Superman Through the Ages! Forum

MatterEaterLad started an interesting thread a while ago about what in the previous to modern Superman incarnations didn't work, and this yielded some fairly interesting discussion.

As it seems we're now on the cusp of a new cyclical Superman Age, my question is this: what about the previous decades would you KEEP?

Nobody is a larger lampooner of the lame, larcenous, ludicrous lineage of Byrne's laconic leadership. It's been gone over and over what about the modern apocryphal variation of the character didn't work. But nothing is 100% worthless (though the Mike Carlin-helmed run was fairly clueless).

What about Superman after '86 shouldn't be '86ed?

Some might disagree (and be sure to tell me so) but here's my list of things the Modern Age gave Superman  that were additions instead of subtractions.

Maxima

Maxima has something that very few villains created in recent times possess: a motivation. That is, there is an answer to the question, "what is it they want?" For Maxima, the answer is simple: she wants Superman, the mightiest man in the universe, to be her baby-daddy. Sort of like those girls you knew in High School that went after the Captain of the Football Team, not because she liked him, but because he was Captain of the Football Team. Because her motivation is not truly antisocial, it places Maxima in the company of comics' "complicated" villains that are only partially bad, along with the Sub-Mariner and Magneto. Her emotions are legitimate: a combination of adoration and hatred, her spurning turning to spite. Superman doesn't have a weakness for women, and he isn't tempted by her for a second, which makes her frustrated; their relationship is more TAMING OF THE SHREW than SAMPSON AND DELILAH.

And what was Maxima's profession again? A serial killer? Nope. A corporate leader or suit-wearing underworld crimeboss? Nope. A mercenarial hired gun who is a superb martial artist and marksman? Nope. She was the beautiful queen of a super-scientific planet. Does it GET more old school space opera than that? For the love of Rao, she even has fins on her shoulders. Maxima is a throwback to the Silver Age and not a product of the Modern Age.

Maxima had interesting powers: molecular manipulation, telepathy, Mind Bolts; very visual, uncommon, "sexy" superpowers that one can imagine giving even Superman a run for his money, and there are few enough characters in the DC Universe (or even in fiction in general) that could even approach a grandiose, visual SUPERMAN II-style brawl with the Man of Tomorrow. No writer however, has written her powers very intelligently or had her use them in a particularly intriguing manner, but that does not mean a door is not open for that to exist.

...Also, is it just me, or are there no women in Superman's Rogue's Gallery?


Superman's Kryptonian Battlesuit

This may be a very shallow reason to have something survive, but boy, did that thing ever look neat; a ten foot giant robot with disintigration-vision. Most technology used in Modern Age comics have the James Bond business-class aesthetic: things being little and neat and disguised as other things. This one though, was the exact opposite: it looked huge and imposing, something one can imagine out of BUCK ROGERS or that Kirby would draw fighting the Fantastic Four. It just looks great as a Fortress of Solitude decoration and as a practical weapon, where Superman can drive it by remote control.


Superman's Robot Butler

For the life of me I can't remember what that thing was called. "Kylax" or something. Anyway, the point is Superman has a robot butler - how cool is that? It's cool in a kid wish-fulfillment sense that the Fortress of Solitude (the world's best treehouse) and the Interplanetary Zoo (the world's best pet collection) are.

Yes, Superman has his extremely cool Decoy Robots, but there's no reason the two can't overlap; he has a robot with a pop out chest that pours him some "Super-Coffee" while he reads books with his X-Ray Vision in a distant Parisian library, while prepping the Supermobile for a trip inside the Sun. At the same time, the Decoy Superman Robots help him keep his secret identity. One's an adventuring tool, the other is a major-domo.


Ron Troupe

I almost hate to say it, but Superman needs a black member of his supporting cast. If somebody could give Ron a personality, he could be able to do that. He doesn't deserve to be eliminated, just given a personality transplant and a niche that nobody else has filled.


Riot

A gift by the classy Louise Simonson to Superman. Riot had a superpower (Multiplicity or Super-Duplication or whatever the term is) that meant he was one guy that could become thousands and so could make mischief even for a guy like Superman. The story possibilities here are endless. Riot, too, has a clear motivation: he wants a good night's sleep. Riot can't sleep, because his telepathic rappaport with his Duplicates means constant chatter. Best of all, it's easy to insert Riot into a story even if he was captured, killed, or placed in the Phantom Zone the previous story; there are always more Riots out there somewhere. There's no need to pulll a "Ha! That was a clone of my robot duplicate of my evil twin!"

Steel

Not the current version that DC messed up, but the poorman's Iron Man version :) as he was 1st introduced.  

To see how this would work, read this on-line comic:

http://superman.nu/tales3/typical/

Steel/John Henry Irons is a keeper.

The tesseract Fortress? Love it.

The enormous range of art styles used (McGuinness, Benes, Ferry, Mahnke, Gammill, McLeod, Ordway, Weiringo)? Keep it. Just make sure the guys who suck don't get let in (Bog, Kano, Guichet, Rodier, etc.).

Lobo as a baddie? It works. Keep him.

Manchester Black? Wasted potential. Bring him back and turn him into a major supervillain player.

Amok? Good idea, wasted in one issue. Again, build him up into a major baddie with some serious firepower.

The red and black S-shield? I actually like it better than the standard yellow. Give Superman a black belt with a metal-finish buckle and take the logo off the cape (sound familiar?), and you'd have a cool retro-update to the costume.

The rainbow blur effect when Superman hits warp speed? Come on, you gotta love that.

Doomsday can stay so long as he's a henchman for either Darkseid or Brainiac. Otherwise he stinks as a solo villain and shouldn't be bothered with.

The rest can be chucked to the curb for all I care.

I'm a fan of the post-Crisis, so there are lot of things which I like.
My favorite elements are:

- Only Green K (then, Loeb introduced serveral new types).
- The Superman/Batman relationship.
- No absurd powers like Super ventriloquism and Super hypnosis.
- Certain new characters like Cat Grant, Prof. Emil Hamilton and Ron Troupe.

There's only two things I'd keep:

1) Jerry Ordway's art
2) Clark Kent's wardrobe (what a nice change to see him wearing a different, even stylish suit every day instead of that one, tired blue suit with red tie)

John Henry Irons....

and that's about it.

Stuff I'd keep:

- the Kents could stay alive, I guess.

- the supporting cast (Maggie Sawyer, Ron Troupe, Steel, a new Superboy, etc.)

- guess Lex as a businessman could stay as well (with a transition from the mad-scientist incarnation into said role, vs. a wholesale retcon; granted, the first two points above could be covered via some explanation instead of a retcon as well, I imagine [say the Kents really were "really" just in some sort of suspended animation that only made everyone *think* they were dead? And it's not like Supes doesn't meet new people all the time. Plus, nothing to stop someone from trying to clone Supes anyway, with the benefit of a world that'd keep comparing the new Superboy to the "old" one...])

