So please tell me about this John Byrne era

[Daybreak_st]

Yeah, Kuro, and i recently found this site you may like, it shows the entire history of superman:

http://alankistler.squarespace.com/journal/2007/11/20/alan-kistlers-history-of-superman-part-1.html

I couldn't believe how right you've been about how much superman has changed over the years. He was not a part of the status quo but fought more for the little guy. It was truly eye opening to read his history. I think you may be on to something, if they took him back to that element particularly as in fighting for the little guy rather than upholding the establishment i'd be curious to see what peoples reaction would be, if he'd become more popular as a result. I hope they do something like that with Earth - One graphic novel.

 

[SuperDaniel]

IMO, Superman changed for the better until 2001 and they decided to erase Man of Steel. Couldn`t they do stuff with the old continuity??? Add characters from the silver age and all. The rejected proposal... Thank god it was rejected!!! That would`ve sucked. Spliting Lois & Clark...what? And have what? 60 years of the same thing all over again???!!?!?!?

I believe the problem of DC is continuity. What they should`ve done is what they`re doing with All-Star Superman, Earth-one. Do stories, a lot of them, outside continuity.
Now they keep this bs of giving one origin to the character every year wich sucks, IMO.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Thanks for the info.

I hate it! Its so... cold and impersonal... Clark's origin is all about love and this doesnt seem right.

As Krypton needs to be.

 

[Webhead2006]

sure day the character has changed alot over the years. But thats the thing if the characters want to stay fresh and current. They have to change for the times they are in. Look at any comicbook characters through the ages. No character is ever the same it was when it was first created.

 

[Kurosawa]

Yeah, Kuro, and i recently found this site you may like, it shows the entire history of superman:

http://alankistler.squarespace.com/journal/2007/11/20/alan-kistlers-history-of-superman-part-1.html

I couldn't believe how right you've been about how much superman has changed over the years. He was not a part of the status quo but fought more for the little guy. It was truly eye opening to read his history. I think you may be on to something, if they took him back to that element particularly as in fighting for the little guy rather than upholding the establishment i'd be curious to see what peoples reaction would be, if he'd become more popular as a result. I hope they do something like that with Earth - One graphic novel.

Very solid and informative website that all fans of Superman-especially more recent fans-should take a look at. And I do think there is real value in taking Superman back to those nonconformist, populist roots.

IMO, Superman changed for the better until 2001 and they decided to erase Man of Steel. Couldn`t they do stuff with the old continuity??? Add characters from the silver age and all. The rejected proposal... Thank god it was rejected!!! That would`ve sucked. Spliting Lois & Clark...what? And have what? 60 years of the same thing all over again???!!?!?!?

I believe the problem of DC is continuity. What they should`ve done is what they`re doing with All-Star Superman, Earth-one. Do stories, a lot of them, outside continuity.
Now they keep this bs of giving one origin to the character every year wich sucks, IMO.

Well, now you know how we Bronze Age fans felt when that history was erased. It sucks, doesn't it? But yeah, they got Alternate Earths back now, they should use them. And the need to pick an origin and a direction and stick with it.

As Krypton needs to be.

No, it doesn't. It was intended to be a Utopia, and that their great success blinded them to the dangers that their own world was warning them of. If Krypton is a cold world, then nothing is lost. Wendi Pini said it best: Byrne's Krypton deserved to be destroyed.

 

[Crook]

What's your definition of a "cold world"? And how does that relate to the successes of the society?

 

[Kurosawa]

What's your definition of a "cold world"? And how does that relate to the successes of the society?

Byrne's Krypton was a world that devalued the human experience where love was taboo. They were incredibly advanced technologically but from a sociological standpoint, they were bankrupt. Pre-Crisis Krypton was both a technological and a sociological marvel, the pinnacle of civilization.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

No, it doesn't. It was intended to be a Utopia, and that their great success blinded them to the dangers that their own world was warning them of. If Krypton is a cold world, then nothing is lost. Wendi Pini said it best: Byrne's Krypton deserved to be destroyed.

Plenty was lost.

1) The technology that makes us earthlings look like we're still rubbing sticks together.

2) Their chance to learn from their mistakes and grow. They learned from their mistakes, but it was far, far too late.

Pre-Crisis Krypton was both a technological and a sociological marvel, the pinnacle of civilization.

In some ways yes, in other ways no. If the Kryptonian civilization was the paradigm of perfection as you're suggesting, they would never have been wiped out.

 

[NeoRanger]

Well, now you know how we Bronze Age fans felt when that history was erased. It sucks, doesn't it?

