Superman Through the Ages! Forum

I recently won a large lot of Superman comics of mostly Bronze Age vintage (Superman, Action, World's Finest, Superman Family, and DC Comics Presents).  I'm reading (in a lot of cases, re-reading) these classic books, and I'm remembering NOT liking this version of Superman when these books were new.  

I'm remembering how "corny" and "un-hip" Superman was compared to The X-Men and Spider-Man back then, while wishing that I'd felt THEN how I feel NOW about these same books.  These comics are just as, if not MORE, enjoyable to me as the afore-mentioned Marvel titles.  Sure, Superman's stories MAY have been a little more child-like (NOT childish), but the CONCEPTS behind many of the stories are WONDERFUL.  

In fact, as I'm going through my Superman issues now (I've already gone through my "new" Action Comics), I'm reminded just WHY I'd been so eager to read so many of the stories back then.  

Superman was a (THE) Good Guy.  He knew right from wrong, and always did his best to protect and serve the common man as often as possible, with as little harm done to his opponents as possible, and he KNEW how to do so.  

Batman was his best friend, and all other heroes looked UP to the man.  

If absolutely NOTHING else can be done, I wish we could go back to those days.  

Thanks for letting an old fan get some thoughts off his chest.  ;)

Cool to hear, imagine what it would be if you came into a stash of Silver Age stuff without GBS, Morgan Edge, Kents the age they should be, hip language (at least no one took Snapper Carr seriously), Supergirl without a search for the "grooviest" costume, and a sense of goofy and yet never dated timelessness... :D

I like what you're saying about Superman being unique amongst superheroes. Alan Moore once said that "[Superman] is what this entire business is about." Superman isn't your average superhero, he's the point of origin for the concept.

Yeah, you're so right about Superman's dominant personality trait being his incorruptibility and decency. I especially love his treatment under the Schwartz-era writers, who made Superman underplay and so his heroism came naturally to him instead of the speech-giving and posing he often made in other ages. I also enjoy Superman's sense of humor, which showed up more in the streetwise Brooklynite Maggin's tales than in Bates's.

Honest, endearing oddity and acid-trip conceptual weirdness never gets old, because fresh ideas never get old.

Afros and bell-bottoms, though, have an expiration date.

I feel that the writing in most Seventies books has aged badly compared to the more heavily edited Superman family comics, especially since so much of the X-Men and Spider-Man -type of comic storytelling became more of an industry standard for the next 20 years, while the Silver and Bronze age DC-style went by the wayside.

I don't know about that; MASTER OF KUNG FU still has a wonderful charm about it, reading it years and years later.

It's best not to think of comics history in terms of what gave way in favor of what, because the opposite is usually true: there's give and take both ways. DC inspired the Marvel heroes, and Lee's characterization-heavy worldbuilding approach inspired DC right back.

So much of what was done in the Marvel Silver Age and the seventies didn't survive to the eighties so I wonder what you mean by "industry standard"; it certainly wasn't the use of thought bubbles, or electric bubbles at dramatic moments ("I...I can't believe it! THIS IS BEYOND BELIEF!") and the dramatic asides by the wiseacre narrator in caption boxes that break the fourth wall ("Who's that making the scene? I'm afraid you'll have to see Ol' Webhead Next Ish, Marvelite!" or "How do you think you defeat a robot with the power of Thor? If you're Hawkeye...you don't.").

They're coming back, in a big way.  :P

IMHO, what differentiates Marvel in general from DC is their greater willingness to embrace fads and trendiness.  Note the Silver Surfer (derived from the surfer teen fad of the 60s), the Inhumans (deriving from the hippies),. Dazzler (disco era hero), Shang Chi/Iron Fist (martial arts fad), Deathlok (bionics craze).

Notice that the DC and Marvel characters that survived were timeless such as Spider-Man, who isn't tied to a specific fad or era.

DC tends to create legends on timeless iconic concepts.

Marvel tends to buy into the latest fashion.

The only thing I REALLY wanna see come back is mini-skirts!  

;)  

Sssshhh...  DON'T tell my wife, okay, fellas?  

