Superman Through the Ages! Forum

I missed the LSH reference.  I thought the issue was great - I'm glad to finally see Superman doing things like going after corrupt politicians, stopping wife beaters, and the old jumping-around-in-the-air-with-the-crook trick to get confessions.  Reads like the Golden Age Superman in the modern world.  He even has the unflagging optimism and sense of humor.

Looking forward to seeing what happens next.

As an equal opportunity offender--since I made a fuss about this on another message board, I feel I should do the same here and point out the potential confusion if we keep referring to "Action Comics #1"--especially in topic titles, without being clear about what we mean--couldn't there be some new way of identifying such titles? For myself, the thing that attracts me to this site is the ability to talk about classic Superman comics and share stories with others. I realize the new stuff is going to get some attention, but I hope it doesn't eclipse the conversations about classic titles and stories.

Just a friendly opinion.

 

I figure that Superman - in all his incarnations - are open topics.  I've re-titled the thread by adding "DCnU" - unless anyone has any other suggestions?

Ha ha, that'll do.  :)

Hmm, so I was right. This Superman is an idiot and a bully. The crook's confession will never hold up in court because it was made under duress and the wife beater will likely be beating his wife again after he recovers.

Conclusion? The '90's Superman team did a better job with social relevance and realism.

As I pointed out before, superman was intended like that, I mean, some of the pages from action comics #1 were near identical to the original action comics#1. Hey, if superman doesn't beat up crooked politicians, who else will? Heh heh.

(http://superman.nu/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3990.0;attach=364)

Just read it, I enjoyed it. It was a fun read, love all the references Morrison used, love the idea of Clark and Jimmy being closed friends, loved the idea that Clark worked for the Daily Star before he moved to the Planet and love how Lex Luthor is portrayed in this issue.

They never addressed the wife beater, but my guess is that she has enough time to file for divorce or a restraining order or something. Though I admit, I don't really like that Superman hospitalized somebody either.

But they did address the issue of the confession. Daily Star Editor George Taylor is on the phone with Clark as he calls in his "Superman Attacks Corrupt Businessman Glenmorgan!" story, and Clark specifically says that while the confession would never hold up on it's own, it does back up HARD EVIDENCE against him. DBN, have you read or do you plan to read this story at all?

Personally, I don't think he's an idiot or a bully. I just think he's being proactive for the first time in twenty years. And he's doing what he always does, fighting that same never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way. Superman IS a Champion of the Oppressed, you know, and he fights the oppressors equally, whether they're Brainiac or just some guy treating his workers like crap.

I was especially happy with one line Morrison gave him, which I think sums up the Golden Age version of the character : "You know the deal, Metropolis. Treat people right, or expect a visit from me."


Plus, he stayed true to the old tenet, "Superman never kills." Throughout the comic, the only flaw of the Golden Age Superman (that he sometimes didn't catch the people he threw) was nowhere to be found.

One thing in particular I liked? Superman smiled. He smiled a lot. The most commonly addressed version of Superman is something like the one in Superman Earth One, explicitly said not to smile very often. But this guy clearly enjoys being Superman, and I think that's wonderful.

Okay, I think I've gushed enough about it for at least a little while, but I hope this new Superman sticks around forever WAY more than the six issues we've been promised.

Since DC is going for the really-real world in this reboot, I'm going to assume that the wife beater recovered and either continues to assault his wife in one form or another or he killed her as it too often happens here.


Then, what was the point in attacking him? If they had hard evidence, they should go ahead and either publish it or turn it over to the authorities. The forced confession and the methods Clark used to get it are only going to make the criminal look like a victim once the story is spun.

I've read detailed reviews and summaries of the story. I'll get around to reading it once my buddy gets his copy. Either way, I don't need the copy in hand to know something doesn't pass the smell test any more than I need to watch Battlefield Earth to know that it's a terrible movie.


Superman doesn't act like judge, jury, and executioner and toss people out a window and they end up sustaining two broken hips and a number of broken or fractured ribs. Superman certainly isn't stupid enough to give a well-connected criminal ample ammunition by scaring a confession out of him and possibly dilute any hard evidence he may have.

