A few questions about "All Star Superman" from a Marvel fan.

[TheSumOfGod]

I usually read Marvel comics exclusively, because no matter how much I love the character of Superman, the writers have never gotten him right, and the comics have always sucked, IMO.

But yesterday I picked up an issue of All Star Superman 3 at the store, just because Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely were involved, and because the cover looked great, and WHOA! I'm reading this comic from now on. They've finally gotten Superman right! That issue kicked a**, a single story that is non-stop fun and crazy, all about Lois and her birthday super-powers. But I have a few questions about this series:

1) Is it a re-start?

2) The "Ultimate" version of Superman?

3) IN continuity?

4) OUT of continuity?

5) Or did they just tell Morrison and Quitely: "Guys, do whatever you want, as long as it's fun and crazy and looks great and sells well, we don't care."

So?

[Joker]

number 5...the all star line is all out of continuity stories, even with each other...like, Morrison's arc won't have any effect on the next arc, and so on...it's essentially classic superman stories being told without having to worry about continuity

[TheSumOfGod]

number 5...the all star line is all out of continuity stories, even with each other...like, Morrison's arc won't have any effect on the next arc, and so on...it's essentially classic superman stories being told without having to worry about continuity

Which is probably the best way to tell Superman stories. Cool. :cool: :supes:

[TheSumOfGod]

And the "All Star" version of Superman seems to be PRE-Crisis in simplicity and power level. Am I right in assuming this?

[TheSumOfGod]

http://www.infuzemag.com/gallery/albums/DC-03-06/AllStarSupermanCv3.sized.jpg

:)

[newmexneon]

Yeah the stories have a strong silver-age feel to them.

[nite-owl]

TheSumOfGod have you ever read Greg Ruckas Superman?

[The Question]

1) Is it a re-start?

No. It's got a large backstory to it.

2) The "Ultimate" version of Superman?

Not really. It's just an out of continuity tale.

3) IN continuity?

No.

4) OUT of continuity?

Yes.

5) Or did they just tell Morrison and Quitely: "Guys, do whatever you want, as long as it's fun and crazy and looks great and sells well, we don't care."

Basically.

[TheSumOfGod]

No. It's got a large backstory to it.

A "large backstory" that we haven't seen yet, I suppose? This has nothing to do with the modern era Byrne crap, I hope...

[TheSumOfGod]

TheSumOfGod have you ever read Greg Ruckas Superman?

No.

[The Question]

A "large backstory" that we haven't seen yet, I suppose?

Yes. Morrison describes it as "if the Silver Age never ended, this is how he would have ended up." Or something to that regard. Personally, I think he goes a little overboard with the silver ageness, but then I was pretty taken suprise by the large amounts of it.

This has nothing to do with the modern era Byrne crap, I hope...

I'm probaboy going to hate myself for asking this, but......


What's wrong with the Byrne stuff?

[TheSumOfGod]

I'm probaboy going to hate myself for asking this, but......


What's wrong with the Byrne stuff?

"I'm not Superman, first and foremost I'm Clark Kent."

Krypton wasn't such a nice place to live after all.

Everything being so goddamn serious all of the time, nothing crazy or fun happening anymore.

Lex Luthor, greedy businessman who really loved his hair. Among many other things... :rolleyes:

[The Question]

"I'm not Superman, first and foremost I'm Clark Kent."

And what's wrong with that?

Krypton wasn't such a nice place to live after all.

It was a place that got so wrapped up in their traditions and their egotism that they let themselves die.

Everything being so goddamn serious all of the time, nothing crazy or fun happening anymore.

Just in that one storyline. There some rather lighthearted Superman stories after that.

Lex Luthor, greedy businessman who really loved his hair. Among many other things... :rolleyes:

And what's wrong with Lex being a buisnessman? He was still the same manipulative ******* as always.

[TheSumOfGod]

And what's wrong with that?

Bill explained it perfectly in his little Superman speech at the end of Kill Bill Volume 2: What makes the Superman mythos so different from all of the other superhero mythologies is that he was Superman FIRST, he was BORN Superman, and Clark Kent was his disguise, even his superhero suit was made from the sheets that he was found in, while all of the other superheroes eventually BECAME superheroes, but were ordinary human beings at the beginning.

Byrne changed that, and made Superman just another superhero.

