Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 410111213141516171824 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 377
  1. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post
    There are some divisions among fanbases, but none are as extreme as the division with the Superman fanbase. With the PT and the OT, it was still all created by Lucas. Same as with Star Trek TAS and TNG, although there is a new schism of sorts between the old ST universe and the Abrams ST. And that might happen with the Disney SW as well. With Bond, it is generally divided by actor but the vast majority still consider Connery to be the best, with Craig's movies coming close at times. Pierce and Roger are lumped together as being silly, Dalton is seen as a proto-Craig and Laz is still an anomaly. And now, look at Superman. We both claim to be fans of the character, but only one of us wants the character to be true to the core ideas of his creators, and only one of us gets upset when he is trashed and humiliated by a writer/artist who many people feel has it in for him.



    Reboots are so common now that people don't realize how many people were upset by the original Superman reboot. And I'll admit, later reboots have bothered me less, especially from DC, because I know they do not get it, will never get it, and will always fail and therefore will always reboot. 8-10 years from now if comics still exist, some Byrne era fanboy will get power over Superman and he'll be running home to his mother and his cape will be getting torn to bits and Clark will have been a high school jock, and you'll love it. Basically the truth is this: Superman ended in 1986. That's the truth. Everything since is apocrypha.



    Harry Potter was the last major series to occupy the spot that should be Superman's. The shame is, Superman fails because his owners too often won't let him be himself.



    That's why getting rid of the nebbish Clark Kent ruined Superman above everything else. Clark Kent was a great indicator of Superman's flaws: that being Superman was too much for even him much of the time, and that he needed an escape to cope. Superman has a whole set of interesting quirks and flaws that make him very easy to get into if they only let him be himself.
    No offense, but some of this is very silly. I can make the same arguments that the Silver Age Superman ruined the Gold Age superman. In the Golden Age Superman was far less powerful, most of his stories were very street level, he was far less of a boy scout, he had socialist leanings that made him far more willing to get involved social problems then the Silver Age Superman. Heck, for all your talk about how "dark" the modern Superman is, I am pretty sure he took on a wife beater in the Golden Age and he seemed far more willing to break the law in order to do what he thought was right. In contrast Silver age Superman was far more powerful, his stories were more cosmic then street level, his socialist leanings were gone and he was far more of a boy scout. You can argue that Silver age Superman ruined Golden Age Superman. Comic Book Characters always change to suit the times, those that don't get left behind and Superman has done that since the 50s.

    Also I still don't get your argument that reverting to Pre Crisis continuity will bring in today's kids, how reverting things to 1985 story telling bring in today's kids? They were not even born before 1985. Are you trying to aim Superman to today's kids or kids from the 60s?
    Last edited by The Master Meglomaniac; 05-13-2013 at 08:11 PM.

  2. #197
    Paladin Kurosawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    344 Clinton St, Apt 3E
    Posts
    3,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Master Meglomaniac View Post
    No offense, but some of this is very silly. I can make the same arguments that the Silver Age Superman ruined the Gold Age superman. In the Golden Age Superman was far less powerful, most of his stories were very street level, he was far less of a boy scout, he had socialist leanings that made him far more willing to get involved social problems then the Silver Age Superman. Heck, for all your talk about how "dark" the modern Superman is, I am pretty sure he took on a wife beater in the Golden Age and he seemed far more willing to break the law in order to do what he thought was right. In contrast Silver age Superman was far more powerful, his stories were more cosmic then street level, his socialist leanings were gone and he was far more of a boy scout. You can argue that Silver age Superman ruined Golden Age Superman. Comic Book Characters always change to suit the times, those that don't get left behind and Superman has done that since the 50s.

    Also I still don't get your argument that reverting to Pre Crisis continuity will bring in today's kids, how reverting things to 1985 story telling bring in today's kids? They were not even born before 1985. Are you trying to aim Superman to today's kids or kids from the 60s?
    There was never a schism between Golden and Silver Age Superman fans because you could see the core roots of the 1938 Superman in the character all the way until 1985. His powers grew, his world expanded and broadened, but the core ideas of Clark Kent being a facade that Superman needed to relate to humanity, while Clark Kent did not need Superman for anything really was always there. The hook to Superman was the colorful costume and the powers, but what made people stay was Clark. Having a true alter ego was what sat Superman apart from all the other characters.