Otherwise, I say hose the rest of it down with "Dip"... ;-)

Just aspects of Superman I guess, I don't mind him de-powered from his maximum levels, don't mind him needing a source of air (and maybe sometimes propulsion) in order to move through deep space, and I too wouldn't hate a transition of Luthor into a businessman...I think of Superman as more of physical super hero (though intelligent), so hypnotism can go, though I actually think that super ventriloquism is a more realistic power than his powers of icy cold breath (etc).

I actually liked Bruce Timm's STAS version, still pays respect to a Superman I can identify with...

Everybody says Steel. I don't know why that is. I honestly don't really see it.

Intercompany ideas aren't very interesting. I'd rather have a first rate Iron Man than a duplicate Iron Man at another company. And as much as I admire Steve Englehart's work, let's face it: Moon Knight will never be Batman because BATMAN is busy being Batman.



Who?



That was a pretty neat looking effect, and shows they put some thought into how Superman's FTL worked. Remember how mindblowing Hyperspace was in Alan Moore's SUPREME?



I'm not so sure I share your feelings on this. The point of Doomsday is to have a monster big and bad enough that Superman would lose a fight to him, and seriously, Superman doesn't lose fights to big monsters. Doomsday has no clear motivation, no real personality. One might argue that it is unfair to say this, and after all, he's a big monster, how much personality can a monster have? That's ignoring how interesting Stan Lee for example, was able to make Dragon Man or the Hulk, or how much character King Kong possessed despite not being able to speak.

My purpose in saying Steel is not his spectacular armor that shoots railroad spikes, or wondering why such a person flies around with a big hammer...

He's the only person, in the post-Crisis world, with the character of Superman. Even the post-Crisis Superman doesn't have Superman's character and morality...so since John Henry is the only person worthy of taking on the mantle of Superman, I nominate him!

Plus, the idea clearly comes from George Lowther's 1942 Superman novel. It's a logical extension of it.

Manchester Black - telepathic British vigilante who susbscribes to the "kill your enemies and revel in the collateral damage you cause" school of superheroing, and who wants Superman dead because Superman represents what Black percieves as an old, outdated order that needs to die along with the scum of the earth Black professes to oppose. (In his battle with Superman, Black vowed to kill not only Superman, but the JLA as well in order to enforce his "might makes right" message on the world.) Bascially, it's a clash of ideologies, and Black's got the power to enforce his at all costs.

Amok is an anti-alien racist who wants Superman dissected and killed because he thinks Superman is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. (He also had an embarrassing run-in with Superman years prior, when Superman caught him in the midst of one of the most hilariously pathetic ransom attempts of all time.) Armed with technology from the evil Furturesmiths, he goads Superman into battle, trying to rig the circumstances so that Superman gets painted as the bad guy. (This whole OMAC/Infinite Crisis mess is a revisitation of the same theme: bad guys out to paint Superman as a menace to humanity.) And Amok doesn't care who he kills or maims in his attempts; he holds Superman accountable for every bit of death and damage. There's something very unsettling to me about a bad guy who would go to such lengths, and it does lend itself to a very realistic possibility. Why wouldn't Superman's enemies try to set him up as a menace who needs to be killed at all costs?

I can't see pre-crisis Luthor transitioning into being a businessman. The problem is, he'd be too good at it. Remember that Cary Bates story (early eighties, I believe) where Luthor temporarily reformed? In what seemed like a few weeks he had come up with everything from a cure for cancer to a device to neutralize nuclear weapons worldwide. Now if he becomes a businessman, think of him doing the same thing but charging for it. By a year or so he'd own the entire planet.

You're right, I can't either...

For some reason, I didn't hate his character that way, it gave good opportunity for his intellect and science savvy...

But in the long run, I could never really imagine what he would do in a world where he killed Superman and ruled billions of people with an iron fist... :D

A British villian?

Well, I do know of one British person who is evil. He happens to write comics, though...

Hmmm, I see your point about Steel's "serve and protect" Silver Age mindset.

When DEATH OF SUPERMAN happened, I honestly thought Steel was the "real" Superman out of the four. Superboy was clearly a clone, the Last Son of Krypton KILLED (which disqualifies him right there) and Cyborg Superman was too creepy to possibly be considered.

There was something about Superman's soul migrating (now shown to be a red herring), but the best proof that Steel WAS Superman is that he acted like Superman; in fact, he was the only one that didn't say he really was Superman.

In fact, one might argue Steel was more Superman than the "Superman" on display in that miniseries was.

Agreed re: Steel.  He's a keeper.

So, John Henry Irons can't use his Steel armour anymore since his nervous system was supposedly damaged so he can't handle being linked to his armour anymore.

While I might buy into his needing a direct feedback system for this, surely the inventor extraordinaire and all-around genius could devise a passive system that merely sensed his body's neural and muscular activity to drive the armour systems that way.  Even a passive physical system that had tiny pressure switches on the inside or even sensed the minute stresses of his body flexing against the suit's insides would be doable.  John's ability to wear powered armour should not be completely gone given the above alternatives.  Heck, he should be able to get past the direct neural interface problem itself if he devised an AI buffering system that acted like an intelligent fuse to protect him and do a lot of the background interface work like our own spinal cord and lower brain functions do for our brain-body interfaces.

I do not buy into the idea that John is incapable of being Steel anymore.

DC has copped out and emasculated the most innovative concept in the Superman mythos: The Black Superman.

Keepers:

Maxima for sure - a hot red head who can kick major butt

John Henry Irons - scientific genius, ally and friend (undecided about Steel however - never really liked the character outside of the JLA run)

Superman/Wonder Woman/Lois Lane relationship - makes perfect sense to me that both ladies would appeal to Superman and that Superman would appeal to both ladies

Things I'd keep:

Steel - This one is a given. Steel was always my favorite of the Supermen during the "Reign of the Supermen" storyline. In fact, the character actually got me to collect Superman comics regularly. Looking back now, the whole storyline doesn't seem as good to me, but it certainly did when I was a kid.

Superboy - A controversial thing to keep, but I like the new half Superman/half Luthor storyline. I'll always prefer Kal as Superboy, but Kon's started to grow on me. Like a lot of characters, he just needs a good writer.

Manchester Black - Probably the best Superman villain created AFTER the reboot. He's like the Iron Age in human form--that fact makes him a perfect foe for Superman. Superman causing him to cry was just great.

Maxima - I like Maxima for reasons that have already been mentioned. Truly a three-dimensional character.

Maggie Sawyer - A strong female character who also happens to be gay.

Ron Troupe - Ron kind of reminds me of what Clark Kent would be like if he wasn't really Superman.

The aura, in tandem with his physical invulnerability. I just like it.

I like it better that Clark didn't become Superman until he was a man and that Conner exists as Superboy.

Green K is enough for me, too much kryptonite becomes too much hack-writing-crutch.

Birthright Lex only leaning towards his less evil showings, a super-genius businessman who just kinda looks at the world almost as if it's a big game to him and exists to keep Superman in check. I don't like this President Luthor garbage, or him killing innocent karate instructors "just to prove to you I could".

