Superman Through the Ages! Forum

I watched episodes 1 and 2. Sort of a cross between the X-Men and "Smallville" I guess....

Aimed at a young audience of course, but looks promising....

Tried to watch the first couple shows and couldn't get into it.  Just as well, as the last thing I need is another complicated TV storyline demanding my time and attention.

In fact, I've about decided to skip "Lost" when it comes back in February.  That leaves "the Office" as the only thing I'm watching, and that I can handle.

Maybe I'll get around to "Heroes" when it hits DVD.  People sure seem to like it.

I've been taking a pass on that as well - seems too derivative and too slow - as the big mystery slowly unfolds -- kinda like an old 8 pager taking 12 issues -- wait, thats modern comics!

I like the show. It's one of the few series' that I actually find entertaining. The others being Supernatural, the Shield, and the Sopranoes.

It sounds interesting, but alas, I didn't watch the first few episodes, so I can't 'jump on" now - maybe I'll wait for it on DVD.

You know the very first thing I thought to myself when I heard the concept?

"Wow, I hope Jim Shooter is watching this now, because they're making THE NEW UNIVERSE: THE TV SHOW."

I wonder if Jim Shooter has the satisfaction years and years later, with the insane success of this show, to tell everyone he was right about the New Universe concept.

Which is essentially what HEROES is, the New Universe concept: e.g. superheroism without the costumes and over the top battles, where superheroes are an exclusively science fiction concept. Jim Shooter used the example of the first issue of the FANTASTIC FOUR as inspiration: in it, they didn't even wear costumes.

As someone that was a fan of the New Universe (the best work of Fabian Niceza's career to me was PSI-FORCE, which was much more adult and intelligent than the later NEW WARRIORS or even his post-Busiek THUNDERBOLTS) it is vindicating to see the concept "work" in such a high profile way.

When Jim Shooter dies, the three things he is going to be remembered for as a writer in his obituary, will be: his Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes, SECRET WARS, and last but not least, the incredible, humorous STAR BRAND.

Well, the trick is knowing where to use your great idea, isn't it.

Superheroes with no costumes or cosmic battles in a comic book = Who Cares?
Same thing on TV = Big Hit.

Similarly, I doubt "Deal or No Deal" or "American Idol" would make for a hot-selling comic.

Super hero not in costume on TV? It's called "Smallville"

"American Idol" comics? You mean a comic where people with little or no talent annoy their audience? Doesn't that describe a lot of the comics published these days? :D

No Deal!

I can see the "not in costume" part, but you've completely lost me with the "super hero" bit.

Oh, don't you start! You're getting as bad as Super Monkey.

You thought that was complicated? I admit, it's trying desperately to be clever, but I wouldn't call it complicated. I have never seen "Lost" (about the plane crash? -- might have that wrong), but what prompted me to watch this show is the simple fact I like super-types.

I also really liked "The Office" but I don't think it's the same "Office" you are watching.

In the "Heroes" show, the character I liked was the Japanese man. He was the only one who seemed realistic to me. Maybe that's because I think I'd have his attitude if I started to manifest super-powers. All the other super-characters seem completely screwed-up and miserable (the Old Marvel type), but THIS Japanese man is like, WOW, COOL, THIS IS GRRRREAT!! (the Old DC type -- maybe  ;) ). So perhaps I will watch again to see what happens with this one character I can relate to.

I really like Jim Shooter's "Legion" work.

I actually remember "New Universe". It was on the stands when I was buying new comics. Wasn't it a sales disaster? Why? And what was he trying to accomplish? I have a very vague memory of reading the Bullpen or something many years ago to the effect that "New Universe" ended Jim's career at Marvel. Is that true?

I just had the feeling -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that Jim is like John, Paul, George, and Ringo..... He had his great success when very young, and forever after was trying unsuccessfully to live up to it.

Wow, that fiasco will assuredly dominate at least a chapter of Jim Shooter's memoirs. There are probably a million things that went wrong.

From what I understand, the New Universe titles failed because of the widespread perception they were pretty bad. A perception that in the case of many of the titles, was pretty accurate: KICKERS, INC. was about a football team that did good deeds, like tossing robots out of the ghetto. Gee, I wonder where it all went wrong.

