Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Who would Pre-Supes side with in "Civil War"

(BTW the "unrealism" of Civil War's premise (The humans realizing JUST NOW that not only mutants but superheroes area potential threat) in a realistic format is a paradox of another discussion.. but feel free to discuss it anyway)

Iron Man's Faction which sides with "humanity" and exposes their identities and becomes legalized so that the superhero community would get some rep?? Spidey's revelation is the most shocking

Captain America's Faction which wants to keep their anonymous identities (even though cap's Id is public) for giving the heroes who bled, and sweat for the world.. also since he knows that there are politicians who can twist "superheroes" as much as they twist the law (Imagine if Luthor was president of the 616 universe during Civil War)

Would Clark invite the full press and tear off his short to reveal teh Big S

or do you think he would side with Cap.. since the Pre-C supes did say once "there are some Moral laws above some man-made laws"

First, there's nothing further removed from "reality" than a Marvel comic.

Second, I don't read "Civil War," though I have heard bits and pieces of what I think it's about...including your post.

Frank Miller already mined this concept in "Dark Knight Returns" about 20 years ago (but that's Marvel: the House of Recycled Ideas) and when he told the story, Superman sided with the government, revealing his identity (at least to government officials; it's unclear whether the world at large knows) and operating with the sanction (and at the political whim) of whatever administration's in power at the moment.  Miller's thinking seems to be that Superman would prefer to continue helping mankind however he can, and if that means bowing to government rules, then so be it.

Frankly, I don't buy it.  This plot twist works in the context of story where Supes is a walk-on character and we're supposed to be sympathetic to Batman and his oppposing viewpoint, but that's about it.  I mean, what would be the motive for Superman to give in?  Fear that the public would lose faith in him if he didn't obey a government edict?  Come on, the government might be able to convince the public that certain heroes are a "risk" of some kind, but not Superman!  It's hard to imagine any politician putting his own reputation up against Superman's and coming out on top.  On the contrary, politicians would go out of their way to be seen and photographed with their arm around Big Blue...assaulting his character would be poltical suicide.  IF Superman gave in to a "registration act" I think it would only be to set an example to other heroes who were on the fence about what to do.  And even then, I don't buy it, because he'd be morally opposed to it.

Superman has worked cheek-to-jowl with heroes of every stripe, from demi-gods to guys-next-door, and he appreciates more than anyone the courage and character it takes for a mere mortal to fight evil.  If anything, he thinks the non-supers in the biz are more heroic than he is.  And he knows that they couldn't do it without the masks. He knows what would happen to, say, Bruce Wayne if his secret were to be revealed, and there's no way on Earth he'd stand by and let that happen.  

Would Superman give up his Clark Kent ID if he believed the government was in the right to ask for it?  I think he might, in a world where he was the only superhero...at the end of the day, he can live without Clark Kent (might not be pleasant, but it's at least possible).  But I think he would fight on behalf of all the guys and gals out there who canNOT live without their secret IDs.  People who not only couldn't do their jobs anymore, but who would likely be killed by their enemies for good works of the past.

So from the scenario you describe, I think Superman would be like Captain America...fighting against registration more for the sake of others than out of any interest in preserving his own personal secrets.

Anyway, what good could ever come of registration?  Would they have heroes going into action only with proper approvals, completed travel forms and, at the end of an adventure, an expense voucher all filled out in triplicate? The whole appeal of superheroes is that they get things done when the "proper authorities" cannot...which is pretty much all the time.  

And what about the national budget? Who would pay to take care of the registered heroes' loved ones?  Spidey's got MJ and Aunt May, but there are what, 8,000 Marvel heroes tripping over each other on any given day, and each one with a family and friends.  How can the government hope to pay for that many bodyguards?  And how would they pay all those unmasked heroes when they had to quit their current jobs...which they most certainly would, or risk endangering places of business around the country.  What taxpayer would sit still for having all those supers added to the government payroll when, until now, they were out there participating in the economy with the rest of us wage slaves, and fighting crime for free?