Hey, at least you got a cataclysmic event and a finale story by Alan Moore (whatever your feelings may be toward "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow", it was at least there). The post-Crisis Superman was forced to literally just fade away. The marketing mambo-jumbo that brought about Byrne's Superman might have been understandably infuriating to Pre-Crisis fans, but what they did with post-Crisis Superman was outright insulting.

It's a good point about the multiverse stories they can do now, though. All-Star should've remained an on-going (unlike that disaster that was Confidential) and more series should have followed that pattern. For as much as I don't want the Golden Age Superman to be the norm for the on-going titles, I'll still rush to pick up a seperate, out-of-continuity Golden Age Superman book.

 

[Daybreak_st]

sure day the character has changed alot over the years. But thats the thing if the characters want to stay fresh and current. They have to change for the times they are in. Look at any comicbook characters through the ages. No character is ever the same it was when it was first created.

Yeah i am in no way saying a character shouldn't change or evolve over time, simply that based on what i've read recently when he first appeared he was essentially a hero of the people. He in no way helped to keep the status quo in power. They essentially wrote a hero who would've solved the problems of their day. Is quite interesting when you think about. That's why their were no supervillains at first just the regular crooks and problems they saw/had to deal with and a hero strong enough physically and morally to take on the coruption.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have evolved but i would be interested to see if taking him back to the notion, perhaps in an elseworlds story or something else hopefully earth -1, where he's more involved the helping the everyday person, a true hero for the people if the GA would have a slightly different response to him.

I'd say Frank Miller changed the status of superman with Dark Knight Returns, in which batman is the epitome of the antihero while superman becomes a simple government lapdog. I enjoyed the story, but i think the idea of how much cooler Batman is over superman may have it's roots in that story.

I agree with his increase in power levels superman has to function differently b/c of the threat he'd pose to the status quo, but to me that would be an interesting angle to take with it. He doesn't simply fall in line with what the government and the status quo wants. He simply fights for truth and justice for the common man. I'd say Birthright was the only modern superman comic i've seen that blended this into his modern day origin. People tend to see superman as a big boyscout never stepping out of line of challenging athority, but in his early days that's really what he did. It actually reminds me of a less crazy Hyperion from Supreme Power after he had his falling out with the government. Now see that could potentially be a very interesting take on superman.

I would love to see more multiverse stories set in their own continuity that simply focus on telling the best superman stories they can rather than being bogged down in continuity. for the life of me i would love to see a continuance of Birthright, but i'm sure it's not going to happen.

 

[Superark]

Byrnes run was solid....overall at least.

However, I'm hoping Goyer doesn't write the whole story for the film based on Byrnes work alone.

Goyer needs to use elements from other great IMO Superman stories for the film.

Elements from BIRTHRIGHT, SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS, ALL STAR SUPERMAN, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE MAN OF TOMORROW and definitely some of Johns' Braniac story arc from his run on ACTION COMICS.

This how I feel. Byrnes work is not the be-all end-all. Goyer and Nolan need to take aspects from several different stories.

I certainly hope they don't use the birthing matrix idea.

 

[Webhead2006]

totally day i am not knocking what the character was in the past compared to what it is today. Since its 70+ yrs and many changes/reboots/etc... have happened to the character. That is why i keep saying they should look at the whole history of the character. Find the best stories pre/post crisis, same with character traits and find a way to mix all those elements today in a new and fresh approach in things.

Plus i am sure nolans/goyer will be doing this. They did it with batman taking ideas/traits from many stories. So i am sure they will do the same thing for superman. This is what i think should happen. We dont want another mess like singer did on basing the next adaption squarely on one take on the character.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Not a fan of the explanation. For example where does his superspeed come from? I'd rather they go off the wall with crazy comcis scifi like flash with his "speed force" or green lantern with the whole "emotional spectrum". At least their true to their creations. Are either of these things based in "hard science"? Heck no! But does it work in a comic and come across as interesting and fun, Heck yes, baby!!! It creates its own unique mythology for each character that can be expanded upon exponentially! I love the speed force and the emotional spectrum.

Pigeon holing superman into "realistic science" is counterproductive. it doesn't help the character. The average person just thinks his skin is tough and he's really strong etc. The aura thing is over doing it. His other powers aren't explained in detail why does his invulnerability need to be. In comics characters fall into a few categories, one is energy manipulation (green lantern), another is mental powers, another is "physical powerhouse" to me superman above all others falls into that category, along with thor and hulk. Using the aura explanation moves him into the "energy manipulation" category which is the polar opposite of superman imo. Give me crazy comics science over real science any day.

