What was Mark Waid's issues with the 1986 retelling?

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by Evil Twin

You said "Superman was a bigger seller in the '50s, Batman was a bigger seller in the '60s."

Which is wrong. From the period 1960 to 1969, Superman sold millions more than Batman. Even if we're just restricting it to Superman magazine vs. Batman magazine. We toss in all the related titles and it's even more lopsided in favor of Superman.

1966 to 1967 don't make up "the '60s". Nor, did you specify that you weren't talking about Superman titles in their entirety vs. Batman titles in their entirety, which certainly is a relevant barometer of popularity.

If you want to say that at one point in the 1960s, one Batman magazine outsold Superman's namesake title for a short period, then fine, but by all reasonable standards Superman dominated the superhero marketplace of the decade. And it wasn't even close. That clearly was the peak of Superman's comic book commercial appeal and it's relevant to try to understand why that was.

Again, you are ignoring Superman's commercial appeal and success in comic books and merchandise in the 1950s. There was no Batmania in the '50s. Batman never outsold Superman in the '50s. And you obviously misunderstood what I meant by Batman's success in the '60s. Sorry I didn't clarify in more detail originally what I meant, but I didn't think I had to be so anal-retentively specific. 1966 and 1967 do make up two years in the decade of the '60s, which Batman comic books did outsell Superman. Again, I didn't say, nor was I intending to claim, that Batman constantly outsold Superman throughout the decade of the '60s.

[CConn]

It seems like a dumb point to argue altogether.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by Czar Colossus

sorry

Thanks, muffin.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

John Byrne wasn't saying he made a mistake removing Superboy, he's just sulking and venting about the Powers That Were at DC "double-crossing" him by "the assurance from the Powers That Were that I would be able to do a Superman who was still learning the ropes. Then, after the contracts were signed, they reneged on that promise." Removing Superboy was John Byrne's idea, he didn't want to use Superboy, and he says "One of the central points of my "back to the basics" approach to the Superman reboot to the Superman reboot was that he began his career as an adult -- so no Superboy". John Byrne said, "there's really nothing about the retroactive introduction of Superboy into the mythos that works. Aside from the contradiction of established continuity -- not a concern in those days -- the first issue presents us with Clark Kent in Smallville with Ma and Pa and a supporting cast all in place. No consideration was given to the fact that for this to work he would have had to have his "secret identity" before he became Superboy. He would have had to have adopted the "mild mannered", glasses-wearing, posture-altered persona for Clark before he became Superboy."

More cherrypicking, as usual. His initial idea was to get rid of Superboy, but after the reboot was not a full reboot, he realized and even admitted his mistake, and said "I WISH I had Superboy to fill that role." It doesn't get much more clear than that.

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...894&PN=0&TPN=3
"The deathbed scene, wherein Pa Kent, before dieing, cautioned Clark that he must only use his great powers for the good of Mankind, when Clark had already been doing just what his father bid him to do. Superboy's adventures had made the deathbed scene not only unnecessary, but actually insulting. Pa Kent should be confident enough in the moral upbringing he and Martha had given Clark that he would have no need for that "reinforcement". I decided to go back to Seigel and Shuster and eliminate Superboy from my version -- but keeping certain elements by retaining Ma and Pa Kent as viable characters."
http://byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6045

I disagree with Byrne, and seeing that a big part of his alleged 'back to basics' approach was to turn the core conceit of Superman completely around-that under the nerdy veneer of Clark Kent was the true identity of the powerful Superman-I have no use for his judgements of Superman. The deathbed scene, which was first written by Bill Finger, was doing what parents do, no matter if it is redundant or not. My dad still restates things to me at age 86 that he did years ago. And when written by Superman's best ever writer, Elliot S. Maggin, the scene is even more revealing as to the greatness of Jonathan Kent:

Originally Posted by From Elliot S. Maggin's Last Son of Krypton

The Kents were well past child-rearing age when they found that rocket ship near the old farm. On a vacation they both contracted a rare virus over which even their son had no power. They died within a week of each other, Martha Kent first. Jonathan Kent, on the last day of his life and without his wife for the first time in twoscore years, asked his son to stand next to his bed.

Superboy long ago had learned the story of his origin. His power of total recall accounted for most of the story. He was able to fill in most of the blanks by flying at many times the speed of light through space and overtaking the light rays that left Krypton the day it exploded. In this way he actually saw the drama of his infancy reenacted. He knew that he was Kal-El of Krypton, the son of Jor-El, and possibly the finest specimen of humanity in the galaxy. He had broken the time barrier, he could speak every known language on Earth, living and dead. He had been born among the stars and could live among them now if he so chose. He had more knowledge in his mind and more diverse experience to his credit than any Earthman alive could ever aspire to.

Yet he stood at the deathbed of this elderly, generous man whose last Earthly concern was his adopted son's happiness. Superboy listened, because he believed Jonathan Kent to be wiser than he.

Enough of this clowning around in the circus costume, Jonathan Kent told his son. A man is someone who assumes responsibility. To help people in need is right. To grab at every short-lived wisp of glory that tumbles by is wrong.

"No man on Earth has the amazing powers you have," Jonathan Kent told the mightiest creature on the planet. "You can use them to become a powerful force for good.

"There are evil men in this world, criminals and outlaws who prey on decent folk. You must fight them in cooperation with the law.

"To fight those criminals best you must hide your true identity. They must never know that Clark Kent is a superman. Remember, because that's what you are, a superman."

And the old man died.

The sale of the business left Clark Kent with enough money to study journalism at Metropolis University, and to pay the taxes on the house in Smallville. Superman could not bear to sell it, so he boarded it up.

People would still call him Superboy for a while. Gradually, though, they would realize that he no longer scooted across the sky giggling as he flew into a hail of bullets. He no longer thought battles of wits with criminals were a fun way to spend the afternoon. Superboy would not be back.

I am aware that originally Alfred was a silly bumbling butler Bruce Wayne hired to clean and cook and that he was originally overweight until Detective Comics #83 (January, 1944) "Accidentally on Purpose" when Alfred's look was remodeled after thin actor William Austin, who portrayed Alfred in the Batman movie serial from 1943. I feel Frank Miller greatly enhanced Batman's cast by making Alfred a living father figure that raised Bruce, rather than just a silly butler Bruce Wayne hired to clean and cook.

Alfred actually became a character of more depth by the Bronze Age, IMO, but Miller's retcon with him is not one of his worse ones like what he did to Selina Kyle.

I would have rather Siegel's own version of Superboy had been published, as conceived by Siegel himself. Instead they published a Superboy by Don Cameron, without the input or approval of Jerry Siegel.

http://www.comics.org/issue/4115/

Story was written by Siegel, most likely it was his pitch script, art was by the Shuster studio. Gerard Jones also mentioned in his book Men of Tomorrow that the script was almost certainly Siegel's work. They did run the story without Jerry's knowledge or input, and there was no Siegel and Shuster credit given, typical of how Harry Donenfeld and Jack Liebowitz exploited creators that they could exploit.

Originally Posted by Evil Twin

You said "Superman was a bigger seller in the '50s, Batman was a bigger seller in the '60s."

Which is wrong. From the period 1960 to 1969, Superman sold millions more than Batman. Even if we're just restricting it to Superman magazine vs. Batman magazine. We toss in all the related titles and it's even more lopsided in favor of Superman.

1966 to 1967 don't make up "the '60s". Nor, did you specify that you weren't talking about Superman titles in their entirety vs. Batman titles in their entirety, which certainly is a relevant barometer of popularity.