Whatever.  I'd say it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the Marvel Universe, except for two things:  (1) I'll never read it anyway and (2) whatever happens it'll all have to be re-booted a month after it's done.  THere's no way they'll manage to keep Spider-Man's books, for example, going with Peter Parker's ID public knowledge as he lives in Avenger's Mansion (or whatever).  These guys have opened a Pandora's Box and I have no doubt that it'll all be swept quietly under the rug as quickly as possible.

Boy, I must really be out of touch!  Before I read your post, Nightwing, I thought Rugal was asking whether Superman would side with the North or the South in the Civil War!

I'm glad he didn't, though - that would have been just another pointless debate.

:s:

Hey, Superman did pick sides in the American Civil War.  Notice he's wearing blue pants.  That's how we identified our targets down here in Richmond.

Anyway, I resist calling the events at Marvel a "Civil War."  It is at worst an insurgency.

At least Miller was clever at the time, the ham-handed comparsions to the  Patriot Act and super heroes being registered as weapons of mass destruction seems pretty obvious in "Civil War"...

I like comics that are a little more timeless...

I know many of you will disagree, but I disliked Red Son's political message and the portrayal of Superman. That said, I have not read Mark Miller's Civil War.

When are crossover events going to end? This storyline and DC's 52 are selling but I don't understand why.

Michel Weisnor..

Civil War is Marvel's current cross-over event that started with the new warriors trying to subdue a notorious supervillain group, and in the propcess ends up getting killed (taking a huge nuke-ranged population them all erased from the map)

all of a sudden there is this superhero registration act that indicates superheroes are becoming reckless and needs public approval..

Iron Man goes through with it and convinces Spider-man

Cap decides against it and becomes a renegade

If you read zombies comments' they say all good things about it..

I admit it IS a good read IMO a little better than Infinite Crisis

the flare the drama, the pulse-pounding "what happens next" shocker witha  lot of political fiasco here and there (although IMO that's quite hypocritical of people with spandex)

but nightwing once said something along the lines of

I'm sorry nw I don't know the exact words you said but..

"All rellevant stories, mature themes, morality and the whatnot but everything falls apart when everyone fails to realize Clark Kent is Superman because of his glasses"

Civil War follows the same premise, if you can "suspend your disbelief" enough to get past the flawed premise (i stated it) it is a good read in it's context but again almost every other two scenes in the story REMINDS me of that "flawed premise" AKA similar to nightwings's everything falls apart when everyone fails to realize Clark Kent is Superman because of his glasses (and I wonder why some Marvel zombies HATE to suspend their disbelief and the like, for example, in Ultimate Fantastic Four we get four pages of Susan Storm Discussing to Reed Richards what happens to his food when he eats it, how his "Stretching digestive system" devours it and lotsa 'Psuedo-Science'... WTF WHO CARES, Reed Richards can Sretch END OF STORY I wouldn't waste one panel with this talking heads gobbledygook let alone four pages)

one thing was Iron Man having a conversation about the triggering event with Emma Frost, and she compared notes with their mutants' "Genoshan Genocide" which reaffirms that the superheroes "ignored" everything mutants related because the mutants should have a "universe" feel that makes them unique to the other MU.

I'm glad no one even brought up that 911 took place in the 616 Universe, where again the heroes "Failed" to do something about it..

thing is a lot of past marvel events could have triggered Civil War

Ultron Taking an island hostage
the Infinity series
Kree Skrull War
And a lot more I'm forgetting

But If I can susped my disbelief why Superman can fly (basic)


I can definetely suspend my disbelief about the premise and enjoy the story in it's context (the more paradoxial one)

but still

"Superheroes and Reality cannot co-exists with one another, they either succeed and we realize how irrelevant they are in our world, or they fail and we wonder what good their powers are..

.. If they really believe in doing the right thing, they'd tackle the roots of evil instead of reacting to it's effects, BUT IF THEY DID.. what makes them different than say Ra's Al Ghul who bends the world to their own will"..  