Then there was SPITFIRE AND THE TROUBLESHOOTERS. Imagine a comic that not only HAS a character as annoying as Wesley Crusher, but where every single character IS Wesley Crusher. Even the hot robot-on-robot action, and Cary Bates writing the ending, couldn't save it.


It certainly didn't help. I don't think it was the sole reason, because Jim - whether it was his own fault or not - alienated a hell of a lot of people in his tenure. This makes for unintentionally hilarious drama fagsplosions with supposed grown adults like John Byrne, who whine TO THIS DAY about how Jim was a "dictator."

A lot of people did take a craven, hyena-like glee in demolishing what Jim accomplished when he was no longer the big boss anymore, people that cowered before Jim's every word as Marvel's EIC. John Byrne's last few issues on STAR BRAND are known for Byrne doing what he does best: tearing things down and leaving nothing to replace it.

{quote="Aldous"]I just had the feeling -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that Jim is like John, Paul, George, and Ringo..... He had his great success when very young, and forever after was trying unsuccessfully to live up to it. [/quote]

The trouble with an assessment like that is, Jim was young for a very, very long time! He must have been in his middle twenties when he wrote his famous AVENGERS run featuring Count Nefaria's power duplication, the Korvac Saga, and the introduction of Jocasta and Carol Danvers. Then, absolutely he was at the height of his creative powers.

SECRET WARS he must have done in his thirties, as well as his MAGNUS, ROBOT FIGHTER.


Well, it gave us the incredible Mark Texeira, so there's a point for the NU.

As I understand, Shooter wanted to celebrate Marvel's 25th Anniversary in 1986 by creating a second universe: one that was more "science fiction" than the pulpish, superheroic world the MU was, with Atlantis under the sea, the Inhumans, costumes made of "unstable molecules" that grow when you grow and stretch when you stretch, and so on.


When did the Silver Age DC heroes ever really have fun with their powers? Spider-Man was the first hero to point out that wall-crawling is a thrill, and he used his powers to play pranks on J. Jonah. Hal Jordan and the rest always seemed caught up with catching experimental missiles. I can't even IMAGINE Ray Palmer being playful. I mean, the guy wears gloves when he drives.

More in the way that here was an expression of their true selves, in keeping with their true natures, in the way an eagle doesn't know we call it an eagle or that flight is amazing; but this creature is giving us the truest expression of joy. I do not believe an eagle is "having fun", but I do believe it is happy when doing what it was born to do. Likewise with Hal and Ray (and Barry)... With these characters, I always got the feeling that this was meant to be, that fate has given its blessings to just the right people, and all is right with the world; that the power ring, the white dwarf shrinking technology, and the lightning-charged chemicals found their right and proper homes with these men; that the new powers were in keeping with their moral and physical strengths and true natures.

With Marvel, it was like, "Darn. These powers. Right, I'll try to make the best of it."

Could anyone BUT Hal Jordan have been chosen to be Green Lantern? Of course not. Could anyone but Peter have been bitten by that radioactive spider? Yes of course -- which gives THAT particular type of character his appeal.

Aldous asks:


Well, by "complicated" I didn't really mean challenging mentally, or even literate.  What I meant was you have a large cast of characters to follow through their disparate lives until they end up together in some common cause, guaranteeing (1) a lot of subplots to wade through and (2) no real pressure on the writers to resolve ANY of them.  Which is what we've endured for 3 years already on "Lost."

In fact, I felt like I was watching "Lost" again in some ways: there's the Middle Eastern genius, the oriental guy, the hot girl on the run, yadda yadd.

Everyone seems to agree with you in liking the "Hiro" character best.  But for most people, it's because he has a sense of honor and responsibility about his powers, as well as the "gee-whiz" excitement you mentioned.  Plus he's a comic book fan.  He's basically a Japanese Barry Allen.


No, I never saw the original, UK version, and I'm actually glad I didn't.  From what I've heard it was brilliant, and the American version might suffer from the comparison.  As it is, I'm enjoying the latter, so why poop the party?