So if you've read the above you know i'm not a fan of Byrne's explanation of superpowers. it seems to only cover superman and doesn't address other heroes. Well in reading Invincible i came across that comic's unified explanation of superhero powers, and then today i stumbled upon more info on those theories and their based on some crazy science. Have a look if you dare. If you have to use pseudo science to explain it i'd take this theory over Bryne's any time:

http://enterthestory.com/superscience.html

http://enterthestory.com/superscience_examples.html

 

[Webhead2006]

cool finds day. Well what ever they do to explain his powers if they get into i am sure it will be a good reason. For all we know they could just take the basic idea of its just the yellow sun compared to krypton's red son reason.

 

[Daybreak_st]

yeah, that's what i prefer, i really don't think the GA cares that much. I was just impressed with the links and explanations as they cover more than just superman but explain all superpowers in their various forms. I think it works for a good comic-book explaination, but for a movie the simpler the better.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea totally GA probably doesnt really care, but you dont just want it to be to simplistic. Since folks are alot smarter these days and would like to see better reasons for thing and all that. We dont really want folks to think its being dumbed down to them.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Yeah i agree, the solar radiation powering him is enough. It's done in smallville and the comics, people seem to grasp and accept it. That's all you need. If you want to delve deeper into it, i'd just explain how the solar energy fuels his cells or something like that. But yeah keep it simple.

tho i do like the crazy science explaination above for the comics, only because its all-conclusive and can be expanded upon, and covers all heroes not just superman.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I thought the X-ray vision was an awesome explanation because it makes a lot of sense. Can`t understand how that isn`t a great idea. Do you actually think he shoots X-rays from his eyes giving cancer to everybody? LOL

 

[Kurosawa]

Well, it really wasn't literal X-Rays, it was just called that. But I would think that should be obvious.

To me, time wasted explaining super-powers is just that...time wasted. All that needs to be said is on Earth he gains powers, be it yellow sun alone or sun and gravity...superhero comics and superhero movies are not realistic, they just need to be played straight and not turn campy. In a comic you can go into minutia more, but in a movie where time is limited...it's wasted space IMO.

 

[Changeling]

I want to see STAS Krypton. Mixed visually with some of the really cool cities in Star Wars.

 

[Young Superman]

I'd love that.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

This how I feel. Byrnes work is not the be-all end-all. Goyer and Nolan need to take aspects from several different stories.

I certainly hope they don't use the birthing matrix idea.

Agree x 100.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea i would be fine with just the basic sun/gravity deal, or maybe the two in conjucture with each other and all that. As for the rest of the film. i agree superman doesnt need to be super realistic. Sure certain things like what regular people can do, and phsyic stuff should be normal. But the rest of the film should really play into the comicbooky/scifi-fantasy stuff. which is something i said before i really want to see them grasp this time.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Well, it really wasn't literal X-Rays, it was just called that. But I would think that should be obvious.

To me, time wasted explaining super-powers is just that...time wasted. All that needs to be said is on Earth he gains powers, be it yellow sun alone or sun and gravity...superhero comics and superhero movies are not realistic, they just need to be played straight and not turn campy. In a comic you can go into minutia more, but in a movie where time is limited...it's wasted space IMO.

I think the original x-ray vision was literal x-rays, and that the heat given off by the x-rays was heat vision. But to me, that's just the science behind it, which can change as long as the end result is the same. Whether he's shooting actual x-rays from his eyes or using a combo of his telescopic/microscopic vision, it's the same thing. He sees through stuff. I just like the modern explanation better.

 

[Nightwing1983]

Kurosawa, i`m not going to waste my time arguing again over the same points.

Horrid designs? That`s probably the best looking and iconic Krypton ever. I`m not too fond of the cloning story and all too but those designs were great. At least it felt like an alien society which is the way it should be. I think it should be a mix of all Kryptons, a bit like the animated series.

PS: Getting rid of Superboy was the best thing he ever done. That character is LAME and pointless.

It's funny: Byrne himself said he regretted getting rid of Superboy, and when he did, it totally screwed up the Legion, which was one of DC's biggest teams at the time (Byrne himself was concerned about this, but was assured that it wouldn't then blamed for it after it did, so I'm not attacking JB here). I actually liked Superboy.

As for it being "the best looking and iconic Krypton ever," best-looking is pure opinion, and while there is some subjectivity to what makes something iconic, I don't see how. You might think the original version of the comics was hokey or the robed Brando was cheesy, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts more people would relate that as "what Krypton looks like" than Byrne's version, which was basically how I would imagine the Mirror Universe's Vulcan.