The REAL Superman wouldn't mind that Lois Lane loves Superman and ONLY Superman, for Superman is who he truly is. I always found it stupid when Superman got depressed that Lois didn't even notice Clark Kent. Who cares? Clark Kent is just a role that you play in order to blend into human society, she's not SUPPOSED to notice him, but you're Kal-El first and foremost, man.

It was a place that got so wrapped up in their traditions and their egotism that they let themselves die.

I get what he was trying to do, rationalize it, but I prefer by far Krypton as a perfect utopia. If it was a s**tty place to start with, it's destruction wouldn't have been so tragic.

Just in that one storyline. There some rather lighthearted Superman stories after that.

True, but I like what Morrison has done better. And the nineties was a terrible decade for superheroes, everything was "hip" and "hype".

And what's wrong with Lex being a buisnessman? He was still the same manipulative ******* as always.

I like him being a businessman, but just read Mark Waid's "Superman: Birthright" (issue 8 in particular), and you'll see that he's infinitely superior as a scary genius.

[The Question]

Bill explained it perfectly in his little Superman speech at the end of Kill Bill Volume 2: What makes the Superman mythos so different from all of the other superhero mythologies is that he was Superman FIRST, he was BORN Superman, and Clark Kent was his disguise, even his superhero suit was made from the sheets that he was found in, while all of the other superheroes eventually BECAME superheroes, but were ordinary human beings at the beginning.

Byrne changed that, and made Superman just another superhero.

The REAL Superman wouldn't mind that Lois Lane loves Superman and ONLY Superman, for Superman is who he truly is. I always found it stupid when Superman got depressed that Lois didn't even notice Clark Kent. Who cares? Clark Kent is just a role that you play in order to blend into human society, she's not SUPPOSED to notice him, but you're Kal-El first and foremost, man.

The thing is, that assesment makes no sense. He was not born Superman. A hero can't be born. Heroism was shaped through life experiences and what those close to you taught you. Just because he had his powers from the start doesn't mean he was born Superman. It just means that he was born super. He was raised Clark Joseph Kent, the son of two farmers in Kansas. He grew up as Clark Kent. He made the conscious descision to become Superman. He could have, easily, simply used his powers for personal gain, or not even use them at all. No one forced him to become a hero but himself. It was because of his upbringing that he became a hero, not his pedigree. And really, Clark being a fabrication just makes SUperman too aloof. Too cold. It's like it's some stupid game to him. Like he's looking down on us. It makes him a character who isn't interesting to write abvout and is usually not interesting to read about. At the end of the day, I'm sure, he thinks of himself as Clark Kent, a Kansas farmboy who grew up to be a reporter. Not Superman.

I get what he was trying to do, rationalize it, but I prefer by far Krypton as a perfect utopia. If it was a s**tty place to start with, it's destruction wouldn't have been so tragic.

The thing is, it was a utopia. No famine, no war, almost no crime, and no disease. Everything was shiny and nice. It's just that, to become a utopia, a society would have to give up certain aspects of humanity. You can't have abtruely perfect society. It's just not in the nature of people.

True, but I like what Morrison has done better. And the nineties was a terrible decade for superheroes, everything was "hip" and "hype".

I agree that the 90s had their faults, but there were also some very good stories in those years aswell.

I like him being a businessman, but just read Mark Waid's "Superman: Birthright" (issue 8 in particular), and you'll see that he's infinitely superior as a scary genius.

And he wasn't a scary genius in and after Man of Steel? He was always portrayed as highly inteligent, and often showed very in depth knowlege of electronics and engineering.

[TheSumOfGod]

YEAH? Well, I... you... YOU'RE A COMMIE! :mad:

;)

[The Question]

No. I'm not. Although I do have some socialist veiws. Though I tend to consider myself more of a libertarian. Hey look, a monkey....

[TheSumOfGod]

No. I'm not. Although I do have some socialist veiws. Though I tend to consider myself more of a libertarian. Hey look, a monkey....

Superman hates commies. And socialists. And libertarians. And anyone who didn't vote for Bush. :o

[The Question]

He only hates them because everyone who didn't vote for Bush in the DCU voted for Lex Luthor.

[Kurosawa]

The biggest problem with Byrne's Superman is it deviates too radically from Siegel and Shuster's intentions. The Post-Crisis Batman is still pretty close to what Kane and Finger created, but the Post-Crisis Superman has basically taken everything that Siegel and Shuster established and turned it completely around. Even with all it's chages, Silver Age Superman still stuck to the basic standards that S & S sat: that Superman is Superman first; that Clark Kent is a disguise and an act; and that Krypton itself represented the pinnacle of human accomplishment and it's loss was therefore a tragedy. Byrne got rid of all of that, and that's why the Post-Crisis Superman in my opinion is just another Superman-derived character like Supreme or the Sentry or Hyperion. He just happens to have the name and the costume.