Who said that? was it aldous or nightwing?? it's one of THE BEST quotes i've ever read, I can't forget it..

Another example.. You cannot be just a superhero and be flying around the world, Imagine how many AIRSPACE VIOLATIONS you would cause!!!

Civil War simply proves that it's fun seeing heroes go at it.  There've been groups of superheroes having skirmishes with each other ever since there've been groups of superheroes.  That slowed down once all of the superheroes were properly introduced and all the "superheroes are being mindcontrolled" plots got old, so now they have another reason.  

As for Superman...  well, depends on the era.  I'm surprised the pre-Crisis Superman didn't cause the U.S. to amend the Constitution so they could write him in as President, assuming that the U.N. didn't ask him to run things.  It'd be fun to see him send MacDuff the robot to meet up with heads of state while Superman was busy saving the world.  ("Oh no, I can't possibly run a country!  I have to get that article to Perry by morning!")

Ah, so that's why some people these days regard Superman as a "fascist." And I always wondered why.

Being a reader only of pre-Crisis Superman, I have always held the view that he is far from being a fascist, but is in fact apolitical.

Another reason for me not to like Frank Miller, if he distorts and cheapens Superman's character.

Well, his take is a complete distortion in all kinds of ways, for its own story sake.  Doesn't impress me either, but I suppose it was novel.

Well of course Miller was writing DKR in the 80s, and being a pretty liberal guy of course he had his issues with Ronald Reagan.  Basically he took Superman's traditional association with the flag (ala that famous opening of the TV show, and many many covers of yesteryear) and turned it against him, making him out to be a jingoistic government lackey.  Considering this book came in the era of movies like Top Gun and Rambo, maybe that was even a bold position to take, though of course the ensuing 20-years of America-bashing take a lot of the novelty away.

Technically, though, while Miller's Superman could be called a government stooge, or even a tool, the one who really employs fascist tactics is Batman, who formulates an ideal world view in his mind and sets about forcing it down Gotham's throat with fists and firepower.  In fact, the future world of DKR is a sort of Conservative's nightmare-come-true, a world of violence against innocents, cultural depravity and an utterly impotent legal system.  Characters like the psychiatrist who's convinced of Joker's reformation are presented as mush-minded intellectuals who can't grasp clear concepts like good and evil.  All of this makes the politics of Miller's DKR pretty confusing; in a lot of ways it's pretty right wing.

A quick check of Wikipedia turned up this definition of fascism:



Miller's Batman is not working on behalf of, or to benefit a political coalition or sitting government.  Otherwise, this description comes pretty close to his mindset (community decline, redemptive violence, without legal restraints...etc)

I suspect people who brand Superman a "fascist" (like Wertham, who predates Miller considerably) do so because of (1) his strong-arm, extra-legal tactics in the Golden Age or (2) an empty-headed, but all-too-common, belief that patriotism must mean "my country wrong or right."

Anyway, over time I've decided Miller isn't necessarily anti-American so much as anti-Superman.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe because in 1986 he was considered above reproach and it was "daring" to take shots at him.  But by now so many people have denigrated, insulted and mocked Superman in the comics that it's a tired act.  Yet Miller keeps trashing him.  Maybe because it's gotten so easy?

Rugal, I can't remember for certain who made that quote, but it sounds like something nightwing would say.

I think an aspect of "suspension of disbelief" is not asking too many questions.

To read a comic I can appreciate that Superman comes from a planet with a less intense sun and higher gravity, so on our world he can lift up a double decker bus. If I start to look too closely at this comic book phenomenon, and ask too many questions, it will quickly fall apart.

Likewise with the first Spider-Man comic, in which a highly gifted science student (Parker) creates the web fluid and web shooters. (If this seems remarkable, I was always much more impressed that he created his spidey suit with a needle and thread!!) Start asking too many technical questions (like when Sue talks about the digestion in your example) and you quickly get into a bind of having to explain more and more until you have removed all the fun from the subject! You also create unnecessary traps for future writers of the character. This is why I never liked those encyclopedia-type comics Marvel brought out (and I'm sure DC would have had the equivalent) where they would have an entry for a character which explained in the most minute technical and pseudo-scientific manner how the powers and/or equipment of that character worked.