If you want to say that at one point in the 1960s, one Batman magazine outsold Superman's namesake title for a short period, then fine, but by all reasonable standards Superman dominated the superhero marketplace of the decade. And it wasn't even close. That clearly was the peak of Superman's comic book commercial appeal and it's relevant to try to understand why that was.

Exactly. To say Batman outsold Superman in the 60's is misleading.

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

Again, you are ignoring Superman's commercial appeal and success in comic books and merchandise in the 1950s. There was no Batmania in the '50s. Batman never outsold Superman in the '50s. And you obviously misunderstood what I meant by Batman's success in the '60s. Sorry I didn't clarify in more detail originally what I meant, but I didn't think I had to be so anal-retentively specific. 1966 and 1967 do make up two years in the decade of the '60s, which Batman comic books did outsell Superman. Again, I didn't say, nor was I intending to claim, that Batman constantly outsold Superman throughout the decade of the '60s.

I never said Superman didn't sell well in the 50's, which had many similar elements to the 60's, just that he sold even more in the 60's, maybe in terms of copies sold, but no doubt he sold more in terms of market share, as the Dell books declined in the mid-60's.

Originally Posted by CConn

It seems like a dumb point to argue altogether.

I think it's mostly an attempt to undermine the importance of the Silver Age comics and thus bolster the legitimacy of Byrne and Miller's take on Superman.

[That person]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

Mark Waid's Superman: Birthright was definitely not truer to the Golden Age Jerry Siegel Superman than John Byrne's The Man of Steel. The Jerry Siegel Golden Age foster father Kent was elderly, described as kind, loving and guided Clark with the foster parents advice to Clark to use his powers to assist humanity. Mark Waid's Jonathan Kent in Superman: Birthright is far younger and blonde (obviously to resemble actor John Schneider on the Smallville TV show), is cold, distant, barely spoke to Clark rather than encouraging and guiding Clark into using his powers to assist humanity. The Jerry Siegel Golden Age Luthor didn't meet Superman until he was an adult and hated him because he powers were a threat. Mark Waid's Lex Luthor in Superman: Birthright is from Smallville and met Clark as a boy and blames Clark for his baldness. Mark Waid's Superman: Birthright was actually closer to the Silver Age, as well as the Smallville TV show, with the House of El on Krypton from the Silver Age, Lex coming from Smallville and having been friends with Clark as in the Silver Age and as on the Smallville TV show, and blaming Clark for his baldness as in the Silver Age, a younger Jonathan and Martha Kent as in the Smallville TV show, etc.

I didn't say that Waid's Superman was identical to the Golden-Age Superman, or even that he was closer to it than Byrne's version. Both of them had a sort of intimidating righteous badass act going on that other versions didn't, so you can't really claim that there was no influence. Waid is more familiar with wide variety of Superman lore than any of us, so it makes sense that he drew his favorite elements from all across it when launching Superman for the 21st century. I could enumerate the many ways in which Byrne digressed from the Golden Age, but I don't think that would really be a fruitful exercise. I will maintain that Waid's characterization is closer to the spirit of the character, but that doesn't just include the Golden Age stuff.

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

This Superman in a t-shirt and blue jeans by Grant Morrison and Rags Morales is the opposite of returning to his Golden Age roots, same as the drastically redesigned costume by Jim Lee, same as Luthor being already hairless when Superman first meets him,

All entirely aesthetic changes.

same as Clark Kent working at a rival newspaper to Lois and Jimmy,

I thought including the Daily Star was a clever tribute to the Golden Age version and the rivalry added an interesting new dynamic, but to each his own.

same as Lois thinking Superman is a trouble-making menace to Metropolis, Clark Kent's persona being a poor slob with messy hair, wrinkled untucked shirts, no tie, etc.

Clark was designed to look inconspicuous. Since many large corporations have abandoned dress codes for their employees altogether and very few require neatly combed hair or ties, it makes sense that a modern Clark would look a bit slobbish next to his original incarnation.

And people trusted the Golden Age Jerry Siegel Superman as a hero. In Action Comics #6 (1938) by Jerry Siegel, the newspaper headline for World Herald says "Entire Town Saved by Superman" and Evening News says "Superman Wars on Injustice", etc.

Lots of people trust him in the New 52 continuity and lots of people mistrust him in the Golden Age. The higher level of mistrust leveled at Superman in Morison's run is probably a more realistic representation of how people react to an entity flying (or leaping) around and acting like Superman, especially the Golden Age Superman.

John Byrne's The Man of Steel and his preceding Superman run is evidence to the contrary. Byrne's influences definitely included the Golden Age Jerry Siegel Superman comics, as I pointed out and gave examples of in my first post on the thread, as well as Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie, the George Reeves Adventures of Superman TV series, the Fleischer Superman cartoons and even some Silver Age Superman comics (Ed Hamilton and Wayne Boring's heavyset business suited con-man Luthor, Bill Finger's Lana Lang, Lori Lemaris, Otto Binder's Lucy Lane, Bizarro, etc.), and Jack Kirby's Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen and New Gods comics from the Bronze Age with Dan Turpin, Darkseid, etc.

I'm not disputing that, but don't pretend Byrne is the only Post-Crisis writer to take some cues from the Golden Age.

Neil Gaiman prefers the Silver Age to Bronze Age Lex and his use of the snide "skinny Kingpin" remark also doesn't make it a fact.

Making Lex a generic criminal CEO at the expense of displaying his scientific genius is pretty crappy characterization, and "skinny kingpin" does seem to summarize it succinctly. That's not to say a brilliant mind like Lex's couldn't also amuse itself with running a corporation and it does provide a nice explanation for how he gets the funding for projects that don't seem to have much non-Superman-killing utility (and tend not to be very good at that), but Lex is a scientist and inventor first and foremost. Maggin, Waid, and Morrison all got this right.

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

I don't believe that Dan DiDio had Superman rebooted so drastically because of the lawsuits with the Siegel estate over ownership. Dan DiDio has had Wonder Woman rebooted just as drastically without any lawsuits with the Marston estate over ownership. Dan DiDio's orchestrated DC reboots are simply attempts to boost sales. Grant Morrison, Jim Lee and George Perez (all lead by Grant Morrison's vision) are trying desperately to make Superman as modernized, edgy and kewl as they can, disregarding what was always so successful and iconic about Superman since inception, radically changing the personalities and appearances of the iconic Superman characters, to the point to where Lois Lane has a boyfriend and thinks Superman is a trouble-making menace to Metropolis.

The current run on Action Comics is set early on in Superman's career, and it's pretty clear that they're moving toward more established character relationships, unless Lois never having dated anybody before Superman was a major plot point in the classic series that I missed.

This Jimmy Olsen looks like Justin Bieber. He doesn't even have Jimmy Olsen's freckles.

An aesthetic change, and an admittedly stupid one. I'd blame Morales quicker than I'd blame Morrison.

This Superman is camera shy. Grant Morrison's Clark Kent worked at a rival newspaper to Lois and Jimmy.

It's taking a different direction with the backstory than previous comics have, but is there really any reason to think that either of those couldn't be true of the early careers of other Clarks and Supermans?

Grant Morrison's angry Superman tyrannously threatens the citizens of Metropolis to "Treat people 'right' or expect a visit from me." Dictating above Metropolis, creating fear, rather than trust.

That's pretty much the sort of thing Golden Age Superman would do all the time. (See: earlier posts from both of us on this thread). Superman's ultimately about inspiring hope, but he's certainly not above intimidating those who threaten the innocent.

