Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

[TruerToTheCore]

LOL. Really? What about Action Comics #1 in which Lois calls Clark an unbearable COWARD?

He wasn't the bravest (like most people), but that's about it.

Mild-mannered, Bumbling fool, disguise, coward, all the same BS. Clark is a mere disguise. Maybe Reeve overacted but the essentials are the same. Superman pretending to be human and acting. Clark was definitely NOT REAL in pre-crisis.

I disagree. In the Silver and Bronze Age there has always been something about Clark that even Superman couldn't deny. But you would know if you actually bothered to read the stories.

I hate it, no matter what you guys say and NOTHING is going to change my mind about it. It is a one-dimensional perspective on Superman and thats why MARVEL has been whooping Superman's ass on sales ever since Spider-man was invented. Same with Batman. NOBODY cares about an unrelatable god. This version of Superman just plain sucks and is dated. Characters evolve through time and thank god Superman isn`t the same as when he was created.

Again, the man with no knowledge uses big and loud words. Spider-Man (and Marvel) didn't even nearly sell as much as DC (especially Superman) in the 60s and early 70s. And Batman's "Detective Comics" was close to being canceled after the Adam West show hype was over (although the sales back then would be an outstanding success for 2010) and that lasted until the end of the 70s. The only thing that saved the title was that the producing stuff could convince the business staff that the book had some historical and cultural importance.


Sage, Lois could NEVER have a public romantic relationship with Superman. Its just not safe and that's why it makes sense for her to fall in love with Clark and then they both hide the secret, just like what happened in L&C which is the best interpretation EVER of their relationship, IMO.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Batman]

Interesting enough, apparently Marvel really only started beating Superman in sales once the alteration to the Superman/Clark Kent persona was made, almost as if to say, Superman is more fascinating when his unique duality is intact.

That...and a lot of authors just don't know how to write him.

Sage....post crisis fanboys dont like to admit that post crisis is when superman lost his popularity. You make a great point, but hes just gonna ignore it.

The sad thing is, SuperDaniel claims that he just loves the character, but he clearly only loves one version of it. Saying you want a middle ground, and then turning around and saying "It should be like that post crisis story for all seasons, not like the more balanced All Star or Secret Origins" is not middle ground at all.

 

[Kurosawa]

There's nothing wrong with deconstruction. You deconstruct a character or genre so you can understand their strengths and weaknesses and then go on to do them better.

I feel the deconstructionist movement in superhero comics has marginalized them to the point where they are basically nothing but ads and pitches for movies. Comics have certainly moved from being a mainstream product to being a niche product with an ever shrinking fanbase. No responsible parent would allow their children to read modern superhero comics series like Siege or Infinite Crisis. Even Alan Moore admits that he made mistakes by leading such a movement. He meant for people to try new things as he did, not ape Watchmen with every other series for the next 25 years.

I still do think it's a bad idea to reference Tarantino, simply because it hurts your credibility. The scene isn't supposed to say anything about Superman, it was supposed to say something about Bill. Namely that he's a cynical *******.

Maybe so, but I'll just throw these quotes out there once again:

For Superman, it’s mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent that’s the disguise – the thing he aspires to, the thing he can never be. He really is that hero, and he’ll never be one of us. But we love him for trying. We love him for wanting to protect us from everything, including his own transcendence. He plays the bumbling, lovelorn Kent so that we regular folks can feel, just for a moment, super.

The particular brilliance of Superman lay not only in the fact that he was the first of the super-heroes, but in the concept of his alter ego. What made Superman different from the legion of imitators to follow was not that when he took off his clothes he could beat up everybody—they all did that. What made Superman extraordinary was his point of origin: Clark Kent.

Remember, Kent was not Superman's true identity as Bruce Wayne was the Batman's or (on radio) Lamont Cranston the Shadow's. Just the opposite. Clark Kent was the fiction.

Superman had only to wake up in the morning to be Superman. In his case, Clark Kent was the put-on. The fellow with the eyeglasses and the acne and the walk girls laughed at wasn't real, didn't exist, was a sacrificial disguise, an act of discreet martyrdom. Had they but known!

Clark Kent is Superman's demon—I said that specifically in the second book. I've always thought of him that way. Superman is the real person and Clark is the construct. Clark is a brilliant character and the creation of Superman. My take on Clark is a lot like what Chris Reeve said Clark was when he did the first movie: "Either Superman is a consummate actor or Lois Lane is an idiot. I don't want Lois to be an idiot, so Superman must be a good actor."
Everybody has a demon, everybody has a hobby, a habit that is part of his character and he can't break. Superman's is Clark. Mine is writing, Bill Clinton's is the saxophone, Jimmy Carter had to teach Sunday School, even when he was president. Luthor's demon is Superman. Superman needs Clark the way most of us need dreams.

I think the idea that Clark is the real character and Superman is a device is completely wrong-headed—because at some point, Clark has to die... and probably Superman won't, at least not permanently. I did a prose story for Martin Greenberg, for one of the anthologies he's putting together, that explores the triangle among Clark, Lois and Superman, over the course of about 150 years. Lois lives to be about 125 in my continuity and Luthor lives another 50. Superman tells the story hundreds of years in the future, as a great grey eminence flying through space, looking for a world to live in. It's the Superman/Lois love story... and Clark is an addendum to it. I think that's the way it is. Clark is there to make Superman accessible. Not the other way around.

Clark Kent grew not only out of my private life, but also out of Joe Shuster's. As a high school student, I thought that someday I might become a reporter, and I had crushes on several attractive girls who either didn't know I existed or didn't care I existed. So it occured to me: What if I was really terrific? What if I had something special going for me, like jumping over buildings or throwing cars around or something like that?

One night, when all the thoughts were coming to me, the concept came to me that Superman could have a dual identity, and that in one of his identities he could be meek and mild, as I was, and wear glasses, the way I do. The heroine, who I figured would be some kind of girl reporter, would think he was some kind of worm; yet she would be crazy about this Superman character who could do all sorts of fabulous things. In fact, she was real wild about him, and a big inside joke was that the fellow she was crazy about was also the fellow whom she loathed.

And what has this guy to do with the pre-crisis Clark Kent?

You will never learn.

Ever noticed that the post-crisis fans always talk down the pre-crisis Superman and hate on the concept itself, while pre-crisis fans usually just point out what they feel is wrong with the Byrne version and why it doesn't fit Superman? Byrne's take is certainly not a bad character and offered some good stories, but he is just nothing special. He is one of many superheroes.

I've always seen his character as a Colossus/Spider-Man hybrid. Certainly his massive size, extreme naivete and farm boy background was cribbed completely from Colossus. And a lot of the scenes with Ma and Pa Kent felt like they wondered in from Spider-Man.

Pre-Crisis Clark Kent is MILD MANNERED. The bumbling fool appeared only in Christopher Reeve's incarnation, and was adapted in All Star Superman.

The only people who don't seem to know this are the ones who argue against Pre-Crisis Superman...

