Superman 80th Anniversary Thread

[thecolorsblend]

The perception a lot of audiences likely have is that Superman has two stories:

01- Origin
02- Death

Even Snyder unwittingly played into that a little bit. He was removed before he could complete his story and by now, the damage is done. DC doesn't really like Superman and they don't know what to do with him. They went through a phase at one point where they wanted Superman to be Batman with powers and that just doesn't work.

The overused mind control trope and Superman as Batman's punching bag are other problematic trends which can't help but lessen his stature. Superman has become a stranger people can't be bothered reconnecting with.

I have to say this part: the underlying concept of Superman being an illegal alien journalist in the woke 2020 context makes Superman even less appealing FOR ME going forward. When I see something like 'Superman Smashes the Klan' I shake my head. Nazis and KKK are bad, we are told, and you shouldn't have a problem with the premise of such a comic. The problem is that we are told to punch Nazis, and the modern news media labels members of the public Nazis. The standard to meet that label these days is very low indeed. It's a completely one sided conversation and depiction in the entertainment industry. The powers that be seek to establish the acceptable social norm, and go against that norm if you dare. Using a character that is already struggling to sell your politics isn't wise. But onwards they go.

The most horrifying moment of any fan's existence is realizing that if the Marvel characters existed irl, we ourselves would probably be their targets because of our, shall we say, normie policy views.

Marvel characters are basically supervillains that nobody is allowed to call supervillains.

It's not quite that bad with DC. Yet. And it may never be if DC ceases to exist soon (which is my expectation). But you are right about the bar being set low as far who is a "Nazi" in today's world.

The interesting thing is how the Golden Age Superman didn't have an explicit political agenda. People describe him as Roosevelet-esque. And I understand that as useful shorthand. There's even some accuracy to it. But if one is familiar with Roosevelt's actual record (not the revisionist nonsense that's been attached to his legend) then you see Golden Age Superman breaking away from Roosevelt several times in Action Comics #01 alone.

Frankly, I think DC's overall disinterest in Superman is probably the only thing that's protected him from becoming a far-left mascot like Captain America has become.

[The Dark Knight]

Golden Age Superman wasn't physically capable of wiping out all life on Earth. He could be stopped permanently by human means if it ever came down to it. That version of Superman flouting the law probably wasn't terrifying to anybody. But modern Superman is so vastly powerful that, as per BVS, it's truly terrifying to think what might be possible if he openly and unapologetically broke the law. Because if he does that, it's one more reminder that (A) he can kill the entire human race if he ever decides he wants to and (B) there is literally no way to stop him.

Circling back to power levels.

Some cite the All Star Superman panel as their favorite, but mine is from TDK Returns.



The key phrase that is an ENORMOUS source of inspiration to me is "if I am weak", which is pure self belief and macho grunt. I wouldn't even need the artwork of Superman's tiny body stopping the nuke, just that phrase. But the art is an added bonus. It presents Superman with odds worthy of his power level, he saves the day and suffers damage because of it. Something has to be done, so it will be done. Love it. It would be the equivalent of Spider-Man lifting the rubble, showing vulnerability and willpower.

[The Laughing Fish]

One criticism I have for these two issues is Lois Lane. Man, I know meekness might be a turn-off, but Lois showing her contempt for Clark for not fighting back at that gangster is pretty cold. Worst damsel in distress ever, if I were Superman, I'd let her rot.

Reading this makes me hark back to something I read awhile ago about readers not liking John Byrne's handling of Lois Lane during his tenure on the books at the very start of the Post-Crisis era. Though, if I am not mistaken, Byrne himself has admitted to being more of a Clark/Lana Lang shipper than Clark/Lois.

Ha ha, Lois was certainly willing to do whatever it would take get a scoop on Superman in Byrne's MOS mini-series. But I'll cut her some slack. If I made all that effort to put my own life in danger to get an interview with Superman and he complies, only to be beaten by somebody else who came from out of nowhere, I'd be bitter too. It makes it even funnier that Lois was interviewing the same guy who would beat her to that story all along. 

