Comics Am I the only one who still loves John Byrne's Superman?

[BH/HHH]

Byrnes take on Superman was the first one I read as a child. Its always going to be my favourite,

 

[Young Superman]

Byrnes take on Superman was the first one I read as a child. Its always going to be my favourite,

Same goes with me.

 

[Czar Colossus]

It was the jumping on point for me. I picked up Superman occasionally before that, but I have been reading him non stop since then. I loved the Byrne and Ordway stuff and still do!

 

[BH/HHH]

Same goes with me.

Good man, I've noticed we agree alot

I just noticed your sig is from MOS, I'd love to hear that in the Superman movie.

 

[Young Superman]

Me Too.

 

[Ceb-Man]

You know I grew up in the Bronze Age/ Superfriends era where Superman was all powerful and there so many Kryptonians like Zod, Kandor, etc. That was fun for me as a child, but when I was in my early teens and picked Superman: The Man of Steel, there where many elements I liked a lot and still do.

1. The Sole Survivor of the Planet Krypton. One of the appeals to me is that he was the last survivor of his race. he was unique.

2. Not an powerful. The Pre-Crisis Silver Age/ Bromze age Superman was os powerful that he moved Planets. You really wonder why you needed other heroes. I liked that he struggled to move things and even had to use a space suit to go into Space. there were limitations and to his powers.

3. Krypton as a cold society.

4. Lex Luthor: I grew up with Luthor as mad scientist, but I really think Lex became a more appealing character as the ruthless buisnessman.

5. Clark as more competent reporter. Clark wasn't clumsy, etc. I know Byrne got this from the George Reeves version which I liked.

6. Ma Kent alive. I liked that Martha Kent was still alive and some one that Clark could go home to.

7. Clark didn't know he was from Krypton till later,

What I didn't like.

1. Clark as the football player. I didn't like it that Clark was a footballplayer in high school. I can see Clark as growing to be that great reporter, but not a football player.

2. Pa Kent. I have often felt that the passing of Pa Kent was a turning point in Clark's life. i remember listening on tthe Read and Play records the man from Krypton which was based off Kind of like Superman the movie, because there was no Superboy mentioned which was unusual at the time when Superboy was a part of DC canon, where Jonathan Kent gives a farewell speech on his death bed to Clark and I thought that was great. It is not anything big because pa Kent alive did bring some good stories. That was just something from the original version that i liked, although in Pre-Crisis Ma and Pa both died,

3. Lana Lang: I didn't mind that Lana was Clark's first girlfriend and knew all of his powers, but I thought her character never developed enough and didn't seem like a strong character. she just followed Clark all the time.


But you know when I read that Christopher Nolan is godfathering the Superman movies and saw also that he is following the John Byrne Superman. I was thinking you know I could actually see Nolan following the Byrne version as he is not all powerful, etc.

 

[Young Superman]

Well said Ceb-Man I agree with you 100%

 

[Ceb-Man]

Thanks Young Superman. You know with all the Multiverse, I would like to see the Post- Crisis heroes in their own world. Like John Byrne's Superman, Batman, Hawkworld, a Mike Grell version of Green Arrow etc. in their own universe with updated stories.

 

[Young Superman]

That'd be cool.

 

[The ?ion]

The de-powered Byrne's Superman is the Man of Steel (lame pun intended) that I grew up with. Of course, anyone over the age of eighteen will have grown up with Byrne's take on Superman (as it was not retconned fully until ~2003). I like the idea of a struggling Superman. Powerful enough to be the most powerful hero, but not so powerful that nothing can stop him.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

The only thing is is that Byrne dislikes comic book movies. He has said so in interviews, claiming that every comic book movie he has seen has only had some good parts or good aspects but for the most part the movies as a whole are bad. He seems really bitter.

This is interesting considering that they are using his version of Supes for the new film. I wonder how he'll feel about the finished product and I wonder if he'll be angry if they screw it up!

Thoughts?

 

[The ?ion]

Comic book movies generally are terrible. The number of good films to bad films is very slim. Think back on the number of films that have cropped up in the past. Fantastic Four, X-Men 3, Daredevil, Elektra, Spawn, Batman & Robin, Punisher Warzone, Hulk, Ghostrider, The Spirit etc. They just aren't all that good. Some may be watchable, but are they good? Not really.