But the All-Star Superman version is the real deal.

[The Question]

The thing is, Krypton was the pinnacle of human acomplishments. It was, for all intents and purposes, a perfect society. It was also very cold and arrogant. But really, that's the only way you could get such a utopia. The only way you can have a truely peacefull society is to have the emotions take a back seat to logic. That is the nature of people.

[Kurosawa]

The thing is, Krypton was the pinnacle of human acomplishments. It was, for all intents and purposes, a perfect society. It was also very cold and arrogant. But really, that's the only way you could get such a utopia. The only way you can have a truely peacefull society is to have the emotions take a back seat to logic. That is the nature of people.

That's only one way to look at it. The 30's vision of a perfect future was a future with incredible accomplishment, but people still retained their humainity, for better and for worse. And S & S were aware of many different visions of the future, as both Alex Raymond's Flash Gordon and Fritz Lang's Metropolis influenced their work.

Byrne's Krypton was just hideous to look at, and I hated his costume designs. In fact, besides Alpha Flight and Count Nefaria's costume, I'm hard pressed to think of any Byrne costumes I like. The Hellfire Club I suppose.

[The Question]

You didn't like it because you didn't like his designs? That seems a bit much. Anyway, way I see it, Byrne's Krytpon was as close to a perfect society as what seems possible. And really, over seven billion people died. That's something to be mourned, weather you'd like to live there or not.

[TheSumOfGod]

The biggest problem with Byrne's Superman is it deviates too radically from Siegel and Shuster's intentions. The Post-Crisis Batman is still pretty close to what Kane and Finger created, but the Post-Crisis Superman has basically taken everything that Siegel and Shuster established and turned it completely around. Even with all it's chages, Silver Age Superman still stuck to the basic standards that S & S sat: that Superman is Superman first; that Clark Kent is a disguise and an act; and that Krypton itself represented the pinnacle of human accomplishment and it's loss was therefore a tragedy. Byrne got rid of all of that, and that's why the Post-Crisis Superman in my opinion is just another Superman-derived character like Supreme or the Sentry or Hyperion. He just happens to have the name and the costume.

But the All-Star Superman version is the real deal.

I agree 1001%. Let's have a drink sometimes... ;)

[TheSumOfGod]

The thing is, Krypton was the pinnacle of human acomplishments. It was, for all intents and purposes, a perfect society. It was also very cold and arrogant. But really, that's the only way you could get such a utopia. The only way you can have a truely peacefull society is to have the emotions take a back seat to logic. That is the nature of people.

I get your point, but I prefer by far the concept of an utopia without compromise, where human beings (or kryptonians) don't have to let go of their humanity (or kryptonianity) in order to live in a perfect super-technological civilization. Because seriously, if you have to let go of your emotions, of love itself, of FREEDOM, or everything that makes life worth living, then your utopia is a million light-years from perfection, it sucks even. :o

[TheSumOfGod]

And to get back to my position that Superman is Superman first and foremost and that Clark Kent is nothing more than a role he plays in order to blend in to human society: I know that Superman was named Clark Kent practically from birth, that he was raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent, and that he probably thinks of himself as Clark Kent in his mind, but the important thing here is his personality. His personality was always that of Superman, while the personality of Daily Planet reporter Clark Kent in Metropolis is merely a disguise. Superman isn't shy, weak and clumsy, and neither was Clark Kent back in Smallville; when Clark Kent moved to Metropolis, the REAL Clark Kent became Superman, who he always truly was, while the Clark Kent everyone else knows now is just a mild-mannered idiot constantly remaining in the background (yet, somehow, a great reporter).

[The Question]

I get your point, but I prefer by far the concept of an utopia without compromise, where human beings (or kryptonians) don't have to let go of their humanity (or kryptonianity) in order to live in a perfect super-technological civilization. Because seriously, if you have to let go of your emotions, of love itself, of FREEDOM, or everything that makes life worth living, then your utopia is a million light-years from perfection, it sucks even. :o

But that's the closest you can get to utopia. You want a perfect society? You want one without crime or poverty or disease? Fine. But it's going to be one ****ing boring place to live. Krypton as described by Byrne is the closest to utopia one can get to.