The more they explained, the more limits they actually placed on future inventiveness. Likewise with the Star Trek magazines that come out which obsessively explain how the transporter works. Why would anyone want to know? I think Kirk explained it best in one of the episodes, along the lines of, The transporter converts the molecules of your body to energy, transmits it, then converts the energy back into molecules at the destination and reassembles them into you! Now, any further attempts to explain will ruin "suspension of disbelief" and make you sound like a twit!

It is pointless to analyse to death why Lois can't see that Clark is Superman. You will soon take the fun out of it all, then you have ruined the comics for yourself, and why would anyone want to do that? Lois's arrogance prevents her from seeing that Clark is really her hero, and he makes it as hard for her as possible, dressing differently, acting differently... Clark is, for all intents and purposes, a different person to Superman. Like any human relationship, if you start to pick Lois-Clark-Superman completely to pieces to see what makes it tick, you will destroy the very thing you are trying to find.



Reminds me of the scene in which Tuco and Blondie ride up to a detachment of Confederates, much to their relief, but are dismayed when the leader of the troops bats the dust off his clothes to reveal the colour blue!

I agree completely on the science behind the comics...even as a kid, I knew it was better not to get overly into it, as it would expose more flaws and has nothing to do with good story telling...

What bothered me more was why Superman seemed to be able to quickly get into doomed love affairs in no time flat, but it seemed that he had more trouble with women he had known for years and years...well, it didn't bother me, it just seemed strange.

Ever start loving a band you just discovered, only to  find, to your horror, that your parents also like that band? The music is the same, but your outlook suddenly changes.

That's how I feel right now about CIVIL WAR.

Rugal, no offense, but why do you still come here? Nobody here likes you. This forum's discussions often don't lean towards your interests. I stay the hell away from Kyle Rayner and Keith Giffen fansites, what are you doing here, anyway?



I disagree with everything you just said.

I am deeply, deeply suspicious of anyone that says "just go with the flow, it's suspension of disbelief, it's just a story" etc, etc. because usually this position indicates a request for tolerance for bad or poorly thought out ideas.

An idea should get better the MORE you think about it, not less, because it is proof that the writer thought it through. A good idea is airtight and nitpick-proof.

If something is a good idea, it should not be "destroyed" by asking a basic question.

An example would be the Flash's non-superspeed enemies that derive their powers from gadgetry. Why is it enemies that have guns or otherwise derive their powers from gadgetry are credible threats to the Flash, who can snap said weapon out of their hands in an eyeblink?

Well, let me qualify everything I just said:

Superhero comics are like science fiction in the sense that they are dependent on the occasional fantasy element, what Arthur C. Clarke famously called a "magic wand." It requires a leap of faith to accept some things, including very basic things about the superhero genre, like powers, costumes, codenames, and so forth. But we can accept these things because we are told this is how things in a superhero world work.

How does it compromise enjoyment of a story if the effects and permutations of a character are worked out by a writer that respects the intelligence of an audience? The best period of the Flash's recent history has been one where serious questions about what it would be like to be superfast were asked and answered: under Baron and later, Messner-Loebs, the Flash was given a superfast metabolism and required to eat enormous quantities of food, he exhausted after prolonged uses of his superspeed, and he destroyed non-treated clothing, especially footwear by the shear of high speeds. And best of all, they gave the Flash superspeed enemies.



Since when does a level-headed and reasonable call for consistency equate to "placing limits?" If it is established that Chameleon Boy cannot grow to a size greater than 25 feet tall, ignoring such a clearly established limitation is BAD WRITING, because it draws us out of the reality the story is creating.

Suspension of disbelef is BASED on consistency. Just because something is a fantasy element does not mean it can come and go at the convenience of the writer.