;)  

Seriously, thanks for all your responses.  I didn't expect ANY!  I was just rambling out some thoughts.  :D

Even though I was born in '62, and lived through quite a bit of the Silver Age, I think my favorite era of Superman was the Bronze Age.  I'd read a LOT of Superman comics through both eras, but the BA just seemed to be a LITTLE bit more on the serious side (unlike today's comics, which tend to take things on the GRIM side).  

Now, don't get me wrong:  I'm STILL a current-day comics fan, but I've NEVER seen Superman's artists cast him or his family in shadows so much before!

Well, it wouldn't be any fun if we all agreed... 8)

Naw, it just wouldn't be as MUCH fun!  

Don't you agree?  ;)

Oh...really now? DC doesn't chase fads?

Remember the KARATE KID series? Props to DC for jumping on the Kung Fu bandwagon several YEARS later. Better late than never, guys!

Remember BLACK LIGHTNING?

Remember ATARI FORCE?

Remember Denny's "Mod" Wonder Woman?

Remember WARLORD? (How hard could it possibly be to get a license for a real Sword & Sorcery character, anyway? :D )

Remember Wolfman's "All-New, All-Different Teen Titans?"

Remember GREEN LANTERN/GREEN ARROW? Superheroes caring about society or whatever was the Marvel guys' shtick until then.

And this is not even getting to Modern stuff.

DC chases fads just as much, they just aren't as savvy as Marvel used to be.

Thought bubbles and ironic, self-aware narration (the first a standard device in comic books and strips for a hundred years; the second, a shared device during the sixties and seventies, most strongly identified with Marvel and Smilin' Stan, but also evident in Mad, DC, and even Archie) were the last thing on my mind.  I'm thinking more in terms of plot and tone and of the late-70s.  Dark Phoenix, dead X-men, super-serious "topical" writing.

I gotta' agree with that, IMO DC chased fads in a ham-handed way and got me off my feed in the Bronze Age...

To me, they could have developed a finer science fiction and emphasized their rich history, rather than compete directly...the 70s were a weird time, by then counter culture was semi "normal" but watered down, it didn't work in DC comics, it seemed strange and forced...

One of the funniest fads I remember seeing in a Superman comic was the Planet of the Apes story in a Silver Age World's Finest issue.  

 (http://www.nealadams.com/DC/WorldFinest/WF183.JPG)

I didn't say 'DC didn't chase fads'.  I said Marvel tended to do it more.

Line their characters and titles up against each other and you'll see Marvel tends to be more trendy.  And both companies fail miserably when they try it.  All such characters are obsolete and dated, regardless of how much Silver Surfer fans refuse to acknowledge their fave is based on a long gone 60s phenomenon.

GL/GA must have done something right to win the awards it did for best writer, best artist, best inker, and I don't know what else.  It was a critical success even if the sales figures didn't pan out.  What was that before about actual quality of the books vs sales figures?  Green Arrow developed his defining character instead of being another mayonaissey copy off the assembly line.  Hal/GL's character grew the most in this series too.  And a Guardian becoming closer to humanity, and the overpopulation problem on Maltus brought the high-and-mighty immortals down to Earth.

That same writer, O'Neill, also penned one of the landmark Superman storylines, The Sandman Saga.  Denny updated DC's characters but didn't lose their essential souls.  Even in the various Pre Crisis eras, DC has always updated the fashions and speech of their books, same goes for Marvel.  That's hardly trendy in the fundamental aspects.

Wolfman's Teen Titans worked and resonated with the fans using both existing and new characters.  That's something that previous several incarnations and creative teams had failed to accomplish.

Again, both companies have visited the trendy route (ugh! Vibe and Gypsy still bring a bad taste to the back of my mouth).  But DC's heart really isn't in it as their forte has been the legendary route from the beginning thus explaining their more flagrant failures at it.

Well, I bought two issues of GL/GA at the time and watched GL being forced into a "law and order" role and GA assuming the riteous role and I kept thinking is this Paul Revere and the Raiders story of "Indian Nation" without Casey Kasim talking the story up on America's Top Forty every Sunday morning...why was either character forced to assume such a polarized view?  For an award?  The story of native Americans is way bigger than that, super heroes have a story that doesn't fit that story...