    And actually although I would be fine with reverting to the Pre-Crisis continuity myself (Marvel does fine and they still have their history intact), my main point is they need to go back to the things that made Superman popular in the first place, not the Pre-Crisis continuity itself. It's what the nu52 Superman has done with mixed results and it's what Morrison did in All-Star Superman with great results. For Superman to be himself doesn't mean he has to be back at WGBS working for Morgan Edge like he was in 85. It means that they need to let Superman be different and unique, that they need to let Superman and Clark be different from one another, and that Clark needs to be awkward and nerdy and unsure of himself and unassuming, all the things that make him and therefore make Superman easy to identify with and care about. Because what you had in the Post-Crisis days from 86-2002 is you had a Clark Kent who was just Superman with glasses on. And except for the stupid story where he killed the PZ villains, that Superman was usually very pure and good and Clark was the exact same way. It was Saint Clark page in and page out and no one can identify with or care about someone who was always perfect. And when he wasn't perfect, it wasn't because of weakness or insecurity or loneliness, which were all the Pre-Crisis Superman and Clark Kent's flaws, it was because he was generally dumb, naive or being used to pump up another character they wanted to push, or as a foil to the almighty Batgod. He was a jobber and a chump.
    Doomed Planet. Desperate Scientists. Last Hope. Kindly Couple.

  3. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post
    There was never a schism between Golden and Silver Age Superman fans because you could see the core roots of the 1938 Superman in the character all the way until 1985. His powers grew, his world expanded and broadened, but the core ideas of Clark Kent being a facade that Superman needed to relate to humanity, while Clark Kent did not need Superman for anything really was always there. The hook to Superman was the colorful costume and the powers, but what made people stay was Clark. Having a true alter ego was what sat Superman apart from all the other characters.
    I still think Golden age Superman and Silver Age Superman had different personalities, Golden Age Superman was far more brash, anti authority, impulsive and had more socialist leanings, while in the Silver Age he is just kinda of boy scout, except when they did those odd stories where his personality is being affected by Red K.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post
    And actually although I would be fine with reverting to the Pre-Crisis continuity myself (Marvel does fine and they still have their history intact), my main point is they need to go back to the things that made Superman popular in the first place, not the Pre-Crisis continuity itself. It's what the nu52 Superman has done with mixed results and it's what Morrison did in All-Star Superman with great results. For Superman to be himself doesn't mean he has to be back at WGBS working for Morgan Edge like he was in 85. It means that they need to let Superman be different and unique, that they need to let Superman and Clark be different from one another, and that Clark needs to be awkward and nerdy and unsure of himself and unassuming, all the things that make him and therefore make Superman easy to identify with and care about. Because what you had in the Post-Crisis days from 86-2002 is you had a Clark Kent who was just Superman with glasses on. And except for the stupid story where he killed the PZ villains, that Superman was usually very pure and good and Clark was the exact same way. It was Saint Clark page in and page out and no one can identify with or care about someone who was always perfect. And when he wasn't perfect, it wasn't because of weakness or insecurity or loneliness, which were all the Pre-Crisis Superman and Clark Kent's flaws, it was because he was generally dumb, naive or being used to pump up another character they wanted to push, or as a foil to the almighty Batgod. He was a jobber and a chump.
    Now I agree with some of this, but I do like some ideas of the ideas from the Post Crisis era and I don`t like other ideas from the Post crisis idea. Its not like there were not problems in terms of writing in the Silver Age, way too many gimmicky Red K story lines that got very tiresome very quickly, there a lot of dull stories where Superman would not fight crime or stop disasters, but have a whole issue about Allen Funt and Candid Camera. I find a lot of the stories in Silver Age Superman very gimmicky, rather then cohesive tales that tell compelling stories. I don't think that type of gimmicky story telling would work for kids today, the Silver Age superman lacks a lot of things kids today would find exciting.

    If we look at things kids like in the last decade, look at say, Avatar the Last Airbender, it didn't rely on gimmicky story telling, it had action, not violence and a compelling ongoing story. It was not episodic like any things in the Silver age comics were. While it had darker moments, it was still suitable for kids. Back in the 90s, kids loved the Gargoyles TV show, which had a lot of the same things.

    I don't mind Superman being who he is, but he should fit into modern story telling conventions, rather then trying to tell the same stories from the 60s. I think a lot of things like All Star Superman and Birth Right did well, they took some of the over top ideas of the Silver age and married it with modern story telling techniques, which is how I think comic books should be written nowadays.

  4. #199
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manofsteel1979
    This may be controversial, and I may be tarred and feathered for saying this out loud, but Superman will likely never be the top selling comic book Superhero again, or be the most popular unless society as a whole changes their outlook on heroism. That ship has long sailed. Now, MAN OF STEEL has a good shot at changing some people's perceptions of the character,or remind everyone why he's such a great character, but ultimately, he will still be viewed at the end of the day as he's always been.
    I'm not bothered by his inability to have the number one spot consistently. I think there should be a reasonable ranking, but I'm content with his not being number one. I mean, if Grant Morrison himself cannot do, then I highly doubt Waid, Bendis or even Millar could do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Auguste Dupin View Post
    I don't think the problem is that Superman is brave and selfless, or devoid of angst. Lots of popular heroes are brave and selfless. Harry Potter, Aragorn, Goku, Naruto....None of them have their heroism defined by angst (Aragorn has a bit of angst in the movie, but its barely there). They're all positive characters.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Harry does have angst. His parents are dead and as the series goes along, he feels horrible over Dumbledore's death and carries the burden that his friends will die when the war with Voldermort finally happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurosawa
    There are some divisions among fanbases, but none are as extreme as the division with the Superman fanbase. With the PT and the OT, it was still all created by Lucas.
    The only reason for that division is because of Lucas. Because of the choices that he made, wound up pissing them off and that's why there's a division. But I'm referring to a different division as well, one where a generation of kids latch on to the PT in the way that the previous generation latched on to the OT. Even with all six films out there, there are those who prefer a version that appeals to them more than naught.

    Same as with Star Trek TAS and TNG, although there is a new schism of sorts between the old ST universe and the Abrams ST. And that might happen with the Disney SW as well. With Bond, it is generally divided by actor but the vast majority still consider Connery to be the best, with Craig's movies coming close at times. Pierce and Roger are lumped together as being silly, Dalton is seen as a proto-Craig and Laz is still an anomaly. And now, look at Superman. We both claim to be fans of the character, but only one of us wants the character to be true to the core ideas of his creators, and only one of us gets upset when he is trashed and humiliated by a writer/artist who many people feel has it in for him.
    The thing with the core ideas of Superman by his creators is that so much more was added after his creators left the first time, that they didn't have much say in it. So certain ideas really owe more to Mort Weisinger than Jerry Siegel. But still the core ideas of Superman are still present in the Post Crisis era. Superman himself remains. The Clark Kent persona may have changed, but so did Lois Lane and other characters. As to Frank Miller, the problem there is you think too narrowly. You're only thinking in terms of the fanboy mentality and not the person who looks at it from a literary standpoint. Who looks at it a bit more objectively and sees that it isn't so simple as, Miller hates Superman.

    Reboots are so common now that people don't realize how many people were upset by the original Superman reboot.
    There were reboots, softer ones, but ones none the less during the years prior to your coming into things. MOS was a harder reboot, yes, but it was still in the same vein as before. Only harder because DC was making a definitive statement of a new beginning.

    And I'll admit, later reboots have bothered me less, especially from DC, because I know they do not get it, will never get it, and will always fail and therefore will always reboot. 8-10 years from now if comics still exist, some Byrne era fanboy will get power over Superman and he'll be running home to his mother and his cape will be getting torn to bits and Clark will have been a high school jock, and you'll love it. Basically the truth is this: Superman ended in 1986. That's the truth. Everything since is apocrypha.
    Except there is and always has been multiple interpretations of Superman. Both in comics and in other media. Something you fail to understand. Superman no more ended in 1986 than he did in 2011.

    That's why getting rid of the nebbish Clark Kent ruined Superman above everything else. Clark Kent was a great indicator of Superman's flaws: that being Superman was too much for even him much of the time, and that he needed an escape to cope. Superman has a whole set of interesting quirks and flaws that make him very easy to get into if they only let him be himself
    Except that Post Crisis Superman had flaws as well. But this time as both Superman and Clark Kent. He had trouble building a relationship with Lois. He changed careers and it bit him in the ass. He lost his job and struggled to get a new one. He killed three people and had to live with the guilt of that. He spent time with Lois and while doing so, Adam Grant and several children were killed by the Toyman. He tried to protect the world from disasters and nearly became a tyrant. He was demoted and struggled to regain his place at the Planet. He had to be editor-in-chief while doing his own job, plus being Superman. He had relationship troubles with Lois and had to deal with Lana who tried to ruin everything. New Krypton was destroyed.

    And Pre-Crisis Superman was considered noble and pure. Saint Superman and even Saint Clark. Sure, he may have dicked with Lois, but beyond that, it was the same way. He had a good life. He had a good job. He had survivors and family members alive. He was part of two teams. He rarely made mistakes. Hell, his mere presence made everyone else look bad, because he could do it all himself.

  5. #200
    Inf‚me et fier de l'Ítre Auguste Dupin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Harry does have angst. His parents are dead and as the series goes along, he feels horrible over Dumbledore's death and carries the burden that his friends will die when the war with Voldermort finally happens.
    Well, things weren't easy for him, but considering all he's been through, he takes the whole thing pretty well. It's not being angsty to mourn your dead friends, it's having human feelings. For the most part, Harry Potter is a perfectly well adjusted person who doesn't spend his time whinning about how things don't go his ways like Parker, or being a murderous douche like Wolverine.
    Which maybe the real problem many people have with Superman: things are too easy for him. How heroic is it actually to be a good person when everything goes your way? When everyone loves you, you're married to the woman of your dreams, and you never had to suffer any hardship, and yet are treated like the greatest hero ever by every one? How much of an heroic journey can you have when you're never pushed to you're never really challenged? Is it really a Wonder readers would look at the guy and say "why is every one in such a awe of this guy, anyway?"
    Most heroes, no matter the period, no matter the story, go through hard times, hard times they overcome because they have the will to do so. That's what makes them heroes.
    And yeah, Pre Crisis Superman was kinda better at that, especially if you consider he existed at a time where talking monkeys and marriage ploys were the narrative norm. He had losses, losses that shapped him and taught him humility. Things didn't always went his ways, and yet he carried on. Modern narrative should have expanded upon that, not cast it away for.....I don't know, nothing, really.
    "I'm going to paraphrase Nietzsche, when you judge a work, the work judges you."

  6. #201
    Paladin Kurosawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    344 Clinton St, Apt 3E
    Posts
    3,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    I'm not bothered by his inability to have the number one spot consistently. I think there should be a reasonable ranking, but I'm content with his not being number one. I mean, if Grant Morrison himself cannot do, then I highly doubt Waid, Bendis or even Millar could do that.



    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Harry does have angst. His parents are dead and as the series goes along, he feels horrible over Dumbledore's death and carries the burden that his friends will die when the war with Voldermort finally happens.



    The only reason for that division is because of Lucas. Because of the choices that he made, wound up pissing them off and that's why there's a division. But I'm referring to a different division as well, one where a generation of kids latch on to the PT in the way that the previous generation latched on to the OT. Even with all six films out there, there are those who prefer a version that appeals to them more than naught.



    The thing with the core ideas of Superman by his creators is that so much more was added after his creators left the first time, that they didn't have much say in it. So certain ideas really owe more to Mort Weisinger than Jerry Siegel. But still the core ideas of Superman are still present in the Post Crisis era. Superman himself remains. The Clark Kent persona may have changed, but so did Lois Lane and other characters. As to Frank Miller, the problem there is you think too narrowly. You're only thinking in terms of the fanboy mentality and not the person who looks at it from a literary standpoint. Who looks at it a bit more objectively and sees that it isn't so simple as, Miller hates Superman.



    There were reboots, softer ones, but ones none the less during the years prior to your coming into things. MOS was a harder reboot, yes, but it was still in the same vein as before. Only harder because DC was making a definitive statement of a new beginning.



    Except there is and always has been multiple interpretations of Superman. Both in comics and in other media. Something you fail to understand. Superman no more ended in 1986 than he did in 2011.



    Except that Post Crisis Superman had flaws as well. But this time as both Superman and Clark Kent. He had trouble building a relationship with Lois. He changed careers and it bit him in the ass. He lost his job and struggled to get a new one. He killed three people and had to live with the guilt of that. He spent time with Lois and while doing so, Adam Grant and several children were killed by the Toyman. He tried to protect the world from disasters and nearly became a tyrant. He was demoted and struggled to regain his place at the Planet. He had to be editor-in-chief while doing his own job, plus being Superman. He had relationship troubles with Lois and had to deal with Lana who tried to ruin everything. New Krypton was destroyed.

    And Pre-Crisis Superman was considered noble and pure. Saint Superman and even Saint Clark. Sure, he may have dicked with Lois, but beyond that, it was the same way. He had a good life. He had a good job. He had survivors and family members alive. He was part of two teams. He rarely made mistakes. Hell, his mere presence made everyone else look bad, because he could do it all himself.
    Meh, let's just say your taste is not my taste and leave it at that.
    Doomed Planet. Desperate Scientists. Last Hope. Kindly Couple.

  7. #202
    Paladin Kurosawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    344 Clinton St, Apt 3E
    Posts
    3,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Auguste Dupin View Post
    Well, things weren't easy for him, but considering all he's been through, he takes the whole thing pretty well. It's not being angsty to mourn your dead friends, it's having human feelings. For the most part, Harry Potter is a perfectly well adjusted person who doesn't spend his time whinning about how things don't go his ways like Parker, or being a murderous douche like Wolverine.
    Which maybe the real problem many people have with Superman: things are too easy for him. How heroic is it actually to be a good person when everything goes your way? When everyone loves you, you're married to the woman of your dreams, and you never had to suffer any hardship, and yet are treated like the greatest hero ever by every one? How much of an heroic journey can you have when you're never pushed to you're never really challenged? Is it really a Wonder readers would look at the guy and say "why is every one in such a awe of this guy, anyway?"
    Most heroes, no matter the period, no matter the story, go through hard times, hard times they overcome because they have the will to do so. That's what makes them heroes.
    And yeah, Pre Crisis Superman was kinda better at that, especially if you consider he existed at a time where talking monkeys and marriage ploys were the narrative norm. He had losses, losses that shapped him and taught him humility. Things didn't always went his ways, and yet he carried on. Modern narrative should have expanded upon that, not cast it away for.....I don't know, nothing, really.
    Exactly. But luckily that Superman is gone and the one we have now has lost and does have some soul.
    Doomed Planet. Desperate Scientists. Last Hope. Kindly Couple.

  8. #203
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Auguste Dupin View Post
    Well, things weren't easy for him, but considering all he's been through, he takes the whole thing pretty well. It's not being angsty to mourn your dead friends, it's having human feelings. For the most part, Harry Potter is a perfectly well adjusted person who doesn't spend his time whinning about how things don't go his ways like Parker, or being a murderous douche like Wolverine.
    Which maybe the real problem many people have with Superman: things are too easy for him. How heroic is it actually to be a good person when everything goes your way? When everyone loves you, you're married to the woman of your dreams, and you never had to suffer any hardship, and yet are treated like the greatest hero ever by every one? How much of an heroic journey can you have when you're never pushed to you're never really challenged? Is it really a Wonder readers would look at the guy and say "why is every one in such a awe of this guy, anyway?"
    Most heroes, no matter the period, no matter the story, go through hard times, hard times they overcome because they have the will to do so. That's what makes them heroes.
    And yeah, Pre Crisis Superman was kinda better at that, especially if you consider he existed at a time where talking monkeys and marriage ploys were the narrative norm. He had losses, losses that shapped him and taught him humility. Things didn't always went his ways, and yet he carried on. Modern narrative should have expanded upon that, not cast it away for.....I don't know, nothing, really.
    Kieron Gillen said something similar, comparing Superman to X-Men. If you don't lose anything, it's not heroism, it's politeness. I don't know if I agree, as I do like Superman (under certain writers at least) but it's a really interesting idea to ponder.

  9. #204
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Auguste Dupin View Post
    Well, things weren't easy for him, but considering all he's been through, he takes the whole thing pretty well. It's not being angsty to mourn your dead friends, it's having human feelings. For the most part, Harry Potter is a perfectly well adjusted person who doesn't spend his time whinning about how things don't go his ways like Parker, or being a murderous douche like Wolverine.
    Which maybe the real problem many people have with Superman: things are too easy for him. How heroic is it actually to be a good person when everything goes your way? When everyone loves you, you're married to the woman of your dreams, and you never had to suffer any hardship, and yet are treated like the greatest hero ever by every one? How much of an heroic journey can you have when you're never pushed to you're never really challenged? Is it really a Wonder readers would look at the guy and say "why is every one in such a awe of this guy, anyway?"
    Most heroes, no matter the period, no matter the story, go through hard times, hard times they overcome because they have the will to do so. That's what makes them heroes.
    And yeah, Pre Crisis Superman was kinda better at that, especially if you consider he existed at a time where talking monkeys and marriage ploys were the narrative norm. He had losses, losses that shapped him and taught him humility. Things didn't always went his ways, and yet he carried on. Modern narrative should have expanded upon that, not cast it away for.....I don't know, nothing, really.
    Ah, but the Post Crisis Superman did have experiences that were tough and that helped shape him. Things weren't easy for him. He suffered his share of losses and had events that were both positive and negative in shaping who he was. To say that that version didn't, is a gross misunderstanding of the character.

