You make it sound like the original writers of these characters built the perfect car and 70 years from then, nobody should change, upgrade, or refine it because the original guys did it best even if it was 70 years ago. You want to apply 21st century aerodynamics and a modern engine with double the power? You stray from the core, the car will be slower.
It doesnt work like that. Just because those guys came up with those characters it doesnt mean that their version is the best, or that the heroes will fail if they are written in another fashion.
"Superman fails today because he isnt like he was back in the 1930ies"
No. The truth is that Superman doesnt sell so well because they arent writing good stories about him and they re always retelling the ones we've already read. While Superman gets another origin book, or Supergil's arrival, or Brainiac's invasion, Batman moves forward with new adventures, new villains, new Robins, Dick succeeding him, etc.
You want to be purist? Fine, its your choice, but dont defend your purism by saying "Batman is successful because he is true to his core".
- Because he isnt. You say modern Clark isnt true to his core? Dick is nothing like Bruce, and yet he is now Batman and "Batman & Robin" is the best selling DC book right now.
- Because the general audience/reader doesnt care about his core, it cares if the story it reads is any good.
- Because the guys in the 30ies who came up with Batman/Superman/WW cant have known what would work in our time. If you were to come up with a superhero wouldnt he be tailored to appease the audience of 2010? You cant predict how society will work in 2100 and thus your character could work, or might need updates to go with the times. Just because you came up with a successful superhero in 2010 it doesnt mean that people in 2100 will be amazed by him.
Do you HONESTLY think Dick Grayson is Batman for now and forever? Bruce will be back and he will be Batman. Don't be daft.
If they have arrogance, it isn`t an UTOPIA. An utopia is a perfect place with no flaws or anything bad on it. Anyways, that`s a dumb reason for a planet to explode.
.....Amazing. It was their arrogance from the fact that they had made this perfect (or so they thought) world that led to them NOT LISTENING to Jor-El. You should be familiar with the idea of not listening to someone who knows what they're talking about.
I`ve talked about this enough in the Byrne thread. All I have to say is, this is still mantained in the post 86 era but it is a little bit different.
It is a little bit, mostly because it's so iconic and works so well that they can't completely get rid of it.
Awesome! You wanna make him like every character in the comics who becomes a superhero because of some personal tragedy. The GREAT thing about Superman, IMO, is the fact that he becomes Superman out of his own choice. Because it is the right thing to do.
Superman didn't become Superman because of a personal tragedy. That's NEVER been the motivation and I have NEVER said it was. What I HAVE said if you would ever LISTEN is that Superman (Pre-Crisis) was a character that experienced real suffering and real pathos...like people actually do. No white picket fence perfect life like the Post-Crisis version.
WTF! And Superman doesn`t act like this nowadays? How would you define saving the world and everything Superman does every day of his life? Have you ever read ANY story EVER in your life? For example, In the 90`s, there`s 2 great stories that come to my mind. Superman saving a little orphan boy (Keith) who prays for him at night. He even saves his cat from a tree. Or the story which talks about weapons, in which a little girl is shot and Clark doesn`t even change to Superman and fly her to the hospital because there`s no time?
Go read some goddamn comics instead of talking BS. Fighting for the opressed and having strong social conscience is WHAT Superman stands for. He just isn`t political about it.
90% of what they've done is Marvelized slugfests of the month and you know it. Why don't YOU read some Pre-Crisis comics and learn something about what Superman was for the first 50 years of his existence...when he mattered and when he was not Batman's *****. GOD you are thick-headed.
Great Superman quality right there!
More proof that you don't understand Superman at all.
LMAO. A lonely hero is like Singer`s movie. Nobody goddman cares for him. This is what Clark stands for. To be like us, relatable.
Lonely? How would you define Perry white, Jimmy olsen, Lois Lane, etc etc etc?
THIS JUST SHOWS HOW WELL YOU KNOW SUPERMAN. CONGRATULATIONS!
How can I start? First of all, if you KNEW anything about Pre-Crisis (you clearly don't) then you knew his friends were very very dear to him, but because of who he was, they always had to be kept at a distance. It was the mission first. It had to be that way for him, and he couldn't live with himself if it wasn't. There were things in life he wanted but couldn't have due to his circumstances. You know who else goes through this? Only EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD. And that is part of what made Superman relatable. It's not a coincidence that since they have made Superman pathos free yet kept Batman to his roots that Batman has crushed him in popularity and relevance. I just don't see how you guys can't see it. It's good that Geoff Johns can though, and that they are dumping most of Byrne's failed and horribly outdated revisions.
That's very cliched, and totally misses the point of who Superman is.
Bruce Wayne's parents died, that's why he dresses as a bat and fights crime. Cause - Reaction.
Wolverine has missing memory, an inherent rage, anger at the world. He was experimented on. That's why he behaves the way he does. Cause - reaction again.
Spiderman's beloved Uncle Ben gets murdered, Spiderman gets angry and fights crime. Again, lots of pain and cause-reaction.
In fact, name me any other Superhero and there's gonna to be some kind of history or backstory which involves pain or angst on their part.
The whole thing about superheroes needing some kind of 'pain' or suffering as a cause for their choices is so played out. I mean, even the comedic Hancock had Will Smith facing alcoholism and memory loss.
The beauty of Superman is that he doesn't need a reason. He does good things, simply because he can. That's why he inspires hope in people and that's why he appeals to everyone. And that really is the beauty of the character, and possibly why he's still the most iconic and arguably most popular of all the superhero characters ever created. Despite his massive powers and alien heritage, he grows up on this planet and chooses to help humanity for no reason other than it's the right thing to do. It would be incredibly easy for him to use his powers to get anything he wants, but he never yields to this temptation - if he is even tempted.
Yes, he lost his homeworld - but that's never been his motivation for doing good. That backstory is only there keep him relatively unique and provide a reason for his being on Earth.
You don't have to watch your parents get murdered, you don't have to have a drug or alcohol problem, you don't have to have lost the love of your life. Everyone - even those people with seemingly great lives - has the capacity to do good, and that's what the Superman story sells.
Once again, you fail to understand the point and therefore, you fail to understand what made Superman work for 50 years and fail for the last 20+ years. Superman does what he does completely because he values life and decency, which were morals he learned from Ma and Pa Kent. Their passing was not his motivation; nor was Krypton's destruction. What those events were were losses and suffering, and suffering is one of the few constants of the human condition. Being a hero means to rise above loss, to deal with an accept it, and to try to help others in need. Helping people is what Superman is all about.
I guess people who grew up with Byrne's version can't understand what Pre-Crisis was all about and they just spout the same talking points that DC taught them to do back then. It's a shame that they don't get it. Luckily Superman is in better hands at DC now. I'm in the Waid, Morrison, Loeb, Johns camp concerning Superman, not the Byrne camp. You know, guys who actually can write and have sold a comic or two in the last 10 years. Byrne is in my mind nothing but a washed-up hack and I'm glad he's not around much any more. He wasn't even ever THAT good an artist-totally dependent on the finisher, really.