My last purchased issue of comics ever was the Superman issue after the Sandman Saga, one where Supes was again flying into space and knocked backward in time by a super nova to a planet where he had a weird relationship with a starry eyed space siren and by flying back, ruined "miracle potions" said to cure all of the world's ills...even there a contradiction of his mission, and I wondered, "no matter what I feel about the world, what do these heroes think anymore"...

then there is this: http://www.lethargiclad.com/gorilla/

Marvel also tended to go off the deep end with these things. Both DC and Marvel might get interested in movie monsters (for example), but where DC would put out one book and see how it goes, Marvel would put out twenty.



While the Surfer isn't my favorite, I do enjoy reading him when he has a decent writer. I think the reason why Surfy works (IMO) is because he didn't go too far with his trend. Yes, he uses a surfboard as a prop, but that's it. He doesn't wear jams, and he doesn't talk like a surfer. "Whoa! Radical, dude!" Had they written him like that, he probably would've fared about as well as the Dazzler.



I think GL/GA was a pioneering work. The problem with venturing into new territory, of course, is that sometimes you take wrong turns -- in this series' case, they had a tendency to deliver the message with the subtlety of a nuclear blast. But there never would've been a Watchmen without GL/GA or something like it.



It's hard to believe Titans wasn't inspired by X-Men. Not that I think anybody deliberately decided to follow a trend or to rip Marvel off -- more likely it's just a case of imagination being the sincerest form of flattery. Unfortunately, Wolfman isn't the writer Claremont is.

It must be noted that the Silver Surfer's real name is Norrin Rad, as in "Radical, dude!" :D  That is a bit off the deep end right in his own name.

I see little derivative in Wolfman's Teen Titans that screams 'X-copy' aside from the new team aspect.  The characters, characterization, themes -- everything is pretty much different from the X-Clowns.  The closest we get is Cyborg's self-pity for being half-human but that is more internal as he certainly isn't derided by the people he protects like the Marvel mutants are.  Changeling is the closest thing they had to a mutant -- a mutate according to the OHTMU definition -- and he had no alienation or other socio-psychological problems.  The team seemed to be pretty well-balanced psychologically compared with their X-Buddies at Marvel.

It's not like Byrne's swiping Parker's origin and inflicting that motivation on Clark Kent on the gridiron.  heh heh

My kneejerk response is to say something like, “hey, just because they failed doesn’t mean it wasn’t any good,” but then there was to my memory, nothing truly extraordinary about the second Titans incarnation that came before Marv's, so touche.



Just because it won awards doesn’t automatically mean you have to like it. The people that give awards are not high and mighty deities with minds beyond comprehension who can instantly determine greatness; they are fans, like you and me, who base decisions on subjective criteria. For all of its Oscar nominations, I saw nothing extraordinary about THE AVIATOR, for instance; it paled easily in comparison to possibly the greatest biopic of recent times, MALCOLM X, which did something AVIATOR could not do, namely show us WHY this person thought what they thought and did what they did.

I never saw what was so great about GL/GA. It’s sanctimonious, humorless tone is as unintentionally funny as a heavy-handed afterschool special. All the same, though, you are right that it was successful in one thing: Green Arrow was given a personality and an identity apart from being a painfully obvious copy using the Batman model.

GL/GA also gave us Neal Adams as a high-water mark.  In reality a pernicious influence on cartooning.  As much as I loved his art when I first discovered it (for the record, his best work is Superman/Ali  :D ).

GA having a personality is a plus, though.

As for other 70s books mentioned, MOKF is overrated: Sax Rohmer did some parts better, Bruce Lee and David Carradine did others better.  For the most part, the reach of the creative teams exceeded their grasps: variable art, purple prose and the serial, 15-20 page structure were ultimately the downfall of the project.  On the other hand --a pioneering U.S. non-superhero adventure comic/proto-graphic novel.  But then, I haven't sat down and read the whole thing in 20 years (is it even collected at all in trade paperbacks?).

Titans was at least INTENDED to rival Claremont's projects, repeating a 20-year-old pattern beginning at least with FF/JLA.  And Wolfman was a"Marvel" writer.  80s not 70s, I guess.