This isn't just about the fanboy love of fun minutiae (though little things, like the fact that Sabretooth, like all cats, is color-blind, or Hawkeye wears a hearing-aid, improve one's enjoyment of comics because there's so much THERE there). This is about doing what a good writer has a responsibility to do: treat the world as if it was real. This goes from consistent characterization to even the little things.



How does it ruin suspension of disbelief if someone thought something as small and petty as a transporter deserved an explanation, and they gave one in depth?

And those schematic things are way cool; I have one of a phaser on my wall, and whomever came up with it deserves my undying love.



How is it pointless if it can yield satisfactory answers that do credit to the strengths of both characters? A relationship this fundamental to Superman deserves an explanation. The idea that Superman is a great actor and Clark Kent's personality is an honest extension of his own, for instance, gives the most satisfying answer because it doesn't insult Lois's intelligence.

The super hero genre was certainly not set to be a scientific explanation for powers and effects...it tries to maintain consistency over the years, but is modified from time to time...honestly, I can't see the difference from retroactively introducing a fast Flash metabolism or retroactively introducing a speed force, they are both preferences...

I want Dr. Fate and Superman to be consistent, but that's just not the same as a long-winded but ultimately wrong pseudo-scientific explanation for them...

A transporter that can change matter to energy and back again in a small space is about as accurate as Seigel's original explanation for Superman's powers...

I didn't mind Red Son Superman.  He felt very Russian, and I think I would've said that even if the setting weren't in the Union of Superman Socialist Republics.  Mark Millar's Superman in his run on Superman Adventures was true to form, and miles better than most of the other Superman comics of the era.


Note that the other heroes had outright quit in the wake of the government crackdown in DKR.  Superman was the only one who stayed, and put up with all kinds of crap to do so.  "Why" could've been an interesting story.

Frank Miller explains his distaste for Superman in an introduction to an ASTRO CITY trade. He isn't so much anti-Superman as he is Anti-Comics Code Authority, which he felt had a detrimental effect on the very unusual and edgy heroes of the Golden Age, and changing them into ultra-sanitized defenders of the status quo, arm in arm with traditional authority figures like judges and police, law and order.

And to an extent, I can see Frank's point. Batman, in his Golden Age appearances was an adventure/detective character, but a very strange one with a scary come-on that people responded to with fright, that had many horror elements in his stories. It is very strange indeed to see Batman, post-Code, as a DEPUTIZED AGENT working with Commissioner Gordon.

If Frank is upset about what the Comics Code did to Batman, you can imagine how he feels about what happened to Superman!

It should be worth noting, incidentally, that the Spectre, the least Code-friendly hero of all, a dead guy that melts Nazis with his mind, was the LAST of the major Golden Age heroes to get a Silver Age revival, in 1967 with Fox and Anderson (and even then his comic only lasted for ten issues, and even THEN, it was just the Earth-2 Spectre instead of a reinterpretation like the Atom and Flash got).

While Frank's Comics Code point in DKR was interesting (heroes forced to retire or work with authority by busybodies in Congress and Superman being the worst of the lot - GEE, I WONDER WHAT HE COULD MEAN BY THIS?) I can't help but feel that even in 1986, this was beating a dead horse. I'm sure everyone has an exact point that they realized that the Code was officially toothless and irrelevant. But for me, it was in the late 1970a, when the White Queen popped up in the ubermainstream Claremont/Byrne UNCANNY X-MEN dressed in what was essentially bondage leather, and on the cover, no less.  

Going to the original question of the thread...

With respect, Nightwing, I'm gonna have to disagree. Superman would support registration of superheroes, at least when it was apparent that the act was being passed through and there wasn't anything he could do to change it. This is not to say that Superman wouldn't find it difficult; it should be noted that all the heroes in favor of registration, Iron Man, Hank Pym, etc. experience conscience pangs and wonder if they're doing the right thing. As Moore said, only the most moral people are troubled by conscience.

Superman would probably agree with a quote like "a sincere person worries about his own spiritual well-being and the physical well being of the rest of the planet, whereas a hypocrite worries about his physical well being and the spiritual well-being of everyone else on the planet."

