shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,838
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 2, 2020 21:11:34 GMT -5
Loving that you have picked back up in reviewing these shaxper. You always manage to find little details I missed or forgot or never noticed so I will need to spend more time paying attention when I get around to reading these again some day... If you do, I'll be out of a job!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,838
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 2, 2020 21:17:54 GMT -5
I always wondered where the whole wussification of Superman started. The very beginning of this thread, with Man of Steel #1. I chronicle the changing editorial edicts and philosophies of the Post-Crisis Superman Office here, if you're curious. It's one of the two aspects of this thread that I personally find the most interesting to maintain! This happened in 1986, and I believe the intent was to make Superman's struggles/conflicts believable again. Plus, Watchmen was about to be released. I've argued in my Complete Batman: 1979-2011 thread that Frank Miller (and perhaps others at DC) must have had acces to at least a portion of Watchmen prior to its release, as aspects of Dark Knight Returns end up bearing a startling resemblance to it, so it's possible that Moore's deconstruction of the superhero played into Frank Miller and Steve Gerber's initial pitch for a Post-Crisis Superman as well.
|
|
|
Post by sabongero on Jul 2, 2020 22:40:46 GMT -5
I always wondered where the whole wussification of Superman started. The very beginning of this thread, with Man of Steel #1. I chronicle the changing editorial edicts and philosophies of the Post-Crisis Superman Office here, if you're curious. It's one of the two aspects of this thread that I personally find the most interesting to maintain! This happened in 1986, and I believe the intent was to make Superman's struggles/conflicts believable again. Plus, Watchmen was about to be released. I've argued in my Complete Batman: 1979-2011 thread that Frank Miller (and perhaps others at DC) must have had acces to at least a portion of Watchmen prior to its release, as aspects of Dark Knight Returns end up bearing a startling resemblance to it, so it's possible that Moore's deconstruction of the superhero played into Frank Miller and Steve Gerber's initial pitch for a Post-Crisis Superman as well. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Wow! Your first four posts in this thread were eye-openers for me in regards to Superman in the post crisis on infinite earths era. Okay now, I understand the edict on Superman in 1986 and on. After all like many has said, you can only do so much with a guy who can breathe in space and move planets with no problems.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jul 3, 2020 3:30:58 GMT -5
I always wondered where the whole wussification of Superman started. Look, I read a good few of Superman's stories published immediately before the reboot and I don't remember him being the personification of the True American Male. If anything, he was somewhat whiny. At least his post-Crisis version had the marbles to propose to Lois.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jul 3, 2020 11:01:46 GMT -5
The only Superman comics I bought from this era off the stands were the death of Luthor issue and the Lois learns Superman's identity issue. I would have glanced at the covers of what was out, but I only bought Batman stuff at this time. Otherwise, it was pre-Crisis back issues and collections like Superman: From the 30s to the 80s for me. In that case, I'm even more honored before that you've chosen to keep up with this review thread. You do me much honor, my friend. It's all down to your compelling reviews. Believe me, it's always a pleasure reading these.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jul 3, 2020 11:27:08 GMT -5
Re: the "wussification" of Superman.
Although I think certain seeds were planted prior to Crisis (Batman and the Outsiders #1 turned him into a government stooge to make Batman look cool three years before Dark Knight Returns did and yes, Miller was involved in that issue too) Superman himself had a sort of failsafe in place which prevented him from coming across as too much of a wimp - the fact that he was as intelligent, resourceful, and heroic as he was powerful. Sure, Christopher Reeve's Superman might have seemed a little too boy scoutish while rescuing a cat from a tree in his first film, but when he follows that up by going brain to brain against Lex Luthor and winning it's hard to really think of him as anything but the king of superheroes.
When Byrne came along however, he retained the boy scoutish elements (ie. turning down a lady's radio because he thought it was too loud) but also established that there would be a lot times when he'd be in way over his head while outright having Superman admit that he either wasn't in the same league as some of the other top heroes (ie. Action Comics 600 has him tell Wonder Woman "I... admire you, Wonder Woman. I respect you. But... I really am just a boy from Kansas... you're... way out of my league!") or just didn't click with them (ie. Batman).