Honestly, I think the virtual extinction of the classic Golden Age Superman is one of the great tragedies of the character's whole history. You can restore Batman to something close enough to the original Finger/Kane version without sacrificing too much of anything. But restoring Superman to his early Golden Age iteration necessarily involves deleting decade upon decade of innovation. I understand the reluctance to return Superman back to that point since it really is a drastic reduction. But that early Siegel/Shuster stuff has a lot of potential and the vast majority of it has never been explored.

I don't usually recommend The New 52. But Grant Morrison's run on Action Comics vol. 02 featured a version of Superman kinda sorta similar to the Golden Age version. It doesn't last very long, unfortunately. But it's by far the closest Superman has been to the 1938 original since 1938, probably.

I suppose that's true. If you compare the differences between the Golden Age and the Silver/Bronze Age eras, Superman appears to be a social crusader in the former, whilst the latter made him into a science fantasy character. I once read Actions Comics #500, which had Superman narrating his life story as he visits an exhibition celebrating him. As you know, the latter had Clark Kent becoming Superboy with some help from his parents (Pa Kent even helped Clark to learn how to fly by tying him up as a makeshift kite together with balloons, ha ha!), and Clark himself was not only a skillful inventor who created the suit, but also constructed robots that resembled himself and Superboy in order to avoid suspicion and when he couldn't be two places at once. Including building trap doors at home to avoid anyone seeing Superboy flying from the Kent farm.*

Suffice to say, it's a far cry from the days of Superman fighting wife beaters, intimidating criminals and participating in war conflicts. Maybe in the post-Frank Werthem era, all of that was necessary for the character to survive. It might be silly to some people, but the evolution of the character during that time may have helped maintain his status in pop culture, particularly with children, for so many years. But unlike Batman, the only downside is that science fantasy escapism may have contributed in keeping Superman stuck in some sort of nostalgic limbo by a fanbase not willing to be open-minded towards modern interpretations.

*For all the drastic differences between those different eras, the one thing they had in common - at least judging from what I read in Secret Origins #1 and Actions Comics #500 - was Clark Kent didn't become Superman and move to Metropolis until the Kents had passed away. A truly coming-of-age moment for him, just as well as it was a tragic moment for him. For all the talk about how difficult it is to make Superman relatable, it's a shame some can't see how such a poignant moment would enable people to start embracing adulthood. It's something I'm sure other people understand all too well, sadly.

I haven't read much New 52 Superman, apart from Superman #0 where Krypton is attacked by a cult embracing the planet's pending demise (IIRC). But I assume Morrison's run had Clark moving to Metropolis under similar circumstances?

[thecolorsblend]

If I can larp as an historian for a minute, Superman's powers gradually began expanding from the jump in Action Comics #01. But if I had to make a guess as to when the game changed forever with Superman, it was America dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1938, Superman was considered by his own comics to be the most powerful thing in the world. For better or for worse, the bar was set pretty low back then.

But after the bombs fell on Japan, Superman's powers needed to expand such that he could remain the most powerful being in the world. The "most powerful thing in the world" continuum now included nuclear weapons. That meant that Superman had to be more powerful than nukes.

Another thing that changed was the nature of a superhero's powers in general. Before 1945, a lot of pop fiction for children tended to revolve around magic, the paranormal, etc. Yes, Superman was a notable exception but he still proved the rule.

But those bombs getting dropped changed something in the American psyche. And so for the next few decades, really, science, technology, the military, etc, all supplanted magic as the prime mythological constructs of pop fiction. Magic had been displaced by science because, by then, science was probably a lot scarier than magic ever could've been. I find it telling that a lot of characters who had a magical component underlying their mythos, origins or powers had largely faded away by the mid-50's. It's no coincidence that Hal Jordan and Barry Allen debuted when they did. The differences between them and their predecessors are no accident.

Superman was an obvious beneficiary to all that. So whereas his stories needed to be fairly grounded, writers after 1945 had the mandate to take the character into more sci-fi territory.

