was more modern stupid.

All eras feature questionable stories.

[Surtur]

Or perhaps he just enjoys bad movies for their camp value? Many people do.

Comments like this only show fans (a) have no sense of humor, (b) take meaningless things far too seriously, and (c) need to loosen up pronto.

I..wasn't actually being serious. So saying I take things too seriously or need to loosen up is weird to me, but I'll just file this under "it's the internet and you can't always tell when someone is joking".

[Kurosawa]

At the time the story was conceived.



There is much in the Post Crisis era that had depth, conflict and complexity.



You would be wrong. Pre-Crisis and Post Crisis is a term to benchmark what was done before and after the Crisis, which is no different from using Golden, Silver, Bronze, Iron and Platinum Age. Here, Post Crisis Superman is different from Pre-Crisis. We do not infer that those stories were stupid or genius. We use the same way DC uses it.



So then, what's the problem? If you don't mind the existence of the dumbest Silver Age stories, then why can't you mind the existence of the Post Crisis stories that you mentioned?

Have I made it clear to you that I dislike and disrespect you on a personal level, consider nothing you say or think to be of value, and will not reply to anything that you say except in this manner? I have no intention to debate with you.

I understand that's how you feel. Yet, I cannot understand how anyone can read Silver Age comics and Iron Age comics and ultimately come away with the idea that Silver Age comics are deeper, more complex, and have more soul. Maggin's stories have that quality, to be sure, but most Silver Age comics do not. Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, like Maggin, found ways of making Pre-Crisis Superman more complex and soulful. Most of the actual comics during that time period were not of the same quality, however, which is why I cannot see them as having the same depth of emotion or complexity as the Post-Crisis/Pre-Flashpoint era.

Maggin did not write in the Silver Age, he wrote in the Bronze Age. And several writers-Jerry Siegel in particular-wrote stories in the Silver Age that despite some of the silliness of the time had real caring and a real soul to them. And it is not like the Post-Crisis comics were of some superior and inspired level. They were very average comics and the sales of them reflected that. No one will be talking about the editorialship of whoever edited those books in 50 years like they do about Mort.

What, in particular, about the character did you find to be immature? More specifically, how did Post-Crisis Superman portray a lack of maturity that made him less mature than his Pre-Crisis counterpart?

I found him to be very shallow and boring because there he had no real pain, loss or issues. Everything was too easy for him-he never suffered, not really. I just can't get into a character that has it all and then some. To me, it's not compelling. Even Byrne admitted that by getting rid of Superboy he made his character into a defacto Superboy. He did not seem like a parental figure to me and the Pre-Crisis Superman did. To you, he was a "Peter Pan", which of course I find absurd but then again I understand that you do not like that version of Superman anyway.

Not exactly. What I said, essentially, was that Pre-Crisis stories were very child-like, shallow, and had a disturbing way of characterizing their protagonist as a Peter Pan figure with a split personality problem. Despite those issues, though, I can still see their charm. It's only when writers like Maggin, Moore, and Morrison get their hands on Silver Age concepts that those types of stories and characterizations work for me.

Pre-Crisis Superman acted nothing like Peter Pan, so I don't know where the hell you are getting that from. Peter Pan is a trickster character, Pre-Crisis Superman was more a parental authority figure and something of a square, if anything. Peter Pan is a braggart and a brat, Superman is serious and in the Silver Age he was often melancholy. A lot of what went into the Silver Age Superman comics actually came out of Mort's therapy sessions with his psychiatrist. Mort was working out some of his personal issues with Superman's suffering and loneliness, and Jerry Siegel was expressing some of his own self-regrets in his stories, plus he was also working out his joys of fatherhood in his Supergirl stories, which he wrote for his daughter. Are those stories kids stuff? You bet they are. And guess what? Kids stories can be great art. It doesn't matter who you are writing for if you write with real heart. That's what the older comics writers did, much like what J.K. Rowling does today. It's written for kids but anyone can enjoy it.

All eras feature questionable stories.

Too many people ignorantly portray the Silver Age as nothing but Jimmy Olsen Turtle Boy while touting Post-Crisis like it's Tolstoy.

[destro]

Write this date down. Me and King Krypton agree on something. I'll alert the media.

I am going through a similar feeling finding myself agreeing with Kurosawa on a few things...This is the big one Elizabeth!

[Mr. Holmes]

I've come to realize that All Star/New 52 Superman fans and Pre-Crisis Superman fans don't really disagree on much.