Yeah, it's a case of ignorance in many cases, but also DC themselves pushed this canard in order to justify what they were doing. I remember this scene from a really great "Private Life of Clark Kent" story:

The last panel really says it all about Clark to me.

You know, Kurosawa, I must say, discussing this with you has made me look deeper at Superman's character and identity than I have in the past, for which I must thank you. And I do agree, there is a certain uniqueness to Superman in that regard, although I view it a little differently than you do. The way I see it, yes, Spider-Man is pretty much just a more talkative Peter Parker wearing a mask. But with Superman... Clark needs to be Clark, to have a life like that and be invested in the world he was raised in and the human identity he was raised in, in order to be happy. So that's who he really is. Clark needs to be Superman, to fulfill his responsibilities and use his abilities to their fullest extend, showing off every part of him that would otherwise be hidden to the world and have a chance to reach beyond the limits of a normal human being. So Superman is who he really is. These are not contradictory statements about the character, these are the same truth about him. He's a complicated man. And I like that a lot.

It really is a very complex thing. I feel that Clark is in many ways Superman's softer side. I also like how Maggin describes Jonathan Kent himself as being mild-mannered, and that Clark takes after his father in many ways. Jonathan is said to be a man who seems very reserved but when need be he could step in and calmly, confidently make things work.

Interesting enough, apparently Marvel really only started beating Superman in sales once the alteration to the Superman/Clark Kent persona was made, almost as if to say, Superman is more fascinating when his unique duality is intact.

That...and a lot of authors just don't know how to write him.

Yeah, all through the 60's and well into the 70's the Superman line was way ahead in sales. If not they would have tinkered with things more like they did with Batman. It was only in the early 80's when years of Marvel's propaganda finally convinced DC that they didn't need to be themselves anymore.

What about in Action Comics #1 where Superman can't fly?

Golden Age Superman isn't the same thing as Pre-Crisis Superman.

You're assuming a lot if you think Clark Kent, as he appears at the DAILY PLANET, is Superman pretending to be a human like the interpretation offered in Kill Bill.


It's only one dimensional to you because you don't understand it. That's okay, not everyone gets Superman. 'Unrelatable god', that's the mantra of those who just don't get it. Go read Spider-Man instead. Or post-crisis Superman, who was made to be more like Spider-Man.

I don't see how making the Clark/Superman identity just like every other superhero ever makes the character more interesting.

Yeah, it really is a shame. They took a one of a kind and made him just another face in the crowd.

He wasn't the bravest (like most people), but that's about it.


I disagree. In the Silver and Bronze Age there has always been something about Clark that even Superman couldn't deny. But you would know if you actually bothered to read the stories.


Again, the man with no knowledge uses big and loud words. Spider-Man (and Marvel) didn't even nearly sell as much as DC (especially Superman) in the 60s and early 70s. And Batman's "Detective Comics" was close to being canceled after the Adam West show hype was over (although the sales back then would be an outstanding success for 2010) and that lasted until the end of the 70s. The only thing that saved the title was that the producing stuff could convince the business staff that the book had some historical and cultural importance.


Sage, Lois could NEVER have a public romantic relationship with Superman. Its just not safe and that's why it makes sense for her to fall in love with Clark and then they both hide the secret, just like what happened in L&C which is the best interpretation EVER of their relationship, IMO.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, and Jerry Siegel himself had planned for her to learn the secret very early on. I have my issues with L&C but the relationship itself was played out well once she knew the secret. And she was the best Lois ever, although Erica Durance on Smallville is terrific too.

Sage....post crisis fanboys dont like to admit that post crisis is when superman lost his popularity. You make a great point, but hes just gonna ignore it.

The sad thing is, SuperDaniel claims that he just loves the character, but he clearly only loves one version of it. Saying you want a middle ground, and then turning around and saying "It should be like that post crisis story for all seasons, not like the more balanced All Star or Secret Origins" is not middle ground at all.

I really feel bad for people who never knew the real thing. It was awesome growing up in a time when Superman was recognized as 100% the MAN and there was no debate except a debate of who might be #2. Supes was the Beatles and they turned him into Styx. I just don't get it, mostly because whenever I get interested in anything I try to learn all I can about it, not just limit myself to a very small sample.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Thats funny you quote Jerry Siegel because he is saying that BOTH are real, LIKE WHAT I`VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. lol JUST READ THE GODDAMN QUOTE!!

Dual identity. He`s both. Mild-mannered, real, humble. Like we all are, normal human beings. That is a perfect description. And then he uses his powers for good to help mankind as Superman. That how he was portrayed in Lois & Clark and post-crisis, imo. People just should bother to read instead of criticizing.

HOWEVER,

That is quite different from Chris Reeve's and Maggin's definition in which they say Superman is the greatest actor ever. Its BS to me.

 

[The Question]

I feel the deconstructionist movement in superhero comics has marginalized them to the point where they are basically nothing but ads and pitches for movies. Comics have certainly moved from being a mainstream product to being a niche product with an ever shrinking fanbase. No responsible parent would allow their children to read modern superhero comics series like Siege or Infinite Crisis. Even Alan Moore admits that he made mistakes by leading such a movement. He meant for people to try new things as he did, not ape Watchmen with every other series for the next 25 years.

I think deconstruction of super hero comics and the recent push for media adaptations really aren't related at all. The super hero movie trend was started simply because they decided to adapt X-Men and Spider-Man and both proved to be insanely successful, so all the movie studios tried to get in on it. Then when things started to peter off, Iron Man and Nolan's Batman showed up and breathed new life into the genre for films.

I also disagree about comics moving from the mainstream. The exact opposite has happened. Comic books are more mainstream than they're ever been. For the longest time, comic books were thought of as simply for dumb kids. And then, after that, for dumb kids and childish nerdy adults. It's pretty recent that liking comics as a mature and well rounded adult isn't considered that weird, and that comics actually come up in serious discussions of literature.

As for the idea that no responsible parent would allow their kids to read Seige or Infinite Crisis... that's a pretty big blanket statement. Wether or not a kid should read that stuff is entirely dependent on the level of maturity that kid is at. I do agree, however, that mainstream comics do make it harder to appeal to a wider audience than they used to.

As for deconstruction itself... I think it's a beautiful thing. When used responsibly. Of course, the idea of deconstructing super heroes resulted in copy and past watered down rip offs of Watchmen and DKR. But that happens in any medium when something is critically acclaimed and a big seller, you really can't fight it. Doesn't mean deconstruction is invalid. Watchmen paved the way for comics like Planetary, Kingdom Come, Astro City, and Invincible. The point of deconstructing a genre is to understand it inside and out, become comfortable with and fiddle around with it's strengths and weaknesses, so you can build it back up better than it was before. A few bad seeds shouldn't have to ruin things for everyone.

I've always seen his character as a Colossus/Spider-Man hybrid. Certainly his massive size, extreme naivete and farm boy background was cribbed completely from Colossus. And a lot of the scenes with Ma and Pa Kent felt like they wondered in from Spider-Man.