This Superman wears a t-shirt, blue jeans and later wears body armor instead of the classic iconic costume recognized by generations.

I'm not really gonna defend the new look, but I suspect that was an executive decision at DC, and its effect on the story is pretty minimal. I'm sad to say it, but the era of "lol how come he wear his underwear outside his pants" is over, and the era of "lol how come he finally started wearing his underwear inside his pants" has begun.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

More cherrypicking, as usual. His initial idea was to get rid of Superboy, but after the reboot was not a full reboot, he realized and even admitted his mistake, and said "I WISH I had Superboy to fill that role." It doesn't get much more clear than that.

Byrne wasn't saying he made a mistake by removing Superboy as if he suddenly realized that Superboy was such a great character and he screwed up. He was say that the Powers That Were at DC double-crossed him by reneged on their promise. After he discovered that DC wouldn't let him do stories of Superman learning the ropes, he wished he had Superboy as a substitute for the learning the ropes stories that he wanted to tell with the adult Superman during his run.

"The deathbed scene, wherein Pa Kent, before dieing, cautioned Clark that he must only use his great powers for the good of Mankind, when Clark had already been doing just what his father bid him to do. Superboy's adventures had made the deathbed scene not only unnecessary, but actually insulting. Pa Kent should be confident enough in the moral upbringing he and Martha had given Clark that he would have no need for that "reinforcement". I decided to go back to Seigel and Shuster and eliminate Superboy from my version -- but keeping certain elements by retaining Ma and Pa Kent as viable characters."
http://byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6045

Not really. Especially not when written by Superman's best ever writer, Elliot S. Maggin:

Originally Posted by From Elliot S. Maggin's Last Son of Krypton
The Kents were well past child-rearing age when they found that rocket ship near the old farm. On a vacation they both contracted a rare virus over which even their son had no power. They died within a week of each other, Martha Kent first. Jonathan Kent, on the last day of his life and without his wife for the first time in twoscore years, asked his son to stand next to his bed.

Superboy long ago had learned the story of his origin. His power of total recall accounted for most of the story. He was able to fill in most of the blanks by flying at many times the speed of light through space and overtaking the light rays that left Krypton the day it exploded. In this way he actually saw the drama of his infancy reenacted. He knew that he was Kal-El of Krypton, the son of Jor-El, and possibly the finest specimen of humanity in the galaxy. He had broken the time barrier, he could speak every known language on Earth, living and dead. He had been born among the stars and could live among them now if he so chose. He had more knowledge in his mind and more diverse experience to his credit than any Earthman alive could ever aspire to.

Yet he stood at the deathbed of this elderly, generous man whose last Earthly concern was his adopted son's happiness. Superboy listened, because he believed Jonathan Kent to be wiser than he.

Enough of this clowning around in the circus costume, Jonathan Kent told his son. A man is someone who assumes responsibility. To help people in need is right. To grab at every short-lived wisp of glory that tumbles by is wrong.

"No man on Earth has the amazing powers you have," Jonathan Kent told the mightiest creature on the planet. "You can use them to become a powerful force for good.

"There are evil men in this world, criminals and outlaws who prey on decent folk. You must fight them in cooperation with the law.

"To fight those criminals best you must hide your true identity. They must never know that Clark Kent is a superman. Remember, because that's what you are, a superman."

And the old man died.

The sale of the business left Clark Kent with enough money to study journalism at Metropolis University, and to pay the taxes on the house in Smallville. Superman could not bear to sell it, so he boarded it up.

People would still call him Superboy for a while. Gradually, though, they would realize that he no longer scooted across the sky giggling as he flew into a hail of bullets. He no longer thought battles of wits with criminals were a fun way to spend the afternoon. Superboy would not be back.

Superboy had already had been using his powers for good, so he didn't need the advice.

Alfred actually became a character of more depth by the Bronze Age, IMO, but Miller's retcon with him is not one of his worse ones like what he did to Selina Kyle, which is just basically more of his extreme misogamy. Women under Miller are either whores, victims or butches, and he managed to do all of the above to Catwoman in various series.

Miller made Selina Kyle a dominatrix. How is a dominatrix extremely misogynistic? He didn't make her a whore, a weak victim or a butch lesbian. Women under Miller usually are strong female characters. Assassin Elektra, Head Security Officer Casey McKenna, SHIELD agent Chastity McBryde, Police Commissioner Ellen Yindel, Carrie Kelley Robin, Martha Washington, Assassin Miho, Dominatrix Gail are all strong female characters created by Frank Miller. Carrie Kelley outwitted the mutants and saved Batman's life twice in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, and lead the Batboys, rescued the Atom and the Flash in Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again. That's a strong female. Frank Miller depicted Catwoman as a Dominatrix and Wonder Woman as an aggressive feminist and Black Canary as a strong independent character. Frank Miller's young upbeat walking, running and jumping Batgirl was much more liberated than the grim permanently paralyzed Barbara Gordon by everyone else at DC at the time.

Story was written by Siegel, most likely it was his pitch script, art was by the Shuster studio. Gerard Jones also mentioned in his book Men of Tomorrow that the script was almost certainly Siegel's work.

Other than that one 5 page story, we know that Don Cameron wrote all of the preceding 7 page Superboy stories in More Fun Comics and many in Adventure Comics.
http://www.comics.org/issue/4226/
http://www.comics.org/issue/4356/
http://www.comics.org/issue/4444/
http://www.comics.org/issue/4542/
http://www.comics.org/issue/4653/
http://www.comics.org/issue/5023/
http://www.comics.org/issue/5082/
http://www.comics.org/issue/5148/
http://www.comics.org/issue/5219/
http://www.comics.org/issue/5281/
Etc, etc.

Exactly. To say Batman outsold Superman in the 60's is misleading.

Batman did outsell Superman in the '60s from 1966 to 1967.

I never said Superman didn't sell well in the 50's, which had many similar elements to the 60's, just that he sold even more in the 60's, maybe in terms of copies sold, but no doubt he sold more in terms of market share, as the Dell books declined in the mid-60's.

I believe Superman sold more in the '50s. Batman never outsold Superman in the '50s.

I think it's mostly an attempt to undermine the importance of the Silver Age comics and thus bolster the legitimacy of Byrne and Miller's take on Superman.

Nothing to do with the Bronze Age and Modern Age writers Byrne, Maggin, Miller or Morrison. Obviously I have a love for comics history. The Silver Age includes the '50s as well. The Silver Age of comics began in 1954, by the way, not in the '60s. I don't see how I am undermining the Silver Age but stating that I believe that Superman sold more in the '50s.

[Czar Colossus]

Originally Posted by That person

I'm not really gonna defend the new look, but I suspect that was an executive decision at DC, and its effect on the story is pretty minimal. I'm sad to say it, but the era of "lol how come he wear his underwear outside his pants" is over, and the era of "lol how come he finally started wearing his underwear inside his pants" has begun.

Yeah to think in an age where the youth of America think wearing pants below your butt and your belt around your thighs exposing underwear to everyone and having to walk with your legs wider than shoulder width apart looks good, that Superman's classic look would be an issue. Maybe he should wear skinny jeans or jeans 3 sizes too big instead!