  10. #205
    Junior Member Adekis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Master Meglomaniac View Post
    No offense, but some of this is very silly. I can make the same arguments that the Silver Age Superman ruined the Gold Age superman. In the Golden Age Superman was far less powerful, most of his stories were very street level, he was far less of a boy scout, he had socialist leanings that made him far more willing to get involved social problems then the Silver Age Superman. Heck, for all your talk about how "dark" the modern Superman is, I am pretty sure he took on a wife beater in the Golden Age and he seemed far more willing to break the law in order to do what he thought was right. In contrast Silver age Superman was far more powerful, his stories were more cosmic then street level, his socialist leanings were gone and he was far more of a boy scout. You can argue that Silver age Superman ruined Golden Age Superman. Comic Book Characters always change to suit the times, those that don't get left behind and Superman has done that since the 50s.
    I don't really see how this makes for LESS divisions in the Superman fanbase. If anything, it probably makes the argument about the fanbase being split MORE valid. I think that Golden Age Superman is probably the best version of the Superman character. There might not have been a single MOMENT like the Crisis or Flashpoint when things changed, but that Golden Age Superman was replaced with the Silver Age one is something nobody debates, and frankly, I prefer Thirties Superman to Sixties Superman in most ways.

    Therefore, in answer to the thread I'm gonna give two changes to the mythos that I'd have a hard time picking between.

    The first is! I would keep Golden Age Superman at his Golden Age power-level with his Golden Age attitude. Superman is a politically minded guy. He likes getting involved with down-to-Earth affairs, and he isn't too afraid of messing with the order. He fights crime on a macro and micro level, and he'll always stop to help out the little guy. That doesn't mean, however, that he can't have science-fiction adventures, just that maybe instead of flying to the year 2954 or the planet Lexor he can take a time machine or a spaceship that he keeps in his fortress. Keep the Silver Age scale, but never forget to keep the Golden Age Superman at the forefront. This is also partially to keep him political because I want to see how THAT Superman, the champion of the oppressed, reacts to the fifties and sixties: the civil rights movement, the hippies, the cold war, stuff like that. It seems to me that the Golden Age Superman really should have been around in the sixties instead of the Mister Establishment that we got. I'm also hoping that having the more radical Superman stick around would mitigate the perceived need for a reboot in the eighties at all. Of course he could gain character depth like we saw in the Bronze Age as well, I just want him to keep the attitude and less silly power-scale.

    The Second Idea is: LUTHOR. See, when he debuted in the Golden Age, Luthor wasn't a very good character. He was a caricature of a mad scientist stereotype. Frankly, I'm more entertained by Doctor Sivana. However, as time went on, and writers like Hamilton and Maggin got ahold of him, Lex Luthor became far more interesting: a noble demon, a crook with a moral code of honor. He was clearly the smartest human in history and he had an ego to match, but though he might prefer to be a hero he would never stand to be second best at anything! So when Superman showed, he became the world's greatest criminal. Still, he was a criminal that never killed. That moral code of his was comparable to Superman's. There's probably a better way to establish their relationship that doesn't involve Smallville, but leaving that aside when Byrne (under Wolfman's advice) rebooted Luthor in Man of Steel, he lost that great, deep character and became a caricature yet again, this time a caricature of a corrupt businessman. I want the good Luthor back. The BEST Luthor if you ask me. He was a bit heroic, and that's something I'm sad to see gone these days, especially now that those who do want him to be more complex write him as the embodiment of selfishness and evil.

  11. #206
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Really, why is it a bad thing if there's a division in the fanbase? I mean, it's not like there's a hate and love division. It's that we love Superman and we each have our own preference for an interpretation. Is it really that big a deal that someone likes Pre-Crisis more than Post Crisis and vice versa? The one thing we can agree on is that we love Superman.