Seeing all the trend-chasing mentioned in this thread makes me realize that it wasn't just Kirby channeling pop culture through his comics, but most of the writers editors and artists at the big 2.

Gary wrote

" I think GL/GA was a pioneering work. The problem with venturing into new territory, of course, is that sometimes you take wrong turns -- in this series' case, they had a tendency to deliver the message with the subtlety of a nuclear blast. But there never would've been a Watchmen without GL/GA or something like it. "

 But even Alan Moore admits that although he thinks Watchman is some of his best work that he feels it was influentual in destroying  the optimism and creativty of comics so this is not a good thing. For the record I loathed ( not to strong a word) both series.

I think we're missing the point on this sidetracked thread re: these books and characters.

GL/GA was a pioneer in social relevance for comics.  That's hardly faddish nor trendy since they started the darn thing.

Wolfman's Teen Titans, whether they aped Marvel or not, is similarly not a product of fads as that same team and characters could have applied to any era, not that specific one.  Certainly Cyborg came far after Steve Austin and Jaime Sommers had run their course for popularity.  The other new/adapted Titans weren't part of any popular craze of that time.  And the old guard just looked better with Perez doing the art.

While their contemporary New X-Men originally weren't faddish either, they did become so trying to tap into the punk rocker era with Storm's horrible mohawk and black leather look, the obviously punk Morlocks, Colossus' outfit altered to look like an S&M suit, and Rogue's similarly ugly frizzed-out hairdo and punk costume.  Titans never stooped to anything like that.

I don't think the case has been proven that DC was trendy or faddish with these guys.

Now, Vibe and Gypsy are another story ... *blechh!*

I was just looking at the Superman/Ali  issue, that to me is one of the Quintessential Bronze Age Superman stories, it was so 1970's, and it could not of happen at any other time.

please ignore.  sorry.  i think i have it figured out now.

There's a difference between following a fad from the larger popular culture (surfing, dystopian sci-fi futures ruled by apes, asian martial arts, disco, rap) and following fads from within the comics culture (teen super-teams, "adult" melodramas with lots of interior monologues and por/pre-tentious narration, social relevancy with after-school special-style themes involving social problems like drugs, poverty and racism, etc).

GA/GL largely started a fad and other superhero comics followed it for 10 years, with diminishing results.

It started something that super heroes couldn't finish...

Hate, distrust and ambivelence are the other end of a spectrum that conceives of righting wrongs...O'Neil gave Ollie a character that was nothing more than a REAL cartoon...

But that's OK, I can't work up a real hate for any reflection of the times that people live in... 8)

No argument there, Telle.  You're right on all points.

The context of my response was I stated Marvel tended to go with fads more than DC in terms of real world trends.  Going by that criterion, then DC is less guilty than Marvel on this front, though not entirely innocent.  Anything associated with real world fads tends to become obsolete and dated, most assuredly including comics.  That was my original point.

Comics industry fads are a bit less certain in this regard.  They cannot be truly said to become dated as at least some dedicated pockets of fans and/or creators will still be devoted to them.  The genre and its devotees are defining what they like and accept which doesn't necessarily have an expiry date.

Superman or Spider-Man, for examples, are not tied to specific times or fashions.  They can and have been updated in superficials while retaining some viable core elements.

Silver Surfer or Vibe are clearly dated concepts tied too strongly to fads of their own eras (surfer dude movies and breakdancing respectively).  A reason exists why these characters cannot sustain interest beyond the limited eras they were conceived in.

While the base concepts for Teen Titans and X-Men were not faddish, the latter's creators chose to key more heavily into a punk rock era trapping which started affecting the basic themes and characterizations of the X-books.

I just have to say how much I LOVE this place!  

You guys took what was originally just some rambling nonsense, and really turned it into some great discussion!  

Wow...  

I'll have to ramble MORE in the future!   :D

But even there, GL/GA can hardly be considered to be innovative or a trend-starter.

