For Tomorrow???

[charl_huntress]

I'm wondering if people who have read this will comment on what they like or dislike about it? Also, did you "get it" the second time around, either when you read it in trade (that is if you bought it:) ) or just re-read it for poops and grin?

I hear a lot of people express a lot of...frustrations and disappointment with this arc. Strangely enough, some of the same complaints are leveled at SR but not reacted to as strongly by fans...not sure why exactly. So, I'd thought I'd ask the purely comic fans about a story that seems...sort of similar in tone and scope to SR.

FT is not that old, and still pretty memorable even if you dislike it for probably the artwork and visually stunning wowness of it all. I actually liked it, but I didn't when I read it the first time. I think it would have been better as graphic novel out of continuity since FT really played havoc with continuity, which is also another complaint leveled against the story. Some dialogue needed to be cut...and I didn't like all that religious symbolism...but the second time around I did like the story better.

What's your thoughts on FT?

[charl_huntress]

No one has read FT? Wow...is it that hated?

[The Joker]

I didnt like it, except for Zod, because I always love Zod...the rest of it was just Superman whining like a little b**ch, which is how Azzraello makes all super heros act from what I've read of him (this and Batman: Broken City)

[JTStarkiller]

I bought part one last week, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

[charl_huntress]

He was pretty EMO...lol

[Lazlo Panaflex]

I bought it for Jim Lee's art.

[charl_huntress]

So...the story did nothing for you?

I'm trying to figure out why. I liked the story the second time around because it was emotional...in a way. However, man...it sooooo dragged ass and the payoff was kind of lame. It felt like it needed to be absorbed, but I did actually get something from it during the second go around.

I guess for me...I just hated all the religious symbolism. I hate that in any Superman story...including Singer's :)

[JTStarkiller]

I bought it for Jim Lee's art.

Me too.

[The Joker]

I guess for me...I just hated all the religious symbolism. I hate that in any Superman story...including Singer's :)

http://theaterhopper.com/vault/060630.jpg

that's all I have to say about "religous symbolism" in singers superman :o

[JTStarkiller]

That is absolutely awesome. :up:

[charl_huntress]

Hahahahah...I LOVE you, JOKER!!!!!

OMG...lol...LMAO.

Man, that's exactly how I feel.

[JTStarkiller]

Anyone know if/when Volume 2 will be released in paperback?

[The Leaguer]

Hahahahah...I LOVE you, JOKER!!!!!

OMG...lol...LMAO.

Man, that's exactly how I feel.
I think that's the most obsessive post I've ever seen in my life.

[charl_huntress]

I think that's the most obsessive post I've ever seen in my life.

Hmmm...came back to this thread and see this. What exactly am I obsessing about?

[The Leaguer]

A post I made 20 days ago. Come back to the present.

[charl_huntress]

A post I made 20 days ago. Come back to the present.

lol...I was on hiatus. I just ended up reading another thread and looking over this one. I was curious as to what you were talking about?

[The Leaguer]

I don't know, it was 20 days ago.

[Morgoth]

Just read it yesterday, wow they really over did it with the religous overtones. Can people just get over that aspect of Superman, quit thinking of him as Moses or Jesus and just let him be Superman, man some people read way too much into stuff, Loeb said he wanted to use that aspect, well, it's been done before and it just isn't right, it feels uncomfortable when they do that. I just want to read a good story with one of my childhood heroes.

[Superman: Idols]

Just read it yesterday, wow they really over did it with the religous overtones. Can people just get over that aspect of Superman, quit thinking of him as Moses or Jesus and just let him be Superman, man some people read way too much into stuff, Loeb said he wanted to use that aspect, well, it's been done before and it just isn't right, it feels uncomfortable when they do that. I just want to read a good story with one of my childhood heroes.

Loeb didn't write "For Tomorrow". That was Brian Azzrello.

[The Joker]

For Tomorrow was a bit too much alright...a bit too much total crap! ha ha, sick burn!

[Blue Pulsar]

What i didnt like about for tomorrow was the fact that that homemade cyborg mercenary/assassin , Equus, kept making superman bleed, and the fights, while good fights, should not have been. I mean, a cyborg made of earth materials should not be able to do to Superman what Equus did to Superman. Plus the story was a little to dark and got going good then kinda let down towards the end.