I don't see it, really. I honestly don't think Superman being naive is as big a problem as you make it out to be. Maybe I've just been reading the better Superman stories from the past 25 years, but I very rarely have seen him portrayed as anything other than an intelligent, resourceful man who enjoys a quiet, simple personal life. As for Spider-Man... the dynamic between Clark and his parents is completely different from the dynamic between Peter and Aunt May. The only real similarity is "talking to at least one of the people who raised him." And that's not new, or unique to either character.

It really is a very complex thing. I feel that Clark is in many ways Superman's softer side. I also like how Maggin describes Jonathan Kent himself as being mild-mannered, and that Clark takes after his father in many ways. Jonathan is said to be a man who seems very reserved but when need be he could step in and calmly, confidently make things work.

The more we talk about it, the more I feel that, at least in terms of Superman's personality, we more or less agree, we just articulate it differently.

 

[Kurosawa]

Thats funny you quote Jerry Siegel because he is saying that BOTH are real, LIKE WHAT I`VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. lol JUST READ THE GODDAMN QUOTE!!

Dual identity. He`s both. Mild-mannered, real, humble. Like we all are, normal human beings. That is a perfect description. And then he uses his powers for good to help mankind as Superman. That how he was portrayed in Lois & Clark and post-crisis, imo. People just should bother to read instead of criticizing.

HOWEVER,

That is quite different from Chris Reeve's and Maggin's definition in which they say Superman is the greatest actor ever. Its BS to me.

Did you read the quote at all? Did you not see that he clearly says that the irony of the relationship was that Lois would loathe Clark for his timidity and cowardice while at the same time she would love Superman for his power? If that is not an example of a successful act then I don't what is! It's too bad your devotion to Byrne blinds you to the intentions of his creator. And as I have reiterated to you many, many times, I DID read Post-Crisis Superman comics, I bought and read them the day they came out. If Superman had been written in a manner consistent with his portrayal for the first 50 years of his existence then I wouldn't have had an issue with them. I loved the Earth-One Batman and the Post-Crisis Year: One reboot retconned all that out, but they still kept Batman true to his core concepts, and so I was able to accept it for what it was. It was a different take and a new continuity but it was still Batman. Superman, on the other hand, was fundamentally changed and I feel it hurt the character and the sales and relevance evidence supports my view.

I think deconstruction of super hero comics and the recent push for media adaptations really aren't related at all. The super hero movie trend was started simply because they decided to adapt X-Men and Spider-Man and both proved to be insanely successful, so all the movie studios tried to get in on it. Then when things started to peter off, Iron Man and Nolan's Batman showed up and breathed new life into the genre for films.

Movies are a copycat business and superhero comics have been adapted into films, serials, cartoons and TV shows ever since the beginning. But the recent trend does seem to start with those two, although I guess you could argue it traces back to the 89 Batman.

I also disagree about comics moving from the mainstream. The exact opposite has happened. Comic books are more mainstream than they're ever been. For the longest time, comic books were thought of as simply for dumb kids. And then, after that, for dumb kids and childish nerdy adults. It's pretty recent that liking comics as a mature and well rounded adult isn't considered that weird, and that comics actually come up in serious discussions of literature.

It would seem that way but comic books themselves as a product are very marginalized. Part of this is due to the general decline of print media but even before that comics had moved out of mainstream stores and were only available in comic book stores and in the graphic novel departments of bookstores. You can't just go anywhere and buy the new issue of Superman and before the mid-80's you could. So I would say comics have a higher profile but a much less distribution. The top selling books today sell at numbers that would have ensured cancellation in the early 80's. That to me is a diminished market.

As for the idea that no responsible parent would allow their kids to read Seige or Infinite Crisis... that's a pretty big blanket statement. Wether or not a kid should read that stuff is entirely dependent on the level of maturity that kid is at. I do agree, however, that mainstream comics do make it harder to appeal to a wider audience than they used to.

Those series and many other feature graphic violence that, while being very juvenile, is not fit for children and is not fit for anything really. It's fine for exploitation movies.

As for deconstruction itself... I think it's a beautiful thing. When used responsibly. Of course, the idea of deconstructing super heroes resulted in copy and past watered down rip offs of Watchmen and DKR. But that happens in any medium when something is critically acclaimed and a big seller, you really can't fight it. Doesn't mean deconstruction is invalid. Watchmen paved the way for comics like Planetary, Kingdom Come, Astro City, and Invincible. The point of deconstructing a genre is to understand it inside and out, become comfortable with and fiddle around with it's strengths and weaknesses, so you can build it back up better than it was before. A few bad seeds shouldn't have to ruin things for everyone.

Those series you mentioned were all more of reactions to deconstruction than examples of it. I suppose it may serve a purpose of reminding people of what they are missing and not to take it for granted. But I could never look at the idea of taking a genre apart as a good thing, more like it could be a good thing if done correctly and if the result is to put it back together better.

I don't see it, really. I honestly don't think Superman being naive is as big a problem as you make it out to be. Maybe I've just been reading the better Superman stories from the past 25 years, but I very rarely have seen him portrayed as anything other than an intelligent, resourceful man who enjoys a quiet, simple personal life. As for Spider-Man... the dynamic between Clark and his parents is completely different from the dynamic between Peter and Aunt May. The only real similarity is "talking to at least one of the people who raised him." And that's not new, or unique to either character.

Well, there is always good and bad stories and I've enjoyed some Post-Crisis stories. The current era is Post-Post Crisis and is really a different time and a different hybrid Superman. Unfortunately the Superman stories of the current JMS run is as bad an example of how weak and ineffective the character can be. Or his total ineptitude during Infinite Crisis. Byrne shippers, for example, mention a few things they like but conveniently forget stuff like:

*The Big Barda porno story.
*The Kents telling Lois that Superman and Clark were raised as identical twin brothers, because Superman was non-humanoid and imitated the appearance of the first person he saw, which was supposedly Clark.
*Superman killing the PZ villains.

But the steady decline of Superman sales figures that traces back to the mid-80's, not just in numbers but in rank shows that the Byrne experiment did not work out. They need to take the bits of it that were beneficial-LexCorp (which was actually a Maggin creation but fleshed out by Byrne and Wolfman), some of the more interesting fight scenes (JB was good with those) and some stuff that came later like a good bit of the Doomsday storyline and characters like the Eradicator and Cyborg Superman. They could have done an in-continuity reboot with Dan Jurgens and it would have been awesome and not split the fanbase. That was their biggest mistake-the reboot was so in-your-face that it caused the schism. You never see bitter disputes and personal sniping like that between me and Superdaniel with Batman fans. That's because even though DC changed just as many details with Batman as they did with Superman, they kept the core.

The more we talk about it, the more I feel that, at least in terms of Superman's personality, we more or less agree, we just articulate it differently.

Pretty much.

 

[Binker]

And here I thought my post would end the discussion to a degree. Was I off-topic?