But those changes also meant that Superman's career as a social crusader also ended. America's newfound post-war affluence, swagger and relief demanded changes. For example, crooked tenement owners ripping off their tenants was probably seen as an almost anachronistic concept in the era where suburban America as we know it was born. The little guy just didn't need as much help in post-war America as he did before.

In order for Superman to stay relevant, he needed stories more ambitious than kicking the snot out of abusive husbands and or settling some clueless foreign dictators' hash. It's very revealing that beginning in the 50's, Superman was increasingly pitted against mad scientists or else angry housewives. His powers either needed to be tested or else Superman himself had to be forced into situations where his powers could offer little practical use.

As the space race wore on, Superman had showdowns with more and more aliens. Mankind already possessed the power to destroy the world. Now, mankind was looking toward the stars and developing the technology to take itself there. Superman's stories had no choice but to keep up.

So, I see a lot of Superman's evolution over the decades has primarily come down to social factors influenced by economics, science, technology, etc.

To contrast that against Batman, his stories had gradually become lighter and lighter, especially after 1945. Stories featuring a grim, brooding avenger of the night were just against the public mood after the war. I enjoy fifties and early sixties Batman stories. But it's undeniable that the talent crafting the stories were trying like mad to find an identity and direction for Batman in a world that had been completely reordered.

Sometimes, those artists and writers were successful. Other times, they weren't. But I don't think it's possible to overemphasize how much the end of the war, the good economy, the Cold War, the space race, the atomic bomb and other things influenced culture which in turn influenced comics. I'm sure Wertham, the Comics Code and other things all played their part. But comics were facing plenty of challenges without those things.

Then again, I could be completely wrong here.

[The Laughing Fish]

As the space race wore on, Superman had showdowns with more and more aliens. Mankind already possessed the power to destroy the world. Now, mankind was looking toward the stars and developing the technology to take itself there. Superman's stories had no choice but to keep up.

So, I see a lot of Superman's evolution over the decades has primarily come down to social factors influenced by economics, science, technology, etc.

This goes to show that comic book characters must evolve with the times to stay relevant. This is what I suspect a lot of Superman idealists don't seem to understand. By clinging onto one specific interpretation, whether it's a Silver Age comic book sensibility or Richard Donner, Superman will eventually fade into obscurity. Yes, we all have our preferences, and we're not going to like every take. But people need to be open-minded if Superman is going to stay relevant in the public conscience. It would be like me only preferring Steve Engelhart's run on Batman, but turning down every other comic afterwards. I'd be missing out on stories like The Court of Owls.

In the last couple of days, I've been reading a few more Superman comics, and I stumbled across Superman 2001 (Superman #300, 1976) written by Cary Bates and Elliot S! Maggin. This is basically a prototypical Elseworlds story, where Kal-El is born in the year 1976, and shows how he'd become Superman in the year 2001, hence the title. Given this was a Cold War story, Kal-El became the subject of a political arm wrestle between the US and the USSR ever since his spacecraft was first discovered, and as soon as his existence was confirmed to the world in 1990, tensions between the two warring countries immediately escalate into nuclear assault. Kal-El saves the world from annihilation, and as a result, peace talks begin to take place between the Americans and the Soviets. But the experience left Kal-El discouraged that humanity nearly destroyed itself over him, and believed if people couldn't be ready with the power and technology it already possessed then they couldn't be ready to accept a powerful alien. So he adopted the name Clark Kent - the first name taken from a soldier who found his spacecraft and the last name taken in honour of the late General who was a father figure - and never used his powers again, until eleven years later.

People can take this story or leave it. But judging from the criteria of loudmouth Superman "fans" online, if the character doesn't smile every single frame or displays any existential doubts, I can only assume they'd accuse Bates and Maggin of "not getting" Superman.

Now that I've mentioned Maggin, I've got a bone to pick with him over this MORONIC comment about that tired old argument of Superman killing Zod in MOS:

More likely that the mistake was handing over an archetypal heroic character to an objectivist Ayn Rand freak.

Oh ... did I say that? Must be in a mood.