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by That person

I didn't say that Waid's Superman was identical to the Golden-Age Superman, or even that he was closer to it than Byrne's version. Both of them had a sort of intimidating righteous badass act going on that other versions didn't, so you can't really claim that there was no influence. Waid is more familiar with wide variety of Superman lore than any of us, so it makes sense that he drew his favorite elements from all across it when launching Superman for the 21st century. I could enumerate the many ways in which Byrne digressed from the Golden Age, but I don't think that would really be a fruitful exercise. I will maintain that Waid's characterization is closer to the spirit of the character, but that doesn't just include the Golden Age stuff.

Waid's characterization is closer to the Silver Age version of the character and the Smallville TV show version.

All entirely aesthetic changes.

All entirely unneeded changes.

I thought including the Daily Star was a clever tribute to the Golden Age version and the rivalry added an interesting new dynamic, but to each his own.

I much prefer the classic Clark and Lois working relationship of them at the same newspaper and having a competitive rivalry relationship on assignments together, competing to get the story first. Rather than Lois barely even remembering who Clark Kent is. It's not necessary to scrap some of the basics of the iconic Superman mythology.

Clark was designed to look inconspicuous. Since many large corporations have abandoned dress codes for their employees altogether and very few require neatly combed hair or ties, it makes sense that a modern Clark would look a bit slobbish next to his original incarnation.

Clark Kent was conceived as a clean cut, neat and tidy, well-mannered, upbeat guy, which he's iconically been throughout he's publication history. A slobbish grungy look is out of character, and strikes of jaded carelessness.

Lots of people trust him in the New 52 continuity and lots of people mistrust him in the Golden Age.

The public trusted the Golden Age Superman as a hero.

The higher level of mistrust leveled at Superman in Morison's run is probably a more realistic representation of how people react to an entity flying (or leaping) around and acting like Superman, especially the Golden Age Superman.

The way Morrison's Superman acts, the people would indeed mistrust him.

I'm not disputing that, but don't pretend Byrne is the only Post-Crisis writer to take some cues from the Golden Age.

I have never said Byrne was the only one to take some influence from the Golden Age.

Making Lex a generic criminal CEO at the expense of displaying his scientific genius is pretty crappy characterization, and "skinny kingpin" does seem to summarize it succinctly. That's not to say a brilliant mind like Lex's couldn't also amuse itself with running a corporation and it does provide a nice explanation for how he gets the funding for projects that don't seem to have much non-Superman-killing utility (and tend not to be very good at that), but Lex is a scientist and inventor first and foremost. Maggin, Waid, and Morrison all got this right.

Byrne did not make Luthor a generic CEO. Byrne's Luthor is a genius, a brilliant inventor. As the inventor of the LexWing aircraft, he obviously had a knowledge of physics, which is scientific. Physics is the science that deals with motion. His ability to exist above the law made things very difficult for Superman, it created tension, created a struggle and it brought some reality to Superman, some relevance, showing that the system is flawed and doesn't always work. Superman was originally a champion of the oppressed versus corruption of the law at the highest levels, I've always seen the rich corrupt LexCorp Lex Luthor hiding behind a mask of respectability as a return to that concept. The original Luthor was a red haired dictator - a ruler who assumes sole and absolute power, he wore business suits. Luthor in The Man of Steel was red haired and wore business suits and was certainly a ruler assuming sole and absolute power. He had scientists working for him and Jerry Siegel's Golden Age Luthor had a scientific lab assistant working for him. Luthor originally met Superman as an adult and hated Superman because he's powers were a threat. The Man of Steel was a return to that concept. The overweight business suited con-man Luthor by Ed Hamilton and Wayne Boring in the 1950s was also an obvious influence.

The current run on Action Comics is set early on in Superman's career, and it's pretty clear that they're moving toward more established character relationships, unless Lois never having dated anybody before Superman was a major plot point in the classic series that I missed.

Lois trusting Superman and loving Superman was a major plot point in the classic series.

An aesthetic change, and an admittedly stupid one. I'd blame Morales quicker than I'd blame Morrison.

Whomever is to blame for that, at least we agree that it is a stupid change.

That's pretty much the sort of thing Golden Age Superman would do all the time. (See: earlier posts from both of us on this thread). Superman's ultimately about inspiring hope, but he's certainly not above intimidating those who threaten the innocent.

He's threatening the general public of Metropolis there. Jerry Siegel's Superman wasn't really angry. Generally he was upbeat, smiling, with a sly sense of humor, and toyed with criminals humorously.

I'm not really gonna defend the new look, but I suspect that was an executive decision at DC, and its effect on the story is pretty minimal. I'm sad to say it, but the era of "lol how come he wear his underwear outside his pants" is over, and the era of "lol how come he finally started wearing his underwear inside his pants" has begun.

I loath the new costumes. The classic iconic costume did not need to be changed to pander to anyone who laughs at Superman's red trunks as underwear on the outside. Superman looks incomplete without his red trunks. Theses drastic reboots of Superman and Wonder Woman in particular has made it clear that Dan DiDio and Jim Lee think that Superman and Wonder Woman are extremely outdated characters and are in need of such drastic reboots.

[Evil Twin]

"Batman did outsell Superman in the '60s from 1966 to 1967."

Batman magazine outsold Superman magazine from 1966 to 1967. Even during that run, Superman related titles vastly outsold Batman related titles when taken in their entirety. Superman held more market share than Batman, before, during, and after Batmania.

I really don't know what point you're trying to make here. Silver Age Superman which dominated the '50s and '60s, despite blips here and there, was vastly successful in terms of comic book sales. I think it's a fair question asking why exactly that needs to be run away from?

Certainly, I don't think even Byrne ran away from it entirely. Even in retrospect, Byrne acknowledges the damage of removing Superboy, which preceeds the Silver Age btw, from the LoSH. And, really, if we're going to take shots at Kingpin Luthor, by most accounts Marv Wolfman is where we should be pointing fingers, Byrne just ran with the idea. Certainly, Brainiac is a Silver Age villain nobody has a problem with retaining.

I certainly agree that updating Lois Lane's characterization from the Silver Age schemer was something that can't translate to modern storytelling. That said, All Star Superman is certainly an example of how the Silver Age tropes can translate to modern storytelling. I think the main thing is just not to make Superman mopey and ineffective, but someone able to meet big challenges with a sense of hope and even a sense of humor.

[Czar Colossus]

This New 52 mess reminds me of Marvel's Heroes Reborn, but we knew (fortunately)that that was finite.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by Czar Colossus

This New 52 mess reminds me of Marvel's Heroes Reborn, but we knew (fortunately)that that was finite.

Except Superman's characterization is actually more accurate to his origins.

But whatevs.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by Evil Twin

"Batman did outsell Superman in the '60s from 1966 to 1967."

Batman magazine outsold Superman magazine from 1966 to 1967. Even during that run, Superman related titles vastly outsold Batman related titles when taken in their entirety. Superman held more market share than Batman, before, during, and after Batmania.

The Batman title outsold the Superman title in 1966 and 1967 during Batmania. That is simply stating a fact. You are trying to downplay Batman's success during Batmania by combining the sales of Superman related titles like the Lois Lane titles sales and the Jimmy Olsen titles sales as though they were the flag ship Superman title.

I really don't know what point you're trying to make here.

I thought my point was obvious, but you keep missing it. My point was simply that I believe Superman had more success in the '50s, while Batman definitely had more success in the '60s than Batman had in the '50s.

Silver Age Superman which dominated the '50s and '60s, despite blips here and there, was vastly successful in terms of comic book sales. I think it's a fair question asking why exactly that needs to be run away from?

Certainly, I don't think even Byrne ran away from it entirely. Even in retrospect, Byrne acknowledges the damage of removing Superboy, which preceeds the Silver Age btw, from the LoSH. And, really, if we're going to take shots at Kingpin Luthor, by most accounts Marv Wolfman is where we should be pointing fingers, Byrne just ran with the idea. Certainly, Brainiac is a Silver Age villain nobody has a problem with retaining.

I certainly agree that updating Lois Lane's characterization from the Silver Age schemer was something that can't translate to modern storytelling. That said, All Star Superman is certainly an example of how the Silver Age tropes can translate to modern storytelling. I think the main thing is just not to make Superman mopey and ineffective, but someone able to meet big challenges with a sense of hope and even a sense of humor.

As I acknowledged before on the previous page of this thread, Byrne's influences included some Silver Age Superman comics (Ed Hamilton and Wayne Boring's heavyset business suited con-man Luthor, Bill Finger's Lana Lang, Lori Lemaris, Otto Binder's Lucy Lane, Bizarro, etc.).

[That person]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

Waid's characterization is closer to the Silver Age version of the character and the Smallville TV show version.

Perhaps, but there was some Golden Ageyness in there.

All entirely unneeded changes.

Yeah. The t-shirt and jeans thing I can kind of see the point behind if they want the moment where he gets his "official" costume to seem special. The rest is stupid, but it doesn't affect characterization in any way.

I much prefer the classic Clark and Lois working relationship of them at the same newspaper and having a competitive rivalry relationship on assignments together, competing to get the story first. Rather than Lois barely even remembering who Clark Kent is. It's not necessary to scrap some of the basics of the iconic Superman mythology.

They're not scrapping it. Think about X-Men: First Class (the movie). Xavier and Magneto obviously weren't friends in the old X-Men movies, but First Class showed them as having been friends, and that particular aspect didn't contradict the other films. If anything, it fleshed out their characters and made their dynamic much more interesting. If it bugs you that much, check out some of Perez's Superman. The writing isn't as good as Morrison's stuff, but the traditional relationships are largely intact.

Clark Kent was conceived as a clean cut, neat and tidy, well-mannered, upbeat guy. A slobbish grungy look is out of character, and strikes of jaded carelessness.

So what sort of look would you suggest for Clark that would like tidy without making him look jadedly careless or like a hipster douche.

The public trusted the Golden Age Superman as a hero.



The way Morrison's Superman acts, the people would indeed mistrust him.

Since Morrison is basing his characterization on the Golden Age Superman, it makes the level of public trust he received in the Golden Age (which, to be fair, was far from universal) a little unusual.

I have never said Byrne was the only one to take some influence from the Golden Age.

So would you acknowledge that Morrison and Waid (especially Morrison) have taken a good deal from it as well?

Byrne did not make Luthor a generic CEO. Byrne's Luthor is a genius, a brilliant inventor. His ability to exist above the law made things very difficult for Superman, it created tension, created a struggle and it brought some reality to Superman, some relevance, showing that the system is flawed and doesn't always work. Superman was originally a champion of the oppressed versus corruption of the law at the highest levels, I've always seen the rich corrupt LexCorp Lex Luthor hiding behind a mask of respectability as a return to that concept. The original Luthor was a red haired dictator - a ruler who assumes sole and absolute power, he wore business suits. Luthor in The Man of Steel was red haired and wore business suits and was certainly a ruler assuming sole and absolute power. He had scientists working for him and Jerry Siegel's Golden Age Luthor had a scientific lab assistant working for him. Luthor originally met Superman as an adult and hated Superman because he's powers were a threat. The Man of Steel was a return to that concept. The overweight business suited con-man Luthor by Ed Hamilton and Wayne Boring in the 1950s was also an obvious influence.

I always did feel pretty lukewarm about the Lex in Smallville stuff, so I don't fault Byrne for retconning that. And yeah, Byrne's Luthor could be somewhat interesting in his own right, but it just wasn't the same as the classic and contemporary Luthors.

Lois trusting Superman and loving Superman was a major plot point in the classic series.

And there's nothing going on in the DCnU that suggests that she's never going to trust and love him, but trust and love aren't immediate, especially not for somebody like Lois. Keep reading Action, and I guarantee you that a more-or-less classic Superman-Lois dynamic will develop. Should be interesting to read. I haven't read much of Perez's run, but things seem to have

Whomever is to blame for that, at least we agree that it is a stupid change.

Hopefully somebody will have the good sense to reverse it soon, but I can look past it for now.

It's taking a different direction with the backstory than previous comics have, but is there really any reason to think that either of those couldn't be true of the early careers of other Clarks and Supermans?



He's threatening the general public of Metropolis there. Jerry Siegel's Superman wasn't really angry. Generally he was upbeat, smiling, with a sly sense of humor, and toyed with criminals humorously.

Leading a corrupt mining executive into one of his own shoddy shafts, triggering a cave-in, and letting him pass-out in the water seems to go beyond mere toying. It sends a message. Something a long the lines of "Treat people right or expect a visit from me."

I loath the new costumes. The classic iconic costume did not need to be changed to pander to anyone who laughs at Superman's red trunks as underwear on the outside. Superman looks incomplete without his red trunks. Theses drastic reboots of Superman and Wonder Woman in particular has made it clear that Dan DiDio and Jim Lee think that Superman and Wonder Woman are extremely outdated characters and are in need of such drastic reboots.

It's not as good as the classic suit, but it's not awful, and I think I can adjust to it if I must. As familiar with Superman's history as you are, you're aware that Superman's suit has gone through many changes, some good and some bad, some pretty much permanent and some graciously short-lived. So with this aesthetic shift and those to come, be sure to ask yourself "Does Superman have a mullet?" If the answer is "No," then count your many blessings.

[Evil Twin]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

The Batman title outsold the Superman title in 1966 and 1967 during Batmania. That is simply stating a fact. You are trying to downplay Batman's success during Batmania by combining the sales of Superman related titles like the Lois Lane titles sales and the Jimmy Olsen titles sales as though they were the flag ship Superman title.

I don't even have to throw in Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen. Superman, Superboy, and Action alone significantly outsold Batman and Detective. Toss in two highly popular spinoffs and Adventure featuring Superboy and the LoSH and it's academic.

Your point, which you're cherrypicking data to try to make a case for Batman being bigger than Superman in the 1960s, isn't really true when you look at the data, including the fact that the Batman magazine wasn't even monthly during a good chunk of that period.

You want to argue that a good chunk of the foundation for Superman's success in the 1960s was laid down in the 1950s, that's fair. But, given readership turnover, it's obvious that the 1960s Superman team was doing something right as they sustained their success while Batman's sales declined and needed a significant revamp. And Batman needed a revamp again after sales crashed post-Batmania. There's plenty to like of Superman in the 1960s, from Shooter's LoSH, to "The Death of Superman" and other imaginary stories, to "Superman's Return to Krypton" among the highlights. The fact that Superman remained immensely popular for a decade after the George Reeves series ended has to be attributed to the fact that readers to the time responded to the actual comics. They liked Superman then.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by Evil Twin

Your point, which you're cherrypicking data to try to make a case for Batman being bigger than Superman in the 1960s

That is not my point, I stated my point perfectly clear in my last post.

You want to argue that a good chunk of the foundation for Superman's success in the 1960s was laid down in the 1950s, that's fair.

I said nothing of the sort.

They liked Superman then.