Regardless, the reason Superman would be pro-registration is that Superman is that he is a character that has a strong belief in the rule of law. To quote one story, "Laws are an attempt to translate belief into action, which benefits everyone."

Superman probably would believe there are a few bad laws, but he would not use them as an excuse to break them all.

At the same time, Superman would be someone that would not "play ball" with all the very cynical SHIELD shenanigans under Maria Hill. Superman is an idealist, in the original sense of the term: one of his defining traits as a character is that he isn't willing to make compromises or trade-offs, even if he believed the objective is ultimately a noble one.

Still. If those that oppose the act don't like the law, shouldn't they just consider moving to Europe or something? Captain America wouldn't be the first expatriate in Paris - just ask Ernest Hemingway. If I was a superhero, sure, I'd fight crime and defend the weak, but there's crime in Aruba and Acapulco too, you know...I wouldn't hang around flyover country like Cap and his pals are for anything.

Julian Perez..

I never posted/nor cared much about having a rep/or being liked in a message board.. but i'm not a troll and i didn't create the topic to create chaos but simple discussion..

and simple discussion with comments like yours and other people are what i intended it to be, if i did vent out, it's normal in the web.

I've been here since 2001 and i still have to work to do but i'll answer your claims later

in case you don't know (I'm a pre AND post-supes fan)

If you're talking about Lois, and to a lesser extent Lana, I see what you mean. I've no doubt the Man of Steel feels some sort of passion for Lois, say, but maybe a combination of things prevents him from going the whole hog. One thing that turns him off is undoubtedly her hero-worship of him, and the fact that he could snap his fingers and she would be there. Related to that, perhaps, is a feeling she wants Superman for the power, the fame, and the glory... How many times has Lois dreamed of being "Mrs. Superman" as if that's a worthwhile goal in itself? His doomed liaisons were much more like true "affairs of the heart" in which there seems to be a big dose of realistic, selfless passion (I'm thinking of the first Lori story as an example). Superman may find Lois's availability simply boring, and he finds himself easily attracted to someone new and exciting -- or dangerous. He wouldn't be the first man in history to act that out.

There's a story in the Showcase Vol. 2 book which touches on this subject.



There's nothing wrong with chaos per se, Rugal, and I happen to like your sometimes quirky discussion topics. It was remiss of me not to say Hello and Good to talk with you again, as I haven't been on the boards for a while. Nice to see you are still posting.

Anyway, catch you on the forum...

LOL, your points on Lois are well-taken, and its impossible to ignore the Lois stories of the 60s and her dreams of becoming Mrs. Superman...

Honestly, its the quick relationship with Lyla Lerrol that bothered me the most, she seemed very aloof and cold and panels later, she is off with Kal to see the wonders of Krypton...I realize that there were only a few pages to establish this, its just that such a grand passion and haunting memory needed more of a basis for me, and I was just a little kid at the time... 8) I think that the Lori Lemaris story did a much better job, not to diss Superman's Return to Krypton too much...

Just to clarify my position on comics and "realism" (and yes, Rugal was probably referring to my old posts):

I have no problem with constructing a world around superheroes that maintains an internal consistency in terms of history, physics, character relationships, etc.  In fact, that's pretty essential to telling a good story. If that's what you mean by "realism" I'm okay.

What I have never liked are attempts to graft real-world issues into a funny book universe. For example, Green Lantern is a guy who makes his wishes come true with a freaking ring (in the Silver Age version, this is supposedly a sci-fi concept, but in the end it's still plain old magic...Green Lantern is Aladdin).  Having him deal with issues like racism, over-population and drug addiction, as he did in the O-Neil/Adams run, is not great literature; it's trendy political pamphleteering, just so much hippie hogwash.  Three decades later, those stories are more dated and creaky than anything from the Golden Age, and besides that they're embarassingly naive and ridiculous, the four-color equivalent of an "After School Special" or a "very special episode" of "Diff'rent Strokes."