Look. There are a bunch of answers here that suggest Superman had no other choice. Horsesh*t. First of all, you NEVER put a character in a position where he has no choice other than to betray a fundamental premise of his existence. Second, Snyder didn't put Superman in any such position. Either the director doesn't have much of an imagination or — more likely — he just wanted to be the kid who kicks over the paint can in the garage.

Superman always devises a solution because, of his nature, he does have an imagination that makes that possible. Want proof? Start with putting your invulnerable hand over the bad guy's heat-spitting eyes and take it from there.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Zack-Snyder-make-a-mistake-in-having-Superman-kill-Zod-in-Man-of-Steel

Where to begin? The hypocrisy of this idiot is astounding.

If Zack Snyder is an objectivist, presumably because he said he wanted to adapt one of her works on film, then I guess Patty Jenkins is a serial killer sympathiser because she depicted Aileen Wuornos under a sympathetic light in Monster. I wonder if Maggin had expressed his disgust at Jenkins when she had Wonder Woman killing several German soldiers, Luddendorf (in Luddendorf's case, Diana outright f***ing MURDERED him) and Ares? Or did he praise the film and says WW is everything MOS should've been - and not recognise the cognitive dissonance?

Never mind the other examples of Superman killing Zod such as in Superman II or the end of Byrne's run, how about we address the hypocrisy of his little remark about "you NEVER put a character in a position where he has no choice other than to betray a fundamental premise of his existence". You can easily make the same argument to criticise Maggin's work on Superman 2001. Young Clark Kent stopped his heroics for years because he lost faith in humanity for abusing its own power, and he certainly didn't think it would be ready for him. You could say Clark's decision cost the world quite a lot if you can imagine how many other conflicts he could've stopped, how many accidents he could've prevented, or say, how many lives and cats on trees he could've rescued? I'd hate to think of people showing their contempt for Maggin and Bates for making Clark turning his back on humanity.

As for "sTaRt WiTh PuTtInG yOuR iNvUlNeRaBlE hAnD oVeR tHe BaD gUy'S hEaT-sPiTtInG eYeS aNd tAkE iT fRoM tHeRe"? The simple-minded idiocy of this comment never ceases to amaze me, which might explain why it's so popular. The fact that it's said by a comic book writer who makes a living telling stories to his own liking is even more mind-boggling.

If you can't even accept the fact that the film's ending established Zod as a genocidal maniac who refused to surrender, and all non-lethal options to stop him had been taken away then you might as well just relinquish your right to watch films. FFS, covering his eyes...and then what? What other option did Superman have to stop him that didn't involve some deus ex machina? I guess the Death of Superman comic should've had found another way to stop Doomsday, instead of Superman sacrificing himself and delivering that fatal blow. I wouldn't be surprised if people like Maggin would cry "Superman is being stupid, homicidal AND suicidal for charging at Doomsday!". Yeah, f*** the world, right? Sanctimony is more important than whatever is at stake.

Idiot, hypocritical gatekeepers like Elliot S! Maggin are the reason why Superman is in limbo, across all media.

[The Laughing Fish]

I was going to post the following in the Post-Crisis Superman thread, but following my last post, I think it's more suitable to post it here.

The other Superman comic I read the other day was Day of Doom - a four issue run by Dan Jurgens. It takes place a decade after the entire Death of Superman saga, and Perry White gives a new reporter the job to write about the anniversary of Superman's death. Meanwhile, mysterious attacks keep occurring around Metropolis that eerily resemble Doomsday's destruction all those years ago.

The best thing I loved about this story is Jurgens does NOT shy away from the fallout surrounding Superman's death and resurrection. Ty Duffy, the new Daily Planet reporter, is disgusted how Superman's death is still commemorated despite he came back to life, while all the victims who perished during the Doomsday and Cyborg Superman attacks are hardly acknowledged. Later on, it's revealed the latest Doomsday-like attacks were recreated by a ghostly villain called the Remnant, who blames Superman for Doomsday's carnage.