Steel, definitely, I agree about him being the morality Superman's lost over the years.

If we would keep Luthor as a businessman, then I say let's keep Conduit, too!  We NEED a supervillian powerful enough to take on Superman, with his vast organization, Pipeline.  Just take his knowledge of Clark Kent = Superman away from him, and he'll be allowed to survive.  (I've always thought Conduit could have been Bronze Age Luthor in the Post-Crisis Age.)

Oh, and someone mentioned Jeph Loeb bringing back the multi-colored Kryptonite...  Loeb didn't bring it back!  Red Kryptonite was re-introduced back in 1991 or 1992 by Mr. Mxyzptlk!  Again by Batman in JLA!  

I do wish they'd bring back Kal-El = Superboy, though.  Superman DESERVES to have been a hero his entire life!  

I'm on the fence about Ma and Pa Kent, though.  I kind'a wish they'd died of old age or something when Superman was a young man.

I like Ma and Pa Kent, then again that may just be the Smallvillian in me talking.

You know, it's really funny how when the litany of things that were desecrated by the revisionists are brought out (the lack of tragedy over the destruction of Krypton, Superman's whininess and comitting of murder, Lois as a hateful female dog, etc.) nobody ever mentions Ma and Pa Kent being alive as one of the downsides.

There are some things that are absolutely necessary to Superman:

1) The tragic loss of a home planet, which makes Superman sympathetic because of his loneliness;

2) Superman's correct characterization as being confident, fearless, never in doubt, and morally perfect and incorruptible. Anything else about Superman's character can vary except this; notice how different Christopher Reeves's understated, impish sense of humor contrasts with George Reeve's 50s paternalism.

3) Clark Kent as loser/failure, to create a point of sympathy with the audience.

Apart from this, one can argue that everything else about Superman is details.

Some prefer Superman with a higher power level (I know I do) because it makes stories about dilemmas and choices and allow for certain types of stories that wouldn't otherwise be possible (time travel and space travel stories, for example). Others prefer Superman lower-powered, to make certain types of conflicts possible. I can see the value in both perspectives; but neither are essential to who Superman is.

Someone a while back once shrieked in horror about a black woman playing Lois Lane in the next film. I for one, think this is a neat idea, as long as Lois is still demonstratably Lois: raspy, assertive, and nosy.

Superman's Earth Parents are peripheral figures to the story. It doesn't really MATTER if they're alive or dead. Superman's *real* parents, whose sacrifice and love defined Superman, are the more important figures.

As a matter of personal opinion, I think they're better off dead. Superman is never worse than when the writers characterize him as a dumb farm boy, ending his sentences with "Well, Momma always said..." basically, making him into Forrest Gump with Heat-Vision. The current SUPERMAN/BATMAN story arc is particularly loathesome when it comes to this. Superman is "the Man of Tomorrow." His character is futuristic, not pastoralistic. Superman isn't a farm boy. This is missing the point about the role Smallville has in the Superman story. He grew up on a farm, but the impact of that on his character is that he had a place to develop, test his powers, and begin his superpowered career in isolation. If Superman grew up in a small town in Alaska or a town in the Mojave Desert, it would be equivalent to Smallville, because the *point* of Smallville is not to give Superman a permanent "hick" characterization, but to be an environment that is separate from the sped up world outside, a "womb to hide him from the outside world," as Elliot S. Maggin put it.

The problem was not necessarily so much that Lois would be black as it was who was going to play her: Beyonce Knowles of Destiny's Child. Jon Peters, JJ Abrams, and McG wanted the flavors of the moment when they were pushing their "Krypton doesn't blow up and Lex is Kryptonian in some way or another" script. Beyonce would be wrong for Lois in ANY Superman movie, let alone one that was already deliberately destroying the very fundamentals of the mythos. People like Vivica Fox, Nona Gaye, Victoria Rowell, and other actresses of credibility could have played Lois and pulled it off. Even Aaliyah Haughton, the late singer-actress, had solid enough chops (and a whole lot of classic Lois Lane-style beauty) to carry it off. Beyonce doesn't have the acting skills for it. That, to me, was the problem. A black Lois doesn't bother me at all so long as whoever plays her has what it takes to do right by the character. Beyonce did not, and was purely pursued for her MTV hot-ticket status.

(Of course, Ashton Kutcher, Justin Timberlake, and Jake Gyllenhaal were also pursued to play Superman--Timberlake previously being a Jimmy candidate--for the exact same reasons, with Brandon Routh being rejected by McG in a perfunctory round of screen tests. So this ain't anything new.)

As for the Kents surviving into Clark's adulthood...the comics HAVE and still do use them as a crutch to keep Clark tied to Smallville as the farm boy in tights. The animated series avoided this by keeping their roles to a minimum, which made their survivial work. They weren't a constant presence, so an occasional visit wasn't a problem. But in the comics, they serve no purpose other than to ensure that Clark never grows away from the farm, that he never becomes more than just a Kansas Peter Parker.

In that respect, they were better off dead, because their deaths gave them a real meaning and made Clark a man. By dying, they became the second family Clark lost, and their deaths taught him that for all his powers, Superman can never defeat death. So yeah, I have to admit I prefer them dead, simply because Superman finally becomes who and what he was meant to be as a result. With them being alive and always being in the stories, Clark's nothing but a Smallville hick. Which is what Byrne intended, of course, but it ain't what Siegel and Shuster wanted.

Well, if it was an underqualified pop star pursued for her "name" status, that's different. (I didn't know any names, just the idea itself.) Remember back in the 70s when Bruce Jenner wanted to play Superman? Stick to the running, Brucey.



Okay, granted, I live in Miami (aka "New Sodom") and I've never been on a farm in my entire life, but at least from what I read in PARADE magazine...don't people in farm country these days have celphones and sattellite television? So, isn't the "hayseed town" stereotype innaccurate in this day and age? Combine it with Pa Kent's honest, simple "folk wisdom" and not only is it an innaccurate stereotype, but a fairly condescending one as well.

All good points, King Krypton. The more I think about it, the more I think the Kents ought to stay dead. Not because their death was a tragedy that defined Superman (Superman already has ONE big tragedy that defines him; more than that is really redundant overkill) but because their presence allows Superman to be characterized in a way that is wildly innaccurate (and fairly annoying).

It's not that I object to the Kent's survival in and of itself, but the purpose of their survival: to establish Superman as a product of the earth "saved" from a "shameful" Kryptonian legacy, distorting the role of Smallville as a "womb" to allow Superboy to grow and develop away from the world's prying eyes, to the dominant aspect of the Super-Mythos. Smallville isn't that; Krypton IS.

One peripheral advantage to the Kents' being dead, is that the Clark Kent character is suddenly very lonely; if he has a warm, loving Earth family to act as a support safety net that he can go back to at any point. Heck, why not make Superman's Earth family a giant 140 member Cajun clan in Louisiana?

Sure, Ma and Pa Kent are younger,  a nod the younger generation that the show is trying to reach, I suppose -- but since Superman originally left Smallville after they died makes its not so different...

I like the adult Superman in Metropolis as a superhero who is trying to change the world because he was orphaned once again...

Would now be a good time to mention that he bombed in his screen test? Once the filmmakers saw him on film, they knew he didn't have the chops for it. He later did get a film role...Can't Stop the Music with the Village People. And we all know how THAT film went over....

The thing with Beyonce Knowles as Lois (which came dangerously close to happening) is that it pretty much reflects the whole mindset behind the film pre-Singer. Sean Penn, Nicolas Cage, Ralph Fiennes (Burton's pet choice for the role--he wanted Cage fired at all costs), Russell Crowe, Brendan Fraser, Will Smith (briefly considered by Peters), Ashton Kutcher, Justin Timberlake, Paul Walker, Josh Hartnett, Joe Millionaire's Evan Marriott, and Jake Gyllenhaal were all pursued not because they were even remotely right for the part, but because they were the hot boys of the moment at the time they were considered. Jim Caviezel wasn't even a coinsideration until The Passion started generating controversy midway thru shooting; it took being at the eye of the storm on that film for him to even be thought of as a possible Superman (and even then he was passed over in favor of the MTV guys). Otherwise the attitude was "Get the hot boy of the moment." And it extended to the rest of the casting, too. Chris Rock as Jimmy Olsen during the Burton era? He was the hot ticket of the time, and Burton thought Rock's stage persona would be just the thing to help him sell his "reinvention" of not only Superman, but the supporting characters as well.

Nearly everyone who was seriously considered from 1993-2004 was underqualified and sought out purely for name value. Only Caviezel stuck it out and pursued the role right to the bitter end. The planned casting of Beyonce Knowles as Lois is no different from this. As it is, Burton wanted Cameron Diaz in the role, and she's no more Lois than Beyonce is. (I'm withholding judgment on Kate Bosworth until I see Superman Returns.) We almost got Jim Carrey or Tim Allen as Brainiac under Burton (and Allen was a handshake deal awaiting completion), too, and while I like both actors, neither of them are remotely Brainiac.

Gotta disagree with you here. I'm not one of those who generally dislikes the post-Crisis Supey, but I found Condimwit to be a pretty lame villain. Anyone whose main motivation seems to be that Clark used to beat him at football really needs to be smacked upside the head and told to get a life.

On the other tentacle, IMO a villain who knows Superman's secret ID is a good idea, because it raises the stakes. That's why (again IMO) the Condimwit stories worked in spite of the whiny, annoying villain. I really liked one scene where Lois goads the big S into going into a diner for a cup of coffee, as Superman, to prove to him just how much he really needs his Clark identity. I'd hope that if they had a villain who knew Supe's secret then they wouldn't take the predictable route of having this person die accidentally. Better that they come up with a reason why this person doesn't blab the secret to anyone who'll listen, or why nobody will believe him/her if he/she does.

I alway feel funny saying the Kents should be dead, because they're nice folks.  :) But they should be.

One of the huge problems with post-Crisis Supes, at least back when I read the books, is that he kept going back to Ma and Pa for advice on what to do.  It's a time-honored element of heroic mythology that the hero must lose his parents (or at least his father) before he can become a man, much less a hero.  Post-Crisis continuity shows us why.

Maybe it's too much to ask in the Modern Age to have a Superman who always knows right from wrong (?).  But could we at least get one who doesn't need to check in with Mommy and Daddy?

Much as I dislike post-Crisis Batman, I can see why he so often wants to kick Clark's rear end.

Interestingly, when Guy Gardner left the Hell Gorge, he said pretty much the same thing to Superman.

"You're Superman.  Act like it."

Here are my choices:

Maxima: Definetly a keeper..  A villainess who's primary goal is making Superman into her boytoy/spermbank?  Brilliant!  Like an Evil counterpart to Lois Lane..  

Lobo: I also think he makes for a great Superman baddie..  Only I'd emphasize his Bounty Hunter/Mercenary aspects a bit more, along with his sense of rivalry with Superman..  Like Boba Fett combined with Vegeta.

Doomsday: I'd keep him as one of the few creatures in the Universe actually STRONGER then Superman..  ...Forcing Superman to use his super-intelligence to defeat him.  Kind of like Hulk taken to the Super-Extreme.

Steel: Black Superheroes are always a good thing, especially the smart ones.  I'd emphasize his intelligence a lot more, and I'd actually make him one of the few humans on Earth capable of figuring out Kryptonian tech, making him a valuable ally.   ...And his Steel powersuit would be built in part using Kryptonian technology..

Superboy: I'd keep Kon-El, only revising his origin to making him an exact clone of Superman, created by either Lex or Brainiac (or both) in an attempt at creating an improved version of Bizarro..  Of course, it goes wrong, the clone breaks out of his cloning tank before he's full grown and mentally programmed, has some misadventures, then after he encounters Superman, gets adopted as Superman's "little brother" Superboy.  Mayhem Ensues..

Lex Luthor as a corporate baddie: I think the Animated Universe did this best, with Lex being both a corporate villain and a techno-genius.  Let's face it, a smart Mad Scientist would use his inventions to legally make a fortune, and then use that fortune for evil...

Manchester Black: I also like the idea of keeping him and the Elite around for a clash of ideology with Superman..  Bloodthirsty vigilantes do NOT Superheroes make.  And the Elite should routinely get their bloodthirsty butts kicked by the Noble Superman Family..

Ma and Pa Kent: I also like the idea of them still being alive, giving Clark/Kal-El someone to confide in.  You don't have to lose your parents to become a Man, you just need to distance yourself slightly..  ...Doesn't mean you have to lose touch completly.

Lois Lane knowing Clark's identity: Maybe not at first, but I do like the idea of Lois figuring out Superman's secret identity..   ...And then keeping it to herself, while having fun messing with the guy's mind, making him think she can't make up her mind whether she likes Clark or Superman more.  (Of course, it wouldn't be mean-spirited, and she'd secretly help him maintain his secret..)

Kelex, Superman's Butler Robot: also a keeper..  I do like the idea of Superman's Forteress of Solitude having a fussy robotic caretaker for when Superman's not around, charged with keeping the many wonders of the Forteress in tip-top shape.  I see him as something of a robotic counterpart to Alfred, only with a staff of numerous Superman Robots to help with the heavy lifting.

>>>
Okay, granted, I live in Miami (aka "New Sodom") and I've never been on a farm in my entire life, but at least from what I read in PARADE magazine...don't people in farm country these days have celphones and sattellite television? So, isn't the "hayseed town" stereotype innaccurate in this day and age? Combine it with Pa Kent's honest, simple "folk wisdom" and not only is it an innaccurate stereotype, but a fairly condescending one as well.
<<

I grew up in a small city in Indiana near "farm country"... but even back in my teen years (the late 80's and early 90's, when I guess at this point in time, a 30-year-old Superman's teen years would've taken place as well), country kids had computers and cable TV (or big satellite dishes) if they were wired for it. Sure present-day farm country people use cell phones, and often have minidishes (no need to worry about being wired for cable).