-side note-

You gotta wonder what this new "socially-conscious" Superman would do if he came upon a policeman giving a known-criminal some stick time: Does he stop the policeman and help the scum bag or does he join in on the beat down?

Except Morrison's Action Comics 1 got overwhelming positivie reception from critics and comic readers while Battlefield Earth was critically panned and a box office bomb. So, that wasn't a good comparison whatsoever.

Except that I don't care about a reviewer's opinion, what I am looking for when I'm reading a review are detailed plot points, characterization, etc. They go more in depth than a simple synopsis or summary. From that, I can discern whether or not to actually spend money on a product.

I'm not in any hurry to read a story where "Superman" hospitalizes a guy.

One of the things I really hated about the previous incarnation of Superman was the use of General Lane as some evil military stereotype. It's disappointing to see this is continuing--and may even be much worse. How convenient that Clark just happens to fall in love with a woman whose father is bent on his destruction. Yuck!

Battlefield Earth or any terrible movie still doesn't belong in the same sentence as Morrison's Action Comics 1.

Taste being the subjective object that it is, I'd have to disagree.

-Responding to an earlier post


Do you remember Chuck Austen's run on Action Comics a few years back? Austen went for the Golden Age characterization, had Superman smile, clearly enjoy his calling/job/whatever complete with puns, and even had him kneecap some villains with his heat vision. The end result? A disaster. A number of retailers boycotted the run, Austen was fired (hasn't done much in comics since), and the run was completed by an unknown writer under a pseudo-name.

The really real world? Come now. The main character is a man who can run faster than a speeding bullet, who gets hit in full on by a gigantic future-train going at full speed without dying. In fact, I doubt if he'll actually need any serious medical attention. And he does it all while wearing a red cape that used to be his baby blanket.

We are dealing with Superman. Realism went out the window the moment Siegel and Shuster decided he was based on guys like Samson and Hercules. If it was realistic at all, you would be reading about someone else. Besides, what would you have Superman do about the wife-beater? Just let him keep hitting her? The precedent here is for them to get thrown through a wall.

Because Glenmorgan was in charge of the city, like Luthor in the 90s. Evidence or no evidence, they weren't going to arrest him. They probably wouldn't even have published the story, he probably owns the paper or something. But if he were to turn himself in? I admit, the Superman angle does make him look a bit like a victim, but now the evidence that they have against him will be at least visible, instead of dismissed because of who it's against.

First: I pointed out that Superman doesn't kill anyone in the story. He injured one guy, off panel. To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about that either, but I'd imagine Superman decided to keep an eye on that woman so he can stop her husband if it happens again. Second: Ammunition to what? Take Superman down? He's not exactly going to respond to a court summons. Don't worry though, if you're so eager to see that Superman gets captured, just look at the end of the story. Luthor helps General Lane take him down, probably killing quite a few people in the process, and we're left with a teaser for "Next Issue: Superman in Chains!". There's your pro-establishment "hero", if you want him. Hail Luthor.

What kind of question is that? You might as well ask it of the "Classic" Superman, I don't think the answer would be that different. If the guy's actually a scumbag, Superman sticks around to make sure he's properly arrested and not just smacked up. If he's a good man forced into doing non-evil but extravagant illegal things by societal pressure, Superman probably not only stops the cop, but gets the guy back on his feet so he doesn't have to keep turning to crime. Remember: Champion of the Oppressed. It depends on whether the guy is a murderer or a thief or whatever too, but anyone beating up a guy, even a cop beating up a crook, isn't something Superman will just ignore. ANY Superman.

Austen went overboard. I do think that the high sales and mixed-but-mostly-positive reviews on Action show that people are willing to accept a pro-active, enjoys his job Superman. Austen's was more like a psychopath. Morrison's Superman doesn't kneecap anyone with his heat vision. He takes down a businessman nobody else would try to. He tries to stop a train with a bomb on the tracks. He stops Luthor from destroying a building with people still in it. And he throws ONE dirtball through a window off panel. Horrible bully and idiot, or relatively heroic Champion of the Oppressed?