That "I'm just a boy from Kansas" (really, he couldn't even say "man" at least?) explains why Superman could go from being king of the superheroes to the guy who could be disparaged with the condescending nickname 'Smallville' down the road and when DC's biggest and supposedly coolest hero Batman looks down on you, it's kind of hard to not expect that attitude to rub off on the readers.
As I said, having Superman rescue kittens from trees (which I have nothing against, actually) isn't a problem if he does so while on the way to outwitting Lex Luthor or Brainiac, but having him do so while on his way to being made a fool of by Luthor for the dozenth or so time kind of makes you wonder why he doesn't just stick to the easy stuff more often and leave someone like corrupt businessmen to the police.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,838
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 3, 2020 11:33:30 GMT -5
Re: the "wussification" of Superman. Although I think certain seeds were planted prior to Crisis ( Batman and the Outsiders #1 turned him into a government stooge to make Batman look cool three years before Dark Knight Returns did and yes, Miller was involved in that issue too) Superman himself had a sort of failsafe in place which prevented him from coming across as too much of a wimp - the fact that he was as intelligent, resourceful, and heroic as he was powerful. Sure, Christopher Reeve's Superman might have seemed a little too boy scoutish while rescuing a cat from a tree in his first film, but when he follows that up by going brain to brain against Lex Luthor and winning it's hard to really think of him as anything but the king of superheroes. When Byrne came along however, he retained the boy scoutish elements (ie. turning down a lady's radio because he thought it was too loud) but also established that there would be a lot times when he'd be in way over his head while outright having Superman admit that he either wasn't in the same league as some of the other top heroes (ie. Action Comics 600 has him tell Wonder Woman "I... admire you, Wonder Woman. I respect you. But... I really am just a boy from Kansas... you're... way out of my league!") or just didn't click with them (ie. Batman). That "I'm just a boy from Kansas" (really, he couldn't even say "man" at least?) explains why Superman could go from being king of the superheroes to the guy who could be disparaged with the condescending nickname 'Smallville' down the road and when DC's biggest and supposedly coolest hero Batman looks down on you, it's kind of hard to not expect that attitude to rub off on the readers. As I said, having Superman rescue kittens from trees (which I have nothing against, actually) isn't a problem if he does so while on the way to outwitting Lex Luthor or Brainiac, but having him do so while on his way to being made a fool of by Luthor for the dozenth or so time kind of makes you wonder why he doesn't just stick to the easy stuff more often and leave someone like corrupt businessmen to the police. One of my many wild theories about DC and comics in general is that, in 1986, when DC began marketing to adult readers for really the first time, fans had no familiarity with fanboy hype and no resistance to it. As a result, fans have never really let go of many of those early major hyped story lines -- Man of Steel, Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen -- still believing they were the end-all, be-all of comics because the hype told them so. In the case of DKR, I think it solidified most people's impressions of Superman in a way that was also reinforced by Man of Steel #3. No matter what writers have tried in the 34 years since, most people expect Batman to be over-the-line dark and gritty, and Superman to be a simplified boy scout. Of course, I like Clark as a boyscout, and I like how this office is depicting him as both a goody-goody AND someone who does not trust nor blindly obey the government. However, I don't think that's really the same conversation as how/when he was de-powered, which (I assume) is what Sabongero meant by "Wussified".