...umm, what was the question?..

 

[SuperDaniel]

Did you read the quote at all? Did you not see that he clearly says that the irony of the relationship was that Lois would loathe Clark for his timidity and cowardice while at the same time she would love Superman for his power?

Well, did YOU read the quote? He especially said that he got his characteristics from HIMSELF, being mild and timid. I don`t see a problem at all in this and nothing suggests that is all an act and that Clark SHOULD BE AN ACT. More like, this is who i am but inside i`m more than this shell created by society and relationships which was the purpose of it all.

The writers who came after him just never understood the point and like to simplify a very psychollogical character with many layers like Superman that can mean so much to a lot of people.

Still, Lois who would fall in love with Superman for his powers is basicaLLY a **** and i hate it. So even him didn`t think it right, i must say. What should attract Lois is the fact he is the best humankind can offer as being a gentle, honest and humble man. And because of this shell and the fact she doesn`t know him really, or even the fact Clark is always cautious about getting close to anyone due to his abilities, she doesn`t love him. But as she gets to know him, the line between Clark and Superman disappears. This was portrayed PERFECTLY in Lois & Clark.

I think with all your degrees in literature, people never taught you that there might be different interpretations to the same phrase, that people doesn`t share the same point of view and it doesn`t mean either is right or wrong. They are just different.

And Maggin, the only think i like about his quote is that Clark should be like Jonathan Kent. But a big NO to the total ACT thing!

Really, to me what makes Superman unique is that his story is a love story, a psychological one, a tribute to America, to Earth, to every myth and god, to science fiction, to hope ALL in the same character. All these qualities together and more i forgot to mention.

Really, pre or post-crisis, Superman will always be unique in my mind, no matter how you view Clark or not.


ps: I for one hate these stories you mentioned and forgot them really AS They should be forgotten. Im thinking that are bad stories in every era. Lets not even mention silver age and the super hypnosis power.

The era I like is the one when Byrne left the books and Jurgens and company took his place and improved over their foundation. Basically, the 90's. Tom Grummett was to me the best Superman artist EVER!

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Still, Lois who would fall in love with Superman for his powers is basicaLLY a **** and i hate it.

It's little comments like these that reinforces destructive social programming, so that many women aren't even comfortable discussing their own sexuality in any setting besides private.

 

[SuperDaniel]

WTF does that mean? I said a woman who cares only about what a person can do or has( be it money, good looks, powers) and not about the guys personality and who he really is is a ****, imo, and i`m not even american. I`m brazilian, a country that is known for being more open and warmer, and i still say this. What does it have to do with social programming or whatever thing you said that made no sense?

Lois who cares only about his powers is A **** and i hate it. So yeah, Siegel was wrong.

 

[Kurosawa]

Well, did YOU read the quote? He especially said that he got his characteristics from HIMSELF, being mild and timid. I don`t see a problem at all in this and nothing suggests that is all an act and that Clark SHOULD BE AN ACT. More like, this is who i am but inside i`m more than this shell created by society and relationships which was the purpose of it all.

That's one way to look at it. I myself am not quite as convinced as Maggin that it is an act and in fact Maggin contradicts himself about it at times, but the gist is that the Clark side of Superman is a necessary compulsion and takes on a life of his own.

The writers who came after him just never understood the point and like to simplify a very psychollogical character with many layers like Superman that can mean so much to a lot of people.

Oh, I've read the writers who came to the character after Siegel and they almost all understood exactly what he was doing. Don Cameron, Bill Finger, Edward Hamilton, Otto Binder-they all wrote the Superman/Clark duality in a very similar manner to Siegel. And Siegel himself came back in the 60's and wrote a series of insanely great stories, probably the best work of his career and maybe the best Superman stories of all time. That's why Superman sales were so high that when Mort would try to get DC to fire him, they would instead raise his pay and his status. Superman was a beast sales wise in the 50's and 60's, crushing all other series by wide margins.

Still, Lois who would fall in love with Superman for his powers is basicaLLY a **** and i hate it. So even him didn`t think it right, i must say. What should attract Lois is the fact he is the best humankind can offer as being a gentle, honest and humble man. And because of this shell and the fact she doesn`t know him really, or even the fact Clark is always cautious about getting close to anyone due to his abilities, she doesn`t love him. But as she gets to know him, the line between Clark and Superman disappears. This was portrayed PERFECTLY in Lois & Clark.

...... No, she's not....it's more she fell in lust with him over his powers and in love with him over what he did for the world. It's not like there isn't and shouldn't be a sexual attraction between them and a lot of the origins of Superman is involved in sexuality even though that isn't easily associated with him.

I think with all your degrees in literature, people never taught you that there might be different interpretations to the same phrase, that people doesn`t share the same point of view and it doesn`t mean either is right or wrong. They are just different.

I am very aware that people don't always share the same point of view, but if you are arguing a point, should you not try to prove why you think you are right? It's what you are currently doing and you are certainly entitled to do just that.

And Maggin, the only think i like about his quote is that Clark should be like Jonathan Kent. But a big NO to the total ACT thing!

You really should read some of Maggin's comics and his two Superman novels and then you can get the gist of his interpretation more than a few quotes I post ever could. And I think you would love the scenes of his interactions with the Kents, especially the scenes in Miracle Monday. Both books are dirt cheap on Amazon and they are well worth a read.

Really, to me what makes Superman unique is that his story is a love story, a psychological one, a tribute to America, to Earth, to every myth and god, to science fiction, to hope ALL in the same character. All these qualities together and more i forgot to mention.

Really, pre or post-crisis, Superman will always be unique in my mind, no matter how you view Clark or not.

Yeah, and it's the psychological aspect that makes him the most unique and fascinating character amongst superheroes. No one breaks down Batman's psyche like they do with Superman. It's just a shame that the schism amongst us Superman fans has divided us so greatly and the hybrid version they are working on now is an attempt to mend that..finally. And they need to...they cannot do anything with Superman and have it work if they are alienating half of the fans.

ps: I for one hate these stories you mentioned and forgot them really AS They should be forgotten. Im thinking that are bad stories in every era. Lets not even mention silver age and the super hypnosis power.

The era I like is the one when Byrne left the books and Jurgens and company took his place and improved over their foundation. Basically, the 90's. Tom Grummett was to me the best Superman artist EVER!

Yeah there are bad stories in every era, although I liked the general direction of the Bronze Age best-still it had some dumb stories. My favorite era was basically the Golden Age and 73-79 or so, and of course my favorite Superman artist will always be Curt Swan.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I guess we agree then. We just put it in different words. lol I actually read those stories at the old fortress.ws site or something. They are good.

I personally don`t like Lois to be attracted to his powers alone and that was my beef. I want her get attracted to what he represents as an ideal. Its what he does with it that makes him a hero, a Superman. Sexual tension is fine! I can`t imagine a couple without it....