The notion of superheroes giving a plug about greater society in general was created by Marvel, not DC: The Marvel people told anti-racist parables as far back as the "Sons of the Serpent" story by Roy Thomas in AVENGERS in 1966 (this, in an era where entire southern towns had memberships composed of the KKK; antiracism wasn't the impossible to disagree with cliche it is today), the Harry Osborn drug addiction story in Spider-Man, Englehart's Captain America becoming "Nomad, the Man without a country," Richard Nixon revealed to be a super-villain (!), the "ban the bomb" subtext of KREE-SKRULL WARS, the environmentalism inherent in Namor, among others.

And let's not forget the Roy Thomas/Englehart use of the Squadron Supreme, who represented a universe that was pure leftist conspiracy theory: in the Squadron Supreme Earth, Nelson Rockefeller was president. That's the 1960s/70s equivalent of an earth where Kenneth Lay is president.

Placed into this context, GL/GA is a latecomer instead of an innovator. In 1974, If GL/GA came out at Marvel, nobody would have noticed.

Here's a question, just to satisfy my curiosity:

Is there anybody whose personal politics are conservative/right-wing who actually enjoyed GL/GA? And why?

Heavy handed political views that one does not agree with can ruin a book; for instance, I for one, as a liberal/progressive, cannot enjoy Steve Ditko's fascist fantasy MR. A (STARSHIP TROOPERS without the sense of humor, charm, or satire) or the Ayn Rand subtext of Frank Miller's work, for example. Then again, it may be the case that some works with right-of-center themes that I can enjoy (LENSMEN has frighteningly jingoistic anti-Union sentiments and eugenics theory, but I nonetheless can appreciate it as a well-told adventure science fiction novel) because they "work" for reasons apart from the fact you either agree with the theme or you don't; they are successful as stories in and of themselves.

I think GL/GA predates the Englehart Captain America stuff, but in general, points taken. (As for Nixon, well, life imitates art, and vice-versa.)

As far as the political orientations in comics, I think you always have to make certain allowances because of the nature of comics. In comics, it's a given that the most important crises are solved by a few main characters. These characters are more powerful/skillful/effective than anybody else in the story except maybe their opponents. Usually our heroes are doing what they do for selfless reasons, and most of the time there's no question that they can be trusted.

In real life I'd be very worried about someone who walks around with an arsenal on his back and won't tell anyone who he really is. Yet this does not keep me from reading and enjoying Iron Man.

So I generally have no problem with Miller's work, even though I'm pretty far left of center myself.

Also, Squadron Supreme was after GL/GA, not just Nomad.

Didn't the JSA do some "relevance" stories in All-Star Comics?  And the JLA back in the Gardner Fox/Mike Sekowsky days?  

"Man, Thy Name Is Brother" is the only tale that comes to mind right now, but I just got off a 12-hour shift at work, and I'm feeling pretty fuzzy-brained right now.  ;)

Actually, erm.. guys, this all REALLY started with the Golden Age Superman. Who was all about fighting real life social and political injustices, rather than super-powered villains and space aliens, that came later :)

It just goes to show (AGAIN!) that so much of what has been given us by Green Lantern, Batman, and others is because of our favorite!  ;)

and you don't have to look very far to find it.

In Superman No. 1 :)

There is a story about Mine Workers.

There have been suggestions, most recently by Gerald Jones in Men of Tomorrow, that the Mine Workers story was not a Superman story originally (maybe G-Men or Slam Bradley?) since it features Clark in civvies and hardly any Superman.

Perhaps this story could also provide a glimpse into what Siegel and Shuster's earlier, pre-costume "The Superman (http://superman.nu/seventy/interview/?part=3#cover)" was like.

:s:

The story was reprinted from Action Comics No. 3

It is entitled "The Blakely Mine Disaster"

Point taken.

But this is well off the beaten path from what you reacted to in my original post.

GA, and to lesser degree GL, have been significantly changed and continue to show the effects of the social relevance period.  Not only is this idea of relevance not dated nor obsolete, but it's actually expanded and deepened its hold on the comics industry.  As another poster noted, this has been to somewhat lesser effect over the years.

What was my key point is the real world fads, which indeed have expiration dates, influence Marvel far more than they do DC.

GL/GA wasn't a reaction to a real world fad nor does the aftermath of it show the obsolescence of such fads.