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Yeah when they go down that path of painting him to be like Christ (whether it's in comics or in movies like SR) they just go down hill whether in sales or quality...

[JTStarkiller]

I'm still waiting for Vol. 2 in TPB.

[The Joker]

the only good thing was Zod, he's always awesome

[charl_huntress]

the only good thing was Zod, he's always awesome

LOL...you just love Zod, Joker:)

edit:

Glad to see some more thoughts on FT btw.

[The Joker]

LOL...you just love Zod, Joker:)

edit:

Glad to see some more thoughts on FT btw.

well, Zod is always awesome :o

[GNR]

I avoided this and got For All Seasons instead.Glad I did.

[Superman: Idols]

I do like comics that aim for deeper meaning in the Superman mythos, and also like Supes stories with a darker tone (Kingdom Come.) But, for me at least, FT was edgy for the sake of edgy.

[charl_huntress]

I do like comics that aim for deeper meaning in the Superman mythos, and also like Supes stories with a darker tone (Kingdom Come.) But, for me at least, FT was edgy for the sake of edgy.

Good call...it's like too much and it knows it trying to be too much. Azz had to know the religious symbolism was overboard, but he kept on with it. I don't care if The Father became the first OMAC...it's still too much. Plus, along with the symbolism I'm still confused over the timeline.

Has anyone figured out where that year fits into continuity because I still find problems:confused:

[charl_huntress]

well, Zod is always awesome :o

Yeppers...but if he's in the next movie...if there is one. I will hunt you down unto the Laughing Fish:) :spidey:

[charl_huntress]

I don't know, it was 20 days ago.

More than that at this point...:)

[The Joker]

I hope he's in the next movie...I'd love to see him done right on film...he was the best part about Superman 2 back in the day, but he was still done too corny to really be considered the REAL Zod :o

[The Leaguer]

Thank you for the update.

[The Leaguer]

For Tomorrow kicked ass. Anyone who disagrees has no taste and thus no longer deserves the right to think.

[charl_huntress]

Thank you for the update.

Well...will you at least give me your thoughts on For Tomorrow?

:)

[charl_huntress]

I hope he's in the next movie...I'd love to see him done right on film...he was the best part about Superman 2 back in the day, but he was still done too corny to really be considered the REAL Zod :o

I understand what you mean. I too love Zod...but I hope Singer or whoever doesn't go that direction. I'd rather see in the final installment since I think he really deserves the full spotlight.

In FT though, I really enjoyed Zod. I didn't find the story that amazing, but I like how and when they brought Zod into play.

edit:

Wow Leaguer...I asked for your opinion on FT and got it. Thanks...I think :)

[The Leaguer]

Well...will you at least give me your thoughts on For Tomorrow?

:)
What do you want to know? Everything about it was brilliant. The dialogue, the characterization, the plot, the action, perfect.

My only qualm is that it probably would have worked better as a graphic novel rather than a serialized story, because the rate at which the plot progresses isn't quite conducive to the format in which it was originally published.

[charl_huntress]

I agree that it should have been a graphic novel, Leaguer. The format and the pacing seemed better suited for it.

Thanks :)

[Michael Corleone]

For Tomorrow was a hack job of a story. The dialog was horrible and the pace was terrible. Lee's art was the only saving grace. I think that's why it's become a prime example of krypto-revisionism. It's been such a short time and everything that happened has been forgoten or ignored.

[The Leaguer]

You're wrong about most of that, but having it forgotton or ignored, regardless of the time, has no reflection on the quality of the story. It has to do with editoral and writer decision. If any part of the story was to blame for it being ignored, it's that it spanned a year that can't really fit into continuity. The destruction of the Fortress, which was a major moment in the story, has had long-lasting effects.

[Michael Corleone]

You're wrong about most of that, but having it forgotton or ignored, regardless of the time, has no reflection on the quality of the story. It has to do with editoral and writer decision. If any part of the story was to blame for it being ignored, it's that it spanned a year that can't really fit into continuity. The destruction of the Fortress, which was a major moment in the story, has had long-lasting effects.
Except for the fact that everyone knows about the amazon Fortress and he now has an artic fortress again as well.

Oh and I'm not wrong...you just don't agree. There's a difference.