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jul 3, 2020 12:35:51 GMT -5
However, I don't think that's really the same conversation as how/when he was de-powered, which (I assume) is what Sabongero meant by "Wussified". Whoops! In that case, I thought those Action Comics Weekly covers (I believe there's another where Superman wipes the sweat from his brow after stopping a locomotive) were more a result of artistic license than reliable indicator of his power level. I mean, Byrne's Superman certainly couldn't push planets around, but having seen him lift vehicles with ease (ie. Luthor's yacht in Man of Steel, The Joker's tanker in Superman #9) I wouldn't expect him to have trouble with an elephant.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,838
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 4, 2020 1:16:28 GMT -5
Catching up with Superman in the Post-Crisis Era -- Where to Start? Okay, so you've heard enough about this era of Superman to have a passing interest, but there are already nearly 200 issues reviewed in this thread, and that's got to seem overwhelming to the newcomer, so here are some ideas on how to approach this series without reading EVERYTHING: 1. A die-hard purist who doesn't want to miss anything at all can start at the beginning and still absolutely skip Action Comics Weekly #601-642. This was a short-lived experiment in which Superman shared the title with a number of unrelated rotating features, and his 2 page adventures during this time were entirely separate from the rest of the Post-Crisis continuity. Very forgettable story-telling all around, and none of it counted. 2. A fan who really wants to read everything that matters could probably get away with skipping Action Comics #584-599 too, which were mostly forgettable Superman team-up stories (Note: Action Comics #592- 593 are infamously bad, so you way want to check them out solely for that reason). #600 aside, Action Comics doesn't become a title that truly matters to the Post-Crisis franchise until #643. 3. Someone looking for the quickest, cheapest way to get caught up on the best parts of this era while cutting out the filler could begin with Adventures of Superman #466. You'll miss a lot of continuity that gets referenced later on, but most of it isn't really necessary for understanding where the series is headed. Adventures #466 is the precise moment that Stern, Ordway, and Jurgens really come into their own, having completed Perez's (forgettable) plot points for the franchise, and having fixed every misstep and lingering point of continuity that Byrne left behind. The Superman Office finally begins to find its center, and you're just in time for the first appearance of Hank Henshaw, the beginning of the Post-Crisis Clark and Lois romance, and the critical Dark Knight over Metropolis storyline, with major developments for the White Family, Lex Luthor, and Lois and Clark just on the horizon. You might go back a little bit to check out Lex Luthor: The Unauthorized Biography as well. You're still shaving off roughly 150 issues of mixed quality content by starting here. "Wait -- but doesn't that mean skipping the John Byrne era? I heard his work on Superman was great."I answer that here. But, if you're worried about missing good Byrne, Wolfman and Perez stories prior to Adventures #466, I've compiled the best stories from those runs here. 4. Or maybe you truly do want to read EVERYTHING. If so, start here.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jul 4, 2020 9:04:42 GMT -5
I suspect the two big reasons why Byrne's run on Superman still gets so much acclaim (by some) today are: 1: The hype at the time. These were the earliest days of the Direct Market, when comics were first being targeted at adult fanboys, and thus it seems like everything that was hyped in those earliest days still gets celebrated as the best thing ever today: Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, and this. Time doesn't seem able to mute that impact, as if people reading at the time truly believed these must be the best works ever in the history of comicdom because they were being talked about so much. 2. Byrne gets credited for all the major changes the Post-Crisis Superman reboot brought us, even if that credit is incorrectly attributed. He didn't pitch the Luthor as business tycoon idea, for example, nor Lois as more assertive/able to stand on her own, nor Superman being de-powered, nor removing the more ridiculous Silver Age aspects from the franchise. What he did give us was a more obnoxious Krypton and love triangles for both Perry White and Ma and Pa Kent, and those aren't aspects of the reboot that anyone celebrates. I want just add another opinion absolutely complementary with your hypothesis. I absolutely agree that Byrne's Superman wasn't very good in absolute, but relatively to what had come before, it was almost revolutionary. Let us remember that this was a period of great turmoil in the world of comics, with the publication of works that are still considered masterpieces and the arrival of British authors. But Superman, from a storytelling point of view. seemed to have stopped at the period immediately after the Sand Superman saga. Except for a few minor continuity changes, every Superman's story from the 1971-1986 is virtually interchangeable (well, no surprise here, considering that the writers and artists were virtually the same). And they weren't even very good stories to begin with (with a very, very, very few