  12. #207
    Paladin Kurosawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    344 Clinton St, Apt 3E
    Posts
    3,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    Really, why is it a bad thing if there's a division in the fanbase? I mean, it's not like there's a hate and love division. It's that we love Superman and we each have our own preference for an interpretation. Is it really that big a deal that someone likes Pre-Crisis more than Post Crisis and vice versa? The one thing we can agree on is that we love Superman.
    The very heated arguments and deep seated dislike between people like you and me is a great example of why the schism within the Superman fanbase is so harmful. You don't see that with Batman fans. The closest thing I can think of is the schism within the Star Wars fanbase, which is probably worse...I don't like Byrne's Superman but I like his other work, while I've seen people who love the OT say some of the worst things about George Lucas over the PT and the SE that you could say about anyone-real crazy stuff, threats and everything.

    I think the schism within Superman's fanbase hurts him though because to the general public there isn't as easily definable a separation with the different versions of Superman, while the two SW trilogies were made decades apart. So when a Pre-Crisis fan or a Post-Crisis fan bashes something from an era of Superman they don't like and people parrot those views elsewhere, all they hear is "Superman is stupid because of _______", not "Silver Age Superman is stupid because of _____" or "John Byrne's Superman is stupid because of ________"-it all gets attached to the character and builds the case against him.

    Does that make sense? Can you see where I'm coming from?

    Star Wars is also pretty much bulletproof as much as people bitch about the PT, it's still huger than huge.
    Doomed Planet. Desperate Scientists. Last Hope. Kindly Couple.

  13. #208
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post
    The very heated arguments and deep seated dislike between people like you and me is a great example of why the schism within the Superman fanbase is so harmful.
    Who hates who? You're the only one that's declaring hate here. I certainly don't hate you and never have. Believe me, if I hated you, I would come out and say it. Certainly not I don't see anyone else hate you. And how is it harmful? Is it going to stop you from liking Superman? No. Is it going to stop me? No. Who said that we all had to live as harmonious people, just to enjoy a fictional character.

    You don't see that with Batman fans. The closest thing I can think of is the schism within the Star Wars fanbase, which is probably worse...I don't like Byrne's Superman but I like his other work, while I've seen people who love the OT say some of the worst things about George Lucas over the PT and the SE that you could say about anyone-real crazy stuff, threats and everything.
    The problem is that the internet allows anonymity. People aren't afraid to say stuff that they probably nine times out of ten, wouldn't say in real life. Those that would are the cyber bullies that we hear about, who also turn into real bullies. Or vice versa.

    I think the schism within Superman's fanbase hurts him though because to the general public there isn't as easily definable a separation with the different versions of Superman, while the two SW trilogies were made decades apart. So when a Pre-Crisis fan or a Post-Crisis fan bashes something from an era of Superman they don't like and people parrot those views elsewhere, all they hear is "Superman is stupid because of _______", not "Silver Age Superman is stupid because of _____" or "John Byrne's Superman is stupid because of ________"-it all gets attached to the character and builds the case against him.
    You're putting way too much stock in Superman and what people know about the character. Comic book fans are the only ones that really know about and give a damn about the multiple interpretations of the lore. Any discussion is going to be either happen on message boards, at conventions and comic book stores. The vast majority that like Superman aren't aware of "The Man Of Steel" mini-series, "Birthright", "Secret Origin", "Superman And The Men Of Steel", "The Last Son Of Krypton", Action Comics #500 and any other major recap of the origin. They're going to be aware of the films and television shows, to be certain, but unless they have a desire to go look it up, they're not going to learn much. Only in Metropolis, Illinois will you see something a bit closer to that, but by and large the people celebrate Superman. Only the angry fanboys are going to argue Byrne vs Waid vs Maggin Vs Morrison. The majority of the Superman audience are the same as those who only know the most basic and publicized version of the characters, which is films and television. The divide with Spider-Man's marriage and how it ended a few years back, didn't hurt "The Amazing Spider-Man" one bit. The only backlash that film had was that it was too soon to be rebooting everything that way.

    "Star Wars" is bullet proof only in the sense that the larger audience doesn't give a crap what the fanboys have to say. If anything, they'll make fun of us more than they'll be turned away from it.