Other stuff just doesn't fit either.  Homosexuality may make for great reading in a serious work like "Stuck Rubber Baby," but making Batwoman a lesbian is obviously a cheap marketing ploy that makes comics that much more inappropriate for kids and trivializes whatever "message" the writers might want to send about sexual identity in America.  Similarly, women may be murdered and crammed in refridgerators in crime novels, but do we need it in a superhero comic?  Does anyone really think having Sue Dibny raped and killed makes Elongated Man a more "believable character"?  The guy gets stretching powers from some exotic soda pop, for crying out loud.

I just think readers who believe they're somehow more "mature" or sophisticated than kids who read comics 30 or 40 years ago are kidding themselves.  Just sticking in a lot of sex and gore doesn't make a book "grown up", and no amount of "mature" subject matter makes superheroes any less juvenile.  In the end, we're still talking about guys who wear their underwear on the outside of their pants.  In Superman's case, a guy who fools his closest friends with a cheap pair of glasses.  

You will never get "reality" from a comic book.  It's a contradiction in terms.  So my point is, why not concentrate on what comics do better than any other form of entertainment; high adventure.  Leave the sex and violence to crime novels and HBO, leave saving the whales to Greenpeace and leave the politicial proselytizing to the usual suspects.  

Anyone who seriously wants reality should try putting down their comics and going outside the house now and then.

For how long after his intro was Batman (or for that matter, the "vigilante" Superman) really, edgy, dark, and scary?  My impression is that he was much less so after a few issues, and with the intro of Robin, that he became a more approachable hero in the vein of many Golden Age characters...I never got the impression that "Seduction of the Innocent" or the Code went after super hero comics on their scary characters and killings (like horror and true crime) but rather vague accusations of homosexuality etc.

Batman was really only a "Dark Knight" for the first year of tales in Detective Comics.  Then came Robin and things lightened up.  That may still irk some "purists" who think the addition of a kid sidekick "ruined" the essence of the strip, but the truth is the strip didn't really take off until Robin joined on and if he hadn't brought a spike in sales, they'd have dropped him in a heartbeat.

It's my belief that characters change as they need to, and that includes Superman.  By the time I came along, Superman had been out of Jerry and Joe's hands for decades and was already an "institution"as much as a character, with a mythos cobbled together from radio, TV and movies as much as comics.  And that's how I liked him.  The original, vigilante avenger of social injustices may be a more "pure" vision, but to this day it's a version that doesn't interest me at all.

There certainly were a lot of bloodthirsty Golden Age heroes at the start (Hangman, for instance), but you know why that is?  Because they were all stolen from the pulps, where the blood flowed thick and fast.  Comics were a new medium then and they made it up as they went along, with pulps the closest "cousin" to copy from.  As soon as the medium found its feet it created its own conventions, and some of those early, ill-fitting (and again, borrowed) elements went out the window.  Bloody retribution can be fun, but it's hardly "essential" to good comics, as witness the stellar Silver Age, where there's hardly a hero to be found with blood on his hands.  At the very least it's not what attracted me to comics, and if they'd still been all about vengeance in the early 70s, when I came along, I doubt I'd have collected them.  Pre-Robin Batman and early Superman are interesting curiosities for me, but that's about it.

Yeah, that's why I don't think Miller blaming the Comic Code bears any weight, that was over 10 years after Batman was already a very kid friendly comic...if Miller wanted to make Batman dark, or liked the very early Detective Comics flavor, fine...but don't blame the straw man of the Comic Code or Wertham, who was more concerned with Robin's bare legs than super heroes being too "scary"...

Well, I guess gay kids need role models, but who are we fooling? That is not why they made her gay, they did it to appeal to older guys who would get off at the idea of seeing a lipstick lesbian in a skin tight black costume beating up men and making them beg for mercy then making out with other comic book women. Yes, gay kids are not their target audience to be sure. It's just pure exploitation just like most straight female characters in comics for that matter and any non-white human hero. Note that they can never just be a hero but instead far too much of their gimmick and stories tend to focus on them not being white. It's all very, very heavy handed.



