View Single Post
Old 05-23-2012, 07:04 AM   #130
Banned User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Earth-1
Posts: 2,936
Default Re: What was Mark Waid's issues with the 1986 retelling?

Originally Posted by BATS N' HORNETS View Post
When people talk about Waid's Birthright as being superior to the Man of Steel mini-series, I cringe. In my opinion, Byrne took everything that had come before in Superman media (aspects of comics, Reeve films and cartoons) and utilized them while modernizing them. Waid is a joke of a writer. The only good thing he ever did was a couple Batman stories in the early 90's for Detective Comics, Kingdom Come and some decent Marvel work. God to even hear the man speak in documentaries or interviews is just like nails on a chalk board.
Byrne did not take everything that had come before. He ignored the core aspect of the character. And "The man of Steel" is not even a story. It feels like an ongoing regular series were they failed to print 80% of the issues. "Birthright" on the other hand was an attempt to unite some Golden Age characteristics with the Silver/Bronze Age while also keeping it modern. And it was a complete story.

1) Why would Superman be a vegetarian? He was a farm boy. Presumably there were cows and hogs on the Kent farm. Martha had to cook meat for dinner right?
Since Superman doesn't have to eat in the first place why should he eat animals?

2) Why would Clark travel abroad? You would think that once he got his powers and oh forget it. I don't get it.

I could do this all day.
That is the reason why you don't like the story?

F*** Mark Waid and his dumb ass stories

Then, MOS:

1. why no plot at all?
2. why no show us why Superman wants to join the Daily Planet in the first place?
3. why does Superman spit on his origin?
4. why doesn't he even bother to find out who he is? (thin characterization)
5. why does he display his high school trophies in his apartment?
6. why is his Lois such a *****?

**** John Byrne and his dumbass stories.

TruerToTheCore is offline   Reply With Quote