I haven't claimed they didn't. Superman sold comic books, Saturday morning cartoons, toys, party paper plates, and any other thing the ingenuity of the American manufactures could put on the market. Superman didn't sell because of a superior writing and artistic merit of his books. Superman sold because he was legendary, such a popular part of American culture. The Batmania of 1966 and 1967 boosted Batman popularity and success, but it was a short lived fad due to Batman's campy image popularized by Adam West and Burt Ward, as the camp fad went out of fashion.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by That person

Perhaps, but there was some Golden Ageyness in there.

Yes, a little with the bullet catch trick.

Yeah. The t-shirt and jeans thing I can kind of see the point behind if they want the moment where he gets his "official" costume to seem special. The rest is stupid, but it doesn't affect characterization in any way.

The Bruce Springsteen t-shirt and jeans look as Superman's costume is equally ridiculous as the body armor look. Superman's characterization certainly has been affected by the reboot.

They're not scrapping it. Think about X-Men: First Class (the movie). Xavier and Magneto obviously weren't friends in the old X-Men movies, but First Class showed them as having been friends, and that particular aspect didn't contradict the other films. If anything, it fleshed out their characters and made their dynamic much more interesting. If it bugs you that much, check out some of Perez's Superman. The writing isn't as good as Morrison's stuff, but the traditional relationships are largely intact.

In Perez's run isn't really more traditional. Lois Lane was a TV news anchorwoman and is now the Vice President of New Media for the Planet Global Network. Lois thinks Metropolis is a target for mayhem because of Superman. Lois had a boyfriend named Jonathan. Jimmy Olsen is a news partner with a girl named Miko.

So what sort of look would you suggest for Clark that would like tidy without making him look jadedly careless or like a hipster douche.

I suggest Clark have combed hair, have his shirt tucked into his pants, wear a tie, a suit jacket, and smile. This is as casual as Clark ought to get while working:

So would you acknowledge that Morrison and Waid (especially Morrison) have taken a good deal from it as well?

Waid took the bullet catch trick from the Golden Age, Morrison has certainly taken some aspects from the Golden Age.

And there's nothing going on in the DCnU that suggests that she's never going to trust and love him, but trust and love aren't immediate, especially not for somebody like Lois. Keep reading Action, and I guarantee you that a more-or-less classic Superman-Lois dynamic will develop. Should be interesting to read. I haven't read much of Perez's run, but things seem to have

The Action Comics title written by Morrison takes place in the past, telling the rebooted history, the Superman title written by Perez takes place currently. And in the Superman title Lois thinks of Superman as a menace to Metropolis.

Hopefully somebody will have the good sense to reverse it soon, but I can look past it for now.

I can't look past it. Writing and art are equally important to me.

Leading a corrupt mining executive into one of his own shoddy shafts, triggering a cave-in, and letting him pass-out in the water seems to go beyond mere toying. It sends a message. Something a long the lines of "Treat people right or expect a visit from me."

The mining situation was done to Thornton Blakely, the callous owner of the Blakely Coal Mine in Blakelytown, an obdurate, unscrupulous man who readily tolerates the deplorable safety conditions that prevail in his mine rather than spend the money it would take to fix them. "There's no safety-hazards in my mine, proclaimed Blakely. "But if there were-what of it? I'm a business man, not a humanitarian!" In Action Comics #3 (1938) "The Blakely Mine Disaster" by Jerry Siegel, after racing to the Blakely Coal Mine to rescue a miner trapped by a cave in, Superman, disguised as a miner, teaches Thornton Blakely, and his spoiled, affluent friends, a well-deserved lesson by deliberately trapping them inside the Blakely Coal Mine with a man-made cave-in and then clearing them a path to safety only after they have all collapsed from exhaustion after futilely attempting to dig their way to freedom. "Henceforth, my mine will be the safest in the country, and my workers the best treated," announced Blakely, after emerging from his coal mine. "My experience in the mine brought the problems closer to my attention."
While Morrison's Superman just acts like a total douchebag, threatening all Metropolis citizens to "Treat people 'right' or expect a visit from me."

It's not as good as the classic suit, but it's not awful, and I think I can adjust to it if I must. As familiar with Superman's history as you are, you're aware that Superman's suit has gone through many changes, some good and some bad, some pretty much permanent and some graciously short-lived. So with this aesthetic shift and those to come, be sure to ask yourself "Does Superman have a mullet?" If the answer is "No," then count your many blessings.

The current looks are awful and ridiculous to me, and the mullet, the electric blue Superman, were also awful and ridiculous to me.

[Czar Colossus]

I agree..... but we knew both of those were not going to last.......hopefully this won't either.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

Byrne wasn't saying he made a mistake by removing Superboy as if he suddenly realized that Superboy was such a great character and he screwed up. He was say that the Powers That Were at DC double-crossed him by reneged on their promise. After he discovered that DC wouldn't let him do stories of Superman learning the ropes, he wished he had Superboy as a substitute for the learning the ropes stories that he wanted to tell with the adult Superman during his run.

Then he should have said he wished he got to tell those stories with an adult Superman, but instead he said he wished he had Superboy...probably because he realizes that mistakes are more forgivable when made by kids. He said he wished he had Superboy, so I think it's safe to assume he meant he wished he had Superboy not a young Superman.

Superboy had already had been using his powers for good, so he didn't need the advice.

Irrelevant, and you clearly didn't read the scene. And as I said before, parents do that with their kids all the time.

Miller made Selina Kyle a dominatrix. How is a dominatrix extremely misogynistic? He didn't make her a whore, a weak victim or a butch lesbian. Women under Miller usually are strong female characters. Assassin Elektra, Head Security Officer Casey McKenna, SHIELD agent Chastity McBryde, Police Commissioner Ellen Yindel, Carrie Kelley Robin, Martha Washington, Assassin Miho, Dominatrix Gail are all strong female characters created by Frank Miller. Carrie Kelley outwitted the mutants and saved Batman's life twice in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, and lead the Batboys, rescued the Atom and the Flash in Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again. That's a strong female. Frank Miller depicted Catwoman as a Dominatrix and Wonder Woman as an aggressive feminist and Black Canary as a strong independent character. Frank Miller's young upbeat walking, running and jumping Batgirl was much more liberated than the grim permanently paralyzed Barbara Gordon by everyone else at DC at the time.

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/01/...ues_with_w.php

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011...ank-miller-row

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/49/sincity.php

I ain't the only one who sees sick Frank's hatred of women, gays and minorities.

Other than that one 5 page story, we know that Don Cameron wrote all of the preceding 7 page Superboy stories in More Fun Comics and many in Adventure Comics.
http://www.comics.org/issue/4226/
http://www.comics.org/issue/4356/
http://www.comics.org/issue/4444/
http://www.comics.org/issue/4542/
http://www.comics.org/issue/4653/
http://www.comics.org/issue/5023/
http://www.comics.org/issue/5082/
http://www.comics.org/issue/5148/
http://www.comics.org/issue/5219/
http://www.comics.org/issue/5281/
Etc, etc.

Still, the point is that Siegel wanted Superboy there from the start and much of the tone of his early Superman stories is of a similar cocky, trickster nature like he wanted his Superboy to be.

Batman did outsell Superman in the '60s from 1966 to 1967.

The one title did. Detective Comics never outsold Superman's solo title.

I believe Superman sold more in the '50s. Batman never outsold Superman in the '50s.

Nothing to do with the Bronze Age and Modern Age writers Byrne, Maggin, Miller or Morrison. Obviously I have a love for comics history. The Silver Age includes the '50s as well. The Silver Age of comics began in 1954, by the way, not in the '60s. I don't see how I am undermining the Silver Age but stating that I believe that Superman sold more in the '50s.

