Superman 80th Anniversary Thread

[thecolorsblend]

All jokes aside though, I remember reading of Secret Origins' retelling of Golden Age Superman's backstory and debut, and got curious to read the original first two issues of Action Comics.

One detail that I loved is how Siegel and Shuster presented Superman as the basis of real world science, using insect strength (i.e. ants' ability to lift objects a hundred times above their weight and grasshoppers ability to leap high) to present the fantasy as somewhat plausible to the reading audience. I can only imagine having a little educational tidbit while introducing a fun new character would've made lots of kids dreamed of the impossible back in those days. Put that together with Superman as a crimefighter who gets his hands dirty by using his hands to fight injustice, there's little wonder why this guy had such an appeal to kids at such a young age.

And man, just like the Fleischer cartoons, did he kick ass. Unlike the consensus you read nowadays on the Internet, Superman didn't hold back. Nor was he afraid to intimidate crooks with his strength and threats of violence.



As a matter of fact, similar to Golden Age Batman, this Superman is apparently not too afraid to use lethal force, as he sees the perpetrators getting what they deserve for their deviancy.





He was hard, direct and dealt with matters ranged from domestic abuse, gangsters and political disputes. I love how as Superman gets involved in a South American war that the US is profiting via the sale of munitions, he forces a corrupt congressman looking to take advantage of the situation to enlist in the war as a soldier. Even going so far to disguise himself as a soldier to make sure the politician doesn't try to escape, as a means to teach him a lesson by forcing him to experience the horrors of war.

In fact, the moral of the story extended to the two rival countries fighting in the war, as Superman abducted both commanders made them see how the pointlessness of the war. Very idealistic, but an appropriate story to tell to kids given what was going in the world at that period of time. Nowadays, any comic that explores Superman getting involved in political matters tend to explore dilemmas surrounding his involvement e.g. does having too much power make Superman too invasive, whether or not he should have the right to intervene such matters, and how the rest of the world might perceive him as an existential threat? Is it way cynical way to explore Superman's relationship with the world at large? Should he EVER get involved in any political matters? Depends who you ask, but it can provide great dialogue.

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.

A fun little read on how Superman debuted back in 1938.

One of the big takeaways I have of early Golden Age Superman is how much I don't enjoy Joe Shuster's take on Superman. It's amazing to think that the other artists in his studio (John Sikela, in particular) all had vastly more interesting artwork than Superman's actual co-creator.

As to the business of Superman killing in those early issues, yeah, he was a two-fisted, no-nonsense, FDR-style New Dealer. Rough and ready justice. Shuster's kind of weak art aside, that's a very powerful, very primitive and very hard-nosed version of Superman. In fact, that's probably a huge factor behind why I adore Unbreakable so much. Because it's pretty clear that The Overseer draws a LOT of inspiration from the very early issues of Action Comics.

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.

[The Joker]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

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.

I got the idea that he never really bought into the Clark/Lois romance. He acknowledged that the mythos required it but he wasn't convinced by it.

Frankly, the older I get, the more I agree. There was a time when I was half@$$ concerned that Lana would supplant Lois in the mythos. Now, I could sooner envision Lois supplanting Lana.

In fairness to everybody concerned, Lana and Lois were both created to serve pretty similar purposes in the character's life so it makes sense that they'd eventually threaten each other's narrative turf.

[The Dark Knight]

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.

You're the Superman guy. I respect your expert opinion especially on that front.

I have four questions you may or may not want to answer:

What innovations do you see as positive and which do you see as negative?
Would you welcome a complete return to the original incarnation?
Would you deem that early depiction to be identifiable enough as SUPERMAN?
What are your thoughts on the current state of the Superman brand and where does it go to from here?

I can't speak for Superman comics all that much, but I welcome the innovations that have come with time regarding Batman.

[thecolorsblend]

You're the Superman guy. I respect your expert opinion especially on that front.

Thank you.

What innovations do you see as positive and which do you see as negative?

There's a germ of truth to that whole "Superman is too powerful" bit. A lot of writers think in terms of physically challenging the hero. And if that's the only thing you have in your bag of tricks, writing Superman will be a tough job.

At the end of the day, the customer is always right. I think the gigantic array of powers Superman possesses is a bit too much for some people. I think DC would probably have aided their own cause 30+ years ago if they'd settled on four basic powers for Superman and deleted the rest. Superman must fly (at least in theory). Superman must be "invulnerable". Superman must have super-strength. So pick whatever you want as the fourth ability and remove the rest.

From there, put those four powers on a lower spectrum. People love the Fleischer Superman so I'd recommend something along those lines.

Would you welcome a complete return to the original incarnation?

At this point? Yeah, probably. And here I refer to Action Comics #01. The whole low-powered, two-fisted social crusader thing.

Would you deem that early depiction to be identifiable enough as SUPERMAN?

I think so. And I think a Superman who "stands up for the common man" has a lot of potential appeal to audiences.