 

[Superwoman Prime]

WTF does that mean? I said a woman who cares only about what a person can do or has( be it money, good looks, powers) and not about the guys personality and who he really is is a ****, imo, and i`m not even american. I`m brazilian, a country that is known for being more open and warmer, and i still say this. What does it have to do with social programming or whatever thing you said that made no sense?

Calling women ****s for being smitten with men that are powerful. Power and looks = stronger, healthier offspring.

 

[The Question]

DMovies are a copycat business and superhero comics have been adapted into films, serials, cartoons and TV shows ever since the beginning. But the recent trend does seem to start with those two, although I guess you could argue it traces back to the 89 Batman.

Again, I see no evidence that the two are related. The big movie trend is based entirely on the popularity of specific adaptations, most of which really didn't reflect the deconstruction of the superhero genre. Spider-Man certainly didn't.

It would seem that way but comic books themselves as a product are very marginalized. Part of this is due to the general decline of print media but even before that comics had moved out of mainstream stores and were only available in comic book stores and in the graphic novel departments of bookstores. You can't just go anywhere and buy the new issue of Superman and before the mid-80's you could. So I would say comics have a higher profile but a much less distribution. The top selling books today sell at numbers that would have ensured cancellation in the early 80's. That to me is a diminished market.

I think comic books selling primarily in comic book stores and sections of book stores has been incredibly good for the medium. Before the advent of the comic book store, it would be very difficult to find the works of people like R. Crumb or Art Speigleman, or indy or foreign publishers that had far less media coverage than those two. Now, most comic book stores have entire sections devoted to indy and foreign books, as well as mainstream titles, and make it much easier to find old issues and collections of series. You really couldn't have a massive selection of titles, or long boxes full of back issues, or a row of thick hardcovers, at a news stand or drug store. While they may not be sold everywhere, comic books are much more well known and understood, and the more obscure corners of the medium are much more accessible, than ever before.

Those series and many other feature graphic violence that, while being very juvenile, is not fit for children and is not fit for anything really. It's fine for exploitation movies.

Again, I disagree. It depends on the tastes and maturity level or the reader.

Those series you mentioned were all more of reactions to deconstruction than examples of it. I suppose it may serve a purpose of reminding people of what they are missing and not to take it for granted. But I could never look at the idea of taking a genre apart as a good thing, more like it could be a good thing if done correctly and if the result is to put it back together better.

They're not a movement against deconstruction stories like Watchmen or DKR, they're a direct result of them. You wouldn't have had stories like that, with a deeper, more nuanced and mature understanding of the genre, without someone having picked it apart with a scalpel in the 80s. Kurt Busiek specifically said that Astro City was, thematically, a sequel to Watchmen.

Taking a genre apart isn't a bad thing. It's not disrespectful of hateful, I think it's one of the most loving things a writer can do. It's born out of fondness for a genre and sincere desire for academic understanding of it. It's asking "what is this thing we're reading? How does it work? How does it not work?" All to tell new stories in that genre that are unique and better. Yes, the deconstruction of super hero comics did indirectly result in Rob Liefeld style silliness. But it also lead to a lot of really good stuff, and was usually pretty good in of itself. If a genre is to grow and evolve, the people behind it and the fans of it have to be willing for it to have it's flaws examined and it's nose to be a little bloodied. That's how we learn, and that's how fiction grows and improves over time.

Well, there is always good and bad stories and I've enjoyed some Post-Crisis stories. The current era is Post-Post Crisis and is really a different time and a different hybrid Superman. Unfortunately the Superman stories of the current JMS run is as bad an example of how weak and ineffective the character can be. Or his total ineptitude during Infinite Crisis. Byrne shippers, for example, mention a few things they like but conveniently forget stuff like:

*The Big Barda porno story.
*The Kents telling Lois that Superman and Clark were raised as identical twin brothers, because Superman was non-humanoid and imitated the appearance of the first person he saw, which was supposedly Clark.
*Superman killing the PZ villains.

But the steady decline of Superman sales figures that traces back to the mid-80's, not just in numbers but in rank shows that the Byrne experiment did not work out. They need to take the bits of it that were beneficial-LexCorp (which was actually a Maggin creation but fleshed out by Byrne and Wolfman), some of the more interesting fight scenes (JB was good with those) and some stuff that came later like a good bit of the Doomsday storyline and characters like the Eradicator and Cyborg Superman. They could have done an in-continuity reboot with Dan Jurgens and it would have been awesome and not split the fanbase. That was their biggest mistake-the reboot was so in-your-face that it caused the schism. You never see bitter disputes and personal sniping like that between me and Superdaniel with Batman fans. That's because even though DC changed just as many details with Batman as they did with Superman, they kept the core.

I'm a fan of Byrne and I never forget to mention those three things (except for the twins thing, because I honestly forgot about that). They're kind of dumb. I mean, I don't mind the concept of the thing with the PZ guys, but it was not executed well at all (no pun intended).

As for the decline in Superman sales... I can't say that's not a factor. But I honestly think a bigger problem with Superman in the 80s and 90s that hurt his sales is two things: One, he had a string of mediocre at best writers and artists, regardless of the portrayal of the character himself, and Two, the Rob Liefeld school of guns 'n' breasts storytelling was popular at the time, and something that both companies were pushing, and that's not Superman. Superman with a mullet and exaggerated muscles with grungy art and gross monsters... gonna turn a lot of people off. Especially when the story itself wasn't that good.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think a lot of factors have contributed to Superman's decline in sales over the years. While disconnect from his roots probably has alienated a lot of fans, I think it's extreme to say that it's the root of his sales troubles and that everything out have been fixed if they'd done a more subtle reboot.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I've noticed that there's a general consensus that the movie should be based on Byrne's Man of Steel reboot or the post crisis era in general, and the movie's been rumored to be based on it anyway. But I wonder if it's the only valid path.

Does Lex have to be a businessman? Clark the real person/Superman the disguise? Does everyone really believe that Lex as a scientist and not a businessman and Clark as a disguise is outdated and incapable of being used in a modern interpretation?

I don't dislike the old way of doing it because it's 'outdated'... I dislike it because I don't like that story.

I don't like the story of the jesus type saviour sent to earth to be mankinds hero. I don't like the idea that he pretends to be a human all day. I don't like a Lex who is not powerful businessmen, because I like him when he's characterised as being obsessed with power.

It's not that they can't. They could. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that this time, it'll be MY kind of Superman story.

 

[Frankenmation]

I don't like the story of the jesus type saviour sent to earth to be mankinds hero. I don't like the idea that he pretends to be a human all day. I don't like a Lex who is not powerful businessmen, because I like him when he's characterised as being obsessed with power.

So in other words, you don't like Superman.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Calling women ****s for being smitten with men that are powerful. Power and looks = stronger, healthier offspring.

LOL. You made it worse. Heard about something called Love?

I'm mesmerized that you actually defend that. Its unbelievable!

Whatever, I rest my case. Women who care ONLY about that are ****s to me, no matter what you say...

 

[JAK®]

I don't like the story of the jesus type saviour sent to earth to be mankinds hero.