Jurgens wrote this story in 2003. This particular exchange of words between Superman and the Remnant is astonishing.



Who the f*** would ever thought the Remnant's contempt for Superman would mirror the exact same criticisms lots of people would have for MOS ten years later?

All the heated questions these people would ask i.e. "why didn't Superman take Zod out of the city and into a deserted area" and so on; not only this was already explored in comics long ago, but the fact that the biggest detractors for Snyder's Superman sound exactly like the Remnant is unbelievable.

My only complaint is the ending is an anticlimax, and we never know who the Remnant is. But I do appreciate how Jurgens explores the damaging impact the Doomsday saga left behind, as well as exploring the complicated consequences Superman's return has had on Metropolis. Jurgens was a key player behind the whole Death of Superman arc, so it's not surprising he would tackle its aftermath in some philosophical detail in Day of Doom.

I do wonder though: does the Superman fandom hate the Post-Crisis era? I hardly see too many people show their love for it.

[thecolorsblend]

The whole "take it someplace deserted" bit is strange in that (A) that's not exactly a comic book tradition and (B) Zod's stated premise was to "make them suffer". Superman was never Zod's target during the Metropolis rampage; innocent civilians were. Even if Superman had dragged Zod out into the middle of some desert, Zod would've eventually wiggled free and made a beeline for the nearest major metro to destroy as many people as possible.

I enjoy Maggin's work. He wrote some great Superman stories in the 70's and 80's. His vision has come to define a lot of what I savor about the Bronze Age Superman. But he's kind of a jerk on a personal level.

Characterizing Snyder as an "objectivist Ayn Rand freak" is a crude insult. Or at least, I take it as an insult since I have no affection for objectivism, Ayn Rand or any of that stuff. But I can't recall Snyder ever making public statements regarding his, ah, policy preferences. It could be possible that Maggin knows something about Snyder that we don't. And if Snyder is a libertarian or devotee of Rand philosophy, well, (A) that's his business, what do I care and (B) Maggin found the crudest possible way to out him.

Again, I like Maggin on a professional level. But man, on a personal level he can be a serious pill sometimes.

[The Laughing Fish]

I admire your level-headed take on Maggin. But nowadays, I have an extremely low tolerance when it comes to stupidity from people. When it comes to comic book personalities who should know better, it's automatically zero.

As far as the objectivist slander is concerned, I've seen sheep attack Snyder's work on MOS and BvS as "objectivist propaganda". Some of the claims I've read include the Kents are supposedly anti-altruistic: Jonathan warning Clark to keep his powers a secret is an act of selfishness, and Martha encourages Clark to make a choice if he wants to continue being Superman, and the world doesn't owe him anything.

Which is all nonsense. Pa Kent urging Clark to keep his powers a secret until he's older goes back to the Golden Age era, and recreated in Secret Origins #1, while Martha was trying to comfort her son during an overwhelming time for him. If Clark takes such an enormous burden, it should be by his own choosing. And so he does. If this is all anti-altruistic as these naysayers say, then Snyder did a pretty sh*t job. Yeah, Superman sacrificing himself to protect the greater good in the end of BvS is really selfish! The same thing can be said for the original Death of Superman story!

I can't fathom the utter stupidity.

Going back to Maggin's dumb suggestion in covering Zod's eyes for a moment, it was established that Kryptonians couldn't resist heat vision. See the moment when Faora had to flinch her hand away for a brief moment in agony as Superman fires heat vision for the first time. So no, Maggin's "iNvUlNeRaBlE hAnD" statement is f***ing wrong. Maybe if the idiot had paid some attention to the movie for a bit instead of writing the one in his head, he'd understand that.

Snyder's work isn't perfect by any means, but when people adopt multiple standards to criticise the movies' "biggest flaws" for the very same things others have been guilty of, and much more worse they conveniently ignore, it pisses me right off. When comic writers have to resort to making dishonest, baseless and blatantly hypocritical statements to criticise somebody else's work, it's unforgivable.

