• We experienced a brief downtime due to a Xenforo server configuration update. This was an attempt to limit bot traffic. They have rolled back and the site is now operating normally. Apologies for the inconvinience.

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

TheSumOfGod

Avenger
Joined
Nov 24, 2003
Messages
10,931
Reaction score
0
Points
31
I usually read Marvel comics exclusively, because no matter how much I love the character of Superman, the writers have never gotten him right, and the comics have always sucked, IMO.

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

1) Is it a re-start?

2) The "Ultimate" version of Superman?

3) IN continuity?

4) OUT of continuity?

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

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

Which is probably the best way to tell Superman stories. Cool. :cool: :supes:
 
And the "All Star" version of Superman seems to be PRE-Crisis in simplicity and power level. Am I right in assuming this?
 
AllStarSupermanCv3.sized.jpg


:)
 
Yeah the stories have a strong silver-age feel to them.
 
TheSumOfGod have you ever read Greg Ruckas Superman?
 
TheSumOfGod said:
1) Is it a re-start?

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

TheSumOfGod said:
2) The "Ultimate" version of Superman?

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

TheSumOfGod said:
3) IN continuity?

No.

TheSumOfGod said:
4) OUT of continuity?

Yes.

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

Basically.
 
The Question said:
No. It's got a large backstory to it.

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

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

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

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


What's wrong with the Byrne stuff?
 
The Question said:
I'm probaboy going to hate myself for asking this, but......


What's wrong with the Byrne stuff?

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

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

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

Lex Luthor, greedy businessman who really loved his hair. Among many other things... :rolleyes:
 
TheSumOfGod said:
"I'm not Superman, first and foremost I'm Clark Kent."

And what's wrong with that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Byrne changed that, and made Superman just another superhero.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like him being a businessman, but just read Mark Waid's "Superman: Birthright" (issue 8 in particular), and you'll see that he's infinitely superior as a scary genius.
 
TheSumOfGod said:
Bill explained it perfectly in his little Superman speech at the end of Kill Bill Volume 2: What makes the Superman mythos so different from all of the other superhero mythologies is that he was Superman FIRST, he was BORN Superman, and Clark Kent was his disguise, even his superhero suit was made from the sheets that he was found in, while all of the other superheroes eventually BECAME superheroes, but were ordinary human beings at the beginning.

Byrne changed that, and made Superman just another superhero.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he wasn't a scary genius in and after Man of Steel? He was always portrayed as highly inteligent, and often showed very in depth knowlege of electronics and engineering.
 
No. I'm not. Although I do have some socialist veiws. Though I tend to consider myself more of a libertarian. Hey look, a monkey....
 
The Question said:
No. I'm not. Although I do have some socialist veiws. Though I tend to consider myself more of a libertarian. Hey look, a monkey....

Superman hates commies. And socialists. And libertarians. And anyone who didn't vote for Bush. :o
 
He only hates them because everyone who didn't vote for Bush in the DCU voted for Lex Luthor.
 
The biggest problem with Byrne's Superman is it deviates too radically from Siegel and Shuster's intentions. The Post-Crisis Batman is still pretty close to what Kane and Finger created, but the Post-Crisis Superman has basically taken everything that Siegel and Shuster established and turned it completely around. Even with all it's chages, Silver Age Superman still stuck to the basic standards that S & S sat: that Superman is Superman first; that Clark Kent is a disguise and an act; and that Krypton itself represented the pinnacle of human accomplishment and it's loss was therefore a tragedy. Byrne got rid of all of that, and that's why the Post-Crisis Superman in my opinion is just another Superman-derived character like Supreme or the Sentry or Hyperion. He just happens to have the name and the costume.

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

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

Byrne's Krypton was just hideous to look at, and I hated his costume designs. In fact, besides Alpha Flight and Count Nefaria's costume, I'm hard pressed to think of any Byrne costumes I like. The Hellfire Club I suppose.
 
You didn't like it because you didn't like his designs? That seems a bit much. Anyway, way I see it, Byrne's Krytpon was as close to a perfect society as what seems possible. And really, over seven billion people died. That's something to be mourned, weather you'd like to live there or not.
 
Kurosawa said:
The biggest problem with Byrne's Superman is it deviates too radically from Siegel and Shuster's intentions. The Post-Crisis Batman is still pretty close to what Kane and Finger created, but the Post-Crisis Superman has basically taken everything that Siegel and Shuster established and turned it completely around. Even with all it's chages, Silver Age Superman still stuck to the basic standards that S & S sat: that Superman is Superman first; that Clark Kent is a disguise and an act; and that Krypton itself represented the pinnacle of human accomplishment and it's loss was therefore a tragedy. Byrne got rid of all of that, and that's why the Post-Crisis Superman in my opinion is just another Superman-derived character like Supreme or the Sentry or Hyperion. He just happens to have the name and the costume.

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

I agree 1001%. Let's have a drink sometimes... ;)
 
The Question said:
The thing is, Krypton was the pinnacle of human acomplishments. It was, for all intents and purposes, a perfect society. It was also very cold and arrogant. But really, that's the only way you could get such a utopia. The only way you can have a truely peacefull society is to have the emotions take a back seat to logic. That is the nature of people.

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"