Losers who couldn't get a date if their life depended on it much less with a woman who looks anything like those in comics, really seem to like those stories. Same goes for the writers who write them, same people but they just have soapboxes to bore and disgust us with.


Don't get me wrong now, I believe in freedom of speech and expression, people can make any kind of comic that they want, no matter how sick it is, it's fine by me, LOL, but I don't want to see that in a kid comic.

That's right iron agers, superheroes are suppose to be for kids, every single hero from the golden age and sliver age were all created for children to enjoy. They have all been hi-jacked by people who are ashame at what they are (kids's comics) so they try to make them into something they are not (adult comics).

Comics are at their best when they are comics! Not when they are trying hard to be a film or novel. I think that the current trend of never using thought balloons and special effects words (BAM! POW! and the like) and narrator text boxes, is pretty sick as is the fact that when a COMIC BOOK is made into a movie, the Comic book companies go out of their way to make sure that during interviews that no one calls them comic books but rather Graphic Novels, even if they are regular issues. Some people have gone so far as to remove the supersuits of Superheroes and make them act non-heroic to try to hide the fact that they are suppose to be superheroes!

Comic books and superheroes are suppose to be fun, but just try and post that : Comic Books and Superheroes are suppose to be fun at any comic board on-line besides this one and watch the huge flame war begin, and you might get banned for being a "troll", LOL, don't believe me, just try it!

OK, I can go on forever, so I'll just stop here.

LOL!  :wink:

As a Black gay guy, seeing racism/homophobia/environmentalism etc. dealt with in comics (however superficially) never bothered me, and I'm glad to see more gay and lesbian characters appearing in mainstream superhero books (including the Pied Piper in "Flash" and, to stay on-topic, Maggie Sawyer in the Superman titles---one of Byrne's admittedly few worthwhile additions to the mythos...). Still, I have to agree with Super Monkey---I fear Batwoman's situation will be more of the "huh, lesbians are hot, dude" treatment than the "well developed characters who happen to be gay" treatment seen in comic strips such as "Dykes to Watch Out For", judging from DC's tone of late (and the media hype over her lesbianism).

Oh, yeah, I hate the "text boxes replacing thought balloons" bit too. Who the heck is Superman talking to when we see the text boxes---Krypto? Lois? A Superman robot? He doesn't seem to be writing a letter or in his diary, either (the other use for such boxes traditionally). It makes the characters look like they're nuts or talking to themselves or breaking the fourth wall or something...

I agree that the new incarnation of Batwoman seems to be a total cash-in; it's noteworthy that there seem to be more female gay characters in mainstream comics than male ones, presumably because they represent a heterosexual male fantasy. It's sad that often, gay characters seem to be created with the specific point of being gay, much like many black characters were created just for tokenism (I wonder what the pitches are like for characters like that: "Okay, get this - he's a superhero, but he's, like, black! High concept, huh?").

Oddly enough, I wonder if a scene in a recent issue of The Flash doesn't obliquely reference the new Batwoman: Flash is in a bar with a friend, watching two girls making out on the dance floor. When his friend suggests they pick them up, the Flash is confused: aren't they gay? "No, man, they're only doing it to get us interested!"

I think that writers instead of trying making the minority happy(and i respect this,but giving them secondary character as a role model doesn't work)they must try making the readers,all of them,happy with real GOOD stories,and not some junk,like that we have read in these years.Sometimes the simpler truth are the hardest one to catch....

 :s:  :s:  :s:

And DC is marketing her as a "lipstick lesbian" in interviews. What does that even mean? Would a lesbian without lipstick be less marketable?  :?

I actually know a woman who describes herself as a "lipstick lesbian". I have to confess I don't know what she means. She lives with another woman and appears to drink a lot; also she is given to tantrums. I try to avoid her, but it's always hard since we have a lot of friends in common.

A perfect choice to be a modern day comic hero then.

A definition of "lipstick lesbian":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_lesbian

It says a lot about my life that I learned about lipstick lesbians on a Superman website.