I am quite aware of when the Silver Age started, thank you very much. Basically it comes off to me that you are trying to underestimate the success and importance of the 60's Superman comics since much of what is associated with Superman came from that period. Obviously, the continuing success of the Superman comics line after the George Reeves show ended compared to the collapse of Batman sales after Batmania crashed shows that the team on Superman at the time was selling their books based more of the quality of the comics and not the fame of the TV show-and the Superman show was never as big as the Batman show was for it's first season anyway-it was syndicated, not on a network, etc. Not that it wasn't really good for it's time, because it was.

Originally Posted by Evil Twin

I don't even have to throw in Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen. Superman, Superboy, and Action alone significantly outsold Batman and Detective. Toss in two highly popular spinoffs and Adventure featuring Superboy and the LoSH and it's academic.

Your point, which you're cherrypicking data to try to make a case for Batman being bigger than Superman in the 1960s, isn't really true when you look at the data, including the fact that the Batman magazine wasn't even monthly during a good chunk of that period.

You want to argue that a good chunk of the foundation for Superman's success in the 1960s was laid down in the 1950s, that's fair. But, given readership turnover, it's obvious that the 1960s Superman team was doing something right as they sustained their success while Batman's sales declined and needed a significant revamp. And Batman needed a revamp again after sales crashed post-Batmania. There's plenty to like of Superman in the 1960s, from Shooter's LoSH, to "The Death of Superman" and other imaginary stories, to "Superman's Return to Krypton" among the highlights. The fact that Superman remained immensely popular for a decade after the George Reeves series ended has to be attributed to the fact that readers to the time responded to the actual comics. They liked Superman then.

Agree 100%. And Grant Morrison has been showing for years on both Superman and Batman just how good reconstructionist comics are, and how much better his approach is than the deconstructionist approach that was popular in the 80's. Waid's Birthright is important not only because it is a great series, but because it helped pave the way for Morrison to do All-Star Superman and his current Action Comics run.

One thing I do agree with theMan-Bat on is I don't like the new costumes-but I put up with Byrne's Superman in the classic costume, so I can easily deal with a Superman who is closer to what I like even if the costume is wrong.

As for the current Wonder Woman series, that is an entirely different can of worms and WW has had problems for decades, IMO.

[TruerToTheCore]

"I think I remember Byrne telling me once that he had watched the first Superman movie over 1,100 times." - Jim Shooter

I think it's obvious. Byrne wasn't really working from the comics - the Superman comics he's read as a child were mostly World's Finest - he was using S:TM and the George Reeves television series as the basis for his Superman and threw in the other stuff as window-dressing.

I also remember a John Byrne quote (which I cannot find at the moment) were he said that he did base his Superman on the version people were familiar with, not the Golden Age version.

As for the Alfred Pennyworth thing - that wasn't even from Frank Miller originally but from a Super Friends episode called "The Fear", so I wonder if he took it from there or just came up with it on his own and didn't know it better - I think the idea that Alfred is Bruce's surrogate father is kinda cute, but of course it doesn't really make sense that such a rich kid is raised by the butler, I think that he was raised by his uncle, Philipp Wayne made more sense, especially especially considering the path Bruce took later.

I don't know what I prefer, although the "one liner" Alfred which came from Miller got really annoying. I prefer the loyal servant.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

"I think I remember Byrne telling me once that he had watched the first Superman movie over 1,100 times." - Jim Shooter

I think it's obvious. Byrne wasn't really working from the comics - the Superman comics he's read as a child were mostly World's Finest - he was using S:TM and the George Reeves television series as the basis for his Superman and threw in the other stuff as window-dressing.

I also remember a John Byrne quote (which I cannot find at the moment) were he said that he did base his Superman on the version people were familiar with, not the Golden Age version.

Except for his rejection of Clark Kent, his Superman is very much the Donner movie version-the Krypton is as close as they could make it and would have been the same if they could have, Superman himself was very naive and overly Boy Scout-the "Big Blue Boy Scout" was never a part of the classic Superman. Basically his Superman is an exaggeration of the Reeve Superman and his Clark Kent is a watered down version of George Reeves Clark.

As for the Alfred Pennyworth thing - that wasn't even from Frank Miller originally but from a Super Friends episode called "The Fear", so I wonder if he took it from there or just came up with it on his own and didn't know it better - I think the idea that Alfred is Bruce's surrogate father is kinda cute, but of course it doesn't really make sense that such a rich kid is raised by the butler, I think that he was raised by his uncle, Philipp Wayne made more sense, especially especially considering the path Bruce took later.

I'm sure Miller came up with it on his own, I just can't picture a miserable individual like Frank Miller watching SuperFriends. I sort of like it just because it has helped lead to the Batman Family of today, with Alfred as the Grandfather, Bruce the patriarch, Dick the #1 son, Tim the family whiz kid, Jason the black sheep and Damien the family *******. But I didn't mind his uncle Phillip being his legal guardian and Mrs. Chilton looking after him either.

I don't know what I prefer, although the "one liner" Alfred which came from Miller got really annoying. I prefer the loyal servant.

It was funny for about 5 seconds.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Then he should have said he wished he got to tell those stories with an adult Superman, but instead he said he wished he had Superboy...probably because he realizes that mistakes are more forgivable when made by kids. He said he wished he had Superboy, so I think it's safe to assume he meant he wished he had Superboy not a young Superman.

Again, John Byrne said that he wanted to do stories of Superman "learning the ropes." A Superman who is "new to the job." Byrne said, "The choice to leave him out of the canon was mine. But, as noted many times, that choice was made with the assurance from the Powers That Were that I would be able to do a Superman who was still learning the ropes. Then, after the contracts were signed, they reneged on that promise."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...422&PN=0&TPN=1
"There's hardly a job out there that I would not tweak in some way if I could. As you may know, I dumped Superboy from the Superman mythos largely because I did not see him as a necessary character, and DC had agreed to allow me to show Superman "learning the ropes" after the reboot. Unfortunately, once the contracts were signed, the backed down on this and insisted we do MAN OF STEEL so that Superman would be "up to speed" by the time the new first issue came out. (Eventually I would realize that they wanted Superman rebooted without him actually being, you know, rebooted. Odd, indeed, since I had said from the start I was prefectly prepared to work from within continuity, and the reboot was their idea.) So, since I did not have a Superman who was still "figuring it out", I wish I had had Superboy to fill that role."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/lis...k+Projects#143

Irrelevant, and you clearly didn't read the scene. And as I said before, parents do that with their kids all the time.

Clark had no need for that deathbed advice that he must use his great powers for the good of mankind, since he'd already been doing that as Superboy.

I ain't the only one who sees sick Frank's hatred of women, gays and minorities.

I do not mindlessly conform to what some people assume about Frank Miller. I've already pointed out strong female characters in Frank Miller's material. Frank Miller contributed to a comic book called A.A.R.G.H.! (Artists Against Rampant Government Homophobia), in which Frank Miller did a story called "RoboHomophobe!" about a gay-bashing man transformed into a quadriplegic after a car accident, and the homophobe ends up being a homosexual himself. Martha Washington is a hero in Frank Miller's material who is both an African American and a woman.

Still, the point is that Siegel wanted Superboy there from the start and much of the tone of his early Superman stories is of a similar cocky, trickster nature like he wanted his Superboy to be.

Jerry Siegel was obviously not happy with DC's use of Superboy without his input or approval. We know that Jerry Siegel wanted Superboy to be a trickster character, we don't know what exactly Siegel would have written, since he didn't get to write those Superboy stories, Don Cameron did, without the input or approval of Jerry Siegel.