[sevinw0rds]

hmmmm

Cool enough premise for the story, and I actually found it enthralling that Supes would seek solace in a man of faith. Some of Kal-El's reflective monologues, especially when he's describing space, were just awesome. But as the second half of the story approached, I just felt it spiraling out of hand. I mean, the priest becomes half/man half machine and we see cloned versions of Clark and his parents? I don't know, it got lost for me...A+ on the artwork though.

[The Leaguer]

Except for the fact that everyone knows about the amazon Fortress and he now has an artic fortress again as well.

Oh and I'm not wrong...you just don't agree. There's a difference.
Nah, you're just wrong.

What does the Amazon Fortress and the new Fortress have anything to do with counter-proof? They just cement what I said: For Tomorrow had lasting effects.

[JTStarkiller]

Finally. Looks like Vol. 2 is scheduled for December in TPB. They're also rereleasing a TPB of Vol. 1 in November. I wonder if that means they're just making more, or if it'll be a new edition.

[The Leaguer]

What do you mean, a new edition? It's most assuredly just a complete reproduction of the first TPB.

[Superman2007]

Azzarello wrote Superman like Superman was a pretentious jerk.

[The Leaguer]

As was the point of the story, good job for noticing.

[Kevin Roegele]

Just read it yesterday, wow they really over did it with the religous overtones. Can people just get over that aspect of Superman, quit thinking of him as Moses or Jesus and just let him be Superman, man some people read way too much into stuff, Loeb said he wanted to use that aspect, well, it's been done before and it just isn't right, it feels uncomfortable when they do that. I just want to read a good story with one of my childhood heroes.

It's been in there since S&S created Suprman. Like it or not.

[charl_huntress]

Just read it yesterday, wow they really over did it with the religous overtones. Can people just get over that aspect of Superman, quit thinking of him as Moses or Jesus and just let him be Superman, man some people read way too much into stuff, Loeb said he wanted to use that aspect, well, it's been done before and it just isn't right, it feels uncomfortable when they do that. I just want to read a good story with one of my childhood heroes.

People...need to re-read this post until their eye's cross and they are blind:super: :super: :super: :super:

[The Leaguer]

I just read Kingdom Come, wow they really over did it with the heroic overtones. Can people just get over that aspect of Superman, quit thinking of him as a hero or a savior and just let him be Superman. I'm tired of him saving people. He's just a guy who flies around. Jeez. Talk about over-doing a theme.

[charl_huntress]

I just read Kingdom Come, wow they really over did it with the heroic overtones. Can people just get over that aspect of Superman, quit thinking of him as a hero or a savior and just let him be Superman. I'm tired of him saving people. He's just a guy who flies around. Jeez. Talk about over-doing a theme.

There is a difference between a hero being portrayed in the modern context as KC tried to show.

LOL...I don't particularly like that story either, so I'm not objective. However, Leaguer...you have to be smokin' the good stuff to think that FT and KC are in the same realm when it comes to religious overtones.

FT was full of that, and it dragged the arc downward by focusing too much on the priest and not on Superman and Lois. KC might have been gritty, and very Marvel....for Superman...but it's not the Catholic quest instrumented by Azz....You have to admit that?

You know what, Leaguer? I see that you like FT...so why don't you defend it...instead of trying to drag other people's opinions in the mud. You are well verse on this arc, and seem to know a lot. Why not try to argue it's good point...I'm sure you have a lot of practice?????

Soooooo...lets hear it.

[The Leaguer]

I didn't say Kingdom Come had religious overtones.

[charl_huntress]

I didn't say Kingdom Come had religious overtones.

Yeah, but you touted KC as comparable to FT by comparing them...like we who don't like FT were missing something because we didn't see the aspects that KC had????

Or...were you saying something else?:huh:

[The Leaguer]

I was saying something else. I was mocking the idea that the religious thing was over-done by saying that the heroic thing is over-done, using a similar technique.

[charl_huntress]

I was saying something else. I was mocking the idea that the religious thing was over-done by saying that the heroic thing is over-done, using a similar technique.

They are both prominent aspects of storytelling for the past and the present. Yet, I know you know that FT is a bit over the top with the religious overtones.

You saying KC pushes the level of Superherodom is over the top is equivalent to you saying that every animal does a priest-like dance for it's lost brethren.

