Over and over, the crow cries uncover the cornfield.
Satan is a boss. Especially if we're talking about Lucifer.
It was more of the fact that all stories are imaginary and not real.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.
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.Originally Posted by Lexrules
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.Originally Posted by stk
The reverse holds true.Originally Posted by Van Cleaf
His opinion based on what he believes. Not solid proof from Miller himself.Denny O'Neil said that Frank Miller hates superheroes.
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.Originally Posted by Kurosawa
Why should he ignore you? If you want to change opinions, then you should confront it head on.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.
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.It didn't used to be.
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.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.
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.Originally Posted by Mr. Holmes
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.Originally Posted by Kurosawa
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.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.
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.Originally Posted by Augustine Dupin
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.Originally Posted by Van Cleaf
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.Originally Posted by Surtur
"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.Originally Posted by B. Kuwagner
Last edited by Mat001; 12-20-2012 at 12:44 PM.
Over and over, the crow cries uncover the cornfield.
There is much in the Post Crisis era that had depth, conflict and complexity.Originally Posted by Kurosawa
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.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.
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?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.
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 don't find Post-Crisis particular mature, however.
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.I think that's a codeword people who don't like Pre-Crisis use to infer that those stories were stupid.
All eras feature questionable stories.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.
Last edited by Surtur; 12-20-2012 at 03:42 PM.
A woman can move a lot faster with her skirt up than a man can with his pants down.
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.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?
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.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.
Too many people ignorantly portray the Silver Age as nothing but Jimmy Olsen Turtle Boy while touting Post-Crisis like it's Tolstoy.All eras feature questionable stories.
Over and over, the crow cries uncover the cornfield.
I've come to realize that All Star/New 52 Superman fans and Pre-Crisis Superman fans don't really disagree on much.