I mean, I love superhero/comic book films, but I own very few of them. It is a difficult task to translate the stories into a different medium. Some things work in comic books that just don't work in live action, including plot pacing and aesthetics. But I don't agree that comic films should be disdained. If anything, comic films are fantastic simply because they bring to life these characters that normally occupy a page rather than a screen. It builds upon the fantasy that is associated with the characters.

 

[Cain]

The de-powered Byrne's Superman is the Man of Steel (lame pun intended) that I grew up with. Of course, anyone over the age of eighteen will have grown up with Byrne's take on Superman (as it was not retconned fully until ~2003). I like the idea of a struggling Superman. Powerful enough to be the most powerful hero, but not so powerful that nothing can stop him.

Ummm no actually it was 2006 and it wasn't even a full blown retcon at all more like elements of MoS & post-crisis Supes were integrated with elements of the pre-crisis era basically making ALL of Superman's published history canonical in one way or another.

Johns did with Supes the same thing Morrison did with Batman is all. So now the cold kryptonians from the Byrne era were the scientists of Krypton, Lex was both a businessman and a scientist, Cat Grant and Ron Troupe were always around since Clark first went to Metropolis, Superman still died at the hands of Doomsday and etc.

So none of the Superman stories my generation grew up reading (I'm 26) have been retconned in the sense that they are no longer valid just that the events will be reinterpreted to fit in with everything else that came during the silver and bronze ages but they still exist in the canon.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Comic book movies generally are terrible. The number of good films to bad films is very slim. Think back on the number of films that have cropped up in the past. Fantastic Four, X-Men 3, Daredevil, Elektra, Spawn, Batman Batman & Robin, Punisher Warzone, Hulk, Ghostrider, The Spirit etc. They just aren't all that good. Some may be watchable, but are they good? Not really.

I mean, I love superhero/comic book films, but I own very few of them. It is a difficult task to translate the stories into a different medium. Some things work in comic books that just don't work in live action, including plot pacing and aesthetics. But I don't agree that comic films should be disdained. If anything, comic films are fantastic simply because they bring to life these characters that normally occupy a page rather than a screen. It builds upon the fantasy that is associated with the characters.

Yeah I know what you mean & I agree... I just think Byrne (like many other comic writers - Alan Moore included) feels as if filmmakers are unfairly treading all over their work, as if they don't have a right to. I mean for fans like us THESE FILMS ARE GREAT, but I can see them getting angry or upset if they get a fact wrong or change elements to a story that they wrote/created.

Where I disagree is: a lot of the films you listed were enjoyable. Some not but others were.

Good films: Fantastic Four, X-Men 3, Daredevil, , Batman, Ghostrider.

Bad films: Elektra, Spawn, Batman & Robin, Hulk, Punisher Warzone, The Spirit.

 

[Cain]

Good films: Fantastic Four, X-Men 3, Daredevil, , Batman, Ghostrider.

I personally feel the ball was completely dropped with 90% of those movies (especially DD and GR) and that none of them are even close to being in the same ballpark as BATMAN (which is indeed quite good) at all.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

I can see your point... What I fail to understand is how great some characters can be (The Spirit, Punisher, DD, Ghost Rider etc) and when you translate them the movie is complete ****. Is anyone at Marvel, DC etc. paying attention?

Truth be told, while many films can be entertaining, only a few are EXCEPTIONAL... Superman, Batman, Spiderman 2.

The Dark Knight is overrated. (I'm sure I'm not the only one who was on these boards every single day for 2 and 1/2 years waiting with great anticipation and then was disappointed in the movie theater.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

double post!

 

[The ?ion]

Ummm no actually it was 2006 and it wasn't even a full blown retcon at all more like elements of MoS & post-crisis Supes were integrated with elements of the pre-crisis era basically making ALL of Superman's published history canonical in one way or another.

Johns did with Supes the same thing Morrison did with Batman is all. So now the cold kryptonians from the Byrne era were the scientists of Krypton, Lex was both a businessman and a scientist, Cat Grant and Ron Troupe were always around since Clark first went to Metropolis, Superman still died at the hands of Doomsday and etc.

So none of the Superman stories my generation grew up reading (I'm 26) have been retconned in the sense that they are no longer valid just that the events will be reinterpreted to fit in with everything else that came during the silver and bronze ages but they still exist in the canon.