exceptions). The poor Crimebuster had tried to read and review all the bronze era Superman's stories but he had to throw the towel because it was a such soul-crushing experience. And I mean, considering that we have virtually hundreds of Superman stories in the 1971-1986 period, how many of them are regularly reprinted? Only the Sand Superman Saga (because of its historical importance, not because it's particularly good) and Moore's stories (because, well, he's Alan Moore) come to my mind. I distinctly remember that in a period where we had Claremont's X-Men, Miller's Daredevil, Simonson's Thor and so on, Superman almost seemed the parody of himself. In what new and exciting ways will Superman use his planet-crashing powers to gaslight Lois Lane for the umpteenth time, instead of, I don't know, actually helping people? So, when Byrne arrived, he looked incredibly new, fresh and modern compared to his predecessors (although by his standards he was barely competent.). The bad quality of the previous Superman stories (real or presumed) was so ingrained in the minds of the readers (who, considering the sales charts of the time of the time, didn't even read them), that any change that clearly distanced itself from what came before it would have been considered a revolutionary masterpiece. Well, IHMO of course. By the way, about the "wussification" of Superman (if we mean about his character, not his power levels), well, perhaps the post reboot version was a "wussy". But his previous version was a downright toxic jerk (and I can bring a lot of examples to prove my point). Prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Jul 4, 2020 10:20:24 GMT -5
1. A die-hard purist who doesn't want to miss anything at all can start at the beginning and still absolutely skip Action Comics Weekly #601-642. This was a short-lived experiment in which Superman shared the title with a number of unrelated rotating features, and his 10 page adventures during this time were entirely separate from the rest of the Post-Crisis continuity. Very forgettable story-telling all around, and none of it counted. Do you mean 2 page adventures, or were the stories all five-parters?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,838
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 5, 2020 9:02:18 GMT -5
I suspect the two big reasons why Byrne's run on Superman still gets so much acclaim (by some) today are: 1: The hype at the time. These were the earliest days of the Direct Market, when comics were first being targeted at adult fanboys, and thus it seems like everything that was hyped in those earliest days still gets celebrated as the best thing ever today: Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, and this. Time doesn't seem able to mute that impact, as if people reading at the time truly believed these must be the best works ever in the history of comicdom because they were being talked about so much. 2. Byrne gets credited for all the major changes the Post-Crisis Superman reboot brought us, even if that credit is incorrectly attributed. He didn't pitch the Luthor as business tycoon idea, for example, nor Lois as more assertive/able to stand on her own, nor Superman being de-powered, nor removing the more ridiculous Silver Age aspects from the franchise. What he did give us was a more obnoxious Krypton and love triangles for both Perry White and Ma and Pa Kent, and those aren't aspects of the reboot that anyone celebrates. I want just add another opinion absolutely complementary with your hypothesis. I absolutely agree that Byrne's Superman wasn't very good in absolute, but relatively to what had come before, it was almost revolutionary. Let us remember that this was a period of great turmoil in the world of comics, with the publication of works that are still considered masterpieces and the arrival of British authors. But Superman, from a storytelling point of view. seemed to have stopped at the period immediately after the Sand Superman saga. Except for a few minor continuity changes, every Superman's story from the 1971-1986 is virtually interchangeable (well, no surprise here, considering that the writers and artists were virtually the same). And they weren't even very good stories to begin with (with a very, very, very few exceptions). The poor Crimebuster had tried to read and review all the bronze era Superman's stories but he had to throw the towel because it was a such soul-crushing experience. And I mean, considering that we have virtually hundreds of Superman stories in the 1971-1986 period, how many of them are regularly reprinted? Only the Sand Superman Saga (because of its historical importance, not because it's particularly good) and Moore's stories (because, well, he's Alan Moore) come to my mind. I distinctly remember that in a period where we had Claremont's X-Men, Miller's Daredevil, Simonson's Thor and so on, Superman almost seemed the parody of himself. In what new and exciting ways will Superman use his planet-crashing powers to gaslight Lois Lane for the umpteenth time, instead of, I don't know, actually helping people? So, when Byrne arrived, he looked incredibly new, fresh and modern compared to his predecessors (although by his standards he was barely competent.). The bad quality of the previous Superman stories (real or presumed) was so ingrained in the minds of the readers (who, considering the sales charts of the time of the time, didn't even read them), that any change that clearly distanced itself from what