Of course, if we brought back the idea of the Kents owning a general store of some sort in Clark's teen years, there'd be more opportunities to show them adapting to selling new technologies (to "keep up with the times" and try to stay viable against, say, Smallville's area getting its first mall or Wal-Mart or something)---maybe a minor plot point about the day the Kents decided to start selling PCs? Or thought renting videos to the general store customers might be a viable venture to pursue?

(Yes, even in the 80's, the general store was a dated concept... though guess the Kents could consider converting it to a hardware store, small department store or even a convenience store (!) as a plot point to pursue...).

>>Re: a 140-member family: Why am I imagining "The Superman from the Bayou!" or "The Day Pa Kent Became the Ragin' Cajun!" as storylines? :-)

I don't know about Manchester Black being something worth keeping.

There are several types of stories that have been done to death in the Modern Age as often as the "hey, that Phantom Zone criminal is my exact double" or "Lois and Lana get powers" stories were overused in the Silver Age.

They are as follows:

1) The "Heroes Take Over Earth and go insane with power" story.
Where it can be Seen: MIRACLEMAN, RED SON, SQUADRON SUPREME, THE AUTHORITY, KINGDOM COME, probably more that for the Love of God, I can't even remember because the plot is a xerox on one of the stories above. It also is wildly improbable: the "power corrupts" theme only works on characters that can be corrupted, and can anyone see the decent, morally incorruptible Superman yielding to ANY kind of temptation, power or otherwise? Can anybody see Superman or any of the other "serve and protect" Silver Age DC heroes ordering executions or turning dissidents into mindless zombies? No way!

2) The "Old Superheroes come out of retirement because of dystopian future" story.
Where it can be Seen: WATCHMEN, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, Keith Giffen's disastrous LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES, KINGDOM COME.

3) The "Optimistic, cheery 50s future that you previously saw is now a Cyberpunk-esque dystopia" story.
Where it can be Seen: MAN OF STEEL, HAWKWORLD, Keith Giffen's LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES, SWAMP THING tales featuring Adam Strange, Howard Chaykin's TWILIGHT

4) The "Silver Age gets Revenge" story.
Where it can be Seen: KINGDOM COME, KNIGHTFALL, the recent JSA story arc with Black Adam, the Manchester Black story arc in Superman.
In this story, young, violent or results oriented heroes go too far and get their backsides kicked by Silver Age guys that have an old school "serve and protect" ethos. While I agree with the intent (the Modern Age needs to get its ass kicked but good), this overt metaphor has all the subtlety of a tack hammer to the stomach. Because they stem from the author's blatant fannish proxy revenge fantasy, it is essentially as immature as a self-insertion fanfic where a Mary or Marty Sue beat up all their bullies in High School. Want to bring back the Silver Age? Write stories with the same professionalism, imaginative power, and consistent characterization as the works of Cary Bates, Steve Englehart, Edmund Hamilton, Bill Mantlo, Don MacGregor, Jack Kirby, and Elliot S! Maggin.

(Note that KINGDOM COME has three of the four above stories in one, making it possibly the most cliche comic of the entire Modern Age. Combine that also with the equally cliche, inappropriate and innacurate comparison of 20th Century superhero characters to mythological deities.)

What does all this have to do with Manchester Black being something that ought not to be kept after the current age is over?

By definition, any Superman story he participates in as the central antagonist becomes a "Silver Age gets Revenge" story.

This all comes from Stan Lee saying that Comic Superheroes are modern Mythology and the fact that Superheroes have borrowed so much from the myths of old right from the very beginning to today's "heroes".

A small sample:

Superman - Small infant in danger of being killed is sent off in a basket and is adopted and grows up to be a hero.  This origin is used in many different mythologies, but since his creators were Jewish, Moses is the key one here. They also stated that they wanted to created a modern version of Samson. In the sliver age, Superman powers are the same as Jason and the Argonauts rolled into one:

Super Speed: Euphemos
Flight: Kalais and Zetes
Invulnerability: Kaineus
Super Strength: Herakles
X-Ray vision: Lynkeus

You get the idea :)

Prince Namor the Sub-Mariner - Stories of Mermaids and Mermans as well as the lost city of Atlantis influenced his creation.

Captain Marvel - Gets his powers from the gods and other mythological characters.

Flash - There is a famous old statue of the Roman god Mercury that looks just like the Golden Age Flash, same sandals and same hat, also Mercury was known for his super speed as one of his main powers.

Green Lantern - Getting superpowers from a Ring comes from Norse Mythology. Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen is a famous example of using this theme and Lord of the Rings was also inspired by these legends of powerful rings.

The Spectre - Is an Angel.

Wonder Woman - Is an Amazon from Greek Mythology.

Aquaman - See Namor ;)

Superman's Hercules, Samson, Goliath direct revisions of mythological characters.

Marvel's Thor and Hercules are direct revisions of gods and mythological characters.

Comet the Superhorse - Is a Centaur from Greek Mythology.

Jack Kirby's Fourth World - nuff said ;)


There are a lot more that I didn't write about here, like a said just a small sample.

So the comparison is not without merit, however I studied Mythology a lot and I know that comic book Mythology is an extremely simplified version of the real deal just like the film versions. However, for what it is worth, they have been connected from the very beginning.

Today, I had an idea for reinventing Brainiac...  Which I suppose could fit in this thread...

This concept keeps the idea of Brainiac once being a living Coluan named Vril Dox, but alters it a bit: This version of Vril Dox, because of his genius, quickly rose to the ranks of the Computer Tyrants' servants, and was rewarded with the greatest of gifts: Being turned into a Cyborg.

The newly reconstructed Cyborg Vril Dox was renamed, granting himself a Coluan name which roughly translates into "Brainiac" in English; his enhancements granted him even greater levels of intelligence, but also digitizing his mind, turning him into a living computer program: a "Ghost", to use Transhuman terms..

Brainiac was then tasked with leaving Colu to gather information on neighboring star systems..  During these travels, Vril's son eventually led a rebellion to overthrow the Computer Tyrants, unwittingly releasing Brainiac from his obligations to them.  The now freed Brainiac decided to take advantage of his freedom and powers to continue his pursuits of science and engineering, with the Universe as his personal laboratory..

Brainiac's motivations are simple: cold, calculating pursuit of knowledge, at any cost.  He's essentially a scientific researcher with insatiable curiosity, incredible resources, and absolutly no ethics.  He could drop a series of radioactive isotope meteors on a heavily populated world simply because he wants to know how it's inhabitants would react to the increased radiation...