And to get back to my position that Superman is Superman first and foremost and that Clark Kent is nothing more than a role he plays in order to blend in to human society: I know that Superman was named Clark Kent practically from birth, that he was raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent, and that he probably thinks of himself as Clark Kent in his mind, but the important thing here is his personality. His personality was always that of Superman, while the personality of Daily Planet reporter Clark Kent in Metropolis is merely a disguise. Superman isn't shy, weak and clumsy, and neither was Clark Kent back in Smallville; when Clark Kent moved to Metropolis, the REAL Clark Kent became Superman, who he always truly was, while the Clark Kent everyone else knows now is just a mild-mannered idiot constantly remaining in the background (yet, somehow, a great reporter).

Now, that depends entirely upon the interpetation. In the movie, yes, Clark was a bumbling dork. But when he origionally apeared, and in many of the more recent incarantions, he wasn't. He was just there. He didn't do anything to call atention to himself. That's not as much an act as it is laying under the radar. You see, what you described isn't mild mannered. It's clumbsy, idiotic, dorky, and annyoying. You pay atention to that. Mild mannered means you really don't pay atention to him. He's there, you know he exists, but you're not really thinking about him. Clark shouldn't be a bumbling idiot. That's going way to far, and I must say is incredibly disrespectful to his parents.


Also, I'd think that growing up, Clark would have been very clumbsy while trying to get a handle on his powers. So, he would retain the clumbsyness afterwards so no one would be suspicious.

[The Question]

Anyway, here's my reason for not liking Clark being a lie:



Really, it doesn't make sense. If there's nothing real or sincere about who he is on a day to day basis around his friends and co workers, then it's like he's intentionally setting himself apart from humanity. Like he's distancing himself from us because he's above us. He's only really him when he's flying over us, preforming superhuman feats and overall just being superhuman. Not when he's being human. And that, my friend, just makes him far too aloof. Too cold. I would think that the person who's felt like an outsider his whole life would want to really be himself when he's being human. I'd think that would be the time when he'd want to feel honest, even if he's not letting anyone know about his powers.

That, and the fact that he uses the only name he knew for years before he knew about Krypton, the name he was raised under, the name his parents gave him, as a lie, seems incredibly disrespectful to Ma and Pa.

[TheSumOfGod]

When's issue 4 coming out?

[The Question]

I don't know. Either this month or the next. I think it's bi-monthly.

[TheSumOfGod]

No it's not. It started in January and we're already up to issue 4. It was supposed to come out last week, but it didn't. In June, probably.

[The Question]

Maybe. Quietly's like Hitch. His art's mind blowingly amazing, but he takes forever to draw it.

[nite-owl]

Issue 4 comes out in June.

[TheSumOfGod]

Issue 4 comes out in June.

When exactly? Do you know?

[nite-owl]

When exactly? Do you know?

June 14, it's on DC website.

[TheSumOfGod]

Thanks.

[nite-owl]

Thanks.

NO problem.

[Morgoth]

Bill explained it perfectly in his little Superman speech at the end of Kill Bill Volume 2: What makes the Superman mythos so different from all of the other superhero mythologies is that he was Superman FIRST, he was BORN Superman, and Clark Kent was his disguise, even his superhero suit was made from the sheets that he was found in, while all of the other superheroes eventually BECAME superheroes, but were ordinary human beings at the beginning.





.Yeah he was born on Krypton but, he was an infant, he didn't know about being Superman yet, the Kents raised him is the thing. He was raised a good man by the Kents. That's what matters. Superman wasn't the name Jor-El gave him. Golden age or not, he didn't come to Earth as Superman, he became him, but he was born with powers.

[The Question]

I kind of liked what Jeff Loeb said about the character. Basically, his take is that neither Clark nor Superman are a lie. Both are wholey true to the character in almost every way. It's just that they are different aspects of him that are apropriate at different times. He really couldn't live withoput either, because they are both him, and sees neither persona as being more true than the other.

[Venom160]

Iv liked All Star Superman so far, and this is coming from somone who has never read a superman comic before this and generally had a very low opinion of the character. But I really enjoyed reading the first three issue and am looking foward to reading issue four when it come out.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah...it's been awesome. Morrison is....well...read my sig...lol.

[Kurosawa]

You didn't like it because you didn't like his designs? That seems a bit much. Anyway, way I see it, Byrne's Krytpon was as close to a perfect society as what seems possible. And really, over seven billion people died. That's something to be mourned, weather you'd like to live there or not.