This is Donner's interpretation, not Pre-Crisis.

I don't like the idea that he pretends to be a human all day.

Well, he ISN'T human. But it's less him pretending to be human and more about him overplaying the more mundane things about being human to hide the fact he is so exceptional.

I don't like a Lex who is not powerful businessmen, because I like him when he's characterised as being obsessed with power.

He can be obsessed with power and not be a businessman.

 

[JAK®]

LOL. You made it worse. Heard about something called Love?

I'm mesmerized that you actually defend that. Its unbelievable!

Whatever, I rest my case. Women who care ONLY about that are ****s to me, no matter what you say...

You don't understand. Love is the basis of a good relationship, but when it comes to attraction on a base level, power is a valid reason for a woman to be attracted to a man. But modern society looks down on women who express purely sexual interest, while men are free to do so.

 

[The Guard]

Wanting someone you think is cute or powerful doesn't make you a ****. Lois only liking Superman for his looks, body or powers would make her somewhat shallow, but not a **** in the least. That's just not what **** means at all.

And I don't even think it's that shallow to be enthralled by someone so damn unique. Especially, say, if others feared him at first.

 

[Kurosawa]

Again, I see no evidence that the two are related. The big movie trend is based entirely on the popularity of specific adaptations, most of which really didn't reflect the deconstruction of the superhero genre. Spider-Man certainly didn't.

No, deconstruction is something that just applies to comics themselves. Movies based on comics tend to be much more positive and the one major movie based on a deconstructionist comic, Watchmen, underperformed. So no, I don't mean that superhero movies are deconstructionist. I do feel that superhero comics partially exist because they are now treated as pitches for movies.

I think comic books selling primarily in comic book stores and sections of book stores has been incredibly good for the medium. Before the advent of the comic book store, it would be very difficult to find the works of people like R. Crumb or Art Speigleman, or indy or foreign publishers that had far less media coverage than those two. Now, most comic book stores have entire sections devoted to indy and foreign books, as well as mainstream titles, and make it much easier to find old issues and collections of series. You really couldn't have a massive selection of titles, or long boxes full of back issues, or a row of thick hardcovers, at a news stand or drug store. While they may not be sold everywhere, comic books are much more well known and understood, and the more obscure corners of the medium are much more accessible, than ever before.

It's good for indy publishers and creators, but the fact that it has completely replaced any other retailers for mainstream superhero comics has hurt exposure and sales overall. A top seller right now sells around 100k. In the early 80's, sales like that would lead to cancellation unless it was a book like Wonder Woman where the publisher had to continue the series for legal reasons.

Again, I disagree. It depends on the tastes and maturity level or the reader.

No child should be exposed to something like Siege. A teenager, maybe. An older teenager, fine. But not a kid. If someone let an 8 year old kid read Siege or Infinite Crisis then they would not need to be around children. It's too graphic for kids. It's too graphic for my tastes (for a superhero comic). I'm fine with mature themes and explicit sex or violence in the appropriate genre. I have no interest in seeing that sort of material in superhero comics. It's just not my taste.

They're not a movement against deconstruction stories like Watchmen or DKR, they're a direct result of them. You wouldn't have had stories like that, with a deeper, more nuanced and mature understanding of the genre, without someone having picked it apart with a scalpel in the 80s. Kurt Busiek specifically said that Astro City was, thematically, a sequel to Watchmen.

Alan Moore's Supreme is a clear reply to deconstructionism. The best thing about Watchmen to me is that it wasn't the real Charleton characters. I have nothing good to say about DKR.

Taking a genre apart isn't a bad thing. It's not disrespectful of hateful, I think it's one of the most loving things a writer can do. It's born out of fondness for a genre and sincere desire for academic understanding of it. It's asking "what is this thing we're reading? How does it work? How does it not work?" All to tell new stories in that genre that are unique and better. Yes, the deconstruction of super hero comics did indirectly result in Rob Liefeld style silliness. But it also lead to a lot of really good stuff, and was usually pretty good in of itself. If a genre is to grow and evolve, the people behind it and the fans of it have to be willing for it to have it's flaws examined and it's nose to be a little bloodied. That's how we learn, and that's how fiction grows and improves over time.

In some cases, maybe, but there is nothing loving towards superhero comics and Superman in particular in DKR. That series shows Miller's complete contempt for superheroes in general and Superman in particular. Not to mention his usual disgusting depictions and misogyny towards female characters. It did way more harm than good in my mind.

I'm a fan of Byrne and I never forget to mention those three things (except for the twins thing, because I honestly forgot about that). They're kind of dumb. I mean, I don't mind the concept of the thing with the PZ guys, but it was not executed well at all (no pun intended).

The PZ story was the biggest betrayal of Superman ever published. It showed me that DC were not editorially responsible enough to handle Superman. I'm very glad that story has been retconned out and I think even Byrne knew he was wrong to write it. He has at least admitted that he made a mistake in getting rid of Superboy. To be honest, the complete retconning out of the Silver/Bronze Age Superman by them was an act of cowardice to me. If Byrne was supposed to be so great, he should have took that character and made it work instead of creating his own character and calling it Superman. If he had used the already existing character and took it somewhere new, then that would have been much more impressive than what he did, which was in essence a cover version of old stories featuring a Marvel character in Superman's costume. He ducked the challenge of writing such a difficult character like Superman by creating a new character. Cowardly to say the least.

As for the decline in Superman sales... I can't say that's not a factor. But I honestly think a bigger problem with Superman in the 80s and 90s that hurt his sales is two things: One, he had a string of mediocre at best writers and artists, regardless of the portrayal of the character himself, and Two, the Rob Liefeld school of guns 'n' breasts storytelling was popular at the time, and something that both companies were pushing, and that's not Superman. Superman with a mullet and exaggerated muscles with grungy art and gross monsters... gonna turn a lot of people off. Especially when the story itself wasn't that good.

I think it was much more the loss of the Clark/Superman psyche and how Superman was made into such an establishment stooge. Both of those just kill Superman. All series around that time had runs of pretty bad stories and some god-awful art. But yeah, mullet, electric Superman, all of that hurt. But it all happened because they had already decided that the core concepts didn't matter.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think a lot of factors have contributed to Superman's decline in sales over the years. While disconnect from his roots probably has alienated a lot of fans, I think it's extreme to say that it's the root of his sales troubles and that everything out have been fixed if they'd done a more subtle reboot.

When they did such a harsh reboot they basically told the long time readers who had supported the book that they didn't need them. Now while some (like myself actually) stuck around out of habit or curiosity, I have talked to hundreds of fans both online and before that through snail mail and at conventions that basically feel that Superman ceased to exist in 1986. I'm actually nowhere near as hardcore as some people I've talked to. They have a lot less of a steady fanbase for Superman because they alienated a lot of people over the years. Some left as soon as MOS came out. A lot of people I've talked to gave MOS a chance and left when he murdered the PZ villains. For a lot of people, that was the last straw. Superman is much more dependent on transient readers now than he was before the changes when there was about a steady 125-150k readers who were in the bag. They've lost a lot more lifers than they've brought in. I've never spoken to a single Batman fan who says stuff like "Batman hasn't appeared since 1986." I'm sure there is someone, but I've never heard it.