Power-wise, the Animated Universe basically has it right: sturdy cybernetic bodies capable of going toe-to-toe with Superman, although the Real Brainiac would be a disembodied intelligence capable of transmitting itself from body to body (I'm having fun with the idea of using the skeletal mecha-brainiac as one of Brainiac's "Combat Bodies").  Furthermore, Brainiac's genius would allow him to design numerous devices capable of challenging Superman, from ultra-tech weapons and hordes of battlerobots to more exotic devices like mind-control nanites..

So..  Opinions?

As long as Brainiac is some form of artificial life, intelligent, and obsessed with knowledge and is amoral in the pursuit of it, that's fine by me. Your idea shows that you at least know who Brainiac is. You spent some space giving thought to Brainiac's motivation and that's more than I can say for many writers these days. The fact he was once human gives a degree of irony to Brainiac's contempt for organic intellects. And you have created a framework to use that neat mecha-Brainiac structure seen in the 1980s, as well as the stuff Brainiac got in the Animated Series.

Brainiac was my favorite villain, and part of the reason I never liked LOIS & CLARK is because he never showed up. (That, and the fact they used Byrne's apocryphal, clueless, fraudulent variation, and for the love of God, Sherman Helmsley as the Toyman! But I digress.)

Being a fan of "classic" Superman, I'd love to see Brainiac shrink cities - so much mileage was gotten out of "The Greatest Crime in the Universe," the Shrinking and theft of Kandor. If you have him use his distinctive weapon of choice - the Shrink Ray, and that neat skull head ship, I'm sure it'll work out.

Although I don't buy the business about robot bodies tough enough to stand up to Superman. The Brainiac on the show could stand up to *animated* Superman, who is a gigantic wuss, who is knocked flat on his cape by a manhole cover booby charged with an electrical current. But that doesn't mean you are denied interesting fight scenes. If Brainiac can download himself into several robots at a time, he can overwhelm Superman by force of numbers.



As for the business about Stan Lee comparing comics to modern mythology...well, let's just say Stan Lee only compared HIS comics to modern mythology, if you get my drift. That guy was a genius at inventive selling. "Watch OUT, Cats and KITTENS! This is surely the supremest sizzlin' saga since Shakespeare!" It was so over the top and obviously not serious that it got a lot of attention. Hey, if you're as great as Shakespeare, mythology's like a step up from that, right?

Yes, it is true that superheroes and mythology have a lot in common, as your comparison below indicates (though my memory of Greek Myth fails me - which one of the Argonauts again could travel through time and melt things by looking at them?  :D  ). But the fact that superheroes and mythology are similar do not make them identical. For one thing, superheroes have something that mythological characters do not: they operate according to an idealistic dedication to the greater good. While the figures in myth are charismatic and powerful, they fight for tribal interests and family interests and personal interests and sometimes even selfish and antisocial interests. No mythical character has anything even similar to "the Neverending Battle."

The comparison to gods forgets the fact that gods and sometimes heroes are not three-dimensional personalities: they personify abstract qualities, or alternatively, have personalities that can be summarized in one word, like "wise" or "warlike." Whereas superhero characters *should* have rounded personalities, the more developed, the better.

And the fact that superheroes and myths have things in common does not mean that their comparisons are any less pretentious and shallow. Here's a hint, Grant Morrison: if you name a character after Prometheus to "sound smart," make sure you know who Prometheus actually IS.

Though I wouldn't say that FOURTH WORLD characters were superheroes, any more than I would describe the characters in Roger Zelazny's LORD OF LIGHT that way.

Though the way various comics companies stick to themselves and never interchange does suggest similarities to various mythological cosmos, doesn't it?

Here's who I'd compare them to:

DC Comics = Egyptian Myth. Grandiose. Powerful. Gigantic. Nobody built or thought bigger than the Egyptians. And they were the first, after all. Egyptian myth is filled with chants from the book of the dead and elsewhere, said at the necessary moments in a clockwork cosmos. And has DC ever given us the greatest, most poetic "ritual chants" ever: the GL oath, Superman's "faster than a speeding bullet," or "the Neverending Battle" "criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot" - phrases that are commonly envoked every day. At the same time, the gods of Egyptian myth were mighty and aroused curiosity, but were unknowable and mysterious, with no clear motivation or human personality. Which comes very close to the DC Heroes, who were mostly written in an era when characterization was less important than plot (and oh, what brilliant plots were created). A friend of mine once argued that the first DC Hero to actually have a personality was Karate Kid in LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES.

Marvel Comics = African Myth. Well, let's see: the greatest heroes are wiseacres and tricksters who achieve not by valor or bravery but by the deliberate reversals of the customs that we're used to. None of them are an Achilles-like paragon of an abstract idea of manliness: there's always something wrong with them; either they're six inches tall while their brothers are giants, or they are a great ironworker, but are lame, or are a great hunter and loving father, but are terribly ugly. And lest we forget, the greatest hero in African myth is a Spider...  :wink:

Image Comics = A dreary, cold, twilight world of perpetual conflict where in the end, evil triumphs and the only force that really matters is how many people you take with you and how much blood you shed. Remind anybody else of Norse myth?

Charleton Comics = Greek Myth. They say that philosophy destroyed the Greek Gods, because Greek thought on the ordered nature of the universe eliminated the need for gods to run everything, creating doubt and atheism. In a related vein, Steve Ditko's "philosophy," or raving "Randroid" pro-free market rah-rahs, disrupted much of the enjoyment of his Charleton Comics for readers that aren't interested in politics with their funnybooks.

America's Best Comics = Hebrew Myth/Judaism. We only worship one God. By astonishing coincidence, so does ABC: Alan Moore. And there are 5 comics in the ABC line, just like the 5 books of the Torah!

Veering off on a tangent here... the moderator might want to split the thread.



MIRACLEMAN is a bit unusual in that the writer (Moore) seemed to view the heroes' takeover as not such a bad thing.



Well, put in those terms, no, of course not. But in a world whose leadership had become corrupt and incompetent, I could see these heroes tempted towards taking power in order to set things right. Hopefully it would be more like Captain Comet in R.E.B.E.L.S. '95 where the heroes try to incite and enable a popular rebellion rather than taking over directly, but that would depend on circumstances allowing it.

The usual assumption in comics seems to be that the existence of super-powered types doesn't much affect the political landscape of the world at all. Except for fictionalized places like Latveria, you generally have the same people in charge doing most of the same things as in real life. I understand why this is done, but it seems pretty unlikely that it would really happen this way.



Who was it who said, some things are cliches because they're true? The optimistic, '50s present turned out to be mostly illusion in real life, so it's only natural that popular culture stuff like comics would reflect this.

Re: Man of Steel, it took me a while to figure out that you were referring to that series' treatment of Krypton. MoS' Metropolis certainly isn't all that distopic.



I agree with this. Author wish-fulfillment should have no place in any kind of writing.



Amen to that!