I find it amusing that the comic book fan in HEROES is the most sympathetic and loveable character, whereas the comic book fan in THE OFFICE is by a wide margin, the least sympathetic.

The most interesting thing about THE OFFICE, to me, is the seldom seen on screen yet very true fact that a boss who is your "friend" can be every bit as annoying and intrusive as a boss that's a hardassed authoritarian.

Doesn't the Smallville writing staff consist of a monkey, darts, and a wall full of "plots" obtained from various other stereotypical teen shows?

I tried to watched the 1st show and was bored to tears! So I stopped.

I can't bare snoresville either.

OK -- you guys have succeeded in making me laugh.... And for that, I forgive you.  ;D

I didn't watch SMALLVILLE after the first season, but I found it an interesting ROSWELL replacement (though the lovely Kristin Kreuk alas, is no match for a sexual Tyrannosaurus Rex like Katherine Heigl).

That's the secret to enjoying SMALLVILLE: don't think of it as Superman. Watch it as ROSWELL, but with only one main character.

Frankly, everything about Smallville pointed to as a weakness is really, at least to me, a strength.

I don't mind the absence of traditional Superman elements like flights n' tights. In fact, the fact they're not there makes everything tolerable because if he DID wear a costume, it would be a reminder of how much they tinkered with the Superman concept...instead of what they did, which was create a unique animal.

I also don't mind the overuse of Kryptonite, though I hear - secondhard - that the Kryptonite is no longer everywhere after the first batch of shows. I liked it because...as I've said before...it explains for why so many strange and unusual things happen in what is otherwise a very boring small town. That's my problem with the Superboy concept at its core: he lives in a tiny town. He must be one of the most bored superheroes in history. For Smallville to make sense as it was presented, 75% of the population would have to be diamond smugglers.

I LIKE SMALLVILLE's approach to teen life. When I was a teenager, I was stupid and inarticulate. Just like the kids on this show! I really hate the whole DAWSON'S CREEK or BUFFY school where teens talk like 35 year olds. Not even Bob Heinlein could make that work.

Strangely, DAWSON'S CREEK had less and less cognitive dissonance the more obvious Jason van der Beek's male pattern baldness got. At least he looks the age his character sounds.

I always think of it as Superman. To me, it was never anything else. I watched more than one season (up to the third, I think), and, like any show, it will deteriorate the longer it goes on; it starts to repeat itself. But basically I enjoyed the way the show dealt with some elements of Superman that had never been really closely examined before (not in the comics I'd read anyway).

Some things I liked:

Clark being torn in two because he desperately wants to open up to people but he is always forced into actually lying. And that's what young Clark Kent would have to cope with. He finds it painful, he is trying to figure it out, and we see him struggling with this.

The relationship between Clark and Lex, and a genuine sense of tragedy which is building... When things get tense between them, when Clark is forced to tell another lie, and Lex's seemingly good intentions go awry, and more suspicion creeps in, well... You can see that when things eventually go belly-up, it will be hard to pin the blame on one or the other, and that's the tragedy. All those good intentions were not enough. They are who they are, and it all has that feeling of fatalism.

The relationship between Clark and his Dad. Pa Kent in this show is great.


I do as well, in some ways. Occasionally they capture that sense of hopelessness, that your teenage relationships are turning bad despite good intentions on all sides, and no one can figure it out.


You mean you're not anymore?

I've been watching Heroes over the Internet, and I quite like it, actually, even though the main character annoys the hell out of me for two reasons:

1) I always hate that "I-can-copy-other-people's-powers" power

2) For heaven's sake, get a haircut instead of flicking your fringe out of your eyes all the time

The story is cliched and there's not much one hasn't seen before, but there are some pretty funny scenes in it (the invulnerable girl waking up in the morgue and the Japanese salaryman meeting the flying man raised smiles); it's good stuff.

Yep, you can watch all episodes of HEROES online at:

http://www.nbc.com/Video/rewind/full_episodes/heroes_01.shtml

Great show, in my opinion, especially once it gets off the ground after the first couple of episodes.  As for Peter Petrelli getting a haircut, keep watching and you might learn that some wishes do come true.