Frankly, I don't even know why I have to ask.

vigilantism really only works if you kill the person so you won't need a trial.
other wise you're just bothering people

I seem to recall that at various times in DC history there were prison planets that held super-villains.

Lex Luthor, for instance, was imprisoned on such a planet
 
And the JLA used to do all kinds of things with their criminals like putting them in stasis cubes or imprisoning them on the moon. And of course Superman was forever putting criminals in the Phantom Zone.

Seems to me that vigilantes don't have to respect U.S. law or even international law--and they can put criminals into whatever types of cells they want.

Surely that's a better remedy for "realism" and it keeps the villains alive so they can be used in more stories (of course, villains can come back from the dead--but we've probably seen too much of that).

A. Morrison and the editors want the titles to be more realistic (their words, not mine), so I'm responding with realism (bloody laughable notion that it is in comics). So, of course I'm going to be critical and cynical when Morrison deals with a very real problem by having the superhero punch it in the face. In this case, throw it out a window, but I digress...

B. So, how did we get from hospitalizing a guy to complete pacifism? The guy with super-strength and speed can't subdue the guy without resorting to almost killing him, can't deal with the situation in a sensible manner like calling the police in his reporter disguise and set the woman up with a connection to the local battered women's shelter?



There's a reason the Jurgens era Superman didn't simply just force a confession out of Luthor: He knew that to the public at large, Luthor was an innovator, philanthropist, and generally well liked. Now, why was that? Luthor controlled everything in Metropolis, including the media. If Glenmorgan runs the city like you say he does, then who do you think is going to be portrayed as the bad guy in the local news media? I'll give you a hint, it won't be the older gentleman who looks like Donald Sutherland in the previews I saw.


I think it would, the classic Superman wouldn't stand for police brutality in any case.


See? Why are you questioning whether the guy's a scumbag or not? I provided just as much context that Morrison did for having the character throw a guy out a window. In that same vein, how do we know that the bloke was definitely a wife beater? We have what? Not even a third-party account of the situation. Just hearsay from Kent's landlady. How do we know that the bloke wasn't just defending himself from a woman with bipolar issues and "Superman" just happened upon the situation and took it completely out of context?

 
The guy getting stick time is scum, remember? This version of Superman deems himself to have the authority to nearly cripple someone *he* views as scum, so why wouldn't he ignore it? Evil is punished. The social issue of the day gets punched in the face. Otherwise, this version would be a self-righteous hypocrite.;)



The Golden Age Superman that everyone seems so enthralled with lately was a psychopath, bully, and a cold-blooded murderer. Me? I prefer the classic Superman who uses his brain to overcome his opponents instead of his fist, the Superman who stood up for everyone on the planet instead of the ill-defined oppressed, and the Superman who would use his powers to defuse a potentially deadly situation without anyone being hurt.

To me, Superman wouldn't use his powers to nearly cripple a human being when he has the ability to resolve the situation differently no matter what that person has done. Sometimes, a cop has no other choice other than to use force (including deadly) against a suspect. Superman, being what he is in his fictional world, even at Golden Age power levels, DOES have that choice. When a cop exceeds his/her authority and violates a person's civil rights and/or uses excessive force, they typically get called on it, vilified in the madia, and prosecuted. Doesn't matter if the person they're beating on at the time is technically a criminal or not. So, why in the hell should I cheer on if a supposed hero engages in the same type of behavior as a dirty cop?

Morrison's Superman in Action #1 captures the same relieving, cut-through-the-BS positivity of the Siegel & Shuster Superman - that same attitude that Bog touched-on (http://superman.nu/tales2/thesuperman/?page=6) in his Golden Age tribute.

I think you lost me when you said that you basically prefer Jurgens' moping, hands-are-tied take on the character to Siegel & Shuster's.  If that's the choice, I know which side I'm on.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this Superman take down Luthor - instead of hanging around complaining about him for 15 years.

It could be muuuuuuch worse. :o

I don't really hate Jurgens run as much as I hate Austen's run and personally, I don't want to see Luthor's downful quick.