I think the bigger problem with Lois & Clark was that it was just poorly done. Campy writing that makes a joke out of the mythos (without any of the panache or skill of the Adam West Batman, which was crafted with a genuine love of the comics--West and many of the show's writers were lifelong Batman fans), bad acting all around (Dean Cain being the worst Superman to date), total mutilations of the classic characters (Lex Luthor as a Pepe Le Pew type after Lois, Teenybopper Metallo, Cat Grant as a one-dimensional tramp, Perry as an Elvis-obsessed redneck, and so on), bad costume and set designs (Alyn and Reeves' costumes are still miles ahead of Cain's), and truly awful FX even by TV standards. That it used Byrne's template didn't help matters any. LeVine, Singer, Buckner, and the other "creative minds" on the show didn't have the talent to pull off a Superman show, and they certainly didn't have the respect for Superman needed to make it work.

In that respect, it's for the best that Brainiac never showed up.



The Skull Ship is a classic. The shrinking equipment...depends on how he uses it. If he minaturizes a civilization in order to more easily destroy it, I'm game. But to collect them? I dunno. The murderous, callous Brainiac of the animated series is the best version of the character to date, and I don't see him as the kind of guy who's keep any living organic life-forms around.



Max Fleischer's Superman is just as big of a "wuss." He folds like a deck of cards under Lex Luthor's laser hits in the first cartoon (yeah, I know they don't give the scientist a proper name, but some animation historians believe he's Luthor, and I'm inclined to agree with them), he sinks to his knees when bombarded with flame-throwers in "The Mechanical Monsters" and gets the holy heck pounded out of him when he goes to fight back, he gets beaten up by a gorilla in "Terror on the Midway," he gets bashed up by King Tut's minions in "The Mummy Strikes," and he gets knocked out by falling wreckage in several others. ("The Magnetic Telescope" also shows him having a very limited tolerance for electrical energy.) Dini/Timm's Superman is no weaker than that.

Besides, as good as the writing was on that show, Superman being Fleischer-like in his power levels really wasn't an issue for me.



*smacks self upside the head* Why didn't I think of this when I wrote my Superman movie idea in 1999? I just had Brainiac using electromagnetic energy to power himself up enough to beat Superman within an inch of his life. A whole mess of Brainiac-puppets with this power would be even better.

Anyone mind if I borrow this idea, should I ever decide to revisit that old movie idea?  :lol:



Morrison and Quitely did something like this in JLA: Earth-2, where Brainiac was a disembodied brain with cybernetic enhancements who could control anything and everything within his range. (He was lobotomized by Ultraman at the end.)

MIRACLEMAN is also a bit unusual in the sense that it was the only one that wasn't totally unbelieveable, but I digress.

That's what I thought the first time I read MIRACLEMAN, but after I read it again, I realized just how unnerving the surviving Miracleman Family members fixing everything really was; it wasn't frightening because the Marvel Family weren't bad people, but there was something about it that Alan Moore took pains to show didn't feel right. There were references to 12 Andy Warhol clones being up and around and making art. Now everybody has the option of Miracleconversion, everybody can be a superhero, but Liz refuses. "Do you know what you're refusing?" Miracleman asks. "Do you know what you're asking me to give up?" She says back. Alex Winter (Miraclebaby) tells her father on returning to earth, "Oh, I see you decided to leave the sky that color, didn't you?" Brrr, it all gave me chills.



True, but that's no excuse for TWILIGHT, which "revised" the DC space heroes as sleazy sex fiends.

And nothing justifies the existence of HAWKWORLD. Yeah, okay, Silver Age Hawkman made no sense if you really think about it from the perspective of a grown adult: he was from a futuristic society, BUT he came to Earth to study Earth "crimefighting techniques," he worked at a museum for some reason, and instead of using rayguns and lightsabers he "borrowed" priceless museum treasures. And he dressed like a bird for some reason. Now, in comes HAWKWORLD - they "fixed" all of the above. Hawkman uses ray guns, came to earth not to study crimefighting techniques but as a spy, and his relationship with Hawkwoman was just a "cover story;" the two really hate each other.

And suddenly you remember what you LIKED about Hawkman in the first place: it was because he didn't make much sense; he had incredible imaginative power. Now, reverse it, and you've got a "grim n' gritty" Hawkworld, suddenly the character is forced in line with "adult" thinking: not only is the character sleazy, grotesque and unrecognizeable, he also isn't terribly original, from a derivative Cyberpunk dystopia of Hawkworld.

If somebody ever does SCIENCE NINJA TEAM GATCHAMAN, removes the bird costumes and gadgetry, and makes them all into black leather suit wearing Ninjas using AK-47s that are the Japanese equivalent of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six, it would have the same effect: bring the concept more in line with "adult" rationalism but destroying what made the concept work in the first place.



Englehart and Maggin and Mantlo, true geniuses each, deserve all the props they can get.  :D

All this talk of cliche stories brings up one interesting point: whether it's done "right" or not doesn't matter: if you're using this story, you're being cliche. Innovation does matter. Being original is important. The reason the SWAMP THING issues of Adam Strange were great while the other stories I mentioned were worthless is that they brought a fresh, new perspective to Adam Strange and his world and did it differently than the others did.

For that reason, Warren Ellis deserves all the contempt and scorn we can muster for his blatant acts of gunpoint intellectual mugging (ooops, I'm sorry, I mean "homages"): his highway robbery of Doc Savage and Tarzan, and his use of an obvious JLA analogue because his impoverished imagination couldn't come up with anything better.

Well, on a purely scientific standpoint, it would make sense for Brainiac to collect "samples" of interesting civilisations he encounters for further studies, as well as to experiment on it's inhabitants.  I see him as the kind of guy who'd introduce a new type of locust he encountered on a new world to one of his bottled societies, just to study the infestation's effects on the society's economic structures.

I'm the kind of guy who looks at comic book villains and tries to figure out what they represent in symbolic terms.  In Lex Luthor's case, it's simply Human Hubris taken to extremes: the brilliant man who wants to topple the gods (or the Superman) simply because he can't stand that there's someone better then him.

In Brainiac's case, I see the symbolism being "Technology Overcoming Humanity".  Cold Logical Efficiency replacing Human Compassion.  In short, the perfect motivations for anything he'd do are "Scientific Curiosity" and "increasing efficiency"..  

Anyways, back on the topic of Bottled Cities and Shrink Rays..  I'm of two minds on the subject: On one hand, there's nothing quite like the classic Shrink Ray for Four-Color Superhero Coolness, and it'd be nice to have the classic Kandor back.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for "updating" the classics, and I do like the idea of Kandor being inside a "dimensional pocket" to give a modern, plausible explanation for it.

One idea I tinkered with was for Kandor and the other cities to be "Digitized", as in zapped by some ultra-tech scanner weapon and reduced to the state of virtual simulations..  Of course, the bonus would be that it fits the "Living Computer" concept even more then the shrink ray.

Hey, settle down!  :D  I love the Fleischer cartoons (made, incidentally, in my hometown, Miami) and the Animated Series. I was just making the point that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

That is to say, just because a big mean Brainiac robot could challenge Superman in the animated series doesn't mean that this should also be true of characters in other media, especially the comics.

