Discussion in 'Man of Steel' started by Thread Manager, Oct 10, 2011.
How could you not?
That considering that nothing in comics ever happened.
You haven't read it because you might not like it? C'mone, Krumm.
That's so much true.
It had 'influenced' you mean, but filtered through your hate filter.
I wish that happened too. Much better character than Mr. Mxyzptlk, just to say something.
I've actually always been intrigued by Red Son. And considering everyone's praise for it here, I might be checking out DKR too.
I have a buddy who loves DKR and would tease me to no end about how lame Superman was and how he is just a tool. Chalk up my not reading it to a traumatic experience
But like I said, I may be checking it out soon.
My memory is fuzzy, but I think Superman actually gets redeemed in the end.
The worse thing I can say about DKR is that the style takes a while to get used to. It's kind of future punk/psychedelic/ugly. lol, but still cool.
Anyone who thinks Superman is not massively disrespected in DKR is reading it wrong. he's a government stooge, a sellout, and Batman makes him his personal *****. Why is him having a daughter with Wonder Woman so great? It's not like he hasn't had children in other Imaginary Stories/Elseworlds. It doesn't matter-DKR is what started it all. It's where Superman went from being the patriarch of the superhero fraternity to being Batman's personal ***** and a loser. For the next 25 years, variations of Miller's Superman permeated DC's comics as Superman was a whiner, an establishment stooge, and of course Batman's eternal inferior. Superman went from being the greatest superhero of all time to DC's designated jobber. And that, along with the abandonment as Superman as the real persona and Clark as the disguise, is exactly why Superman sales went in the toilet. DKR started Batman's ascension to the top spot in DC, and began Superman's fall from grace.
Every Superman fan should read it, so as to see what we are up against with people who either hate, dislike, or don't understand the character. And it's also a great example of how one ******* who becomes a popular artist can ruin a character that has been around since 1938, reducing them to a point of ridicule and near-irrelevance. Because that is what DKR started.
Miller's hatred of Superman comes from his Randian personal beliefs-it is simply part of the core of who he is and what he believes in to hate Superman. Superman stands for what Miller is against. Any hardcore objectivist (which Miller is) will find a pure altruist like Superman appalling. Superman lives his life for others; what things he does for himself are mostly only to allow him to better serve others; and the one thing he DOES do for himself (Clark Kent) is not exactly a high indulgence. His Batman follows Ayn Rand's philosophy to the letter, so Batman is him. Superman is his foil and of course in his series he uses Superman to show how his beliefs are superior and how he is right. Miller is incapable of portraying Superman in any sort of favorable light-it literally goes against his personal philosophy.
This is why the responsible thing for DC to do would have been to never let him touch the character. Frank Miller should never be allowed to write Superman under any circumstances. Not if they give a damn about Superman, that is.
Amazon with Superman's power? She was a cool character. I think the point of his daughter, Lara, was to remind Superman that there's still hope and a future to fight for. Having that personal connection brought his purpose back.
TDKR and DK2 was a story set in the future to explore certain ideas behind the characters. It's not meant to be canon anyway.
Superman had children in those sort of stories before, like in Superman-Red and Superman-Blue, plus the super-sons. My point is, Miller was breaking no new ground by giving Superman a child. And I find the Superman/Wonder Woman coupling pretty lame.
Even though DKR/DK2 were not canon, it started the trope of Superman being a weak boy scout who took orders and was Batman's inferior, morally, mentally and when it came down to it, in a physical confrontation. Miller's point was that if someone embraced his philosophies like his Batman did, then they could become even greater than a god, which is what Superman is. That's why the philosophy of his Batman (not the real Batman) clashes with the philosophy of Superman, which is "Do good for others and every man can be a Superman"-transcendence through altruism. Superman engages in violence only when necessary but he still does, but besides that (although that is a huge besides), he has a Gandhi type philosophy. "The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others."- Superman's credo is pretty similar to that saying of Gandhi's.
I always thought the reason Superman was working for the goverment was understandable(the fact the goverment was coming down on superheroes as well as them holding Kandor hostage because of people like Batman's actions and Superman think about the greater good and protecting the people even though it meant saving them in secret and having to work with a corrupt goverment.) sure I didn't like Superman's potrayal as just a goverment stooge and Batman as a vigilante outlaw but I liked the Batman/Superman seeing as Batman as resourceful and it was a Batman book and it has to show being on top I guess (besides we had a better more even sided fight with Superman standing more than a good chance in Batman:Hush DCAU, The Batman, Batman Brave and the Bold and probally the new Justice League #2 )but i like how we could see how Batman was making it bad for other superman
and reading various ManBat posts on the "Why Frank Miller hates Superman" shows he has some level of and love for Superman.