[The Laughing Fish]

I rewatched Justice League Unlimited's adaptation of For the Man Who Has Everything, and decided to compare it with the original source material by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, which I finally read a few weeks ago.

While I do think this is one of the JLU animated series' best episodes and it does a fine job of balancing censorship and maintaining the action-packed violence, I reckon the original comic has a lot more depth. The comic shows that despite the Black Mercy is intoxicating Kal-El of dreaming a life on Krypton, the world in his dreams is still full of turmoil. In fact, it's probably even worse off before it was destroyed in reality.

Clark should've dreamed of reuniting with a living Jor-El as father and son happily ever after, but instead there is tension between the two. In any Superman scenario where Krypton would still exist, Jor-El should be delighted that his prediction of the planet's doom was wrong, like in the JLU cartoon version. Instead, he finds bitterness that his prediction has gotten him kicked out of the science council, which paves the way for the helplessness of seeing society crumbling before his very own eyes, losing Lara to illness many years prior, political division and family estrangement.

Mongul explains the Black Mercy was supposed to gift the host whatever dreams they desire, but if anything, it shows Superman knows on a subconscious level that Krypton was always destined to fail. Unlike the JLU episode where the dream Kal-El lived in was a paradise interrupted by a world-ending earthquake, where at least he got to hug his son for the last time, the comic, by contrast, shows he was really living in a nightmare. A world that was becoming increasingly volatile to the point where none of his family members were safe; Kara getting hospitalised because she was related to Jor-El despite having no ties to his political movement whatsoever, shows that this is a far cry from any dream that Clark would've wanted.

If I were to compare to Superman taking his anger at Mongul after waking up, I would say the comic feels a lot more gut-wrenching. Superman in JLU can get outraged at Mongul's heartless comment about how he should've stayed in the happy fantasy land inflicted by the Black Mercy, simply because the fantasy wasn't real, like Batman does to the Mad Hatter in the BTAS episode Perchance to Dream. But I think the comic does a better job at conveying Superman's hurt, because as I already said, the dream became nothing more than a nightmare. The sadness is compounded further when Superman wakes up after being deprived from embracing his dream son for the last time.

Good story. And yet, people still persist in thinking Superman comics are mostly about a superpowered boy scout. For the Man Who Has Everything says otherwise. I was surprised to read a Superman story by Alan Moore that was worth reading, it was much better than Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?.

[The Laughing Fish]

While watching this video showcasing this potential for a modern Superman video game, I can't help but wonder since when does Superman fire Hadoukens?

It's a shame that Superman never had great video games like Batman has. Probably the best Superman game I've ever played was the The Death and Return of Superman on SNES, but even that wasn't amazing. To its credit, it followed the whole Death of Superman, Reign of the Supermen and Return of Superman saga pretty well, starting from Superman fighting the Underworld monsters and Clawster as the stage boss, fighting Doomsday before Superman dies, and it's good to play as Eradicator, Steel, Superboy and Hank Henshaw. I appreciate how it follows Hank Hanshaw taking Doomsday's body out of Project Cadmus, and destroying Coast City like in the comics. My biggest criticism is the gameplay is pretty repetitive and Superman is dramatically weakened. It's very strange to see him get hurt by bikers armed with Molotov cocktails and chainsaws, but I suppose that's sums up the difficulty in making a Superman video game that's playable at all.

The other two Superman games which I thought were okay were the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive, which I grew up playing, and the Taito arcade game. The Sega game even has some of the same sound effects from the B89 game adaptation, which were both made by Sunsoft, but it was pretty difficult. Fighting Brainiac inside a speeding train while trying to dodge Mr. Mxyzptlk's bombs and androids on stage two was a pain, and I used to ragequit every time I struggled to beat Brainiac during the final boss battle.

As for Taito arcade game? Most memorable things about it is it plays the John Williams theme and it's strangely a two player co-op game, so Player 1 can play Superman in blue and Player 2 plays Superman in red. Superman's special power, aside from heat vision, used a Hadouken-style power too. They could've used a freeze breath power ball that instantly freezes your enemies instead, but oh well.