The one title did. Detective Comics never outsold Superman's solo title.

I didn't claim the Detective title outsold the Superman title in the '60s.

I am quite aware of when the Silver Age started, thank you very much. Basically it comes off to me that you are trying to underestimate the success and importance of the 60's Superman comics since much of what is associated with Superman came from that period.

As I've explained, your assumption is inaccurate. I believe that Superman was more successful in the '50s, which was also the Silver Age. Much of what is associated with Superman came from the '30s, '40s and '50s.

Obviously, the continuing success of the Superman comics line after the George Reeves show ended compared to the collapse of Batman sales after Batmania crashed shows that the team on Superman at the time was selling their books based more of the quality of the comics and not the fame of the TV show-and the Superman show was never as big as the Batman show was for it's first season anyway-it was syndicated, not on a network, etc. Not that it wasn't really good for it's time, because it was.

The Adventures of Superman show starring George Reeves continued to be aired in syndication throughout the '60s. And The New Adventures of Superman was aired on Saturday mornings from 1966 to 1969.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

"I think I remember Byrne telling me once that he had watched the first Superman movie over 1,100 times." - Jim Shooter

John Byrne said in Comics Interview #57 (1980):




Seeing Superman: The Movie 39 times is much more believable than 1,100 times.

I think it's obvious. Byrne wasn't really working from the comics - the Superman comics he's read as a child were mostly World's Finest

John Byrne said in Comics Interview #57 (1980):

I also remember a John Byrne quote (which I cannot find at the moment) were he said that he did base his Superman on the version people were familiar with, not the Golden Age version.

He did base his Superman reboot on the most popular versions people were familiar with, including the Adventures of Superman starring George Reeves and Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie, and he also based his Superman on the Golden Age Siegel version and included characters from the Silver Age and Bronze Age as well.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

As for the Alfred Pennyworth thing - that wasn't even from Frank Miller originally but from a Super Friends episode called "The Fear", so I wonder if he took it from there or just came up with it on his own and didn't know it better - I think the idea that Alfred is Bruce's surrogate father is kinda cute, but of course it doesn't really make sense that such a rich kid is raised by the butler, I think that he was raised by his uncle, Philipp Wayne made more sense, especially especially considering the path Bruce took later.

I don't know what I prefer, although the "one liner" Alfred which came from Miller got really annoying. I prefer the loyal servant.

That Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians episode "The Fear" was written by Alan Burnett and aired on October 2nd, 1985. Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns was released on February 1986, and had been written and illustrated already by mid 1985, as Comics Journal #101, August 1985, confirms with an interview with Frank Miller that was conducted in June 1985, and showed panels with dialogue from the forthcoming mini-series.



It was in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns were Frank Miller first showed Alfred recalling taking care of Bruce during Bruce's childhood.


Alfred was more than just the family butler, he also was essentially Bruce's nanny. It's possible that the person who was the closest to a parental figure the orphaned child had left, and who the orphaned child was most comfortable with and closest to, could become the guardian of that orphan child. I prefer Alfred as the loyal butler, medic and father figure, with the dry, British humor.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

Again, John Byrne said that he wanted to do stories of Superman "learning the ropes." A Superman who is "new to the job." Byrne said, "The choice to leave him out of the canon was mine. But, as noted many times, that choice was made with the assurance from the Powers That Were that I would be able to do a Superman who was still learning the ropes. Then, after the contracts were signed, they reneged on that promise."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...422&PN=0&TPN=1
"There's hardly a job out there that I would not tweak in some way if I could. As you may know, I dumped Superboy from the Superman mythos largely because I did not see him as a necessary character, and DC had agreed to allow me to show Superman "learning the ropes" after the reboot. Unfortunately, once the contracts were signed, the backed down on this and insisted we do MAN OF STEEL so that Superman would be "up to speed" by the time the new first issue came out. (Eventually I would realize that they wanted Superman rebooted without him actually being, you know, rebooted. Odd, indeed, since I had said from the start I was prefectly prepared to work from within continuity, and the reboot was their idea.) So, since I did not have a Superman who was still "figuring it out", I wish I had had Superboy to fill that role."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/lis...k+Projects#143

The sad thing is one way or another, he wanted to show Superman being incompetent. Not that Superboy didn't make mistakes-he did-but the main thing seems to be that Byrne was wanting to deconstruct Superman by having him "learn the ropes", not unlike how Miller did with Batman, I suppose. That is something that can be done well, but also needs to be handled with caution. Regardless, it is there in his own words: "I wish I had had Superboy to fill that role."

Clark had no need for that deathbed advice that he must use his great powers for the good of mankind, since he'd already been doing that as Superboy.

Well, you don't get it, I suppose.

I do not mindlessly conform to what some people assume about Frank Miller.

Unless it's praise.

I've already pointed out strong female characters in Frank Miller's material. Frank Miller contributed to a comic book called A.A.R.G.H.! (Artists Against Rampant Government Homophobia), in which Frank Miller did a story called "RoboHomophobe!" about a gay-bashing man transformed into a quadriplegic after a car accident, and the homophobe ends up being a homosexual himself. Martha Washington is a hero in Frank Miller's material who is both an African American and a woman.

Yay FM.

Jerry Siegel was obviously not happy with DC's use of Superboy without his input or approval. We know that Jerry Siegel wanted Superboy to be a trickster character, we don't know what exactly Siegel would have written, since he didn't get to write those Superboy stories, Don Cameron did, without the input or approval of Jerry Siegel.

No, although he did write Superboy later on in the 60's.

I didn't claim the Detective title outsold the Superman title in the '60s.

It came off like you were claiming that Batman (as a franchise) outsold Superman (as a franchise) in the 60's and you were called out by me and several other people for that.

As I've explained, your assumption is inaccurate. I believe that Superman was more successful in the '50s, which was also the Silver Age. Much of what is associated with Superman came from the '30s, '40s and '50s.

The top selling comics of the 50's were Dell's Walt Disney comics. And while much of what is associated with Superman came from the 30's-50's, of course, the most fruitful and iconic period of his existence is the 1959-1970 Weisinger period, especially the early 60's when Jerry Siegel came back and wrote his best stories ever. My personal favorite Superman eras are the Golden and Bronze Ages, but there is no question that the Silver Age Superman is the most iconic.

The Adventures of Superman show starring George Reeves continued to be aired in syndication throughout the '60s. And The New Adventures of Superman was aired on Saturday mornings from 1966 to 1969.

Yes, but they were never as big as the Batman TV show briefly was. I feel those shows did well because of the popularity and quality of the Superman comics of the time, not the other way around, as was the case with Batmania. Not that the Schwartz/Fox/Finger/Infantino/Giella etc Batman of that time wasn't really good, because quite a bit of it was, and a big improvement over the Jack Schiff edited Batman of the late 50's-early 60's. Although I think those comics get kind of a bum rap.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

That Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians episode "The Fear" was written by Alan Burnett and aired on October 2nd, 1985. Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns was released on February 1986, and had been written and illustrated already by mid 1985, as Comics Journal #101, August 1985, confirms with an interview with Frank Miller that was conducted in June 1985, and showed panels with dialogue from the forthcoming mini-series.

And the episode was probably written way before that. So this doesn't really prove or disprove anything.

But I don't think he got it from there, Frank Miller just didn't have a clue and didn't bother to do some research, the same happened in "Year One".