So, Superman picking him up and shoving him into a wall and then letting the guy wail on him til he faints is the same as throwing someone out of a window and nearly crippling them now?


I prefer Jurgens' and Louise Simonson's take on a specific issue vs Grant Morrison's. I prefer Elliot Maggin and Cary Bate's overall take on the character.


Tilting at windmills for 15 years is exactly what happens when you have a superhero go up against a well-connected tycoon. Byrne and Wolfman wrote themselves into a corner when they revamped Luthor into a carbon copy of the Kingpin. Evidence doesn't stick, witnesses disappear, and they control their image through the media. There is no easy way to take a villain like that out unless you want Superman to either kill him or lock him away in the Phantom Zone. Otherwise, you're in for the long haul. Just look at how long it took for the FBI to take down John Gotti and for Elliot Ness to take down Al Capone.

@DBN_Elliot Ness didn't even take down Capone. The US Treasury Dept DID - for tax evasion.

My mistake. Though, Ness' team did have a considerable effect on Capone's operations and technically he was a member of the US Treasury Dept.

To be honest, I prefer "business man" Luthor over evil scientist Luthor but I love it when they do combine both worlds like in the Bruce Timm DC Animated shows, he's a business tycon who happens to be a scientific genius. Of course they did that in the comics as well but I think the one that truly captured that feel for me was of course Superman Adventures, the comic tie in to the animated series and Paul Cornell's run on Action Comics, which is being collected in Superman: The Black Ring paperback.

Of course I'm not saying I have no love for evil scientist Luthor, I'm a big fan of the Eiliot S! Maggin stories from the Bronze Age that gave Lex a bit more dimension to his character, also Jerry Siegel used to write a very menacing Luthor who felt like a real threat to the world. It's just that when I read Geoff Johns attempt at bringing back that type of the character, it just felt bland (add to the fact, Johns had the tendency to push the whole "tolerance" angle by having Lex become a alien-hater) and the Silver Age, while not as bad, doesn't feel that threatening infact, young Lex from the Pre-Crisis Superboy stories felt more like a threatening villain to me than Silver Age adult Lex.

I'm a bit in the middle for this.  ??? Buisness man lex luthor is a creative idea, but just sounds like Al Capone going around saying " I'm a legimate buisness man!. Evil genius luthor is a bit unrealistic, but they can actually do things unlike superman telling Lex off bevause " he can't prove anything". I think the fact that he's a villian means he need's to be a outlaw.

Which is why I like it when they combine both elements of the character like in the animated series.

For me it's more about Luthor's personality and less about his career path.

I like a Luthor who has some heroic aspects and a potential for good, but who is flawed. He may do bad things, but he's not a totally evil character.

What I didn't like like about business Luthor was his potential for evil. He just seemed so cruel and unfeeling that I couldn't have any sympathy for him. But sometimes the scientist Luthor is the same way.

Really, it comes down to the philosophy of the writers. Some writers believe in the humanity of all characters and try to show that and some writers try to create these villains who are horrible, horrible people.

And readers are also divided. Some readers want all villains to be sadistic, evil, terrible people--and they think that's good.

Myself, I can only take so much of that. Maybe Darkseid can be like that, but I prefer villains that have humanity in them. But it's funny, John Byrne seemed to give more humanity to Darkseid (in Jack Kirby's Fourth World) than what he allowed to Luthor.

Yes, that's true. I remember reading a comic where superboy goes back in time to prevent the assasination of abraham lincon but meets adult luthor who is hiding in the past to escape from superman and stops superboy. With learning superboy was not there to stop him, but to save abraham lincon, luthor get's upset claiming abraham lincon was a great man, and he had nothing against him.I think luthor then was a more human kind of guy. John Byrne accidentally made Lex Luthor more like mad scientist golden age luthor.

ya strangely enough pre-crisis  Lex was a more well rounded character then he was post-crisis despite all the claims of making the comics more "mature"

Post-Crisis Lex was more of an evil banker from a 3 stooges short.