  14. #209
    Paladin Kurosawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    344 Clinton St, Apt 3E
    Posts
    3,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    Who hates who? You're the only one that's declaring hate here. I certainly don't hate you and never have. Believe me, if I hated you, I would come out and say it. Certainly not I don't see anyone else hate you. And how is it harmful? Is it going to stop you from liking Superman? No. Is it going to stop me? No. Who said that we all had to live as harmonious people, just to enjoy a fictional character.



    The problem is that the internet allows anonymity. People aren't afraid to say stuff that they probably nine times out of ten, wouldn't say in real life. Those that would are the cyber bullies that we hear about, who also turn into real bullies. Or vice versa.



    You're putting way too much stock in Superman and what people know about the character. Comic book fans are the only ones that really know about and give a damn about the multiple interpretations of the lore. Any discussion is going to be either happen on message boards, at conventions and comic book stores. The vast majority that like Superman aren't aware of "The Man Of Steel" mini-series, "Birthright", "Secret Origin", "Superman And The Men Of Steel", "The Last Son Of Krypton", Action Comics #500 and any other major recap of the origin. They're going to be aware of the films and television shows, to be certain, but unless they have a desire to go look it up, they're not going to learn much. Only in Metropolis, Illinois will you see something a bit closer to that, but by and large the people celebrate Superman. Only the angry fanboys are going to argue Byrne vs Waid vs Maggin Vs Morrison. The majority of the Superman audience are the same as those who only know the most basic and publicized version of the characters, which is films and television. The divide with Spider-Man's marriage and how it ended a few years back, didn't hurt "The Amazing Spider-Man" one bit. The only backlash that film had was that it was too soon to be rebooting everything that way.

    "Star Wars" is bullet proof only in the sense that the larger audience doesn't give a crap what the fanboys have to say. If anything, they'll make fun of us more than they'll be turned away from it.
    I don't think you quite get what I'm saying. What I am saying is because most people do not know or care about the details of Superman's history, that all they hear (usually through second or thirdhand sources) is the things we complain to each other about-like "Superman is too powerful", which is a common Post-Crisis fan viewpoint or "Superman never has anything bad happen to him", which is more of a Post-Crisis thing, but they never hear it in context and they never hear it applied to one version of the character or another because they don't consider there to be but one version, so all the negative complaints stick to the character. The version you liked is still seen as "too powerful" and the version I liked is still seen as never having been hurt and having it easy, etc. It doesn't matter that to me, Pre-Crisis Superman wasn't too powerful and to you Post-Crisis Superman did indeed go through pain and loss, all people hear is the bad stuff and they hear it and don't hear the good things. So what I am saying is that to a degree we hurt Superman when we heavily criticize any era of his history, including some of the stuff that I say.
    Doomed Planet. Desperate Scientists. Last Hope. Kindly Couple.

  15. #210
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post
    I don't think you quite get what I'm saying. What I am saying is because most people do not know or care about the details of Superman's history, that all they hear (usually through second or thirdhand sources) is the things we complain to each other about-like "Superman is too powerful", which is a common Post-Crisis fan viewpoint or "Superman never has anything bad happen to him", which is more of a Post-Crisis thing, but they never hear it in context and they never hear it applied to one version of the character or another because they don't consider there to be but one version, so all the negative complaints stick to the character. The version you liked is still seen as "too powerful" and the version I liked is still seen as never having been hurt and having it easy, etc. It doesn't matter that to me, Pre-Crisis Superman wasn't too powerful and to you Post-Crisis Superman did indeed go through pain and loss, all people hear is the bad stuff and they hear it and don't hear the good things. So what I am saying is that to a degree we hurt Superman when we heavily criticize any era of his history, including some of the stuff that I say.
    Did you ever think that people can form their opinions without fanboy help? A good chunk of the problems stem from before the internet when people were making judgments based on the comics and other media of the time. Regardless of reading interviews on the subject or hearing from some guy on the internet. In 1979, after seeing the first film, I'd wager that twenty out of fifty people in the theater probably felt that the character was way over powered when he turned back time. Likewise in 1997, before having access to the internet, only this time it was the DCAU version. But by and large, it's not going to be someone like you and me that informs their opinion of Superman. It's going to be formed based on all the films, the television shows, the cartoons, the video games, the comics and from his basic reputation. Most people will wind up ignoring talk because they just chalk it up to losers who have nothing better to do with their lives.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •