|
Title: 1986 Superman Revamp Post by: Heath Dettmann on March 26, 2005, 04:59:45 AM I feel that the fact that the iron age superman has largely been discounted and discredited in this site is appauling. I was born in 1974 and this is my generations Superman. This Superman and what he has grown into are every bit as beloved to me as the previous incarnations are to you, and his treatment at your hands saddens me.
In one instance it is said "Rather than inspiring his readers to greatness, we here see "Superman" engaged in a typical Hollywood-like, vengeance-driven man-hunt, complete with Big Guns." but it isn't mentioned that Superman is nearly powerless but still ready to face villans he combated previously at full strength. Superman is ready to lay down his life for humanity. He is every bit the hero he has always been maybe even more so. I think this is a vast improvement over the Superman that appears powerless in the movie Superman II, the Superman who without his powers is beaten bloody and cries like a girl. The next pictures caption states "This character lacks the self confidence that is one of the core elements of Superman. Here we see DC's new "Superman" exhibiting a Generation-X-like "I'm just a loser" attitude. " Nowhere on the page is it mentioned that Superman has powers which he can't control and that he no longer is even sure that at some future time he won't just dicorporate. His doubts are justified rather than simply self pity. Both of these panels, taken out of context, came from stories that were meant to honor the Superman legacy and I feel that both did so admirably. It is a blight on this great site that you have so blatantly dismissed this icon of my youth. Perhaps instead of being vengful and negative about the revamp you could try to see the merits of it. The old Superman still exists in the new you only have to look. Why not write some articles on what you liked? There had to be something? If there wasn't you could at least do a critical analysis of a few complete issues rather than taking individual panels out of context. Title: Re: 1986 Superman Revamp Post by: Johnny Nevada on March 27, 2005, 01:31:45 AM Guess I can't answer for whoever wrote the article, but I was born in '75, yet still like the 70's/80's "Bronze Age" Supes more than the Byrne guy (while I like the Kents being alive and Luthor-as-a-bad-businessman probably affirms my more cyncial sentiments on too many current day bad big business practices, Supes himself left much to be desired---sent to Earth as a fetus? And Clark being a top jock in high school was supposed to make me "identify" with him more [especially since in high school I probably had more in common with his "nerdy" pre-Crisis self than anyone vaguely athletic/popular...]? Uh-huh...).
Title: Re: 1986 Superman Revamp Post by: Gary on March 28, 2005, 03:40:23 PM Okay, I'll bite. (Down, Krypto! It's just an expression.)
In my opinion, the "bronze age" has some very positive aspects. Most notably, strong continuity -- events in one story generally had consequences in the following stories -- and dynamic characters, attitudes and relationships that changed over time instead of being stuck in an eternal status quo. I think the biggest problem with the "bronze age" Superman was the writers. In my opinion, Byrne was a mediocre writer at best, and Marv Wolfman wasn't much better; the series was much improved when other people like Ordway, Jurgens, and (especially) Kesel took over. Title: Re: 1986 Superman Revamp Post by: Johnny Nevada on March 28, 2005, 08:02:43 PM Quote from: "Gary" Okay, I'll bite. (Down, Krypto! It's just an expression.) In my opinion, the "bronze age" has some very positive aspects. Most notably, strong continuity -- events in one story generally had consequences in the following stories -- and dynamic characters, attitudes and relationships that changed over time instead of being stuck in an eternal status quo. I think the biggest problem with the "bronze age" Superman was the writers. In my opinion, Byrne was a mediocre writer at best, and Marv Wolfman wasn't much better; the series was much improved when other people like Ordway, Jurgens, and (especially) Kesel took over. I always interpreted "Bronze Age" as running from c. 1970 through 1986 (and Crisis/Byrne's revamp)---so when I said "Bronze Age" I was thinking of the Maggin/Bates Supes, not Byrne or his subsequent writers (who'd fall under "Modern Age" by my definition.... guess you can use "early Modern Age" if you want to distinguish those guys from more recent comics...). Title: Re: 1986 Superman Revamp Post by: TELLE on March 28, 2005, 09:16:57 PM Or in the terminology of this site, Iron Age.
Although I prefer Age of Clay or Age of Dirt (to be polite). :D Title: Re: 1986 Superman Revamp Post by: Super Monkey on March 28, 2005, 09:40:25 PM This thread is useless since we have all been there and done that, so I am closing it.
Here is a link to another thread that is 8 pages long on this topic. There's isn't anything more to say about this topic. http://superman.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1029 Title: Re: 1986 Superman Revamp Post by: Great Rao on March 29, 2005, 09:38:00 AM Also see
http://superman.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=826 http://superman.nu/X/ and probably more around here somewhere. :s: |