came before it would have been considered a revolutionary masterpiece. Well, IHMO of course. That's a solid perspective I'd failed to consider. Thanks for this! On the one hand, I agree. On the other, really the one counterpoint I can see to both your theory about why Byrne was welcome and about Supes being a toxic jerk is the Christopher Reeve perspective. Superman didn't only exist in comics, of course, and (as you pointed out) the circ numbers on Superman comics were very low by this point, so I think it's safe to assume the Chris Reeves Superman was having a larger impact on folks than his comic book counterpart. That character was certainly the opposite of toxic, and his (first two) movies were adored, so I think that may complicate your point about Byrne being a welcome change. It sure sounds like his was better than much of the writing that had come before, but the characterization was a major upturn of the middle finger at anyone who believed in the cinematic version that had captured the soul of America only half a decade earlier, and which was still regularly being rerun on broadcast television. Maybe it's just me. Maybe fans really were willing to give Byrne a pass for being better than what had appeared in print before, but for me, his depiction gave us an ignorant, easy to anger, punch-first-ask-questions-later, sometimes morally questionable farm boy from Kansas in place of the greatest hero of all, whose powers were secondary to his conduct and ideals. Anyway, GREAT perspectives, zaku. You've really gotten me thinking now.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,838
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 5, 2020 9:02:40 GMT -5
1. A die-hard purist who doesn't want to miss anything at all can start at the beginning and still absolutely skip Action Comics Weekly #601-642. This was a short-lived experiment in which Superman shared the title with a number of unrelated rotating features, and his 10 page adventures during this time were entirely separate from the rest of the Post-Crisis continuity. Very forgettable story-telling all around, and none of it counted. Do you mean 2 page adventures, or were the stories all five-parters? No, it really was just a careless typo. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jul 5, 2020 13:04:30 GMT -5
On the one hand, I agree. On the other, really the one counterpoint I can see to both your theory about why Byrne was welcome and about Supes being a toxic jerk is the Christopher Reeve perspective. Superman didn't only exist in comics, of course, and (as you pointed out) the circ numbers on Superman comics were very low by this point, so I think it's safe to assume the Chris Reeves Superman was having a larger impact on folks than his comic book counterpart. That character was certainly the opposite of toxic, and his (first two) movies were adored, so I think that may complicate your point about Byrne being a welcome change. It sure sounds like his was better than much of the writing that had come before, but the characterization was a major upturn of the middle finger at anyone who believed in the cinematic version that had captured the soul of America only half a decade earlier, and which was still regularly being rerun on broadcast television. Maybe it's just me. Maybe fans really were willing to give Byrne a pass for being better than what had appeared in print before, but for me, his depiction gave us an ignorant, easy to anger, punch-first-ask-questions-later, sometimes morally questionable farm boy from Kansas in place of the greatest hero of all, whose powers were secondary to his conduct and ideals. You are right that usually when people thought about Superman it was the the Christopher Reeve who they visualized! So, I adjust my theory a little bit: Now, let's try to remember what kind of heroes people wanted in those years. That was the era of Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Willis and so on. Very action oriented heroes. Heroes who were here to kick ass and chew bubblegum (and they were all out of gum). In the comics world we had Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, the success of Punisher and so on. Violence in pop culture was trendy. And the poor Superman? In the 1987 we had Superman IV. Let's not talk about it. At this point the Man Of Steel in the public consciousness was almost a camp caricature and his super-boyscout characterization was considerated out-of-date in an era where people craved for more violent heroes. So Byrne gave readers the Superman they wanted. Someone ready to use his fists to resolve any problem. A more pro-active hero (like when he dismantles the military of Qurac, something that movie/pre-crisis version would never do). And a more assertive Clark Kent. Readers welcomed this more up-to-date characterization. Anyway, GREAT perspectives, zaku . You've really gotten me thinking now. Why, thank you . And you made me realize that when people talked about Superman as a super-boyscout, they were talking about Christopher Reeve (because his comic counterpart was waaaaay different, characterwise).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2020 22:19:50 GMT -5
i recently picked up a ton of post-crisis superman (action 584-881 [minus the weekly stretch], man of steel 1-6, superman 1-226, adventures 424-573 and all the annuals) and this thread has made me want to finally jump into them.
i also grabbed the man of steel 1-134, but i think that's a ways down the line.
|
|