 

[The Question]

No, deconstruction is something that just applies to comics themselves. Movies based on comics tend to be much more positive and the one major movie based on a deconstructionist comic, Watchmen, underperformed. So no, I don't mean that superhero movies are deconstructionist. I do feel that superhero comics partially exist because they are now treated as pitches for movies.

Some creators treat them like that, (Mark Millar a prime example) but most comic books I've been seeing lately seem to keep focused on doing their own thing.

It's good for indy publishers and creators, but the fact that it has completely replaced any other retailers for mainstream superhero comics has hurt exposure and sales overall. A top seller right now sells around 100k. In the early 80's, sales like that would lead to cancellation unless it was a book like Wonder Woman where the publisher had to continue the series for legal reasons.

But is that a clear sign that comic books are getting less exposure? Of the big four comic book publishers, they all have many more titles being published monthly than Marvel and DC did back in the 80s, and have all sorts of multi media deals. Plus, Marvel and DC are subsidiaries of two much larger and more prosperous companies, and that wealth does trickle down. Maybe it's not a sign that they're taking what little they can, and more of a sign that they're simply commercially stable enough to support books that sell less than 100 K. Also, remember, even adjusted for inflation, comics are more expensive than they were in the 80s, so they do get more money from 100 K than they did 30 years ago.

I just can't buy the idea that comics are less mainstream than they used to be. Popular culture is much more accepting of comics, both indy and, to a lesser extend, mainstream titles as legitimate literature. You hear about comic books in the media a lot more than you used to. I've even seen adds for DC books on TV. Culturally, they're more mainstream than they've ever been. There's no denying that.

No child should be exposed to something like Siege. A teenager, maybe. An older teenager, fine. But not a kid. If someone let an 8 year old kid read Siege or Infinite Crisis then they would not need to be around children. It's too graphic for kids. It's too graphic for my tastes (for a superhero comic). I'm fine with mature themes and explicit sex or violence in the appropriate genre. I have no interest in seeing that sort of material in superhero comics. It's just not my taste.

I disagree, simply on the grounds that it is a blanket statement. Things like this vary from person to person.

In some cases, maybe, but there is nothing loving towards superhero comics and Superman in particular in DKR. That series shows Miller's complete contempt for superheroes in general and Superman in particular. Not to mention his usual disgusting depictions and misogyny towards female characters. It did way more harm than good in my mind.

Frank Miller doesn't hate super heroes. He may hate Superman, but I've never seen any indication that he hates super heroes in general.

And I thing accusations of his misogyny are exaggerated and actually kind of a thoughtless use of the word. Misogyny means hatred of women. Frank Miller doesn't hate women. He's written some very well rounded, sympathetic, and self sufficient female characters in the past. He's just also in love with a certain noir aesthetic in which women play a very specific role. He's sexist, not misogynist.

And anyway, I think you missed my point about deconstructions. They're not tributes. They're not nice and tender to the subject matter. They pick it apart and examine every strength and weakness of a genre with a surgical eye. So, almost always, a deconstruction of super heroes will seem very anti-super hero. That isn't usually the case, though. By exploring the flaws of a genre, you raise an awareness of it's implications, the depths you can go with it, and how you can write it better. Deconstrucing a genre is usually born out of love for it. But it's not loving to it.

The PZ story was the biggest betrayal of Superman ever published. It showed me that DC were not editorially responsible enough to handle Superman. I'm very glad that story has been retconned out and I think even Byrne knew he was wrong to write it. He has at least admitted that he made a mistake in getting rid of Superboy. To be honest, the complete retconning out of the Silver/Bronze Age Superman by them was an act of cowardice to me. If Byrne was supposed to be so great, he should have took that character and made it work instead of creating his own character and calling it Superman. If he had used the already existing character and took it somewhere new, then that would have been much more impressive than what he did, which was in essence a cover version of old stories featuring a Marvel character in Superman's costume. He ducked the challenge of writing such a difficult character like Superman by creating a new character. Cowardly to say the least.

I think that's a little hyperbolic.

I think it was much more the loss of the Clark/Superman psyche and how Superman was made into such an establishment stooge. Both of those just kill Superman. All series around that time had runs of pretty bad stories and some god-awful art. But yeah, mullet, electric Superman, all of that hurt. But it all happened because they had already decided that the core concepts didn't matter.

Saying it was the identity thing just doesn't make sense to me. The comic consumer masses have never worked like that.

When they did such a harsh reboot they basically told the long time readers who had supported the book that they didn't need them. Now while some (like myself actually) stuck around out of habit or curiosity, I have talked to hundreds of fans both online and before that through snail mail and at conventions that basically feel that Superman ceased to exist in 1986. I'm actually nowhere near as hardcore as some people I've talked to. They have a lot less of a steady fanbase for Superman because they alienated a lot of people over the years. Some left as soon as MOS came out. A lot of people I've talked to gave MOS a chance and left when he murdered the PZ villains. For a lot of people, that was the last straw. Superman is much more dependent on transient readers now than he was before the changes when there was about a steady 125-150k readers who were in the bag. They've lost a lot more lifers than they've brought in. I've never spoken to a single Batman fan who says stuff like "Batman hasn't appeared since 1986." I'm sure there is someone, but I've never heard it.

Again, that seems a little hyperbolic.

 

[kal-elrebooted]

I say the could have a little bit of Man of Steel, Birthrights, and Secret Origin.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

So in other words, you don't like Superman.

Superman is a character that has been portrayed in so many different ways. I don't particularly like one of those ways, because it is almost the complete opposite to the hero that I do love... more than any other character, at all, ever.

And my perfect character is best describe in two quotes from Lois and Clark (my favourite characterisation of Superman on screen so far).

1. 'Superman is what I can do, Clark is who I am'
2. 'All the things I can do... the powers I have... I've asked myself a thousand times, why? And the only answer I could come up with is: to help. As quickly and decisively as possible. And maybe because of that, I've been a target ... and maybe there are some things I'll never have... but when I can save a life, well... in that instant, I know two things most people never figure out: why I'm here and how I can make a difference.'

This is MY Superman:

Jor-el and Lara send Kal-el off to earth because it was the only way to keep him alive. He happens to be found by two incredibly lovely people. He grows up to be the kind of man who doesn't use his gifts for his own greed or temptations, but to help people who are in trouble. He knows that he is an alien, but has only ever known a human life, and yearns for all the things that humans yearn for. So he knows that no one can know he has 'powers'. So he creates 'Superman'. A disguise. A persona. A story he can hide behind, something that can become a huge media deal, and that people will be so awed with that they will never look at a human man in glasses and suit and consider him looking a bit like Supeman to be anything more than a joke.