What are your thoughts on the current state of the Superman brand and where does it go to from here?

What I know of modern day Superman doesn't sound appealing. Bendis has had Superman go public with his true identity. That solves a problem, admittedly. Superman doesn't wear a mask. Neither does Clark. We live in a world of facial recognition software. Do the math. So Superman outing himself avoids that problem.

Frankly, if that was the best idea Bendis had for dealing with that problem, he's a piss-poor writer. There are tons of ways to address that problem that don't require identity disclosures, masks or anything else.

I can't speak for Superman comics all that much, but I welcome the innovations that have come with time regarding Batman.

The innovations to Batman basically built upon what was already there in The Case Of The Chemical Syndicate. You're hard-pressed to find too much GENUINE CANON of Batman that contradicts what was shown in TCOTCS.

Plus, obviously Batman benefits from change.

The changes made to Superman are different inasmuch as some of the core essentials introduced in Action Comics #01 were made obsolete over time. A good example is the wife beater in that story. Superman arrives on the scene and kicks him around a little bit. Back in those days, stuff that we would consider today to be spousal abuse was generally legal in the US. But Golden Age Superman rose above the law and asserted what Siegel believed to be MORAL TRUTH. Namely, a man shouldn't beat up his wife. That was not a unanimously held opinion back then.

By contrast, in the 90's there was a two-part story called Crisis At Hand which took that one moment from Action #01 and made an entire story out of it. Superman tried to intervene in a domestic dispute, he beat the husband around a little bit, the wife called the cops on Superman and only the fact that he's Superman spared him from criminal prosecution.

Point being that in the current year, Superman is subservient to the laws of man where his Golden Age counterpart made little effort operate within the parameters of the law. If he saw a problem, he'd set it as straight as he could, using his bare hands if necessary. And if setting things right meant breaking the law, he was happy to do it.

There are all manner of possible explanations for why that changed. 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.

So that could be why Superman these days is usually written to be so passive and slow to action. Because deep down inside, the reader must believe in the rightness of his action before they can be thrilled by the action itself. A different literary transaction occurs in modern Superman stories compared to the Golden Age ones. The changes brought to Superman just in his range of powers necessitate changes be made to his essential character as originally established in Action #01 because the context of his actions are so different based upon the scale and scope of his powers.

Again, that's not a problem for Batman. Sure, Batman unapologetically took human life in his early appearances. But that's a negotiable aspect of his character. It's hardly chiseled in stone either way that Batman is committed to kill or that he's committed to never kill. Writers, artists, filmmakers, animators, etc, all have pretty wide latitude with Batman. But Superman taking life, particularly human life, has a certain emotional context in a Golden Age setting and a very different context in a modern setting.

Of course, a return to "social crusader Superman" inevitably leaves the character wide open to certain political ramifications but we would do well to steer clear of that in this thread. But you know exactly what I mean here. Comic writers these days probably have a very different idea of what a "social crusader Superman" should do and say in 2020.

Honestly, there's so much more to say. But I've typed too much already. I just hope you don't regret asking.

[The Dark Knight]

Thanks for the response.

I don't find enjoyment in saying this but I think the future of the character is DOA unless something drastic happens.

I think it's a perfect storm of modern irrelevancy and long term neglect. It goes to show that something big can fail. A McDonald's store isn't going to be an automatic success just because of the brand. If a new franchise opens up on the corner with slow and rude service, and a poorly made product, that franchise will close. Batman and Spider-Man are big franchises but still require a steady stream of content (and good content at that) to keep enthusiasm and momentum. Superman has neither right now. There may be disappointments along the way with Batman media, but they can be taken easier if the track record is still mostly good, and needs are being met elsewhere.

Cavill is being aged out of the role and will NEVER wear the cape again. They're making a new Lois and Clark show, and if that flops...boy....it's really panic stations. I already have huge problems with that depiction anyway. The comics right now, from what I've skimmed, aren't my thing. So I don't know what the hell they're going to do to stop the slide.

If I were in charge I'd commission a video game, and MAKE SURE it was Arkham/Spider-Man PS4 quality. That's a start. Say what you want about that format, but these games generate a lot of excitement - especially in the younger demographic which represents an entry point. Such a game would show the character is fun, and would start to generate positive chatter, which is exactly that's what the brand needs. I love Superman, believe it or not, especially the Animated Series. But you can't ride on those memories forever. Worrying times indeed.

[thecolorsblend]

Thanks for the response.

I don't find enjoyment in saying this but I think the future of the character is DOA unless something drastic happens.

I think it's a perfect storm of modern irrelevancy and long term neglect. It goes to show that something big can fail. A McDonald's store isn't going to be an automatic success just because of the brand. If a new franchise opens up on the corner with slow and rude service, and a poorly made product, that franchise will close. Batman and Spider-Man are big franchises but still require a steady stream of content (and good content at that) to keep enthusiasm and momentum. Superman has neither right now. There may be disappointments along the way with Batman media, but they can be taken easier if the track record is still mostly good, and needs are being met elsewhere.

Cavill is being aged out of the role and will NEVER wear the cape again. They're making a new Lois and Clark show, and if that flops...boy....it's really panic stations. I already have huge problems with that depiction anyway. The comics right now, from what I've skimmed, aren't my thing. So I don't know what the hell they're going to do to stop the slide.

If I were in charge I'd commission a video game, and MAKE SURE it was Arkham/Spider-Man PS4 quality. That's a start. Say what you want about that format, but these games generate a lot of excitement - especially in the younger demographic which represents an entry point. Such a game would show the character is fun, and would start to generate positive chatter, which is exactly that's what the brand needs. I love Superman, believe it or not, especially the Animated Series. But you can't ride on those memories forever. Worrying times indeed.

I agree about Superman's longterm prospects. I have loved the character my entire life as you probably remember, but even my enthusiasm has been tamped down in recent times. There are many reasons for that. Superman is simply the most obvious victim.

These days, my tastes have run more toward horror comics and away from superheroes entirely. I have gotten a lot more enjoyment from the various horror comics I've been reading than anything new to do with superhero comics.

You do raise a good point about Batman and Spider-Man. Both of them have had successful blockbuster films, well regarded animated series, popular video games, enjoyable animated features and not-so-horrible comics in recent times to attract audiences. Superman has mostly had nothing.

I kind of don't care anymore. Even if DC can set up alternative distribution outside of Diamond, the comic book direct market is done, son. All of the energy these days is with crowdfunding.

[The Dark Knight]

You do raise a good point about Batman and Spider-Man. Both of them have had successful blockbuster films, well regarded animated series, popular video games, enjoyable animated features and not-so-horrible comics in recent times to attract audiences. Superman has mostly had nothing.

I kind of don't care anymore. Even if DC can set up alternative distribution outside of Diamond, the comic book direct market is done, son. All of the energy these days is with crowdfunding.

Yeah. Superman has been left behind big time, and while I like past content, overall I don't care for character's current trajectory.

I cycle through interests and a lot of that has to do with how I'm feeling at the time. I went through a big Matrix phase earlier in the year. I'm still a big fan, but I also like a lot of other things. The recent weeks I've really been feeling Spider-Man, and last weekend I binge watched a ton of Brave and the Bold. Superman hasn't come up on my radar for quite some time.

I am now feeling the urge to read books, which is probably my favorite thing to do. Sitting in silence and absorbing the psychological meaning of each page. Charles Manson and Jim Jones are my subject matters of choice this time after exploring similar personalities to near exhaustion. I'm fascinated by cults, persuasion and their deeds.

If DC evoked the winning STAS template they'd be on the right track. But instead the brand is frozen in its tracks, unsure of itself and redundant. The recent animated content has focused heavily on the Doomsday arc, which is a mistake. It has pigeonholed the character as only having power and meaning in such a storyline, and again does not offer variety to the audience. The Elseworlds Red Son movie wasn't what the brand needed right now either.

Just a mess.

[thecolorsblend]

I cycle through interests and a lot of that has to do with how I'm feeling at the time.

I call this the Fanboy Muse. The fan will indulge heavily in one of his interests at a given time and then something else a week or a month or however long later. I consider this to be evidence of (A) above-average intelligence and (B) a wide variety of interests.

I went through a big Matrix phase earlier in the year. I'm still a big fan, but I also like a lot of other things. The recent weeks I've really been feeling Spider-Man, and last weekend I binge watched a ton of Brave and the Bold. Superman hasn't come up on my radar for quite some time.

Different but the same. I went through a general villain fixation starting in the fall last year. After that, I believe it was Scorsese films. After that was horror movies. And now, horror comics.

I am now feeling the urge to read books, which is probably my favorite thing to do. Sitting in silence and absorbing the psychological meaning of each page. Charles Manson and Jim Jones are my subject matters of choice this time after exploring similar personalities to near exhaustion. I'm fascinated by cults, persuasion and their deeds.

Same here. I went through a phase where I absorbed every documentary I could find about Ted Bundy, Manson, The Zodiac and some others.

I find the potential overlap between charismatic serial killers and deadly cults to be fertile ground for analysis that not very many people seem to want to do.

If DC evoked the winning STAS template they'd be on the right track. But instead the brand is frozen in its tracks, unsure of itself and redundant. The recent animated content has focused heavily on the Doomsday arc, which is a mistake. It has pigeonholed the character as only having power and meaning in such a storyline, and again does not offer variety to the audience. The Elseworlds Red Son movie wasn't what the brand needed right now either.

Just a mess.

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.

I predict that DC Comics will eventually be shut down by AT&T. AT&T will then license the comic book characters out to other publishers. And I suspect those publishers will be able to develop Superman specifically in ways that DC just doesn't have the vision for anymore.

PM me your email address if you want.

[The Dark Knight]

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.