Not true. Birthright fully replaced The Man of Steel as the canonical Superman origin story, up until Infinite Crisis. So on that note, Birthright did come out around 2003. Infinite Crisis came out in around 2005/2006, so I can see why you think that Supes origin was not retconned until then. Even now, Superman's origin is being retconned by Secret Origins. The core aspects of Superman are largely the same, but there are lots of subtle things that have changed and will continue to change, such as whether or not Lex Luthor lived in Smallville in his youth.

 

[The ?ion]

I can see your point... What I fail to understand is how great some characters can be (The Spirit, Punisher, DD, Ghost Rider etc) and when you translate them the movie is complete ****. Is anyone at Marvel, DC etc. paying attention?

Truth be told, while many films can be entertaining, only a few are EXCEPTIONAL... Superman, Batman, Spiderman 2

I wanted to clarify. I did not mean to place Batman on the list of bad. I had originally typed "Batman Forever, Batman & Robin," but reconsidered snubbing Batman Forever. I only edited out Forever rather than editing out the whole title. Batman 1989 is not that accurate, but it was still a really well done film. So much so, that The Dark Knight borrows many elements from it.

Anyways, I felt that Fantastic Four was far too campy. X-Men 3 ruined the trilogy with a lot of poor plot choices. Ghost Rider was just awful. Blackheart was underdeveloped and poorly delivered (I hoped for his comic book incarnation). On top of that, it was also too campy. Honestly, I feel that Ghost Rider would operate better as a hard R film, but even in the PG-13 category, they could have taken a few pages from Hellboy's book. Daredevil is the only one I can give leeway to, and that is only because the director's cut makes the film far more cohesive. But even then, is that the kind of legacy people want to look back on? I guess we have to agree to disagree on that matter.

Lastly, nobody ever sets out to make a movie and says, "you know what, we got this multi-million dollar budget and a popular franchise. Lets screw it all up and make a piece of crap movie!" People start out with the best of intentions. But as my mother says, "good intentions pave the road to hell." Also, there seems to be a disconnect between the mediums. Film makers have one particular lens/perspective that they use to define story telling. Comic writers have a completely divergent lens/perspective. So even though both mediums and creators are working to tell a story, the means by which they tell a story are so radically different. Comic books allow you to do all kinds of things with exposition and flashbacks that just can't be accomplished in a film that seeks to be cohesive. A film also has to compress a lot of facts into a two hour time span. We can pick up a comic and we know the huge backstory. The General Audience has no clue or a poor conception about what the facts are. It is an immense task.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Well said... I often have wondered why certain stories cannot be completely adapted to film (with subtle changes to make the movie more accessible to a mainstream audience.)

ExampleS: Instead of Daredevil (2003) why not Daredevil Born Again or a condensed version of Miller's first run.

Instead of Spiderman 3 why not the Venom saga (origin of Venom)... it worked pretty well in the Spiderman Animated Series.

Like you said it is an immense task. Maybe that's why we get "WATERED DOWN" versions of our beloved characters

 

[Cain]

Not true. Birthright fully replaced The Man of Steel as the canonical Superman origin story, up until Infinite Crisis. So on that note, Birthright did come out around 2003. Infinite Crisis came out in around 2005/2006, so I can see why you think that Supes origin was not retconned until then. Even now, Superman's origin is being retconned by Secret Origins. The core aspects of Superman are largely the same, but there are lots of subtle things that have changed and will continue to change, such as whether or not Lex Luthor lived in Smallville in his youth.

No my friend the bold is what isn't true, they were BOTH the origin story for a while so said DC editorial themselves circa 2003. However Birthright was always approached as an "Ultimate" esque Superman retelling than something that was meant to affect the canon even though some of it was eventually made canonical it was in concert with MoS not in spite of it.

I know it seems confusing but Eddie Berganza said this back then and so did Mike Carlin I'm sure you could even look into it and find evidence on the internet if you want. They never fully replaced MoS because many people in the fanbase had major issues with Birthright and even in light of IC were real major shakeups to the entire DCU and not just their major heroes were made a lot of Birthright was outright ignored where as a lot of post-crisis Supes and MoS elements were not and even still remain in the current Secret Origin.