Lex, similarly, has also created a persona to hide who he actually is. He has fought for power and success and money, so that he can break every law known to man and get away with it. He relishes in the satisfaction having that power gives him. He's a manipulator. He will shake the hand of a politician, and the man will believe he is a good, respectful and brilliant man... but if he knew the truth, he'd quiver with fear.

Now, I totally accept that it's just one way of doing the story, and one way of enjoying the characters, who are very multi faceted. But it is the way that I wish with all my heart they will do things in the film.

One of the most difficult things is including Jor-el and the Fortress because you add this idea that it's not his choice. And that he's not such a great hero by his own doing. And when you have him spending all his day being this 'fake' person on top of that, it makes him less likeable IMO. It makes him 10 times harder to relate too.

Well, he ISN'T human. But it's less him pretending to be human and more about him overplaying the more mundane things about being human to hide the fact he is so exceptional. He can be obsessed with power and not be a businessman.

I just much prefer it when he is, personality wise, naturally very human. The only thing that is exceptional about him other than his powers, is that he has all the best HUMAN attributes a guy can have.

That's why I prefer it when he puts on the confident stranger act when he's Superman. When he forces himself to be more commanding, and to be kind of detatched from things - which is difficult for him, because of his natural humanity. But he has to do that to make it so that no one would believe he might be walking around as one of them. That he might have been raised human as a baby.

It just makes more sense to me that way around.

 

[Kurosawa]

Some creators treat them like that, (Mark Millar a prime example) but most comic books I've been seeing lately seem to keep focused on doing their own thing.

It's more of the overall effect where they do stuff in comics now without thinking it through and a lack of desire amongst some but not all writers to get past the villain of the month trope.

But is that a clear sign that comic books are getting less exposure? Of the big four comic book publishers, they all have many more titles being published monthly than Marvel and DC did back in the 80s, and have all sorts of multi media deals. Plus, Marvel and DC are subsidiaries of two much larger and more prosperous companies, and that wealth does trickle down. Maybe it's not a sign that they're taking what little they can, and more of a sign that they're simply commercially stable enough to support books that sell less than 100 K. Also, remember, even adjusted for inflation, comics are more expensive than they were in the 80s, so they do get more money from 100 K than they did 30 years ago.

Production costs are also way higher now since 30 years ago most comics were printed on fairly cheap paper. Most of the money in the past came from the comics themselves, that is not even close to the case now. So I would say comics characters have way more exposure, but you cannot just go to any grocery store or convenience store and buy comics and in the early 80's you could. 4 outlets in my town, two comic shops, two bookstores, as opposed to hundreds in the Pre- comic shop era. It is what it is now, however, and what it is is a niche market. I love comics shops myself but when they went to such a limited distribution system it made it more difficult for people in some areas to get comics and common sense says there are way less outlets because it's more of niche product and market.

I just can't buy the idea that comics are less mainstream than they used to be. Popular culture is much more accepting of comics, both indy and, to a lesser extend, mainstream titles as legitimate literature. You hear about comic books in the media a lot more than you used to. I've even seen adds for DC books on TV. Culturally, they're more mainstream than they've ever been. There's no denying that.

Even with all the stuff they've done to try to make comics more adult there will always be a portion of people who dismiss them. The bad thing is too many supposed comics fans dismiss anything historical because they've been taught everything before DKR and Watchmen was stupid. That's their loss and it's a shame.

I disagree, simply on the grounds that it is a blanket statement. Things like this vary from person to person.

I would never expose a child to violence on that level and I feel it is irresponsible to do so. Besides that I think it's crappy juvenile storytelling regardless of if you think it's okay to show it to a child or not.

Frank Miller doesn't hate super heroes. He may hate Superman, but I've never seen any indication that he hates super heroes in general.

It's pretty clear in his work that doesn't care for superheroes and it's really clear that he both dislikes Superman and also doesn't know jack **** about him.

And I thing accusations of his misogyny are exaggerated and actually kind of a thoughtless use of the word. Misogyny means hatred of women. Frank Miller doesn't hate women. He's written some very well rounded, sympathetic, and self sufficient female characters in the past. He's just also in love with a certain noir aesthetic in which women play a very specific role. He's sexist, not misogynist.

His scenes with Catwoman in DKR were disgusting and exploitative. He has real issues with women and he most likely needs psychological help. He seems to treat women like ****es if they are feminine and if they are strong at all then he depicts them as butch. It's very childish. His depiction of women is usually sleazy; he's sort of a much less talented Tarantino in that regard except his feminine women are usually ****es and victims. The treatment of women overall in comics continues to be childish and sexist as evidenced by Barbara Gordon's continual paralysis while Batman runs around with no evidence he was even injured. Of course she's also DC's token cripple.

And anyway, I think you missed my point about deconstructions. They're not tributes. They're not nice and tender to the subject matter. They pick it apart and examine every strength and weakness of a genre with a surgical eye. So, almost always, a deconstruction of super heroes will seem very anti-super hero. That isn't usually the case, though. By exploring the flaws of a genre, you raise an awareness of it's implications, the depths you can go with it, and how you can write it better. Deconstrucing a genre is usually born out of love for it. But it's not loving to it.

I disagree for the most part. I think there are better ways to take a genre forward than taking it apart and putting it back together. In fact I feel it is often an unnecessary and self indulgent method. You can make characters more human without making them all dbags. It's a method do new things, it's not the only method and I don't think it's the best method.

I think that's a little hyperbolic.

I think it's dead on. They never addressed the issue of how difficult it is to write Superman with MOS-they ran away from it by creating a different character. If Byrne was so great he should have tried to make the real thing work. Maggin, Bates and Pasko had no problems making Superman work for years until DC took them off the books and put Marvel guys on Superman instead.

Saying it was the identity thing just doesn't make sense to me. The comic consumer masses have never worked like that.

Statistics show that in the case of Superman, they most certainly do. It is also proven with Batman's incredible string of success. Batman is true to his core, his fans know that, and therefore they stay, old and new fans alike. With Superman, half of the fanbase was told they weren't needed and what they liked didn't matter, and so a good bit of them took their money and support and went elsewhere.

Again, that seems a little hyperbolic.

I've talked to people for over 25 years about this and Alan Moore warned them at the time that this would happen. I'm not making this up-there is a sizable part of the Superman fanbase that basically considers anything past 86 to be invalid. I know them and I've corresponded with them for years. I'm nowhere near as hardcore as them. Those fans would not give this website or this movie the time of day. Superman is a dead issue to them because the only medium in which he even exists to most of those guys is in reprints. To them it is like we are talking about a different character completely. It's just like Star Wars OT shippers who feel everything from the 1997 SE on is garbage and disregard the prequels. It's a minority but it's hurt Superman way more than SW which is so insanely huge that it can't be hurt. SW doesn't have competition like Superman does where the same publisher has another iconic hero that is done right and with respect to his original creators vision. Batman fans are so lucky that DC has handled him correctly over the years more often than not.