I just wanted to say that and how much I like the new Superman costume for the movie and DCNU(both the T-shirt/jeans/cape combo and kryptonian ceremonial armor.) since this is "the official costume thread"
Well Kurosawa, I already figured out that you are a hardcore superman fan
I like Batman, but Superman also, and we cross some arguments before. So you know that all i will say is with the intention of have a more... empathic approach, but some others i've to argue:
I think you should allow other "reads" about the comic. Personally, i understand what you say, but in my opinion you are wrong. There is no such thing like "reading wrong" a comic haha. TDKR is one of my favorite comics of all time, and I can assure you that I don't see Superman as a fovernment stooge, a sellout neither a puppet. If you say that, u r also implying that Dr. Manhattan was the same. Superman is having a "crisis" during the TDKR series, the world turned against the vigilantes; and Superman's only option to continue helping the world without facing any violent riot (or whatever) is becoming registered (just like Dr. Manhattan!). So he is a man in his 40/50, facing a personal crysis, an allpowerful man becoming impotent. That was something really new to Superman, a POV i never read in another comic about superman.
Batman ALMOST defeat superman, after he received a nuclear blast an had lil' time to regenerate. This version of Superman isn't GODLIKE, cannot receive 312371289732 nuclear blasts and still be flying around, but you know what? I like it. I love how he is "balanced". So, after the nuclear blast, he fly max speed to Gotham City, receive several missiles, tank cannons, a Kriptonite arrow and a (prepare yourselfs) ElectrochargedSuperRobotMegaKriptonitePunch in the chin. And even with ALL that, he is still standing. That's a "heavy mother****er" in my opinion.
You hate Byrne, i aknowledge that. But Miller is not Byrne. Miller had a version of superman, more gritty and with really deep issues. But couldn't go deeper. Why? Because the comic is The Dark Knight Returns, not The Man of Steel Returns.
But I agree that the loss of the Superman persona and the CK disguise is something that never should had happened.
Again, in some threads of Man Of Steel you said that few comicreaders understand superman, the old superman, and i was among them. I don't see where Superman is portrayed as lame. NEVER saw him like that. Is like seeing Dr. Manhattan as lame. He is godlike, he is beyond humankind. That's why he and only he can be the figure of hope and truth. Only him can be the Super Man, the man of tomorrow. But he is not god, only godlike. So he can have issues too...
But you think that Batman is a example of a man? In Miller's TDKR and even more in TDKR2 he is portrayed as a psicopath, a megalomaniac, flawed extreme right-winged man, paranoid and full of anger. And HE CANNOT CONTROL THE BEAST. That's why he becomes Batman again, because the madness is taking over the control of his body. He cannot be Bruce Wayne anymore, he have to, must to become The Batman. That's not the kind of hero anyone wants. Batman said it (in the same comic ) "Of course we are criminals, we have to be criminals".
But the superman is not a criminal. All he wants its to do good. So he ultimately (for the wrong, the right, the political and the social reasons) keep down his head and becomes part of the USA.
When you finish reading the comic, you got the impression that Batman is a madman. But if you go deep enough with the Superman interpretation, you can understand what im saying.
I liked. Don't like actual superman's comics.
It's not lame! It's the MOST IMPORTANT POINT! You can see the detachment from humankind, the superman giving up, tired. Impotent, desolated, ALONE. So Lara its the ultimate gambit, the last card! And is she the one that gives HOPE to the one that should give us hope. She gives him a new (or renewed) reason to fight, to believe! You couldn't have missed something that important!
But it's not Miller's fault. The ones who wrote Superman comics should have done something about it.
You know, I just don't know how Frank Miller would ever come to this conclusion. Which comics did he read? He's so off for both, Superman and Batman, it's unbelievable. It seems like he's just made this stuff up in his head and never really read the comics, or only through his extremely filtered perception. I don't know. I mean it even shows in "Year One", he probably didn't know that Catwoman had an origin, that Alfred wasn't the old family retainer and so on.
I think he sees the characters, but have complete disregard about the stage. He makes his own world with his own perceptions of how it should be with this uniques characters.
plus man bat made some good points comparing DKR to Comic Code
and one poster said it best when he said Just because you don't like a portrayal of a certain character or think they are being written out-of-character doesn't mean the author dislikes the character.
In the end, for whatever reason, some people went with Miller's idea and it pretty much stuck. Thus, helping make Superman "lame" and "boring."
I think people defend Miller because like them, Miller knows nothing about the characters he writes stories with...or ignores their history so as to make them fit whatever point he is trying to make. Miller either didn't know or ignored that it was Batman, not Superman, who first because a part of the legal establishment (The People VS. The Batman, BATMAN #7, October/November, 1941) while Superman was still being hunted and shot at by police as late as Action Comics #47, Apr 1942. He also either was ignorant or ignored the numerous early Superman stories where he bent or broke the law, treated government officials like they were idiots, and even was attacked by the US military. Superman was MUCH more anti establishment in his early days and he stayed that way for a longer period of time than Batman did. And once editorial edicts made both characters become part of the establishment, Batman was every bit the smiling do-gooder that Superman was, if not more with his tweener sidekick and his elderly English butler, not to mention him constantly paling around with the police commissioner of Gotham City who literally had him on speed dial and a gigantic light to let him know when to come running.
Miller warped all those characters to fit his story and his agenda. DKR and DK2 are reason #1 that I feel characters should be kept true to their creators intentions, not warped by some jackhole who is writing a bunch of self-indulgent Mary Sue ****.
Hey Kuro, I am an Objectivist and I love Superman. Its just crap writing that ruins the character.
I just don't see why it's such a big goddamn deal if an author does a one-off that is left of center. A raving fanboy lunatic certainly isn't going to make me angry about a funny book he doesn't like.
It doesn't get anymore establishment than this
Also people should keep in mind that the idea that Batman "patrols" the city is relatively new. In "There's No Hope In Crime Alley" a crime victim is actually surprised that Batman saved him from petty street criminals...
I agree with all of that.
Just last night found myself up against an arguement with two TDKR loving friends, who genuinely think it's an accurate portrayal of Superman, and think Batman would always kick Superman's ****.
Doesn't matter that I try and point out what Superman should really be, or how he used to be portrayed.
They are just laughing and laughing, superman got beat the **** out of, it's great!
So why did DC allow that to happen. Why did they allow a story like this to even see the light of day? And why did they suddenly think that because the book was a success, that meant Superman would be more of a success if they kept showing him getting beaten...
Where they simply trying to appeal to people who hate Superman's sadistic side?!
Well, did they even like Superman before TDKR? If not, then it's not fair the blame TDKR. And did everyone skip DK2?
miller gave superman's character a story arc. thats what good writers do with characters. its totally cool you dont agree with where he took the arc, but its legit none the less. i dont look at DKR as superman's definitive future. but the story of a young anti-establishment superman who grew through trials that forced him into the role of an establishment stooge is an interesting and entertaining one. i love superman more than most people on this planet, and even i can see the potential in a story like that.
Weird, I thought this was the costume thread.
yeah, but most the costumes suck, so....
Topics on this thread do seem to stretch pretty randomly
I think this one went: Crowe's costume - Traditionalism rocks - Snyder doesn't get Superman - Snyder once said he likes TDKR so he REALLY doesn't get Superman - Frank Miller doesn't get Superman and that story sucks...
It's definitely time for a 'So Anyway... the suit'
Personally, I think it was a calculated move on DC's part to allow that story to see print. Obviously if they viewed Superman as their flagship character, they would have not published a book by a then-major talent that denigrated him in such a strong manner. I personally feel that DC did it as a business decision-that they decided that because of changes in the comics market and changes in comics themselves, moving towards a darker, more cynical style, that Batman would serve them better as he fit that style more than Superman could. Plus-and this is the big one-DC had been getting sued off and on since the late 40's by Siegel and Shuster and they had to know more lawsuits were possible. So they could invest in Superman, a character whose rights they might not always 100% control and whose costs in royalities to the creators and their heirs could possibly go up, or they could make Batman, who was almost as famous as Superman, their flagship character and they knew his rights and cost were under control. As a pure business decision, it's really hard to argue with-look at the results.