There is a danger in thinking of characters this way. Namely, you're not thinking of them as three-dimensional, with motivations and quirks and definite unique traits if you think of them as personifying concepts like "the randomness and evil of disease" or "personification of human arrogance." There's no reason one can't be both, however: Dracula was successful both as a symbolic force, AND as a chilling, fully realized villain. If you can only go for one, have the second.

The specific danger of thinking of Brainiac this way is that has the potential to be interpreted as "anti-intellectual." That is, considering intellect and cleverness as frightening characteristics, that are less valid than holding abstract concepts like "having a good heart" and "right and wrong" (never mind somebody has to think right and wrong through). Anti-intellectualism can be successful when used for humor and satire: notice for instance, how funny it is that nobody on the Simpsons ever listens to Lisa despite the fact she's the only smart person in Springfield. But any other way it is ugly and doesn't work. One way to diffuse this bomb is to have Superman defeat Brainiac, not just through intelligence, but also the fact he has a "human" psyche capable of cunning and outside the box thinking, which the mathematical, linear Brainiac cannot grasp.

Perhaps your story can start with Superman helping NASA deposit a space probe on Pluto or something at least, that shows in some way that it is not the SEARCH for knowledge that is evil, but Brainiac's perversions that are.

Well, I have to agree on the fact of having three-dimensional, fully realized villains.  And even my concept of Brainiac would have some depth to him.  The Evil of Brainiac isn't his search for knowledge, but his absolute lack of ethics and morals in that pursuit.  

Still, I agree with your suggestion of having Superman vanquish Brainiac through the use of more human "irrational" thinking which Brainiac cannot match..  It adds the twist that Brainiac, in his desire for the immortality of Virtual Existance, sacrificed his humanity, the one thing that could help him defeat Superman.

Of course, that leads to other stories in which Brainiac comes to the "logical" conclusion that to defeat Superman, he needs to become Superman...  ...Or to study Humanity in the hopes of adding "the Human Factor" to his systems..

Something else from Post-Crisis I think should be kept: the fact that objects from Kryptons don't become "Super" just because they're under a Yellow Sun.

Living Kryptonian creatures, I can accept as gaining super-powers: people, animals and plants, sure.

But inanimate objects?  I'm sorry, but how is a piece of metal from Krypton supposed to "benefit" from yellow sun radiation?  Or a flask of Kyrptonian fuel?  

Now, instead, I can accept devices from Krypton being "Super" as a result of them being the result of Kryptonian Super-Science, such as molecularly-bonded Kryptonian Super-Steel, or a Kryptonian fuel which is actually a form of Raw Liquid Energy.  Instead of their "Superness" being an innate quality of their origin, make it so that those items are Super because Kryptonian Science was just that far ahead of everyone else's before the planet blew up..

I can agree with the inanimate matter, but then again, I don't know why organic molecules should necessarily be subject to a power inorganic ones aren't...

Another example that people just pick the fantasy they like best...

Well, at least life-forms from Krypton can be assumed to have evolved the same kind of ability to absorb Solar Radiation that the people of Krypton did.  Of course, they would probably develop entirely different abilities then just copying Superman's powers..  Perhaps Kryptonian plants just grow at an incredible rate?

On various occasions, notably in SUPERMAN RED/SUPERMAN BLUE, the seeds from the Scarlet Jungle have been caused by Earth's Yellow Sun to grow at incredible rates of speed, their leaves becoming as invulnerable as steel under those conditions. It is unknown if they could manifest other abilities, but really the point is moot when it comes to them: they're PLANTS. They can't have superspeed because they can't move, or supervision because they can't see, superhearing because they can't hear, superbreath because they don't breathe, and super-shout, because they have no voices.

Krypto and Beppo and the Super-Gorilla, all animals from Krypton, has manifested identical powers to Superman - which means that ALL animal life on Krypton, not just upright, bipedal Kryptonians, become "Super" when exposed to Yellow Sun Rays. In fact, knowing what we know about the laws of evolution and the similarity of vertebrate life, it would be strange if we had to explain why Kryptonians are the only form of life on that world that would have powers.

Elliot S! Maggin posited the theory of the Photonucleic Effect, kept on this site incidentally, which is impressive and uses lots of big, big words and is as good an explanation as any other, I suppose. From a guy that "gets" Superman. There's also Mark Wolverton's SCIENCE OF SUPERMAN, which has a few very well-thought out theories of how Superman's powers work: namely that the reason the Yellow Sun/Red Sun thing makes a difference is because all life on Krypton has a type of supplementary system, sort of like chlorophyll in plants, that allow them to make energy from sunlight.

Like I said earlier in this thread, I don't know if I'd agree with the sentiment that Superman's costume not being "Super" should be something that should survive the next big revision. Mostly because I think a super-costume is neat! I love how his cape is super-stretchy (elastic enough to, for instance, stretch over to catch all the flood level rains falling on a small town like a giant circus tent) and has a pocket for his Clark Kent clothes, and how (at least Supergirl's) has tele-crystals on the belt that tell her the time both on Earth and in Kandor.

Allow me to revise my statement: I would support the concept of Superman's costume having an origin other than the Silver Age concept of it being indestructible under a yellow sun - provided an explanation of equal interest could be supplied, and the outfit had properties that were just as mindblowing.

Here's a few that are just a "for instance," to help you know what I'm talking about:

Superman can change his costume instantly, because the cloth atoms are stored in a can on his person in the form of "dust," and rubbing his hands together at superspeed to create static electricity would cause the costume to "form" on him.

Superman acquired his costume by capturng a pair of creatures on a distant world that are sort of like earthly silkworms, except the "silk" they produce is the hardest substance in the universe, sort of like weaveable versions of "unbreakable diamond filaments" from Arthur C. Clarke. Superman's costume has properties depending on the mood of the space-silkworms when they made it; for instance, if they were cranky and the Superman Robots didn't feed them enough, the costume would start changing color psychadelically.

Superman's costume isn't a physical object at all, but is instead a variety of solidified thought: think of it like a "three dimensional thought photograph." This accounts for the reason the costume is indestructible: as it is solid thought, it doesn't really exist at all.

Well, I liked the Golden Age origin of the costume, which was made out of indestructible cloth Superman himself designed..

I suppose a way to update the concept would be to make the costume some sort of "Bio-Cloth" which assimilates the properties of Superman's skin..  On Krypton, that would only make the costume incredibly comfortable, but on Earth..

I'm behind in my reading, and was just catching up with this thread, when I read this on the first page.

Prof. Emil Hamilton?!?!?!  Why would you want him?  What does he have that I don't have?

(And don't get me started on Professor Pepperwinkle (http://superman.nu/wiki/index.php/Professor_Pepperwinkle)...)

A last name that doesn't conjure images of Hogwarts...hehe conjure, man I crack myself up. (http://www.thekryptonian.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)