 

[The ?ion]

Nope nope nope and a huge spoonful of more nope.

"Ponder this no longer, as Waid himself admits that "Superman: Birthright" is the new official origin of Superman and a "calculated" reboot. "If by 'calculated' we mean 'thought out in great detail to the Nth degree by creators who love the character,' then yes. Accept no substitutes-'Birthright' is officially the DC Comics Origin of Superman. I wish we could have simply said that up front nine months ago when the series began, but overall plans for Superman in 2003 were still somewhat in flux, so DC decided to be a little more circumspect about it and instead surprise fans with the building falllout to 'Birthright' as it pops up in the regular ongoing Superman monthlies. Readers seem very surprised, in a very good way. 'Birthright' is very much the foundation of everything DC's planning for Superman in the future. It was our job to pave the way, it is essential Superman reading, and it's an honor to present it."

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=3256

Birthright was the canon. You can't have two origin stories and say that they are both correct. Man of Steel and Birthright tell radically different portrayals of Superman's origin, including how Clark revealed himself to the world. It may upset you some how as a Superman fan, but the reality is Man of Steel hasn't been canon for seven years now, nor will it be canon. Even now, Secret Origin replaces Infinite Crisis, which replaced Birthright, which replaced Man of Steel.

 

[The ?ion]

Like you said it is an immense task. Maybe that's why we get "WATERED DOWN" versions of our beloved characters

Indeed. That is perhaps the heart of the matter. Superhero films try to capture the core aspects of the hero being portrayed, but the problem there, is what do you represent and how do you represent it? That nuance turns any good superhero project, into a disaster on wheels.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Indeed. That is perhaps the heart of the matter. Superhero films try to capture the core aspects of the hero being portrayed, but the problem there, is what do you represent and how do you represent it? That nuance turns any good superhero project, into a disaster on wheels.

Yes, CORE ASPECTS... I'll use the 1989 Batman film as an example... everyone claims that it was categorically inspired by THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, yet the tone and narrative of the film captured the Denny O'neil/Neil Adams/Steve Englehardt Batman (70's Batman) much better.

In all the Comic Films ever made they take the basic premise (character, supporting characters, backstory etc.) and turn it into a story that they think will be relatable to the masses... It often isn't & it even alienates fans... It's like you'll here someone say: Oh I'm a huge Superman fan but Superman 3 and 4 were terrible, or I love the Hulk but his movies are kind of bad!


That's why I don't understand all the fanboys creaming their pants about NOLAN taking on Supes. Sure he did good on Batman but what does Nolan know about Supes? Is Goyer going to collaborate with him and turn Supes into a guy who cannot fly because IT'S NOT REALISTIC?

I don't know... I want a film that excites me as much as reading a trade paperback!

 

[The ?ion]

Yes, CORE ASPECTS... I'll use the 1989 Batman film as an example... everyone claims that it was categorically inspired by THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, yet the tone and narrative of the film captured the Denny O'neil/Neil Adams/Steve Englehardt Batman (70's Batman) much better.

In all the Comic Films ever made they take the basic premise (character, supporting characters, backstory etc.) and turn it into a story that they think will be relatable to the masses... It often isn't & it even alienates fans... It's like you'll here someone say: Oh I'm a huge Superman fan but Superman 3 and 4 were terrible, or I love the Hulk but his movies are kind of bad!


That's why I don't understand all the fanboys creaming their pants about NOLAN taking on Supes. Sure he did good on Batman but what does Nolan know about Supes? Is Goyer going to collaborate with him and turn Supes into a guy who cannot fly because IT'S NOT REALISTIC?

I don't know... I want a film that excites me as much as reading a trade paperback!

To my knowledge, Burton was inspired by The Killing Joke, not by The Dark Knight Returns. At least thematically speaking. Anyways, Nolan is known to not be a fan of comic book movies or comic books in general. However, he did deliver two Batman films that clearly have reverence for stories such as The Long Halloween, Arkham Asylum and The Killing Joke.

I have no doubt that he will take the same approach to a Superman film. Also, he isn't writing or directing or even directly producing. He is more or less the mentor. He might as well be the consultant. He is the guy who will be able to tell Goyer and co, how to develop Superman for the screen, and tell a compelling story, even if it isn't all based on the source material.