I think Wendy Pini said it best when she told byrne that he created a Krypton that deserved to die.

And no, it's not JUST the horrid designs that I dislike. It's the total lack of humanity and the fact that Byrne's Kal-El was a test-tube baby. That love and contact was forbidden. All of those things makes his Krypton a world that is basically a fascist dictatorship and can't be admired.

[Kurosawa]

And to get back to my position that Superman is Superman first and foremost and that Clark Kent is nothing more than a role he plays in order to blend in to human society: I know that Superman was named Clark Kent practically from birth, that he was raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent, and that he probably thinks of himself as Clark Kent in his mind, but the important thing here is his personality. His personality was always that of Superman, while the personality of Daily Planet reporter Clark Kent in Metropolis is merely a disguise. Superman isn't shy, weak and clumsy, and neither was Clark Kent back in Smallville; when Clark Kent moved to Metropolis, the REAL Clark Kent became Superman, who he always truly was, while the Clark Kent everyone else knows now is just a mild-mannered idiot constantly remaining in the background (yet, somehow, a great reporter).

I see it as three different personalities.

There's "Metropolis Clark", the bumbling, timid mild-mannered Clark. Although to a large degree an act, he also represents Superman's sensitivity and his own feelings of not quite fitting in on Earth.

There's "Smallville Clark", that is to say, Clark in his private moments with his parents before they passed on or with his closest friends like Batman and some of the other JLA members.

Then there's Superman, which is the public face he puts on. Much like Metropolis Clark, it's work-related. Both of these personas are important for Superman's mission.

[The Question]

I think Wendy Pini said it best when she told byrne that he created a Krypton that deserved to die.

And no, it's not JUST the horrid degigns that I dislike. It's the total lack of humanity and the fact that Byrne's Kal-El was a test-tube baby. That love and contact was forbidden. All of those things makes his Krypton a world that is basically a fascist dictatorship and can't be admired.


Krypton wasn't a fascist dictatorship at all. In fact, I'm fairly certain it was a democrating republic with a governing council similar to ancient Rome. Love and contact weren't forbiden at all. They were simply looked down upon. There really was nothing inherently wrong or evil about Krypton besides the fact that Kryptonians, as a people, had gotten their heads up their own asses and failed to see how arrogant they were. Really, it seemed like a boring place. And that hardly makes six billion people deserving to die.

[Kurosawa]

Krypton wasn't a fascist dictatorship at all. In fact, I'm fairly certain it was a democrating republic with a governing council similar to ancient Rome. Love and contact weren't forbiden at all. They were simply looked down upon. There really was nothing inherently wrong or evil about Krypton besides the fact that Kryptonians, as a people, had gotten their heads up their own asses and failed to see how arrogant they were. Really, it seemed like a boring place. And that hardly makes six billion people deserving to die.

It seemed that way to me.

Admittedly, it's been 20 years since I last read (and hated) Man Of Steel.

[The Question]

It seemed that way to me.


I really don't see how being very arrogant and somewhat xenophobic makes them deserving to die. People's rights weren't being trampled on, there was very little crime or poverty, and everyone was highly educated. It was just also very very boring.

[JTStarkiller]

I just picked up all three this week. It's definitely a great read. Can't wait for issue 4 next week.

[Kool-Aid]

The biggest problem with Byrne's Superman is it deviates too radically from Siegel and Shuster's intentions. The Post-Crisis Batman is still pretty close to what Kane and Finger created, but the Post-Crisis Superman has basically taken everything that Siegel and Shuster established and turned it completely around. Even with all it's chages, Silver Age Superman still stuck to the basic standards that S & S sat: that Superman is Superman first; that Clark Kent is a disguise and an act; and that Krypton itself represented the pinnacle of human accomplishment and it's loss was therefore a tragedy. Byrne got rid of all of that, and that's why the Post-Crisis Superman in my opinion is just another Superman-derived character like Supreme or the Sentry or Hyperion. He just happens to have the name and the costume.

But the All-Star Superman version is the real deal.



Right on.:up: :cool:

[JLBats]

I much prefer All Star Superman to the regular titles. It seems to capture a certain sense of wonder Superman has been lacking recently.

[The Question]

Personally, I'd like to see a resurgence in the tackling of social issues present in the early stories. Superman was origionally someone who challanged the social order, and is now someone who is pretty complacent with it. I'd kind of like to see a return to his roots in that sense, mainly because it would be a nice change of pace.