C'mon dude.....I mean c'mon....

[The Leaguer]

I was prepared to mention that For Tomorrow didn't go over the top with it's overtones, that the overtones were the entire point of the story, that Superman losing touch with humanity and becoming more comfortable with his "god-hood" than ever before, which was a foreign role to him, was the basis of the entire story, and that I wasn't saying Kingdom Come was over the top, I was using it as a way of saying complaining about For Tomorrow was stupid, until I read this:

C'mon dude.....I mean c'mon....
Wow. That was a brilliant move. I did not see that coming. In chess, I believe that is called "checkmate." You are a master of argument. You could debate your way out of terminal cancer. That line was the single most effective piece of argumentative rhetoric this world has ever seen. Well played.

[charl_huntress]

I was prepared to mention that For Tomorrow didn't go over the top with it's overtones, that the overtones were the entire point of the story, that Superman losing touch with humanity and becoming more comfortable with his "god-hood" than ever before, which was a foreign role to him, was the basis of the entire story, and that I wasn't saying Kingdom Come was over the top, I was using it as a way of saying complaining about For Tomorrow was stupid, until I read this

How HAVE you have you been preparing to mention that Leaguer?

Seriously....you've been tagging along with my thoughts, or restlessly trying to refute them for so long...well...I forgot how long it is now....or are you just following me????

edit:

Or were you just looking for my brilliant chess moves, so you could try to make your presence known. I mean...WTF are you doing...YOU'VE JUST BEEN A HANGER ON...IN THE COMIC SECTION...YET YOU HAVEN'T OFFERED ANYTHING VALID.

DO YOU ACTUALLY READ COMICS, LEAGUER!!!!!!!!

[The Leaguer]

No, I just like to make things up.

[charl_huntress]

I figured that...:)

Tell me why you like FT, Leaguer....

Why do you like it...you just seem to quote what others mention.

[IzzyJG99]

I hate how Azzarello took Superman and totally turned him into a giant pussy with "belief" issues. God I hate it when people take political agendas and put them intoa c omic book.

[Garzo]

I never finished the story so I can't really comment on the religious symbolism too much.

However, I don't really understand all the criticism of the film for what people call "religious" imagery. I think they miss the point.

Personally, I think Singer was simply presenting Superman in a "mythic" way, and some of those images were as beautiful as classic paintings. But I never thought he was making a direct comparison between Superman and Christ. Sure, Superman flies and floats in the sky, godlike, but that's what he does. And when he fell, his arms were open. . . it was dramatic. It's a classic pose. Obviously, one could argue there was a much more direct comparison to the mythic Atlas when Superman caught the Daily Planet globe and brought it down upon his shoulders. All in all, it was playing up Superman's role as a rightful member of our pantheon of heroes, that include the many gods and heroes of myth.

[The Leaguer]

I figured that...:)

Tell me why you like FT, Leaguer....

Why do you like it...you just seem to quote what others mention.
What would make you happy, then.

[charl_huntress]

What would make you happy, then.

lol...I don't know. Why don't you tell me what really got you while you were reading SR.

See, for me, it was dragging and as a Lois Lane fan I wanted to know more about her. However, the artwork is remarkable and some of the dialogue is moving, but this doesn't negate the negatives.

I just want to hear why you liked it...without the negative responses to why others don't like it???

Is that too much:woot:

[charl_huntress]

I never finished the story so I can't really comment on the religious symbolism too much.

However, I don't really understand all the criticism of the film for what people call "religious" imagery. I think they miss the point.

Personally, I think Singer was simply presenting Superman in a "mythic" way, and some of those images were as beautiful as classic paintings. But I never thought he was making a direct comparison between Superman and Christ. Sure, Superman flies and floats in the sky, godlike, but that's what he does. And when he fell, his arms were open. . . it was dramatic. It's a classic pose. Obviously, one could argue there was a much more direct comparison to the mythic Atlas when Superman caught the Daily Planet globe and brought it down upon his shoulders. All in all, it was playing up Superman's role as a rightful member of our pantheon of heroes, that include the many gods and heroes of myth.

Okay...that's what people say about FT. Read that and then come back here and talk about that. I'm all worn out when it comes to talking about SR. My therapist says I have to leave that topic alone:hyper: