Journey Into Comics: Sickbed Reviewing [Archive]

MattBrady

08-30-2003, 09:26 AM

<img width="185" height="278" border="0" hspace="1" align="right" src="http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/Truth_7.jpg">by Mike Sangiacomo

I was sick as a dog last weekend and treated myself to a long, leisurely recovery. This meant instead of schlepping back to work feeling half-crappy I took the extra day to lounge around, read comics and watch mindless television.

Television didn’t last long. I’m now convinced that daytime TV is a government conspiracy put forth by The Man to keep people out of the house during the day and looking for work. Good God, how can anyone watch that crap and stay sane?

And to think, Jerry Springer actually had the nerve to consider running for the U.S. Senate representing Ohio. Brrrr. Anyway, bottom line was I had lots and lots of time to reach lots and lots of comics.

Here are my thoughts.

The Truth #7 I know, I know. This came out months ago. Fact is, this comic just kept falling to the bottom of the pile. I would open it, look at the Bugs Bunny art and just stop reading. This time I finished it and I am truly sad.

Robert Morales wrote a poignant, wonderful story about the first Captain America and his fate. It was clear that artist Kyle Baker eased up a bit on his cartoony style for the finale, but not enough.

The story is excellent and says so much so succinctly that I wish it could be re-imagined by an artist with a more realistic flavor. I’m not knocking Baker, I loved Why I Hate Saturn and his other works because they existed in their own world, without preconceived notions of what the characters looked like. They could be goofy and cartoony, but man, Cap?

Anyway, I still recommend the whole series for the writing only. I look forward to Morales’ upcoming run on Captain America and I trust that we have not seen the last of Isaiah Bradley.

Speaking of Captain America, I was very disappointed with the finale of the “Ice” storyline. This came as a surprise, because I am a big fan of Chuck Austen’s writing. The premise, that the United States deliberately kept Cap frozen while they ended World War II with a big bang, was a fascinating notion. The art by Jae Lee was beautiful, but was a wee bit hard to follow now and then. The fact that the issue was not resolved, and that Cap seemed to lose interest in the topic, was a real disappointment. This was a tickle and a tease and then a slap on the wrist. We deserve better.

Before I get off the art rant here, Jennifer Graves does a nice job with the first issue of Bad Girls. Her interior art is a lot more accessible than the stylized cover by Darwyn Cooke might lead you to believe. The art stands up even under the flood of moody greens, yellows and browns that threaten to wash it out.

Writer Steve Vance’s idea of a quartet of stuck-up high school girls getting superpowers is something fresh and clever. I trust that at some point the bad girls of the aptly named San Narcisco High School get what’s coming to them.

Superman: Birthright #2 is more what I expected from the series about the years between Smallville and Metropolis than the first issue. Writer Mark Waid got his pacing down to the nano-second and tells a compelling story. Leinil Yu’s artwork is as stellar as ever, though Dave McCaig’s colors are a bit brighter than other colorists who’ve worked with Yu.

Overall, it’s a great series that will please Superman fans and Smallville fans alike, in particular the set-up line “No one has heard from Lana Lang in years.” Who can resist this series after reading that?

In the “Why the heck isn’t everyone reading these comics?” category we have Brian K. Vaughan’s wonderful Runaways

A group of kids learn that their parents are super-villains and that they possess super-powers. And that sounds so lame when I say it, but as anyone who has read Runaways can attest, it’s great stuff.

One reason Noble Causes is not reaching a wider audience is that kangaroo nature of the book. There are mini-series and specials and one-shots that skip around the past, present and future with many different artists. The result is difficulty keeping the characters straight, since their look can change dramatically depending on the artist, and the story itself.

I love the concept of a world where the “Noble” family makes up a superhero hierarchy and I love all the stories, even the ones I accidentally bought several copies of because I was unsure if I had already bought them. The stories are well written, mostly the work of Jay Faerber, who thought up the whole concept to begin with.

I was a bit taken aback by the lack of color inside Noble Causes: Distant Relatives #1, though very impressed at the quality of the “greyscales” by Ken Wolak with Dawn Groszewski. There is a simple fix to the continuity confusion, establish a regular title and knock off the mini-series and one-shots.

Or, issue a secondary number that keeps them in sequence like DC used to do with the little triangles on the covers of the Superman books or Marvel does with the restarted series like
the Fantastic Four.

From way across the world, The First President of Japan comes courtesy of artist Tsugihara Ryuji and writer Hidaka Yoshiki. It’s odd how they list the artist first on the cover and odder still that the book is printed backwards in true manga style. I got used to it, but prefer the traditional western method.

In the story, the Japanese people rise up and restructure their system, allowing the people themselves to elect their own prime minister, a “president.” The political lessons alone are as fascinating as the story of the guy who takes the job at a time when the whole nation is under threat of annihilation.

I promised myself I would not make an issue of the art, which is simple and complex at the same time, but I do wonder why many people are drawn at least half cross-eyed. Is it some kind of political statement I’m missing? President is a compelling story and there’s not a high school girl in a sailor suit in sight.

Close to home, the Checker Book Publishing Group out of Dayton, Ohio, is gearing up for a bunch of releases and re-releases of some fine trade paperbacks. I had forgotten how cool the old Marvel/Epic Alien Legion was until I reread the collection. Checker, established in 2000, is out to bring back the “best of dormant, unpublished or underpublished serial comics.”

Included in that category is the collected Supreme: Story of the Year and The Return and the Judgment series from Awesome Entertainment, all with the writing of Alan Moore. Look for the release of Steve Canyon strips from 1947 for under $15. Along those lines, the company will release the collected Flash Gordon color newspaper strips by Alex Raymond from 1934 and 1935, also for under $15; the Gold Key Star Trek comics and more.

One of the unexpected treasures was the collection of the early 1990’s Epic series by Clive Barker, Hellraiser with work from Neil Gaiman, Alex Ross, Dwayne McDuffie, Dave McKean, Tristan Shane and others.

Some of the stories are gross-outs, much like the movie that inspired them, but most are inspired stories of the supernatural. Many people missed these the first time around since they were released amid the great glut of the early 1990s, back when it seemed like every other character had the word Death in his name.

I would have never looked these works up on my own and would have not sat still long enough to read the collection without the able assistance of Checker and an intestinal flu bug.

I thank Checker, not the bug.

brazilgilliam

08-30-2003, 09:36 AM

Um, I thought the article was cool but I was kinda hoping to find out where I could download an avatar from. I go to the user cp and click options and I click change avatar, but where it should list possible avatars, it lists 1 to 0. Can someone tell me where everyone is getting those neat moving pictures. Oh, and cool article. :D

Tom Daylight

08-30-2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by brazilgilliam
Um, I thought the article was cool but I was kinda hoping to find out where I could download an avatar from. I go to the user cp and click options and I click change avatar, but where it should list possible avatars, it lists 1 to 0. Can someone tell me where everyone is getting those neat moving pictures. Oh, and cool article. :D

You should post this sort of query in the "Talk@Newsarama" forum, but I may as well tell you that those avatars are made or nicked by the posters themselves, as Newsarama does not have a library of avatars other sites can often claim.

jawaplumber

08-30-2003, 10:26 AM

Some very nice, honest reviews. Great job, Mike :) Hope you're feeling better!

08-30-2003, 02:18 PM

“No one has heard from Lana Lang in years.” Who can resist this series after reading that?

She was taken by the Manhunters :)

L'Zoril

08-30-2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
She was taken by the Manhunters :)

the what?!

08-30-2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by L'Zoril
the what?!

The Manhunters are a race of robots created by the Guardians of the Universe, the ones that created the Green Lantern Corps.

You may have seen them in the Justice League toon.

The Manhunters were created to be space cops , but they didn't work out, too unpredictable so they were decomisioned and reprogrammed to do mundane tasks like guard and such.

In time they developed a hatred for the Guardians and others, so they devised a plan to get their revenge (many plans actually, this was one of them).

The Manhunters spread out throughout the universe, each one going to a different planet where there was life. (there was a Manhunter on Krypton and one on Earth).

These Manhunter agents would record everything they saw and even take natives from those planets to turn them into sleeper agents.

When Jor-El sent Kal-El to Earth, the Manhunter of Krypton reported this to the others. The other Manhunters tracked Kal-El's ship as it landed on Earth and, to cover it from the humans, created the extended snowstorm that covered the Kent farm for four months (the one they used as an excuse to say that Martha gave birth to Clark in the farm).

(I'm a little fuzzy on this one, so if I'm wrong I hope someone corrects me) The Manhunter on Earth took the identity of a Smallville child pediatrist so he could check on Clark.

This same doctor began to implant the other children of Smallville so they could act as his eyes and ears and tell him what Clark did, as well as turn them into sleeper agents.

Lana was one of those kids.

When Clark told Lana his secret in Man of Steel #1 and left Smallville, she left too, followed him because that was her assignment, to keep her eyes on him.

See, once he left Smallville there was nothing for her to do there.

Eventually Lana returned to Smallville with no memory of where she had been.

This story took place in Man of Steel #1, the World of Metropolis mini series and the Millenium story arc.

The first one you can find in tp starting in October, and hopefully the second one will be tped next year.

Clearly, Waid is NOT going to use the above reasons to explain Lana being missing in Birthright, but he's still copying the idea.

woodstock

08-30-2003, 04:13 PM

Thank you for reminding me why I love the Jurgens era so much MOTA. It's the compelling and believable stories like that which make me yearn ever so much for what used to be.

TylerS

08-30-2003, 04:23 PM

". This came as a surprise, because I am a big fan of Chuck Austen’s writing. "

I stopped reading there.

08-30-2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by woodstock
Thank you for reminding me why I love the Jurgens era so much MOTA. It's the compelling and believable stories like that which make me yearn ever so much for what used to be.

I miss it too...

But hey, now Clark has Godvision and Lex grew up in Smallville... that makes up for the inconsistant writting, right?

Right?

jawaplumber

08-30-2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
I miss it too...

But hey, now Clark has Godvision and Lex grew up in Smallville... that makes up for the inconsistant writting, right?

Right?

Ok, I have to ask...what the hell is this "Godvision" you keep going on about?

And by the way, you still can't spell the word "writing" ;)

jawaplumber

08-30-2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Clearly, Waid is NOT going to use the above reasons to explain Lana being missing in Birthright, but he's still copying the idea.

You've seen the plot and script for the rest of the series?

And I'm not saying Waid should or shouldn't use the Manhunters. I'm just saying it's a TINY bit too soon to assume anything relating to this.

Richard Werder

08-30-2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
I miss it too...

Gimme your address-I'll send you some quarters with which to buy clues.

cactusmaac

08-30-2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
I miss it too...

But hey, now Clark has Godvision and Lex grew up in Smallville... that makes up for the inconsistant writting, right?

Right?

For the umpteenth frickin' time, Waid has said Luthor has been to Smallville in the past in all likelihood when he was already a Metropolis businessman.

He hasn't said he grew up there or was at high school with Clark Kent or that he lost his hair in a lab accident or he hung out at the Smallville caves doing his science.

jawaplumber

08-30-2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by cactusmaac
For the umpteenth frickin' time, Waid has said Luthor has been to Smallville in the past in all likelihood when he was already a Metropolis businessman.

He hasn't said he grew up there or was at high school with Clark Kent or that he lost his hair in a lab accident or he hung out at the Smallville caves doing his science.

None of this matters to MOTA. He sees what he wants to see in BIRTHRIGHT...which is easy, since he hasn't ready any of the issues yet, anyways.

08-30-2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by cactusmaac
For the umpteenth frickin' time, Waid has said Luthor has been to Smallville in the past in all likelihood when he was already a Metropolis businessman.

He hasn't said he grew up there or was at high school with Clark Kent or that he lost his hair in a lab accident or he hung out at the Smallville caves doing his science.

He said in the CBR interview that the only reason why Luthor is a businessman is because DC wouldn't let him change it like he wanted to.

Did you read that?

08-30-2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
None of this matters to MOTA. He sees what he wants to see in BIRTHRIGHT...which is easy, since he hasn't ready any of the issues yet, anyways.

I read issue one, it sucked.

When people are shot they fall to the ground, vest or not.

Krypton seems simplisticly outdated, like right out of the SA, there's really nothing interesting, challenging or new about it.

Gear

08-30-2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by MattBrady
<img width="185" height="278" border="0" hspace="1" align="right" src="http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/Truth_7.jpg">by Mike Sangiacomo

Close to home, the Checker Book Publishing Group out of Dayton, Ohio, is gearing up for a bunch of releases and re-releases of some fine trade paperbacks. I had forgotten how cool the old Marvel/Epic Alien Legion was until I reread the collection. Checker, established in 2000, is out to bring back the “best of dormant, unpublished or underpublished serial comics.”

Included in that category is the collected Supreme: Story of the Year and The Return and the Judgment series from Awesome Entertainment, all with the writing of Alan Moore. Look for the release of Steve Canyon strips from 1947 for under $15. Along those lines, the company will release the collected Flash Gordon color newspaper strips by Alex Raymond from 1934 and 1935, also for under $15; the Gold Key Star Trek comics and more.

When you say close to home, are you speaking of the USA or Dayton? I live in Dayton and if that is your hometown too, I'd get a kick finding out where you shopped.
For me it's he Dragon's Lair on 5th street. It might look a bit 'fanboyish', but boy they treat me great.

BTW, when are the Gold Key Star Treks coming out? I couldn't find anything about them on their web site.

-Jeff

woodstock

08-30-2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
I read issue one, it sucked.

When people are shot they fall to the ground, vest or not.

Excluding the title character of the book, of course.

08-30-2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by woodstock
Excluding the title character of the book, of course.

My point is that the guys that shot Clark should have reacted differently then they did.

They shrugged Clark not dying to his wearing a vest.

Ok, granted, a vest will stop you from dying, but you should STILL fall down.

There's no such thing as 'shock absorbing bulletproof vests', and the guy that shot Clark should know this.

His reaction was VERY stupid.

As stupid as there being a hole in Clark's ceiling for 20 years like in issue 3...

08-30-2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
Ok, I have to ask...what the hell is this "Godvision" you keep going on about?

And by the way, you still can't spell the word "writing" ;)

In issue 2 Clark tells Annette O'Toole (playing the part of Ma Kent), that he can see the aura around living beings, which is why he doesn't eat meat.

He's seeing their souls...

gwangung

08-30-2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
In issue 2 Clark tells Annette O'Toole (playing the part of Ma Kent), that he can see the aura around living beings, which is why he doesn't eat meat.

He's seeing their souls...

So?

If Alan Moore can ask "Have you ever seen what a radio wave looks like?", then Waid can say that Clark can SEE the difference betwee living and non living matter.

08-30-2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by gwangung
So? If Alan Moore can ask "Have you ever seen what a radio wave looks like?", then Waid can say that Clark can SEE the difference betwee living and non living matter.

But it wasn't Mark Waid that did it, it was Elliot S! Maggin who said it first.

The Superman for the Ages website has a page dedicated to Birthright which shows an excerpt from a Maggin Superman novel that has the SAME description as the one that Waid used in issue 2 (Waid just altered it a little).

That's one point, Waid's lack of originality.

The second point is that, regardless of what many people think, Superman is NOT God, he's a man with Super powers.

Which brings an interesting point.

Something I've heard many times over the years is that one of the main fears of some people (mostly religious people) is that the day aliens do make contact with Earth peoplewill begin to question their own religions beliefs.

JMS touched on this a little bit in Babylon 5, in the In the Beginning I think it was.

This relates to Superman as follows.

Some people, Waid included, seem to want to forcibly cast the character of Superman into the role of either messiah, savior or down right deity, and that does the character a GREAT , HUGE disservice.

The idea of exploring how contact with aliens affects humans is a valid one, but Superman is not the method through which that should be explored, specially the way Waid and Maggin did it, by giving Superman the power to see human souls.

It's as dumb as silly as giving him the convenient power of hypnosis as he had in the Silver Age so no one could recognize him when he had his glasses on...

And let me ask you this, what's the purpose of Kryptonians being able to see human souls?

What does it accomplish?

Motahaters/sympathy Club

08-30-2003, 09:14 PM

08-30-2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Motahaters/sympathy Club
:rolleyes: uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, John Byrne cribbed Lexcorp from Elliot Maggin's novels for Man of Steel

Funny, others keep saying that he took it from Vandal Savage being a businessman before Crisis.

Will Byrne bashers ever make up their mind on these things?

Oh, btw, Byrne DIDN'T come up with the businessman Lex Luthor, that was Wolfman...

Carrie

08-31-2003, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
He said in the CBR interview that the only reason why Luthor is a businessman is because DC wouldn't let him change it like he wanted to.

Did you read that?

:confused:

Yes, I read it....Obviously you didn't, because that is so totally NOT WHAT HE SAID!!!!!! What he said was, he would have liked to change the fact that Luthor is a business man, but there were other creators that came before him who didn't agree and HE (keyword: HE...not editors....not the DC brass.....HE!!!) chose not to do it because of the respect he has for those who came before him. Of course, I wouldn't have expected you to understand that, since it doesn't fit in with your belief that Waid is a meglomaniacal egomaniac with no respect for history or continuity, who is just trying to screw up Superman for shits and giggles. Must be nice to be able to shape the world to suit a personal agenda...

Carrie

08-31-2003, 12:16 AM

jawaplumber

08-31-2003, 12:29 AM

jawaplumber

08-31-2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
In issue 2 Clark tells Annette O'Toole (playing the part of Ma Kent), that he can see the aura around living beings, which is why he doesn't eat meat.

He's seeing their souls...

And what's so horrible about that? It's merely expanding upon Superman's heightened super-vision, much in the way Waid did interesting things with Flash's powers. There's nothing wrong with being a little creative. You should be able to relate to this, as a FAN FICTION writer.

jawaplumber

08-31-2003, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
I read issue one, it sucked.

When people are shot they fall to the ground, vest or not.

Krypton seems simplisticly outdated, like right out of the SA, there's really nothing interesting, challenging or new about it.

That's the best you can come up with? For all your rambling for the past few months on this subject, all you can come up with after FINALLY reading at least one issue of BIRTHRIGHT are two little complaints about the look of Krypton and something about people not falling to the ground after being shot?! That's weak.

OcCaM

08-31-2003, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
That's the best you can come up with? For all your rambling for the past few months on this subject, all you can come up with after FINALLY reading at least one issue of BIRTHRIGHT are two little complaints about the look of Krypton and something about people not falling to the ground after being shot?! That's weak.

You trying to encourage this nutjob?

BTW, why'd you correct his spelling of "writting" and fail to miss his spelling of "inconsistant" in the same post? I must have missed the meaning of "writting" somewhere...

BTW it's anyway, not "anyways" that you did in one of your posts... :)

Now, let's get back to comments on the reviews of the man who likes Chuck Austen's writing and the movie DareDevil! *shudder*

rhiggatwat

08-31-2003, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
But it wasn't Mark Waid that did it, it was Elliot S! Maggin who said it first.

The Superman for the Ages website has a page dedicated to Birthright which shows an excerpt from a Maggin Superman novel that has the SAME description as the one that Waid used in issue 2 (Waid just altered it a little).

That's one point, Waid's lack of originality.

The second point is that, regardless of what many people think, Superman is NOT God, he's a man with Super powers.

Which brings an interesting point.

Something I've heard many times over the years is that one of the main fears of some people (mostly religious people) is that the day aliens do make contact with Earth peoplewill begin to question their own religions beliefs.

JMS touched on this a little bit in Babylon 5, in the In the Beginning I think it was.

This relates to Superman as follows.

Some people, Waid included, seem to want to forcibly cast the character of Superman into the role of either messiah, savior or down right deity, and that does the character a GREAT , HUGE disservice.

The idea of exploring how contact with aliens affects humans is a valid one, but Superman is not the method through which that should be explored, specially the way Waid and Maggin did it, by giving Superman the power to see human souls.

It's as dumb as silly as giving him the convenient power of hypnosis as he had in the Silver Age so no one could recognize him when he had his glasses on...

And let me ask you this, what's the purpose of Kryptonians being able to see human souls?

What does it accomplish?

what does x-ray vision 'accomplish'? what does spider-sense 'accomplish'? sheesh. talk about looking for things to complain about. why cant we just enjoy a fresh look at an old character? its things like this series that make an old character fun to read again. something fresh that hasnt been done ten thousand times before.

fortunately, creators are allowed to spin these characters into new directions, its what makes these comics worth reading. you may have your views on what a superman comic should be, but if every single creatorand artist had the exact same view, it would be a mighty boring world indeed.

im not a big fan of the re-design of krypton, but it is nice to see superman taken in a new direction. this (and 'red son') is the first time ive followed superman in a very long time, and i think they should do things like this more often. theyre superheroes for goodness sake. anything that avoids the 'braniac attacks metropolis x15' repetition is good in my book. if i was going to try and get a friend of mine into superman, this is the series i would give him.

of course the best thing about 'birthright' is the beautiful artwork.

Carrie

08-31-2003, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
I read issue one, it sucked.

When people are shot they fall to the ground, vest or not.

Krypton seems simplisticly outdated, like right out of the SA, there's really nothing interesting, challenging or new about it.

Yeah, ummm...sorry again, but that's not entirely true, either...Everyone has within them this little thing called adrenaline...adrenaline has been known to give people super human strength, and it has even been known to spur people on for miles to seek out help after they had been shot (while wearing no vest at all)...The situation Clark was in certainly could have accounted for an adrenaline rush strong enough to keep him upright after being shot. :)

08-31-2003, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by cactusmaac
For the umpteenth frickin' time, Waid has said Luthor has been to Smallville in the past in all likelihood when he was already a Metropolis businessman.

...In Waid's defense(*), there's this twist to the Clark-Lex relationship over the years that's confusing the issue of this particular quasi-retcon. People view the two as being peers because Lex is physically no longer 20-25 years older than Clark was when they first met post-Crisis. Thanks to cloned bodies, clone-killing plagues, Neron, and probably some untold story involving gamma-irradiated Viagra, Lex is now at least the same physical "age" as Clark, and perhaps no more than 5 to 7 years older. Chronologically, he has to be at least 45 (**) to assume the presidency, but again, thanks to all the crossovers and clonal plots, the two are now very close to being peers if anything.

(*) And just so MOTA doesn't think I'm totally biased, there was the time when Waid and I got into a VERY heated arguement over the Legion reboot, where I made it clear that if he didn't have a clue how to get the book back on track without rebooting it, he should have voluntarily dropped off the book and given it to someone else who could. He vowed then if he ever met me to break my nose. While the Legion reboot didn't go as bad as most people feared - it could have been a lot worse when you look back on how it did turn out - it still took me a while to trust Waid's writing. So far, he's not written anything that I've read to have violated that reestablished trust. No megalomania involved with this particular writer, kids. He simply knows his art, and crafts it the way he sees it needs to be expressed, with a care for the canvas and the materials he's using.

If only Chuck Austen paid as much attention to detail...

(**) Of course, it hasn't been established yet whether Prez Rickard exists post-Crisis, so it's relatively safe to assume that Boss Smiley hasn't gotten the age limit for the White House lowered to 18 :-)

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
In issue 2 Clark tells Annette O'Toole (playing the part of Ma Kent), that he can see the aura around living beings, which is why he doesn't eat meat.

He's seeing their souls...

...And since we all know that vegetarian heroes don't sell, this will eventually be explained along the lines of:

"Well, I used to be a vegetarian because I thought my enhanced vision was allowing me to see the life essence - the 'souls' - of whatever I looked at. Now I understand that all I was seeing was the Kirlian Aura that every living thing has that's really nothing more than a magnetic field interacting with . I'm not God. I don't even play him on TV. So I wasn't seeing anyone or anything's souls, so I no longer feel guilty about eating meat.

Of course, what sold me on the idea was when the Spectre and Deadman took me out for lunch at Burger King, and..."

...And besides, kids - the "Beef Bourignone" scene in the Planet Krypton diner was so priceless, do you really think Waid would permanently ruin one of his best scenes of his career? All he needs to do now is to reintroduce roast babooch into the Supermythos ;-P

[i]Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
That's one point, Waid's lack of originality.

...Woah, woah, woah! Why is reusing something introduced by a previous writer a sign of a lack of originality? By that flawed bit of logic, then every creative team Superman's had since Siegel & Schuster has lacked originality if they used anything from their original concepts for the character.

...Seriously, MOTA, you know from my postings I've no problem with defending people who speak exactly what's on their minds and say to hell with the "false nicety" games that some wimps would prefer to see the norm. But the catch to that is that what's said at least needs to be intelligent and with at least some serious attempt to contain some semblance of logic. Based on what you're saying, I'm wondering if your dislike for Waid is impairing your sense of reason to an unsafe level.

Hell, at least when I went off on my tirades about Oliver Coipel, I at least backed them up with some serious analysis...

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
As stupid as there being a hole in Clark's ceiling for 20 years like in issue 3...

...Well, shit MOTA! According to Larry Niven, the Kent family barn's been riddled with millions of sperm-sized microscopic pinholes since Clark discovered masturbation and we haven't seen the farm animals complaining about the draft. So how's that 20-year-old hold stupid when you compare it to that?

jawaplumber

08-31-2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by OcCaM
You trying to encourage this nutjob?

BTW, why'd you correct his spelling of "writting" and fail to miss his spelling of "inconsistant" in the same post? I must have missed the meaning of "writting" somewhere...

BTW it's anyway, not "anyways" that you did in one of your posts... :)

Now, let's get back to comments on the reviews of the man who likes Chuck Austen's writing and the movie DareDevil! *shudder*

The "writting" is a running joke between us. Don't worry, I wouldn't dare start in trying to be the spelling police.

And it's "Daredevil", not "DareDevil" ;)

Spudmunkey

08-31-2003, 01:54 PM

First of all, you're right...Superman is NOT God. Superman is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER.

Umm, maybe you didn't get the memo... but god is just as fictional as Supes.

Probably more so.

08-31-2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by OM
(**) Of course, it hasn't been established yet whether Prez Rickard exists post-Crisis, so it's relatively safe to assume that Boss Smiley hasn't gotten the age limit for the White House lowered to 18 :-)

He does, in Sandman

JohnnyONeal

08-31-2003, 05:39 PM

Fun article, Matt. I'm feeling the exact same way about Runaways. When people start noticing how great it is, back issues are going to be hard to find.

Now, the obligatory annoying fanboy debate continues:

MOTA, where o where does it say that Clark is seeing animals' souls?

I'm no Superman expert, but I know the dude has special vision powers. It was pretty clear to me in Birthright #2 that Clark was just talking about the infrared/ultraviolet shine that all warm living things have when he sees them. His more acute senses can detect the energy radiated by living beings.

So Clark was taking one of his abilities, which is rooted in science (or at least "comic book science"), and ascribing a level of philosophical/spiritual meaning to it. There's nothing God-like about that, and it makes a nice plot device for explaining why Superman hates to see needless killing.

Whatever religion-related thing you think you're seeing isn't even there.

Comics are like a Rorschach test

So what's that say about you? It seems to me that you're overly defensive about religious issues ...or vegetarianism. Be a little less quick to judge and you might have an easier time seeing the Big Picture.

08-31-2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by JohnnyONeal
Hey, MOTA:

Where o where does it say that Clark is seeing animals' souls?

I'm no Superman expert, but I know the dude has special vision powers. It was pretty clear to me in Birthright #2 that Clark was just talking about the infrared/ultraviolet shine that all warm living things have when he sees them. His more acute senses can detect the energy radiated by living beings.

So Clark was taking one of his abilities, which is rooted in science (or at least "comic book science"), and ascribing a level of philosophical/spiritual meaning to it. There's nothing God-like about that, and it makes a nice plot device for explaining why Superman hates to see needless killing.

This page is entitled 'The Light of Life'

http://theages.superman.ws/History/birthright/halo.php

http://theages.superman.ws/History/birthright/halo.jpg

"Living things have a kind of glow around them, like a halo. Living happy things glow in one color; living sad things in another color. Living intelligent things in still another color, living innocent things in yet another. There was no name for any of the hundreds of colors and shades in which living things glowed. They were not colors that could have been seen by the eyes of whoever it was that had made up the names of the colors. The boy did not feel he had to make up names for them; he had no one with whom to talk about them except himself, and he would know what he meant without the names. But dead things, especially dead things that have lately been alive, look awful. They're all gray and empty. Their glow fades slowly—as slowly as a mimosa leaf closes when it reluctantly decides that the sun is going down. Then after the glow is weak and gray for a while it disappears, leaving behind a disgusting lump that is not much besides a disorderly mess of chemicals. There is nothing else like it. No metaphor, no analogy. Just nothing, where there had been something that once glowed."

- excerpt from Miracle Monday 2 (http://aphaynai-mataion.nu/thebook/mm/?chapter=2&journal=&language=)

What Clark is describing can only be called a soul. It's not the kirlian field, it's not an electric field, it's not a magnetic field. What he's seeing is limited to actual life forms.

Not trees and not the Earth itself, mind you, but at least mammal life forms, like the lion in BR #2.

Clark being able to see souls is a power that only a God like Thor should have, it's not the kind of power than an entire alien race like the Kryptonians should have.

Which brings the following to mind.

Religious people say that God created man in his image... since Kryptonians can see souls does that make them closer to God than Earthlings?

I mean, seeing a soul is a God-given power, something only deities should have. That an entire race of aliens would have this power must mean that they are more Godlike than humans, and in turn closer to God himself, right?

Or is this reserved for books like Preacher?

I know that jawa and others will feel compeled to come to remind people that 'it's only comics', but comics, since they are a medium, are allowed to explore these ideas.

I for one don't think that THIS particular idea fits with the concept of Superman, unless the author is planning to put him in the role of deity/savior/God, which is a perspective I know many old readers have on the character.

jawaplumber

08-31-2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
I know that jawa and others will feel compeled to come to remind people that 'it's only comics', but comics, since they are a medium, are allowed to explore these ideas.

I for one don't think that THIS particular idea fits with the concept of Superman, unless the author is planning to put him in the role of deity/savior/God, which is a perspective I know many old readers have on the character.

Thanks for trying to put words into my mind and mouth, MOTA. I certainly would never say comics are beneath exploring religious issues. I would, however, tell you to relax because you are getting all upset over something that was made purposely vague by Waid. Sure, you can interpret it in the way you have, but it isn't outright said and is left open enough to be interpreted a variety of other ways. Personally, I hardly thought twice about this new twist on Superman's vision. I thought it was cool when I first read it, something new and different, but it wasn't as important to me as the other stuff going on in the comic.

And this is one Silver Age fan...correction, COMIC BOOK fan...who does NOT see Superman directly as a deity or God, but can draw parallels between the character and Jesus Christ and other religious figures. These parallels have been there since the very first incarnation of Superman.

jawaplumber

08-31-2003, 06:54 PM

And while we're at it, if this "Godvision" bugs you, shouldn't you be getting just as upset about the fact that Superman can walk on water/fly, and was ressurrected from the dead?

jawaplumber

08-31-2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Spudmunkey
Umm, maybe you didn't get the memo... but god is just as fictional as Supes.

Probably more so.

Ahh yes, another false, all-knowing deity who holds the secrets of the universe. Back to Hell with you, foul-smelling demon!

Come on, dude, what was the sense in taking such a personal stab like that?

Dave_Garcia

08-31-2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by OM
[ Chronologically, he has to be at least 45 [/B]

A minor point:

35 is the minimum age to be president, though the youngest presidents have been JFK (youngest elected) and Teddy Roosevelt (youngest ever, was VP until McKinley died), who were 43 and 42, respectively.

Edited, as I was a year off on their ages

Shecky J.

08-31-2003, 10:08 PM

The best part in Birthright is when Superman incinerates his first childhood puppy.

I've been waiting years to see something like that!

MichaelCoughlin

08-31-2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
Ahh yes, another false, all-knowing deity who holds the secrets of the universe. Back to Hell with you, foul-smelling demon!

Come on, dude, what was the sense in taking such a personal stab like that?

Welcome to the very definition of a troll.

Also, I have a question and i'm sure MOTA knows this if anyone does: Do the people of earth KNOW that Superman is an alien? I mean, they live in a world with all kinds of superpowered people, did he ever tell them he's an alien? If not, why would they ever have a reason to believe he is?

woodstock

08-31-2003, 11:31 PM

It's like his secret identity - if he never mentions that he has another life, no one will try to find out about it.

jawaplumber

09-01-2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
Welcome to the very definition of a troll.

Also, I have a question and i'm sure MOTA knows this if anyone does: Do the people of earth KNOW that Superman is an alien? I mean, they live in a world with all kinds of superpowered people, did he ever tell them he's an alien? If not, why would they ever have a reason to believe he is?

Umm, you do know I was just kidding around, right?

Dave Accampo

09-01-2003, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom

What Clark is describing can only be called a soul. It's not the kirlian field, it's not an electric field, it's not a magnetic field. What he's seeing is limited to actual life forms.

I hate to jump on this point that's been so overly-saturated, but I just think it's interesting that you make the above determination AFTER quoting (or displaying) the aforementioned line: "I'm not sure if that halo is a soul or an aura or what." As another poster mentioned, this was left intentional vague, as all things in pop culture are when they relate to the gray areas between science and religion. It could be a form of Kirilian field as he explains it, and that would match the fading of the aura when something dies. There's plenty of new-age psychic stuff about that. Why wouldn't Superman, with his heightened perception, be able to see that, perhaps even in more detail than the "Kirilian photography" that's been studied in some circles.

Actually, though, in MotA's defense, I think the bullet-proof vest thing is a good catch. Of course, it's no worse than a DOZEN things that you can catch in any given super-hero comic, and so the level of anger directed at this faulty idea is not really justifiable (it's more of a No Prize offense, in my mind). I mean, I think it could be easily explained by the perception of the gunmen -- disbelief is a powerful thing. If I shot somebody and they didn't fall down, I would not immediately shriek: "Oh my god! You've got super powers! Holy shit! Everybody! This guy's got super powers! Oh my god!" Nah, I'd probably think he had on a vest and was pumped up on adrenaline or the gun I bought was a piece of crap...something like that. Of course, the fact that this is the DC Universe, and there was a whole group of Super-heroes before Clark that would change public perception of events like that, has to be taken into consideration, and that leans it back towards being an oversight.

-- It's funny, my take on this series is that it's just OK. I might keep getting it. I really want a good Superman story. As I've gotten older, I've realized that Superman is THE icon, the archetype, the true American Myth, and all other Super-heroes are some shade of him. But despite or maybe because of that, he's a really hard character to see in a serial format. Smallville is, in all honesty, the most successful revitalization of the character I've seen/read in years, and that includes Byrne's revamp. The Superman MOVIE is probably the other. 60 years of continuous publication makes it almost impossible to create a plot that isn't similar to another or easily accessible to new readers. And that's just PLOT, which is only one aspect of a STORY. Crisis and Zero Hour and events like that are designed to help IN CONTINUITY, but continuity is waaaay over-rated. Sometimes it's better just to re-invent the concept. Especially for Superman, who IMO, should probably be renewed for each generation.

For me to enjoy Birthright, it doesn't have to follow Smallville. It doesn't have to follow Byrne's revamp. It doesn't have to follow in the footsteps of Siegel and Shuster. It can take bits and pieces from previous writers and eras, but it has to combine them into a new structure that is accessible, honors the traditions of the character, and makes for a fun, dramatic read that gives me SOME new insight into the character. So far, Waid's not giving me all of that, but he is laying groundwork. We'll see where it goes...

09-01-2003, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
Also, I have a question and i'm sure MOTA knows this if anyone does: Do the people of earth KNOW that Superman is an alien? I mean, they live in a world with all kinds of superpowered people, did he ever tell them he's an alien? If not, why would they ever have a reason to believe he is?

Funny thing...

I was pretty sure that Bill Clinton in Man of Steel #20 had called Superman an alien...

I was wrong...

However, in the same issue, I found a regular, average, Metropolis woman say the following:

"They say Superman was an alien. Funny, isn't it... since he was also Earth's greatest hero."

I'm sure that if that's not enough I can find more. I'm pretty sure that Superman's status as an alien being was explored following his death in TV specials and the like.

Would you accept promotional items like the fake newspaper that DC printed as proof that regular people in the DC U know he's an alien?

Would the Newstime magazine that DC published count too?

I'm not saying they say it, I don't remember if they do, but before I take them out and check I'd like to know that it'll be worth it :)

Edit:

For years Luthor has called Superman 'the alien', and everyone that works at LexCorp knows this...

09-01-2003, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Shecky J.
The best part in Birthright is when Superman incinerates his first childhood puppy.

I've been waiting years to see something like that!

Lol.

Wrong comic :)

09-01-2003, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by JohnnyONeal
So what's that say about you? It seems to me that you're overly defensive about religious issues ...or vegetarianism. Be a little less quick to judge and you might have an easier time seeing the Big Picture.

I'm not defensive about religion or vegetarism... I'm defensive of good WRITING ( :) that was for Jawa's sake, not for yours, lol ), and Birthright is not good writing.

I just spent most of the night talking about BR with a friend and we over analized the thing and came to the conclusion that it sucks, it's not respectful of neither Superman nor Waid himself.

We both agree that Waid is a much better writer than this, as proven by Kingdom Come and Flash, but for some reason Waid reverts to a child when it comes to Superman and it becomes aparent in the writing.

Waid is writing about the Superman he read about as a kid, not about the best version of the character...

I've been 'authorized' to sigh my opinions about BR on behalf of a friend, so my comments can be taken to come from two people...

09-01-2003, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
And this is one Silver Age fan...correction, COMIC BOOK fan...who does NOT see Superman directly as a deity or God, but can draw parallels between the character and Jesus Christ and other religious figures. These parallels have been there since the very first incarnation of Superman.

And many people don't agree with that perspective.

Kal-El has more in commun with Moses than Jesus.

You have to remember that Siegel and Shuster were Jewish, a religion that 2000 years earlier had dismissed the idea that mortals could give birth to the son of God.

Do you really think they would create something similar to Jesus?

Both Kal-El and Moses were placed in baskets by their natural parents and sent away to a better place, to escape death.

How is that like Jesus?

09-01-2003, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
...

Let me put it like this:

Clearly I'm not the only one that thinks there's a connection between the soul and what Clark is seeing. The people that created that page over at Superman for the Ages called it 'The Light of Life' for a reason, right?

09-01-2003, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
And while we're at it, if this "Godvision" bugs you, shouldn't you be getting just as upset about the fact that Superman can walk on water/fly, and was ressurrected from the dead?

Superman can't walk on water, he can hover on it (maybe Zod is Jesus, HE walked on water in Superman 2, plus they both have a beard, and Zod was saved from the destruction of Krypton by Jor-El...

DAMN, I never realized this before.

Jor-El KNEW that the planet was going to explode, YET he still decided to send Zod and the others to the Phantom Zone.

WHAT was he thinking?!?! If he had kept them on Krypton they would have died, but instead he saved them.

Bad move on Jor-El's part, lol )

And Superman being resurected from the dead would make him Lazarus, not Jesus :) Whoever resurected him would be Jesus, right?

Dave Accampo

09-01-2003, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Let me put it like this:

Clearly I'm not the only one that thinks there's a connection between the soul and what Clark is seeing. The people that created that page over at Superman for the Ages called it 'The Light of Life' for a reason, right?

It's an interpretation. On a planet of 6 billion, I'd assume more than one person made that interpretation (oh, all right, whichever 50,000 are reading Superman ;) ). As I mentioned, it's made intentionally vague for that very reason. My problem is that the intrepretation is strict ("he has godvision;" "he DOES see souls"), while the narrative proclaims that the character EXPERIENCING the phenomenon has no idea what it is. It could all still fall under the umbrella of science. We have no reason to believe that Clark is an "unreliable narrator" in this story.

Dave Accampo

09-01-2003, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
And many people don't agree with that perspective.

Kal-El has more in commun with Moses than Jesus.

You have to remember that Siegel and Shuster were Jewish, a religion that 2000 years earlier had dismissed the idea that mortals could give birth to the son of God.

Do you really think they would create something similar to Jesus?

Both Kal-El and Moses were placed in baskets by their natural parents and sent away to a better place, to escape death.

How is that like Jesus?

Superman has a lot in common with various religious archetypes. Just because Siegel and Shuster were Jewish does not preclude them from taking themes dominant in many religious cultures. I'd guess, and I don't know this for fact so someone can come along and correct me here, but I'd guess that Siegel and Shuster were NOT thinking directly about ANY of those figures. But I think they TAPPED INTO a greater mythology. Also, Superman has changed over the years, being interpreted differently by different writers. So the character himself could have still felt the influence of the Christian mythology (and I use the term mythology here not to offend Christians, but to refer to the bible as stories that have been passed down in our culture, whether you think of them as factual or not) in later years.

But to play the game: Moses led his people out of Egypt. Traditionally, Superman isn't really a leader in that sense; he just wanders around and does good deeds and shows people how to be good to one another by following his example. He inspires. He always seeks peaceful resolution. This sounds more like Jesus than Moses to me. Of course, that's Superman as he has come to be. Early S&S Superman WAS more of a fighter, striking back at oppressors, which was actually more in line with Moses. Hey, that might be the start of a good debate: Did Superman start off as Moses, only to be turned into Jesus? Can we draw a line between Old Testament Supes and New Testament Supes?

Also, while Moses may have arrived via basket, he was born of man and woman, while Superman was sent to us from above, like another messianic figure (I guess you could say Mary was his rocket ship? ;) ). See, I really think you can draw parallels between several different figures...and we've only mentioned the Jewish and Christian ones here.

Sam M.

09-01-2003, 07:08 AM

MOTA-

Man, you are completely obsessed. I have seen you at The Pulse, the DC messageboards, and here. It's like noone can have a conversation about BR, without you coming in and causing a huge scene. People have the right to talk about problems they have with a book, but you just show up in every freaking thread and pretty much sabotage any moderately positive discussion. Could you PLEASE just chill out??? Make a comment or two, and then shut the hell up.

s/m

jawaplumber

09-01-2003, 09:38 AM

jawaplumber

09-01-2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Superman can't walk on water, he can hover on it (maybe Zod is Jesus, HE walked on water in Superman 2, plus they both have a beard, and Zod was saved from the destruction of Krypton by Jor-El...

DAMN, I never realized this before.

Jor-El KNEW that the planet was going to explode, YET he still decided to send Zod and the others to the Phantom Zone.

WHAT was he thinking?!?! If he had kept them on Krypton they would have died, but instead he saved them.

Bad move on Jor-El's part, lol )

And Superman being resurected from the dead would make him Lazarus, not Jesus :) Whoever resurected him would be Jesus, right?

Again, see what I said above. Doesn't have to be exactly the same to draw a parallel. As for your Siegel and Shuster reference above, yes you're right, being Jewish they wouldn't have been too fond of a Jesus comparison but that doesn't mean a comparison can't be made. You can compare many fictional characters to other fictional or historical characters. Even most of Shakespeare's characters were comparable to various characters and archetypes.

jawaplumber

09-01-2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
I'm not defensive about religion or vegetarism... I'm defensive of good WRITING ( :) that was for Jawa's sake, not for yours, lol ), and Birthright is not good writing.

I just spent most of the night talking about BR with a friend and we over analized the thing and came to the conclusion that it sucks, it's not respectful of neither Superman nor Waid himself.

We both agree that Waid is a much better writer than this, as proven by Kingdom Come and Flash, but for some reason Waid reverts to a child when it comes to Superman and it becomes aparent in the writing.

Waid is writing about the Superman he read about as a kid, not about the best version of the character...

I've been 'authorized' to sigh my opinions about BR on behalf of a friend, so my comments can be taken to come from two people...

Just like the way that you revert to a child when your personal interpretation of Superman is threatened by someone else's.

jawaplumber

09-01-2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Superman has a lot in common with various religious archetypes. Just because Siegel and Shuster were Jewish does not preclude them from taking themes dominant in many religious cultures. I'd guess, and I don't know this for fact so someone can come along and correct me here, but I'd guess that Siegel and Shuster were NOT thinking directly about ANY of those figures. But I think they TAPPED INTO a greater mythology. Also, Superman has changed over the years, being interpreted differently by different writers. So the character himself could have still felt the influence of the Christian mythology (and I use the term mythology here not to offend Christians, but to refer to the bible as stories that have been passed down in our culture, whether you think of them as factual or not) in later years.

But to play the game: Moses led his people out of Egypt. Traditionally, Superman isn't really a leader in that sense; he just wanders around and does good deeds and shows people how to be good to one another by following his example. He inspires. He always seeks peaceful resolution. This sounds more like Jesus than Moses to me. Of course, that's Superman as he has come to be. Early S&S Superman WAS more of a fighter, striking back at oppressors, which was actually more in line with Moses. Hey, that might be the start of a good debate: Did Superman start off as Moses, only to be turned into Jesus? Can we draw a line between Old Testament Supes and New Testament Supes?

Also, while Moses may have arrived via basket, he was born of man and woman, while Superman was sent to us from above, like another messianic figure (I guess you could say Mary was his rocket ship? ;) ). See, I really think you can draw parallels between several different figures...and we've only mentioned the Jewish and Christian ones here.

These are some excellent points :) Outside of religion, I've also always drawn comparison betwen Superman and Othello. Both are warriors from an outside land who have come to be loved and honored in their adopted home, only to have a very prominent member of their society turn jealous, hate them for their race, and plot their downfall for the love of a woman. Sound familiar? :)

Dave Accampo

09-01-2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
These are some excellent points :) Outside of religion, I've also always drawn comparison betwen Superman and Othello. Both are warriors from an outside land who have come to be loved and honored in their adopted home, only to have a very prominent member of their society turn jealous, hate them for their race, and plot their downfall for the love of a woman. Sound familiar? :)

Perfect example, Jawa. I was thinking of finding some parallels in other mythologies, but you found one in Shakespeare. Nice.

I think the point about all this is that the reason Superman is such an archetypal figure is that he taps into this great human tradition of myth, legend, folklore, and drama...all boiled down into the crucible of pop culture.

Maybe that's why continuity and a serial format doesn't really work for me with Superman. He's bigger than one interpretation, one history. Everybody has an idea of what Superman is, even those that have never read the comics.

SIDE NOTE: As an experiment, I once searched for and downloaded as many pop songs as I could find that were about Superman or referenced him in some way. The idea was to create a Superman-themed CD mix. I had realized that he was the only Super-hero that had a radio pop song written about him every 5-10 years. Turns out I could never even FIT all the songs onto one CD. I think I ended up with more than 50 tracks on my computer, from Five for Fighting and the Spin Doctors, to The Flaming Lips, the Crash Test Dummies, Jim Croce, and, well, a whole lot more. Batman or Spider-man may be more popular if you were to take a poll, but no other character, probably no other FICTIONAL character, fits into our modern culture the way Superman does. I think that says a LOT about the symbolism and myth he taps into.

Carrie

09-01-2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Shecky J.
The best part in Birthright is when Superman incinerates his first childhood puppy.

I've been waiting years to see something like that!

That was Hyperion, in Supreme Power #1 :)

Carrie

09-01-2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
I hate to jump on this point that's been so overly-saturated, but I just think it's interesting that you make the above determination AFTER quoting (or displaying) the aforementioned line: "I'm not sure if that halo is a soul or an aura or what." As another poster mentioned, this was left intentional vague, as all things in pop culture are when they relate to the gray areas between science and religion. It could be a form of Kirilian field as he explains it, and that would match the fading of the aura when something dies.

Well said! :) I have had a problem with calling these auras "souls" from the beginning. The fact that they fade out as a creature dies goes against the very definition of a soul. A living being's soul is supposed to be the one part of them that remains, even after they die. It may float away, it might even disperse, but by definition, the soul of a living creature should never just fade away. Whether you subscribe to the beliefs of modern religion or not, certainly most people are aware that a soul is the one thing that is supposed to go on forever.

Dave Accampo

09-01-2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by KryptoGal
Well said! :) I have had a problem with calling these auras "souls" from the beginning. The fact that they fade out as a creature dies goes against the very definition of a soul. A living being's soul is supposed to be the one part of them that remains, even after they die. It may float away, it might even disperse, but by definition, the soul of a living creature should never just fade away. Whether you subscribe to the beliefs of modern religion or not, certainly most people are aware that a soul is the one thing that is supposed to go on forever.

Jeez, that's a great point! You'd think if it WAS a soul, he'd actually see the "halo" leave the body and ascend into the sky. Now THAT would be MotA's "godvision."

Carrie

09-01-2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
I'm not defensive about religion or vegetarism... I'm defensive of good WRITING ( :) that was for Jawa's sake, not for yours, lol ), and Birthright is not good writing.

Okay, whether or not Birthright is good writing is subjective. I happen to think it is very well written. I know others who feel that way, too. I am sorry that you and your friend do not agree, but your OPINION about it doesn't change the fact that I enjoy it.

Waid is writing about the Superman he read about as a kid, not about the best version of the character...

Again, in your opinion....maybe Waid feels that THIS is the best version of the character. You have every right to disagree with him, but the fact that you don't agree with him doesn't make him wrong. It just means his opinion differs from yours. I'm sorry that you don't like the book, but to be honest, I don't really think it is necessary for you to like every version of Superman that is out there. There are so many different opinions about which is the best version, I feel that DC would be doing a tremendous disservice to a great many fans if they concentrated solely on one version of the story. I am sure that would please you, but what pleases you doesn't always please everyone. If you don't like Birthright, then perhaps you should stick with one of the myriad of other Superman titles.

I've been 'authorized' to sigh my opinions about BR on behalf of a friend, so my comments can be taken to come from two people...

Two people out of how many that have read the book?

jawaplumber

09-01-2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Perfect example, Jawa. I was thinking of finding some parallels in other mythologies, but you found one in Shakespeare. Nice.

I think the point about all this is that the reason Superman is such an archetypal figure is that he taps into this great human tradition of myth, legend, folklore, and drama...all boiled down into the crucible of pop culture.

Maybe that's why continuity and a serial format doesn't really work for me with Superman. He's bigger than one interpretation, one history. Everybody has an idea of what Superman is, even those that have never read the comics.

SIDE NOTE: As an experiment, I once searched for and downloaded as many pop songs as I could find that were about Superman or referenced him in some way. The idea was to create a Superman-themed CD mix. I had realized that he was the only Super-hero that had a radio pop song written about him every 5-10 years. Turns out I could never even FIT all the songs onto one CD. I think I ended up with more than 50 tracks on my computer, from Five for Fighting and the Spin Doctors, to The Flaming Lips, the Crash Test Dummies, Jim Croce, and, well, a whole lot more. Batman or Spider-man may be more popular if you were to take a poll, but no other character, probably no other FICTIONAL character, fits into our modern culture the way Superman does. I think that says a LOT about the symbolism and myth he taps into.

You really summed up my feelings on Superman. I truly feel that he and the most iconic of super-heroes are a part of the undefined American mythology and folklore. And as myths and legends and folklore have always been in times past, the stories change depending on the times and the person or persons telling the stories. To restrict Superman to an absolute set of continuity rules is putting him on a level with fucking Barnaby Jones or some shit. You're destroying part of the magic and the uniqueness.

I've spent time thinking about Superman's place in modern songwriting, as well. There is a further parallel to be drawn between this and the way legends were passed on most frequently in earlier cultures, via songs and poems of minstrels and bards. I realize I'm being totally dorky here, but it's quite comparable when you consider it.

As for Shakespeare, if you liked the Superman/Othello comparison, you'll dig the Batman/Hamlet ;) A wealthy, prominent member of society mysteriously loses their parent(s), goes into a state of dark mourning that leads to a "haunting" via the memory/spirit of the deceased victim(s) and spirits him to dedicate his life to seeking revenge on the guilty parties, while wearing what may or may not be a mask of insanity (a second identity, if you will), and keeping potential lovers at a distance.

Ok, who's the crazy one: me or MOTA? ;)

jawaplumber

09-01-2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Jeez, that's a great point! You'd think if it WAS a soul, he'd actually see the "halo" leave the body and ascend into the sky. Now THAT would be MotA's "godvision."

Which further adds evidence to the fact that it was all left vague so it could be interpreted a variety of ways, as we said above.

Carrie

09-01-2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
You really summed up my feelings on Superman. I truly feel that he and the most iconic of super-heroes are a part of the undefined American mythology and folklore. And as myths and legends and folklore have always been in times past, the stories change depending on the times and the person or persons telling the stories. To restrict Superman to an absolute set of continuity rules is putting him on a level with fucking Barnaby Jones or some shit. You're destroying part of the magic and the uniqueness.

I've spent time thinking about Superman's place in modern songwriting, as well. There is a further parallel to be drawn between this and the way legends were passed on most frequently in earlier cultures, via songs and poems of minstrels and bards. I realize I'm being totally dorky here, but it's quite comparable when you consider it.

As for Shakespeare, if you liked the Superman/Othello comparison, you'll dig the Batman/Hamlet ;) A wealthy, prominent member of society mysteriously loses their parent(s), goes into a state of dark mourning that leads to a "haunting" via the memory/spirit of the deceased victim(s) and spirits him to dedicate his life to seeking revenge on the guilty parties, while wearing what may or may not be a mask of insanity (a second identity, if you will), and keeping potential lovers at a distance.

Ok, who's the crazy one: me or MOTA? ;)

Neither! I am the crazy one ;) and when you talk like that, you remind me why I fell so hard in the first place! Very well said!

Shecky J.

09-01-2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by KryptoGal
That was Hyperion, in Supreme Power #1 :)

Yeah, that's what I meant. Superion from Supreme Birthright #1. Great book!

Gear

09-01-2003, 04:27 PM

Dave Accampo

09-01-2003, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
Ok, who's the crazy one: me or MOTA? ;)

Crazy...but in the good way. :)

Love the observation about Batman and Hamlet. Again it goes right to the point about how certain characters really get under our collective skin. Superman and Batman are the two primary examples. I think it was author Michael Chabon that talked about Superman as being the great immigrant myth: You change your true name (Kal-El) for an American one (Clark Kent), and try to fit into your new country. But it is the special unique abilities that you carry with you from your homeland that will set you apart and make you a success. Superman has become more than a character, he's the symbol for everything we strive for. And it's not the fact that he has superhuman powers; it's the fact that he uses them for good because he CAN. In a way (and I may be stretching my definitions here, but bear with me) Superman is FUNCTION, while Batman is DYSFUNCTION. Maybe that's why Bats is cooler, and easier to read as an adult in serial format. He's a Freudian nightmare, a man trapped in a tragic loop, constantly lashing out against a childhood trauma. If he ever got better, he'd stop being Batman. In some interpretations, he's flat out insane. But even at best, he's one man trying to impose order on a city of chaos. He's Sisyphus rolling the rock up the hill for all eternity. I think that dark side of heroic struggle is better defined in Batman, which makes him an edgier character -- cooler to angsty teens and cynical adults.

jawaplumber

09-02-2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Crazy...but in the good way. :)

Love the observation about Batman and Hamlet. Again it goes right to the point about how certain characters really get under our collective skin. Superman and Batman are the two primary examples. I think it was author Michael Chabon that talked about Superman as being the great immigrant myth: You change your true name (Kal-El) for an American one (Clark Kent), and try to fit into your new country. But it is the special unique abilities that you carry with you from your homeland that will set you apart and make you a success. Superman has become more than a character, he's the symbol for everything we strive for. And it's not the fact that he has superhuman powers; it's the fact that he uses them for good because he CAN. In a way (and I may be stretching my definitions here, but bear with me) Superman is FUNCTION, while Batman is DYSFUNCTION. Maybe that's why Bats is cooler, and easier to read as an adult in serial format. He's a Freudian nightmare, a man trapped in a tragic loop, constantly lashing out against a childhood trauma. If he ever got better, he'd stop being Batman. In some interpretations, he's flat out insane. But even at best, he's one man trying to impose order on a city of chaos. He's Sisyphus rolling the rock up the hill for all eternity. I think that dark side of heroic struggle is better defined in Batman, which makes him an edgier character -- cooler to angsty teens and cynical adults.

Preach on, my brother!

It's getting kinda late and I need to be getting some shut-eye before I go back to the daily grind tomorrow, but I will add this, my very simplistic view on the comparison between Superman and Batman: Superman is the ultimate childhood fantasy, and Batman is the ultimate childhood nightmare. Superman, again from a simplisitic viewpoint, woke up one morning with everything a little kid could ever want. Batman, late one night, lost everything a little kid is afraid of losing. It's all about what that kid does from there with his life that is most important. The rest is just icing on the cake.

BLACKBRIAR

09-02-2003, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by TylerS
"This came as a surprise, because I am a big fan of Chuck Austen’s writing. "

I stopped reading there.

Ditto.

Dave Accampo

09-02-2003, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
Preach on, my brother!

It's getting kinda late and I need to be getting some shut-eye before I go back to the daily grind tomorrow, but I will add this, my very simplistic view on the comparison between Superman and Batman: Superman is the ultimate childhood fantasy, and Batman is the ultimate childhood nightmare. Superman, again from a simplisitic viewpoint, woke up one morning with everything a little kid could ever want. Batman, late one night, lost everything a little kid is afraid of losing. It's all about what that kid does from there with his life that is most important. The rest is just icing on the cake.

Nicely summed up, Jawa. Sounds like we've got similar, over-analyzed, incredibly geeky theories on comics and the role of the super-hero in pop culture. If you ever find yourself out in LA, I'm gonna have to buy you a beer. :)

jawaplumber

09-02-2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Nicely summed up, Jawa. Sounds like we've got similar, over-analyzed, incredibly geeky theories on comics and the role of the super-hero in pop culture. If you ever find yourself out in LA, I'm gonna have to buy you a beer. :)

Don't hold your breath waiting for me to make it out to the West Coast (I barely make it outside of my county LOL), but otherwise you've got yourself a deal :)

cactusmaac

09-02-2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Shecky J.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Superion from Supreme Birthright #1. Great book!

Superion died in the Dreamwave Transformers mini-series. :)

rdcoyner

09-02-2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Shecky J.
The best part in Birthright is when Superman incinerates his first childhood puppy.

I've been waiting years to see something like that!

Umm, is that a joke? I haven't read Birthright, but that happened in Supreme Power #1...

Dave Accampo

09-02-2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by rdcoyner
Umm, is that a joke? I haven't read Birthright, but that happened in Supreme Power #1...

Yeah, it's a joke...everyone's just having a little fun with the whole Hyperion/Superman thing...

rdcoyner

09-02-2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
And Superman being resurected from the dead would make him Lazarus, not Jesus :) Whoever resurected him would be Jesus, right?

I can't believe I'm commenting on this, but after three days, Jesus rose again. Crucified on Good Friday, resurrected on Easter Sunday.

Cray_ws

09-02-2003, 04:33 PM

I think the bullet-proof vest thing is a good catch. Of course, it's no worse than a DOZEN things that you can catch in any given super-hero comic, and so the level of anger directed at this faulty idea is not really justifiable (it's more of a No Prize offense, in my mind).

I think the majority of the readership lacks any standards of what is good writing and are so used to these "faulty ideas" or mistakes that defy the plausibilty of fictional logic or plotlines that its become acceptable part of comics. As if the art nullifies good writing and editing.

I think the "no prize" level of writing and editing is long past its time. If Mark Waid wrote Birthright as novel and Superman didn't fall over from the shot or explain why he didn't. It just plan poor writing folks I'm not attacking him personally.

I think the level of writing must advance as the art continues to do so. I'm glad MOTA pointed those inaccurracies out. He should not be ridiculed for spotting such flaw, nor should we attack Mark Waid, I'd rather just say that such a mistake is what made Birthright a poor read.

People need to expect writers to constantly improve. Otherwise we remain stagnant.

jawaplumber

09-02-2003, 11:10 PM

Dave Accampo

09-03-2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Cray_ws
I think the majority of the readership lacks any standards of what is good writing and are so used to these "faulty ideas" or mistakes that defy the plausibilty of fictional logic or plotlines that its become acceptable part of comics. As if the art nullifies good writing and editing.

I think the "no prize" level of writing and editing is long past its time. If Mark Waid wrote Birthright as novel and Superman didn't fall over from the shot or explain why he didn't. It just plan poor writing folks I'm not attacking him personally.

I think the level of writing must advance as the art continues to do so. I'm glad MOTA pointed those inaccurracies out. He should not be ridiculed for spotting such flaw, nor should we attack Mark Waid, I'd rather just say that such a mistake is what made Birthright a poor read.

People need to expect writers to constantly improve. Otherwise we remain stagnant.

Now see, you open up a whole new can of worms when you use terms like "standards" of writing. I hold writers in comics to higher standards than most other comics readers I know, partly because my academic background is in the craft of fiction. So things like dialogue, character, and dramatic structure are incredibly important to me.

PLOT, on the other hand, is something that's less important to me, it has to be consistent, but I don't need to be bludgeoned by it. Vladimir Nabokov thought that the plot was the basest aspect of writing. Margaret Atwood once wrote a great metafictional essay about writing, in which she said (I'm paraphrasing here) "A plot is just a what, a what, and a what. Now try the how and the why." That's one I quote a lot. The implication being that events happening are not a story -- the intersection of character and circumstance are plot. You need to start with that, and the plot just happens. Why am I telling you this? Because I've always felt that in the past, comics writers were way to caught up in making things happen, and you ended up with a lot of cookie-cutter twists and turns with no real emotional impact. In the last 20 years, I've seen huge advances in comics writing because the industry started taking its writers more seriously, and it therefore brought more serious writers into the industry. Many of the skills they brought with them -- cinematic structure, complex characters, realistic dialogue -- raised the bar for the quality of writing, IMHO.

The "No Prize" comment about the mistake of the bulletproof vest was not an excuse for the thing. It's just that it's a common thing in science fiction and fantasy, and it's something that I have come to put much lower on my list of What Is Good Writing.

That said, I also think I made the No Prize analogy because I thought the point was a good catch, but it was something for which my own mind IMMEDIATELY filled in the gap. In other words, on first reading the writer did not need to tell me everything because my own mind sorted through the inconsistency by thinking that if I were a gunman, and I shot a guy who didn't fall down, I'd probably think he was wearing a vest and was pumped up on drugs or something.

But,as I previously added, I had to give MotA points because after thinking about it, I had to admit that in the DC universe that MAY not have been the first impulse of a gunman. Then again, it may have.

Whether it's a mistake or not, it would not mar my enjoyment of the issue. However, if the tension was not aptly created, if the dialogue was stilted or too expositional, if the characters were cardboard...THAT would have ruined it for me.

As it was, it was just so-so. Decent, not offensive by any means, but I'm still not sold that it's a story that *I* need to read.

Someday, I'll actually write a short reply.

Someday. :)

Carrie

09-03-2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Now see, you open up a whole new can of worms when you use terms like "standards" of writing. I hold writers in comics to higher standards than most other comics readers I know, partly because my academic background is in the craft of fiction. So things like dialogue, character, and dramatic structure are incredibly important to me.

PLOT, on the other hand, is something that's less important to me, it has to be consistent, but I don't need to be bludgeoned by it. Vladimir Nabokov thought that the plot was the basest aspect of writing. Margaret Atwood once wrote a great metafictional essay about writing, in which she said (I'm paraphrasing here) "A plot is just a what, a what, and a what. Now try the how and the why." That's one I quote a lot. The implication being that events happening are not a story -- the intersection of character and circumstance are plot. You need to start with that, and the plot just happens. Why am I telling you this? Because I've always felt that in the past, comics writers were way to caught up in making things happen, and you ended up with a lot of cookie-cutter twists and turns with no real emotional impact. In the last 20 years, I've seen huge advances in comics writing because the industry started taking its writers more seriously, and it therefore brought more serious writers into the industry. Many of the skills they brought with them -- cinematic structure, complex characters, realistic dialogue -- raised the bar for the quality of writing, IMHO.

The "No Prize" comment about the mistake of the bulletproof vest was not an excuse for the thing. It's just that it's a common thing in science fiction and fantasy, and it's something that I have come to put much lower on my list of What Is Good Writing.

That said, I also think I made the No Prize analogy because I thought the point was a good catch, but it was something for which my own mind IMMEDIATELY filled in the gap. In other words, on first reading the writer did not need to tell me everything because my own mind sorted through the inconsistency by thinking that if I were a gunman, and I shot a guy who didn't fall down, I'd probably think he was wearing a vest and was pumped up on drugs or something.

But,as I previously added, I had to give MotA points because after thinking about it, I had to admit that in the DC universe that MAY not have been the first impulse of a gunman. Then again, it may have.

Whether it's a mistake or not, it would not mar my enjoyment of the issue. However, if the tension was not aptly created, if the dialogue was stilted or too expositional, if the characters were cardboard...THAT would have ruined it for me.

As it was, it was just so-so. Decent, not offensive by any means, but I'm still not sold that it's a story that *I* need to read.

Someday, I'll actually write a short reply.

Someday. :)

Intelligent, well thought out replies seem to be such a rarity these days. So, at least as far as I am concerned, they are always welcome, regardless of length. :)

Dave Accampo

09-03-2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by KryptoGal
Intelligent, well thought out replies seem to be such a rarity these days. So, at least as far as I am concerned, they are always welcome, regardless of length. :)

:) Thanks!

(Hey, look! A short post!)

09-03-2003, 10:46 PM

So I'm watching Class of 1999 last night for the first time ever.

There's a scene in the movie where the lead shoots one of the killer robots with an Uzi and the robot (who the lead still doesn't know is a robot) doesn't fall to the ground and just starts calmly talking to him (as in, no sign of adrenaline rush or the like).

A scene later the lead tells the female lead 'I shot him and he didn't even fall down, like they're not human or something!'

The previous scene set the lead into his investigation about who the teachers really were, robots.

So, in other words, a lame low budget movie was better written than a Superman comic...

The reaction this character had in this movie is the kind of reaction I expected from the people that shot Clark, not a lame 'eh, he's wearing a vest'.

And the excuse that 'it happens in super hero comics all the time' doesn't really work.

I mean, if pencilers started drawing characters with six toes and three index fingers per hand then people would inmediately think there was something wrong, they wouldn't just accept it.

Why not expect the same kind of attention from the writing?

Why should the art be held to a higher standard of quality than the writing?

Shecky J.

09-03-2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
A scene later the lead tells the female lead 'I shot him and he didn't even fall down, like they're not human or something!'

I hate to be the prick here, but all this talk got me curious so decided to crack open my Birthright. I still haven't read it, but I did flip to the two pages in question with regards to Clark getting shot and not falling down. Despite the fact that this ManoftheAtom guy is my hero (c'mon, how can you not love this guy?), people falling down when shot is not a hard and fast rule, with or without the benefit of Kevlar. See, I have a little bolt action Winchester .22 rifle. If someone got shot with that, it would hurt, might even kill them if you hit a vital organ, but they won't always fall down. Now, if you were to get hit by a bullet flying from an M-16 rifle (like what the Americans used in Vietnam), chances are you're going down. It's even said that the bullet is traveling at such a high velocity, even hitting your enemy in the finger could potentially kill him (due to the body shock). The drawback to this being that the bullets were traveling so fast that any little thing in the way (even a leaf) could send the bullets going in wildly different directions.

Now of the two guys I'm looking at, one seems to have a hand gun of some type and the other, maybe an AK-47 (I don't know much about guns. The stuff above is just from watching documentaries). Now I know in movies we're taught to believe that you fall down when shot while wearing Kevlar. Heck, if you're Mel Gibson you'll even fly through the air and through a plate glass window when taking a shotgun blast in the chest (Lethal Weapon) completely violating the laws of physics (that being any force that pushes in one direction must also push back in the opposite direction, meaning the holder of the gun would also have to fly backwards five or ten feet. Or something like that, I'm no good at physics either).

I think I had a point here. Oh yeah, two guys shooting at what is not point blank range (more like 15-25 feet) with a hand gun and an Ak-47(?) might not take a person wearing Kevlar down, even if they did hit him 9 or 10 times as shown.

If you want a real-life example, just remember back to those two yahoos who robbed the bank in... L.A.? Covered in body armor, machine guns in hand, those two took a lot of cop bullets and didn't go down. They weren't moving fast, but they sure weren't falling. In fact, I think the only thing that could bring them down in the end was a few well placed bullets to the head (the only part of them not protected by Kevlar.)

There, I've gone and done it. Now I'm the prick. Okay, have at me. I'm sure there's more plot holes in my argument than any Mark Waid book. Well, even if he wasn't a good writer, at least he's good looking.

Dave Accampo

09-04-2003, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
So, in other words, a lame low budget movie was better written than a Superman comic...

The reaction this character had in this movie is the kind of reaction I expected from the people that shot Clark, not a lame 'eh, he's wearing a vest'.

I think the key there is the phrase, "reaction I EXPECTED." It doesn't mean that everyone has the same reaction.

Flannery O'Connor said that writing stories was writing about "what people will do." Despite everything, what people will do. Now in literary circles, that usually used to talk about how characters attempt to overcome obstacles, but I think it can be stretched here to show that people have vastly different perceptions and reactions to certain events. So, I still don't see that the Class of 1999 is somehow the bulletproof example of how one should write science fiction (no pun intended).

Ironically, I think the fact that this small point has caused such great concern really says something POSITIVE about Waid's writing. In other words, his dialogue, his dramatic structure, the interaction of characters and how they moved the plot forward...well, all that must be pretty good if the biggest thing you notice is some sort of perceived flaw in two characters' reactions to a small scene that wasn't even the POINT of the story.

Now, if the story had been about two gunmen who try to take down a guy who doesn't fall down when they shoot him, and THEN they had that same reaction...well, I'd probably be more disturbed because said reaction is the crux of the story. But it wasn't. And thus, it falls much further down my list of What Is Good Writing, as previously mentioned.

I dunno. As another poster mentioned, people don't always fall down. The world is a weird place. Sometimes parachutes don't open, but skydivers fall to the ground and somehow live. Someone sees the Virgin Mary in the dust on a chalkboard, and it's the biggest moment of their lives, while 30 other people take one look at it just the a random streak of dust particles. Strange things happen, and people also have strange, unexpected reactions to things.

As for the six-toe analogy -- well, it doesn't really work. I see what you're going for with the whole "laws of physics" "laws of nature" thing, but the problem is that the "error" isn't that the character didn't fall down. THAT would have been an appropriate analogy. No, the supposed error is in one PERSON'S reaction. This is not science. It's people. This is What People Will Do (and Say) despite everything.

rdcoyner

09-04-2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Shecky J.
If you want a real-life example, just remember back to those two yahoos who robbed the bank in... L.A.? Covered in body armor, machine guns in hand, those two took a lot of cop bullets and didn't go down. They weren't moving fast, but they sure weren't falling. In fact, I think the only thing that could bring them down in the end was a few well placed bullets to the head (the only part of them not protected by Kevlar.)

Great example. I also remember reading in Blackhawk Down, Delta Operator Howe said that he shot a guy with his high-tech (as of early 90s) sniper rifle and the guy stumbled then kept running - the bullet went right through him. He then commented he was pissed because he realized why another Operator - Randy Shughart - kept his old style sniper rifle. When he shot someone, the force knocked'em down and they stayed down.

rdcoyner

09-04-2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Shecky J.
If you want a real-life example, just remember back to those two yahoos who robbed the bank in... L.A.? Covered in body armor, machine guns in hand, those two took a lot of cop bullets and didn't go down. They weren't moving fast, but they sure weren't falling. In fact, I think the only thing that could bring them down in the end was a few well placed bullets to the head (the only part of them not protected by Kevlar.)

Great example. I also remember reading in Blackhawk Down, Delta Operator Howe said that he shot a guy with his high-tech (as of early 90s) sniper rifle and the guy stumbled then kept running - the bullet went right through him. He then commented he was pissed because he realized why another Operator - Randy Shughart - kept his older sniper rifle. When he shot someone, the force knocked'em down and they stayed down.

rdcoyner

09-04-2003, 12:17 PM

jawaplumber

09-04-2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
[BAnd the excuse that 'it happens in super hero comics all the time' doesn't really work.
[/B]

How's this for my excuse...

I DIDN'T NOTICE IT AND I DON'T REALLY CARE.

You know, MOTA, what I've come to realize about you is this: somewhere along the way, some comic book reader who is older than you and has an affinity for the Silver Age must have said something insulting to you about the Bronze/Modern Age comics that you cherish with the same nostalgia as any SA fan holds for theirs, and now you are going to forever lump anyone who likes anything that is remotely similiar to a pre-1986 concept into one large group of ignorant, uninformed and judgmental people who are out to get you and burn every copy of Byrne's MAN OF STEEL from the memories of everyone else around the world. We don't all have the same arguments, the same points, and the same opinions, just because we all think Krypto is a cool character.

So, if I am right about this, could you please tell me who this Silver Age fan is, so I can hop on my Cosmic Treadmill, find him, and whip his candy ass, so that the entire internet can be rid of this crusade you are on?!

09-05-2003, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
How's this for my excuse...

I DIDN'T NOTICE IT AND I DON'T REALLY CARE.

You know, MOTA, what I've come to realize about you is this: somewhere along the way, some comic book reader who is older than you and has an affinity for the Silver Age must have said something insulting to you about the Bronze/Modern Age comics that you cherish with the same nostalgia as any SA fan holds for theirs, and now you are going to forever lump anyone who likes anything that is remotely similiar to a pre-1986 concept into one large group of ignorant, uninformed and judgmental people who are out to get you and burn every copy of Byrne's MAN OF STEEL from the memories of everyone else around the world. We don't all have the same arguments, the same points, and the same opinions, just because we all think Krypto is a cool character.

So, if I am right about this, could you please tell me who this Silver Age fan is, so I can hop on my Cosmic Treadmill, find him, and whip his candy ass, so that the entire internet can be rid of this crusade you are on?!

Sorry, you're wrong.

You do know that it's possible to HATE the Silver Age comics just because they were bad, right?

Good concepts screwed up by crappy execution.

Green Lantern Corps = Awesome concept, best of the best.

Krypto the Super Dog and Beeppo the Super Monkey = What the hell were they thinking?!?

Superman as SuperGod = Huh? Why? He's just an alien, what makes him a God?

Superman comes First, Clark Second = So what, he puts the spandex and suddenly he no longer exists? Idiotic.

You can try again if you like, but the end result will be the same; I hate the Silver Age because it was BAD, bad writing, bad art, bad stories.

jawaplumber

09-05-2003, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Sorry, you're wrong.

You do know that it's possible to HATE the Silver Age comics just because they were bad, right?

Good concepts screwed up by crappy execution.

Green Lantern Corps = Awesome concept, best of the best.

Krypto the Super Dog and Beeppo the Super Monkey = What the hell were they thinking?!?

Superman as SuperGod = Huh? Why? He's just an alien, what makes him a God?

Superman comes First, Clark Second = So what, he puts the spandex and suddenly he no longer exists? Idiotic.

You can try again if you like, but the end result will be the same; I hate the Silver Age because it was BAD, bad writing, bad art, bad stories.

No, it's not possible to hate something the way you have the Silver Age (which by the way seems to be your label for ANY comic that was published before the 1980's) just because it's "bad". It's not possible for you to be all over the internet as much as you are, spewing endlessly and illogically, for just a simple reason. The answers to all the questions you asked, however, ARE simple: they were someone else's interpretation of Superman, not yours, and that's the REAL problem here, isn't it? You have that little nugget in your quote about comics being a Rorshach test and blah blah blah, but it seems to me that you rarely hold to that concept. If you truly did, you wouldn't be knocking the work of so many comic book writers and the opinions of so many of your fellow comic book fans. There's something much deeper here, MOTA, and I feel sorry for you, I truly do.

09-05-2003, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
they were someone else's interpretation of Superman, not yours, and that's the REAL problem here, isn't it? You have that little nugget in your quote about comics being a Rorshach test and blah blah blah, but it seems to me that you rarely hold to that concept. If you truly did, you wouldn't be knocking the work of so many comic book writers and the opinions of so many of your fellow comic book fans. There's something much deeper here, MOTA, and I feel sorry for you, I truly do.

Wrong again

In the first place I'm not defending MY version of Superman. Trust me, you've never seen MY version of Superman.

If I'm defending anything it's the most interesting and clear version of Superman, one that isn't dragged by some people's ideology that because his name starts with Super he should be a God (do you have any other excuse for why of all the alien characters on Earth this one seems to have God-like powers at least in the SA and BR versions of the story?).

You may not like the good version of the character, you want one that's more comic booky. You have the right to that opinion but I have the right to debate it.

If your reply to that challenge is to throw personal insults than the one you should feel sorry for is yourself, for once you resort to personal insults then it means you lost, you've run out of anything concrete to say.

You can't think of any ONE reason to defend the precious SA and BR versions of SuperGod, so you have to resort to insulting anyone that dares to challenge them.

Not too different from a religious zealot defending his God once you think about it...

jawaplumber

09-05-2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Wrong again

In the first place I'm not defending MY version of Superman. Trust me, you've never seen MY version of Superman.

If I'm defending anything it's the most interesting and clear version of Superman, one that isn't dragged by some people's ideology that because his name starts with Super he should be a God (do you have any other excuse for why of all the alien characters on Earth this one seems to have God-like powers at least in the SA and BR versions of the story?).

You may not like the good version of the character, you want one that's more comic booky. You have the right to that opinion but I have the right to debate it.

If your reply to that challenge is to throw personal insults than the one you should feel sorry for is yourself, for once you resort to personal insults then it means you lost, you've run out of anything concrete to say.

You can't think of any ONE reason to defend the precious SA and BR versions of SuperGod, so you have to resort to insulting anyone that dares to challenge them.

Not too different from a religious zealot defending his God once you think about it...

Boy, are YOU a hypocrite or what?

I think the debate is over because in this one post you MORE than proved my own point for me. Just because you didn't throw any personal insults out in this thread doesn't mean you haven't done it before, MOTA, so don't try to play sweet and innocent. Anyone who knows you from around the net knows this. And again, you continue to make assumptions of what other people's opinions are as soon as they diverge ever so slightly from yours.

MOTA, I have time and again explained my stance and opinion on Superman and who and what I think the character should be. You've refused to take any of it into consideration, you ignore it, and you just twist my words and the words of others around to continually benefit and enable your own paranoia. So, why should I show you any respect when you refuse to do the same for others?

09-05-2003, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
So, why should I show you any respect when you refuse to do the same for others?

I'm respectful, I'm not the one that starts the insults, not unless the people I'm debating with start getting repetitive and annoying first by choosing to ignore what's being pointed out to them or just making fun of what I'm telling them.

You insult me, I insult you, and tonight you started to insult me.

Keep it up...

Just look at your pathetic reply on that other thread.

I bring up how full of inconsistancies the damn Silver Age is and your reply is 'oh, it doesn't matter, I'll just have sex with Lara while watching porn movies of Sue having sex with her brother'

That's the best you can do. You can't actually debate ANY of the points I brought up about Jor-El and Zor-El so you resort to insult me and make fun of what I'm saying because your pea-sized brain can't actually come up with any way to counteract ANYTHING that I said, and you're doing the same HERE.

So keep it up, just accept that YOU'RE the one that started a fight tonight, not me...

jawaplumber

09-05-2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
I'm respectful, I'm not the one that starts the insults, not unless the people I'm debating with start getting repetitive and annoying first by choosing to ignore what's being pointed out to them or just making fun of what I'm telling them.

You insult me, I insult you, and tonight you started to insult me.

Keep it up...

Just look at your pathetic reply on that other thread.

I bring up how full of inconsistancies the damn Silver Age is and your reply is 'oh, it doesn't matter, I'll just have sex Lara while wathinch porn of Sue having sex with her brother'

That's the best you can do. You can't actually debate ANY of the points I brought up about Jor-El and Zor-El so you resort to insult me and make fun of what I'm aying because you pea-sized brain can't actually come up with any way to counteract ANYTHING that I said, and you're keeping it up HERE.

So keep it up, just accept that YOU'RE the one that started a fight tonight, not me...

So, is that the way this is gonna go now? "You started it!" "No, YOU started it!" Sorry, but no. You're damn right I started it :) But that post on the thread about Krypton has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. That was just me poking some fun at your expense. This is about you being a hypocrite.

As for a debate, this is my whole point here, MOTA: many have tried to debate this with you, particularly myself, and it's become tired because you refuse to respect anyone's opinions. The points you make? The only points you ever make is that something is "bad writting". That's not a point, Mikey. That's an opinion. Again, we're coming back to you being a hypocrite. You're right, I have NOTHING to counteract what you say, because it's only MY opinion. This is the message I am trying to send you. Maybe someday you'll actually figure that out.

09-05-2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
As for a debate, this is my whole point here, MOTA: many have tried to debate this with you, particularly myself, and it's become tired because you refuse to respect anyone's opinions. The points you make? The only points you ever make is that something is "bad writting". That's not a point, Mikey. That's an opinion. Again, we're coming back to you being a hypocrite. You're right, I have NOTHING to counteract what you say, because it's only MY opinion. This is the message I am trying to send you. Maybe someday you'll actually figure that out.

My point has always been that Silver Age writing is bad. People's 'opinion's' are never that, they are always reasons and excuses for why the writing was so bad.

It goes from 'it was the times', to 'it's only comics'.

Are you telling me that those are opinions?

'In my opinion the writing was bad because it was the 1960's and it was only comics'?

What a pathetic opinion!

You wanna talk about hypocrate... anyone that ever says that comics are a medium and not a genre but then makes the above excuse for poor writing in the 1960's and earlier is one.

Do you ever hear anyone say that books were poorly writen because it was the (decade of your choice)?

Why is it that people can admit that TV and movies back then were bad but they can't do the same for comics?

I'll put it in examples you can understand, which I know you'll ignore.

TV in the 60's had milestones that moved that medium forward.

Milestones from Kirk kissing Uhura to Lucy getting pregnant.

The comic book equivalent of those milestones are stories like Hardtravelling Heroes, Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, Year One, Man of Steel and Crisis.

Projects like Birthright, which revert back to how things used to be before those milestones, is no different than TV shows suddenly making it against the rules to show pregnant women or married couples sleeping in the same bed.

It's a step backwards.

These are facts, but you're most than likely gonna make it sound like it's only an opinion, so since you think that the above is only an opinion and NOT a fact then DEBATE IT. Debate the merits of what I told you, prove how my facts aren't really facts, counter them with actual proof, not YOUR opinion or personal insults...

Dave Accampo

09-05-2003, 03:45 AM

Dammit, I had a huge reply, but my connection went down and I lost it before I could submit it.

Oh well.

It went something like this:

I don't want to step into what appears to be a long-standing feud ( ;) ), but I thought some interesting points were raised, so I'd like to add my $0.02.

I'm not a huge fan of Silver Age comics, either. However, I wouldn't necessarily call the writing "bad', either. Comics were intended for kids, and were written with that in mind. Not that this was right or wrong (I tend to think adults underestimate children's abilities to handle complexity), but it WAS the aim of comics, and it succeeded, so it spawn more similar writing.

Modern writing has evolved, and in my mind, it's caught up with literature and cinema. I think this happened for two reasons: 1)the readership literally grew up and demanded more sophistication, and 2) today, people realize that kids CAN handle more complexity in their fiction.

HOWEVER, I think it's a grievous error to state that Waid is writing throwback fiction in Birthright. If the writer had written captions like "Superman spies the evil-doer in the distance with his supervision, and leaps into the sky in a blur of red and blue!", then I think you might have a case. But the pacing, structure, dialogue, and character development in the two issues I read is NOTHING like the "bad writing" that you are referring to. Because you're not really referring to the craft. You're referring to details of the character, that are fairly superficial. Maybe one version of Krypton sits better with you than another. Maybe one makes more sense, logically. But you know what? That has nothing to do with creating a story. Those are just statistics.

Case in point: Waid's "aura-vision." It's a small detail, but Waid is USING it to show a different aspect of a well-known character. He's adding or implementing an ability to the character because it allows him to develop Clark's character in a way that sheds new light on his character. It serves HIS story.

Superman is still the last son of a dead planet, sent to earth to live among us. He still maintains the ethics and morality given to him by the Kents, as well as genetic gifts given to him by his birthparents. He is still a man living a double-life. He is still Superman.

I don't care which VERSION you use, as long as you tell a good story. Super-breath is not a story. Giant gold keys are not a story. Aura-vision is not a story. But you can use ANY of it to tell a good Superman story, and I can get into it, if it's well-crafted.

I think the problem here is one of expectation. Personally, I like to just sit back and let the writer hit me with a good story. If it's got Superman in it -- that's cool. As long as you can spin the tale that sheds new light on an old character, then I'm happy. But it seems to me that many comics fans take on the aspect of "frustrated backseat driver." They've got one solid notion of the character, and they're seeking a story that fits that mold. But, hey, that's what fan fiction is for, right? ;)

lorbaat2

09-05-2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Ok, granted, a vest will stop you from dying, but you should STILL fall down.

There's no such thing as 'shock absorbing bulletproof vests', and the guy that shot Clark should know this.

You're right, there is no such thing as a "shock absorbing vest". There doesn't ned to be. A single bullet simply doesn't impart enough force to knock a person over. People fall down when shot because they rear back from the pain/surprise of getting hit.

My grandfather was something of a gun nut, and when I would vacation visiting him he would endeavor to teach me about firearms. This tutelage included watching several instructional videos. In one, a rather insane little stunt is pulled- one guy puts on a vest, and another fires a .45 at point blank range directly into his chest. The vest stops the bullet, the man remains standing the whole time. Barely rocks on his feet.

You obviously have no idea what you're rambling about.

eric

lorbaat2

09-05-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
A scene later the lead tells the female lead 'I shot him and he didn't even fall down, like they're not human or something!'

So, people give you factual evidence that humans don't fall down when shot, such as the LA bank robbers, and you respond with a scene from a low-budget movie?

eric

Dave Accampo

09-05-2003, 01:59 PM

09-05-2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by lorbaat2
So, people give you factual evidence that humans don't fall down when shot, such as the LA bank robbers, and you respond with a scene from a low-budget movie?

eric

Which has better writing than a Superman comics...

Did Clark at any time exibit any indication of being unfder the effect of a rush of adrenaline to justify his not staggering backwards or falling down to give the shooters any reason to think he was wearing a vest?

Or what about the people inside the truck with him? What's their reason for not having a better reaction, like checking him for injuries for one...

Dave Accampo

09-05-2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Or what about the people inside the truck with him? What's their reason for not having a better reaction, like checking him for injuries for one...

I thought it was fairly clear that they (the people in the truck) realized at that moment that he was more than human. They just didn't care.

Gear

09-05-2003, 04:52 PM

I just want to know haw seeing "life forces" makes one a God. If that's the case, I see a lot of 'gods' on TV caliming to see auras and spirits and such. Does that make them gods? IMO, it makes them quacks, but that' s just my opinion. In MOTA's case, it makes them 'gods'.
I thought God would need to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and ominpresent too.
Seeing auras is an awfully narrow view of a god.

BTW, I saw someone get hit with a bullet on a CSI last night. He didn't fall down. Bad writing I guess. They need to get out their "Class of 1999" primer.
-Jeff

You know, sometimes people get hit by a bullet and don't even know it. I guess if they fell down when it happened it might have clued them in.

lorbaat2

09-05-2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Which has better writing than a Superman comics...

Given the obvious reading comprehension difficulties you've displayed in this very thread- nay, the very post I am currently responding to- by doggedly denying despite factual evidence that a person can and will continue standing after getting shot, even at point blank range, I am not really sure you are qualified to judge which of the two has better writing.

eric

09-05-2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by lorbaat2
Given the obvious reading comprehension difficulties you've displayed in this very thread- nay, the very post I am currently responding to- by doggedly denying despite factual evidence that a person can and will continue standing after getting shot, even at point blank range, I am not really sure you are qualified to judge which of the two has better writing.

eric

You're missing the point.

Standing or not, the person being shot would react to being hit by the bullets, even in the smallest of ways.

Clark didn't react to it. He was like a wall being hit by bullets, he didn't move, not even an inch.

The people that shot him should have reacted to it, even if it was only to comment 'he's like a wall'.

Their reaction was poor, it was too simplistic. They shrug it off to his wearing a vest.

Even with a vest people that are shot react to being hit by the bullets, it doesn't matter if it doesn't knock them off their feet.

You're just making excuses for what actually happened, finding explanations outside the actual story to justify the reactions.

The story should be able to justify itself, not need outside assistance...

jawaplumber

09-05-2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo

I don't want to step into what appears to be a long-standing feud ( ;) ), but I thought some interesting points were raised, so I'd like to add my $0.02.

HOWEVER, I think it's a grievous error to state that Waid is writing throwback fiction in Birthright. If the writer had written captions like "Superman spies the evil-doer in the distance with his supervision, and leaps into the sky in a blur of red and blue!", then I think you might have a case. But the pacing, structure, dialogue, and character development in the two issues I read is NOTHING like the "bad writing" that you are referring to. Because you're not really referring to the craft. You're referring to details of the character, that are fairly superficial. Maybe one version of Krypton sits better with you than another. Maybe one makes more sense, logically. But you know what? That has nothing to do with creating a story. Those are just statistics.

Case in point: Waid's "aura-vision." It's a small detail, but Waid is USING it to show a different aspect of a well-known character. He's adding or implementing an ability to the character because it allows him to develop Clark's character in a way that sheds new light on his character. It serves HIS story.

Dave, this is one of the many points that people like myself have been trying to make to MOTA, but he's more interested in proving that fans who like anything he doesn't like are just letting their nostalgic feelings get in the way of their opinions. He is obsessed, it's a crusade for him. This is not to say that there aren't fans who do this, but he assumes that anyone who even mildly appreciates or enjoys something from the Silver Age is just as guilty of this. He fails to understand the difference between concepts and craftmanship, so it's understandable why he can't understand when I have said many times that it's not the older, archaic style of storytelling that I appreciate, it's just the approach to high concepts. I don't think I have EVER said the Silver Age style of comic book writing is superior to today's. I'd be an absolute idiot to do so. I'm just saying that I appreciate some of the trappings of the Superman character (and many other characters) from that time period. But in order to do so, by MOTA's decree, I'd better be prepared to admit that the Silver Age "sucked" just so I'm not out of line and forget that MOTA's interpretation is the be all, end all of Superman. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

As for a long-standing feud, yeah, this has been going back and forth for awhile, but for I'm just one of many spread throughout the internet. He encounters this same sort of conflict everywhere he posts, and quite often that conflict is twice as intense as it is here between he and I. The sad part is, I've tried on numerous occassions to get him to understand that no one (initially) tries to discredit his opinion, we are just trying to get him to understand that the things he says are so insulting to ours. I've even defended him (a rare occurance, though, this is for certain LOL), and I've tried to get him to understand that for me personally it's not about bashing MAN OF STEEL or any other Superman story he likes, it's just getting him to understand that his arguments against the stories he doesn't like are unjust and illogical. But time after time, all I see is how negative and downright nasty he is towards anyone he sees as a Silver Age fan, and I've grown tired of it. Thank you, though, Dave, for remaining a class act. It's a shame I've had to stoop to this level on a public forum (and I apologize to everyone out there for taking it as far as I have), but sometimes you just have to let loose and speak your mind. Now I understand how the Austen bashers feel ;) (well, not really LOL)

And MOTA, before you say anything about why I'm not addressing you directly, it's because I can't see you ;)

jawaplumber

09-05-2003, 05:17 PM

Sorry, double post :)

mikesang

09-05-2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
The "writting" is a running joke between us.

You're gonna miss me when I'm gone.
M

Dave Accampo

09-05-2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
You're just making excuses for what actually happened, finding explanations outside the actual story to justify the reactions.

The story should be able to justify itself, not need outside assistance...

Actually, no one's making any excuses. They've just been trying to point out to you that there are a NUMBER of ways that the event could have been interpreted by the CHARACTERS themselves. I've seen posters here explain why characters may have reacted the way they did based on everything from factual and anecdotal evidence to examinations of these throwaway characters personalities. The problem has never been that Clark didn't fall down, we all GET that. Your complaint has always been "the gunmen didn't react correctly." It seems to me the staggering number of people who believe that someone may NOT fall down when shot might just indicate that there are people in the world who might not have been as surprised as you believed they should be.

Imagine: what if the gunmen were actually the poster who watched CSI last night and the poster who's uncle is a gun nut (forgive me if the details are wrong guys, but you should get the point).

In the heat of the moment, given all their past experiences, and especially if they had never fired a gun before and didn't really know what it would be like, isn't it POSSIBLE that they might not have reacted like the actor from Class of 1999?

Honestly, I'm simply amazed at the lengths you're going through to try to prove some point that's not even a main function of the story. By sticking on points like aura-vision and terrorists' reactions, you're totally failing to actually take in the POINT of young Clark Kent's experiences in Africa.

Dave Accampo

09-05-2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
Dave, this is one of the many points that people like myself have been trying to make to MOTA, but he's more interested in proving that fans who like anything he doesn't like are just letting their nostalgic feelings get in the way of their opinions. He is obsessed, it's a crusade for him.

As for a long-standing feud, yeah, this has been going back and forth for awhile, but for I'm just one of many spread throughout the internet. He encounters this same sort of conflict everywhere he posts, and quite often that conflict is twice as intense as it is here between he and I.

Hey, Jawa, don't worry about it. I've been realizing I have my own sort of sick need to keep trying to debate the argument logically and rationally, hitting on each of the points, even after realizing that it's like "debating the existence of God with a religious zealot," or whatever that quote was...;)

And don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed the feud.:D I just felt that even as it got heated, there were still some fascinating points in there that I wanted to comment on.

09-05-2003, 11:32 PM

His so-called experiences in Africa are only meant to enphasize the new made up Kryptonian heritage that says that the S from the human word Superman, a name that in previous versiosn he got from either his parents or a reporter, coincidently comes from Krypton, so it's not that important as it's only being done to push for an inclusion in the story that makes no sense. If his name was MarvelMan then the letter would be an M. This new heritage is subjective of the copyright. That's hardly something to be in awe of...

What makes you think that the people in BR #1 had never shot someone before?

The second guy had experience enough to guess that he was wearing a vest.

One of the two, or both, should have reacted better, they didn't. Their reaction was too simplistic...

Dave Accampo

09-05-2003, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
He fails to understand the difference between concepts and craftmanship, so it's understandable why he can't understand when I have said many times that it's not the older, archaic style of storytelling that I appreciate, it's just the approach to high concepts. I don't think I have EVER said the Silver Age style of comic book writing is superior to today's. I'd be an absolute idiot to do so. I'm just saying that I appreciate some of the trappings of the Superman character (and many other characters) from that time period.

Oh yeah, I figured that's where you were coming from. I pretty much agree with that approach.

Dave Accampo

09-05-2003, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
His so-called experiences in Africa are only meant to enphasize the new made up Kryptonian heritage that says that the S from the human word Superman, a name that in previous versiosn he got from either his parents or a reporter, coincidently comes from Krypton, so it's not that important as it's only being done to push for an inclusion in the story that makes no sense. If his name was MarvelMan then the letter would be an M. This new heritage is subjective of the copyright. That's hardly something to be in awe of...

What makes you think that the people in BR #1 had never shot someone before?

The second guy had experience enough to guess that he was wearing a vest.

One of the two, or both, should have reacted better, they didn't. Their reaction was too simplistic...

It's pretty clear to me that you're not reading for story. You're not reading to get into the mind of the character and see what conflicts he faces and overcomes. You're looking for canonical details. Where the "S" emblem comes from. If that's all you got out of the experience in Africa, then you missed a LOT.

As to what makes me think that the people in BR #1 had never shot someone...? Nothing. You see, there's NOTHING to their characters. As I mentioned before, if the story had been from THEIR POV, it would have been different. It also would have been a different story. AS it was, they're just a chance encounter. A physical conflict. All I asked was if it was POSSIBLE they might have reacted differently than you expected. It's entirely possible that neither character had ever shot a gun. Every terrorist has their first time, after all. I've never shot anybody, but I know what a vest is. I've seen some TV. I MIGHT have thought the kid was wearing a vest. How do you know *I* wasn't one of the terrorists in that scene? You don't. If the reaction that occurred was even POSSIBLE, then your whole argument is moot because you can't defend a character that has no backstory.

09-05-2003, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
It's pretty clear to me that you're not reading for story. You're not reading to get into the mind of the character and see what conflicts he faces and overcomes. You're looking for canonical details. Where the "S" emblem comes from. If that's all you got out of the experience in Africa, then you missed a LOT.

I'm looking for a story that makes sense, this isn't it, too many coinciences and sacrifices.

S from Krypton because that's the copyrighted name.

Lex in Smallville because that's how it was in the SA.

Gunners who MAY or may NOT have fired a gun for the first time choose Clark Kent of all people as their first target and when he doesn't react to being hit by their bullets simply shrug it off to his wearing a vest...

Too much is being lost and sacrificied in this story for the sake of bringing back old ideologies and old interpretations of Superman.

Waid's a much better writer than this, everyone that's reading this book KNOWS it.

Those that support the book for what it is DON'T care, they are comfortable with what's happening so choose to not make waves because they know that if they do what they want to happen probably won't happen...

Dave Accampo

09-05-2003, 11:49 PM

09-05-2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Or to put it another way: This is like saying that the only reason that they showed that flashback at the beginning of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is to reveal how Jones got that signature scar on his chin.

However...it also set up Jones' whole character of youthful rebel, as well as defining his relationship with his father. But never mind that...it finally explains that goddamn scar! ;)

The difference of course being that Jones already had that scar BEFORE Last Crusade was ever written. He had both the scar AND the fear to snakes, the origin of both was explored in that flashback.

Had something happened in that flashback that contradicted something that we knew from the previous movies THEN your analogy would apply.

A better analogy to the Jones thing is when in the Kents we saw that the S comes from a Native American blanket...

Dave Accampo

09-06-2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
I'm looking for a story that makes sense, this isn't it, too many coinciences and sacrifices.

S from Krypton because that's the copyrighted name.

Lex in Smallville because that's how it was in the SA.

LOL...too many coincidences occuring in a story can be a bad thing, but these are coincidences IN a story. These are elements outside the story that YOU'RE bringing into it to make your point. You really don't know what the deal is with Lex because it hasn't been written into the story yet. And even if it were the same as Smallville, they can still tell a good story with it. You're still talking about superficial details - who wore what, who was where, who had what power. If you just take the actual tale at hand, as though you had NEVER read a Superman story in your life, there is really no coincidence that serves as a deus ex machina plot device to cover story flaws.

Gunners who MAY or may NOT have fired a gun for the first time choose Clark Kent of all people as their first target and when he doesn't react to being hit by their bullets simply shrug it off to his wearing a vest...

Well, you said it yourself, they May or may NOT have fired a gun before. Since you've admitted that you don't know anything about their characters, then you have to admit that you, as a finite human being, cannot say that their reaction was somehow "incorrect." It was just THEIR reaction, and really, a infinitesimal piece of the actually story being told.

Too much is being lost and sacrificied in this story for the sake of bringing back old ideologies and old interpretations of Superman.

Or maybe, just maybe, Waid feels that he can tell a better, richer or deeper story using elements that spoke to him as a child or as an adult. This is really the case of letting the writer take you for a ride in his world. We're talking about TWO issues of twelve. Hard to say where the ride is going, but I can already see where things like his aura-vision are clearly being used to help define the character, and NOT simply as a ploy to "bring back old ideologies" for the sake of bringing them back.

Waid's a much better writer than this, everyone that's reading this book KNOWS it.

He's a decent super-hero writer who has done some pretty good stuff. It's always been almost typical super-hero stuff that juuuuust pulls above the ordinary enough to make it interesting and different. That's all I know, so please don't speak for me.

Those that support the book for what it is DON'T care, they are comfortable with what's happening so choose to not
make waves because they know that if they do what they want to happen probably won't happen...

LOL...this statement...it actually almost makes sense...OK, so in MY case, I support the book right now because I think it's telling a pretty good STORY about Clark Kent. So apparently I don't care that Waid's not a better writer because if I make waves, then what I want to happen, which is to read a good story, won't happen? Is that right? Well, except for the flawed logic about not wanting to change things because if Waid were a better WRITER he would obviously tell a worse STORY (because I wouldn't get what I wanted), this actually makes a lot of sense!:rolleyes:

Dave Accampo

09-06-2003, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
The difference of course being that Jones already had that scar BEFORE Last Crusade was ever written. He had both the scar AND the fear to snakes, the origin of both was explored in that flashback.

Had something happened in that flashback that contradicted something that we knew from the previous movies THEN your analogy would apply.

A better analogy to the Jones thing is when in the Kents we saw that the S comes from a Native American blanket...

Actually, you can't really say it contradicts anything, since there have been numerous versions of Superman. You're only stating this because it contradicts the interpretation of Superman that YOU want to see.

And you missed the point of the analogy, which I stand by, that the flashback actually deals with character interaction that comes into play later in the CURRENT movie, not just the previous films. You're still talking about character statistics (scar, hat, whip, snake phobia) and not the structure of the story, in which we see a lot of what drives Jones to become the man he becomes. That's the emotional heart of the story, and it has nothing to do with the items he picks up along the way.

09-06-2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Actually, you can't really say it contradicts anything, since there have been numerous versions of Superman. You're only stating this because it contradicts the interpretation of Superman that YOU want to see..

Wrong. In the version of the story I want to see you'd be reading about Superman's grandchildren today, not yet another interpretation of the first character.

What I'm talking about is that BR is contradicting what's accepted character canon TODAY for no good reason.

Check previous interviews with Waid and you'll see how many times he contradicts himself.

Check the art, see how the promo art from last year differs from the finished product.

This project doesn't know what it is. First it's about exploring Clark's formative years and ending with Superman's first apperance, now it's about Ultimate Superman with the titular character appearing by the fourth issue.

Those are contradictory statements and actions...

Dave Accampo

09-06-2003, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Wrong. In the version of the story I want to see you'd be reading about Superman's grandchildren today, not yet another interpretation of the first character.

What I'm talking about is that BR is contradicting what's accepted character canon TODAY for no good reason.

Check previous interviews with Waid and you'll see how many times he contradicts himself.

Check the art, see how the promo art from last year differs from the finished product.

This project doesn't know what it is. First it's about exploring Clark's formative years and ending with Superman's first apperance, now it's about Ultimate Superman with the titular character appearing by the fourth issue.

Those are contradictory statements and actions...

LOL...OK, this seems like a good place to sum up. I feel like I've made my points carefully, and while it's pretty clear that you're not gonna agree with them, I think many of other posters understand my view. If they read this far, anyway. ;)

That said: I'm not wrong. You're playing the semantics game now. It's still the interpretation you WANT to see here, you just know you're not going to get your ideal interpretation. So you went into the series looking for an interpretation you liked. Seeing that you weren't getting it, you found all sorts of details to take issue with, never once making a solid argument as to the nature of the story being told. If you want to complain about what was ADVERTISED and what was sold, that's a whole different issue, and it's not what we've been discussing here. It's clear that many of your arguments are based on Waid talking about the series before it even came out.

If you want to call it bad writing, you have to take what has been given in the first TWO or THREE issues, as that is all that has been published.

It may contradict accepted canon for today, but Byrne's Man of Steel mini-series contradicted accepted canon when it came out. The only thing that series had going for it was a built in deus ex machina called "Crisis" that prepared everybody for a series of alterations to continuity.

The common sentiment on this board, from posters like Jawa and myself, is that canon and continuity are overrated at best, and they're almost detrimental to characters like Superman who have been published continuously for over 60 years. Movies and TV shows reinvent the character all the time. It doesn't bother the general public. They get the idea. The basic themes are all there.

My main problem with the issues you raise are that they really don't speak to the craft of writing. It's as if the story literally won't make sense to you unless they use all the "facts" that you have chosen as canon. This even brought out a number of posters try to show that the "facts" as you perceived them were open to various interpretations. Now, I don't wish to speak for you, but this debate makes it seem to me as though you view writing as a puzzle, pieces that have to fit together in a certain way to display a series of events that makes things happen. That seems a rather cold view to me.

BTW, I checked out a little of your fan fiction site, and that seems to hold true. Seems as though it's all about assembling all the pieces in a way that makes sense. But I didn't really get too much impact from it because I didn't feel anything for the characters. Seemed like they were all built on what you're already supposed to know, and the big trick was making them work together in new ways. (Apologies if that criticism is inappropriate here. I don't mean that as a personal attack of any sort, just my opinion of the work I read.)

For me, stories are about Truth. Truth of the (super)human condition. We read to see something of a character in ourselves; we have to know that the writer is actually getting at something very Real, even if the things he's writing about are fictitious and fantastical. Stories have to create an emotional resonance, and this is done by developing characters and putting them in circumstances that cause them to react in a way in which ONLY THAT character would react. This is especially poignant with Superman because he is such a symbolic character. He's the everyman and the loner all at once. These are the things that are important to crafting drama, to being true to the emotional heart of the story.

For me, that's the only way to really cherish a story. It also means I don't care about versions of Superman. I'm not trying to impose MY interpretation onto a body of work written by someone else. Hell, if I don't like it, there are 15 other great stories I read this week. They're not Superman. Some of them aren't even comics. But they're honest, and they're good.

So, thanks for defending your arguments so stoically. It's always interesting to me to see what people value in their stories, even if I don't agree.

Up, up, and away.

09-06-2003, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Stories have to create an emotional resonance, and this is done by developing characters and putting them in circumstances that cause them to react in a way in which ONLY THAT character would react.

And that's what I've been talking about, reaction.

The shooters reaction wasn't human, it feels pre programmed and it's not realistic.

I haven't said ONE thing about continuity, mind you, I've been talking about the own merits of the story and why I think some of the things in it are there and whether they work or not, and I don't think they do...

Dave Accampo

09-06-2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
And that's what I've been talking about, reaction.

The shooters reaction wasn't human, it feels pre programmed and it's not realistic.

I haven't said ONE thing about continuity, mind you, I've been talking about the own merits of the story and why I think they're there and whether they work or not, and I don't think they do...

Dammit, see I KNEW you'd say something and I'd have to reply! ;) So much for my grand exit!

I've already covered the shooters reactions. You can't judge them because they have no character, they have no backstory, so they could react in ANY way that a human being MIGHT react. End of story.

But my point was that this is SUPERMAN'S story. It's HIS reaction that we're following. It's not the shooters' story.

And, I'm sorry, but your whole stance is based on continuity and external reading. On where the "S" emblem came from. On lex in Smallville. You can't use the word "contradict" without referring to some sort of "continuity." There's nothing in the first two issues to contradict anything else IN THE FIRST TWO ISSUES.

OK...this is really the last I have to say on the matter.

Well, until the next post, anyway. :D

Sorry to everyone else still reading. Especially if you get those little email notifications in your inbox like I do.

Up, up, and away.

Dave

09-06-2003, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Dammit, see I KNEW you'd say something and I'd have to reply! ;) So much for my grand exit!

I've already covered the shooters reactions. You can't judge them because they have no character, they have no backstory, so they could react in ANY way that a human being MIGHT react. End of story.

But my point was that this is SUPERMAN'S story. It's HIS reaction that we're following. It's not the shooters' story.

And, I'm sorry, but your whole stance is based on continuity and external reading. On where the "S" emblem came from. On lex in Smallville. You can't use the word "contradict" without referring to some sort of "continuity." There's nothing in the first two issues to contradict anything else IN THE FIRST TWO ISSUES.

My problem with the S has nothin to do with continuity and everything to do with it being stupid for it to come from Krypton. That so called emblem of the House of El is subjective to the name Superman, so it can't be that important if it can fluctuate depending on what superhero name Kal-El takes when he grows up.

And Lex in Smallville is idiotic, as idiotic if in the comics Perry and Clark met before he got the job at the Planet...

Lex is supposed to be Superman's foe, not Clark's best friend...

Dave Accampo

09-06-2003, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
My problem with the S has nothin to do with continuity and everything to do with it being stupid for it to come from Krypton. That so called emblem of the House of El is subjective to the name Superman, so it can't be that important if it can fluctuate depending on what superhero name Kal-El takes when he grows up.
You know, I really don't pay much attention to continuity anymore, but didn't Byrne establish that it was a Kryptonian symbol in Man of Steel? Wasn't it that he wore that as a symbol, but it was Lois that gave him the name? Or is that the movie? Or both? I seem to recall Byrne talking about how he never even knew that Superman's symbol was an "S" when he was a kid. He thought the yellow negative space around the S were weird alien symbols. Either way, I think it's a pretty clever series of incidents, even if it's all extraneous. In the end, that just the icing. The story of Superman has nothing to do with where the damn emblem came from. It has to do with a man who is more powerful than everyone else, but also carries with him a sense of morality that makes him use his power for good. THAT'S where the stories come from.

anyway, the problem here is that you're mixing up various arguments and defenses. AS I see it, your problems with the issue fall into three categories. You've got problems with "contradicting" details that hearken back to Silver Age "stupidity", problems with reactions of gunmen (which is a story logic issue for you), and you've got problems with ideas that have been used over and over again, that you've always just found stupid. That S emblem as Kryptonian symbol has been used in modern comics, the Smallville TV show, the movies, and probably even the animated series. This, to me, is almost like someone simply saying: Why does Superman fly just cuz he's living in a yellow sun? THAT doesn't make any scientific sense! THAT's just a stupid idea!

I see now that it really doesn't have to do with any specific continuity for you. You really just have a hyper-defined sense of what Superman SHOULD be. What makes sense to YOU, despite the story that the writer is telling.

Case in point:

And Lex in Smallville is idiotic, as idiotic if in the comics Perry and Clark met before he got the job at the Planet...

Lex is supposed to be Superman's foe, not Clark's best friend...

LOL, there's that "supposed to be" again!

Except that it's beautifully done on the Smallville TV series, in which they use the Best Friend aspect (which has not shown up in Birthright yet, and thus cannot be condemned) to wonderfully play up the dichotomy between Lex and Clark (and their respective parents), utilizing our knowledge of future events to cast the characters in a whole new light. We literally see Lex at a crossroads, on his way to becoming what he will become. That aspect of the TV show has been really well written, which to me is fair enough proof that the IDEA is not idiotic, even if certain past interpretations have been executed poorly.

Up, up, and...ah hell, I'm going to bed.

09-06-2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
You know, I really don't pay much attention to continuity anymore, but didn't Byrne establish that it was a Kryptonian symbol in Man of Steel? Wasn't it that he wore that as a symbol, but it was Lois that gave him the name? Or is that the movie? Or both? I seem to recall Byrne talking about how he never even knew that Superman's symbol was an "S" when he was a kid. He thought the yellow negative space around the S were weird alien symbols. Either way, I think it's a pretty clever series of incidents, even if it's all extraneous.

You're thinking of the movie. In MoS the symbol is an S that Pa and Clark came up with.

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
In the end, that just the icing. The story of Superman has nothing to do with where the damn emblem came from. It has to do with a man who is more powerful than everyone else, but also carries with him a sense of morality that makes him use his power for good. THAT'S where the stories come from.

In other words you wouldn't care if he got the S from the back of a box of cereal...

See, that's one of the many things that you got wrong. The S is not just like his belt buckle, something to complement his outfit, the S is supposed to represent the name that the people that he protects gave him, it shouldn't be a letter or emblem that's subjective to a copyright.

In the comics, up till BR and after Crisis, the S comes from the name Lois Lane gave him, Superman. That's the name the world knows him as.

If Lois Lane had called him Superman but his emblem from Krypton were an E would he have to ignore the name the world has given him and instead go with one that starts with an E?

That's one of the many problems with making the S come from Krypton, it takes away an important aspect of the character, his connection with the people he protects.

The Superman identity it's not one he came up with to explore Krypton, it's one he came up with to help the normal people of Earth out in the open, that's it. That uniform and that emblem should represent people's expectations of Superman, it's what they recognize him as, it's what makes them look up in the sky and yell 'It's Superman!'

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
anyway, the problem here is that you're mixing up various arguments and defenses. AS I see it, your problems with the issue fall into three categories. You've got problems with "contradicting" details that hearken back to Silver Age "stupidity", problems with reactions of gunmen (which is a story logic issue for you), and you've got problems with ideas that have been used over and over again, that you've always just found stupid. That S emblem as Kryptonian symbol has been used in modern comics, the Smallville TV show, the movies, and probably even the animated series. This, to me, is almost like someone simply saying: Why does Superman fly just cuz he's living in a yellow sun? THAT doesn't make any scientific sense! THAT's just a stupid idea!

The S as coming from Krypton has NOT been used as coming from modern comics, not till BR.

In the toon the S was not on Krypton, and in Smallville the 'S' that the ship branded Clark with is the 8 in the triangle, not the S in the triangle (the 8 is the Kryptonian equivalent of the letter S).

The S did come from Krypton in Lois & Clark and the Superboy TV show but only because they used movie continuity...

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
I see now that it really doesn't have to do with any specific continuity for you. You really just have a hyper-defined sense of what Superman SHOULD be. What makes sense to YOU, despite the story that the writer is telling.

I have a sense that if you're going to tell the origin of Superman again then make it count, make it good, don't fill it with stupidity and conviniences, and most of all do something NEW, don't rehash the past...

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Except that it's beautifully done on the Smallville TV series, in which they use the Best Friend aspect (which has not shown up in Birthright yet, and thus cannot be condemned) to wonderfully play up the dichotomy between Lex and Clark (and their respective parents), utilizing our knowledge of future events to cast the characters in a whole new light. We literally see Lex at a crossroads, on his way to becoming what he will become. That aspect of the TV show has been really well written, which to me is fair enough proof that the IDEA is not idiotic, even if certain past interpretations have been executed poorly.

Yes, but Luthor is there only because the producers didn't want to wait a decade for Clark to become Superman to use him, that's it.

Originally they were going to use Lois Lane too and next season they're having Perry in the show.

Clark is pretty much meeting all the people that he will interact with during his entire life in his teen years. That's because this is a 5 to 8 year long TV show, they have to cram all that stuff here if they want to use it.

Comics don't have that problem, so putting Lex in Smallville is not justified as Lex is supposed to be Superman's opposite, not Clark's.

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
But my point was that this is SUPERMAN'S story. It's HIS reaction that we're following. It's not the shooters' story..

This is another thing you got wrong :)

It's not JUST about Clark's reaction, it's about the reactions of those around him, they are the eyes and voices of the audience, the readers.

These no-name, no-background shooters/extras are the ones that should open their eyes in awe when they see bullets bounce off Clark's skin, they are the ones that represent the awe and shock of seeing Superman in action.

They are the ones that turn their heads up and yell the 'mantra' when Superman flies over the city.

What Waid did here with the shooters is no different than a crowd of people looking at Superman and saying 'eh, he does it with wires' instead of react to him like they should, by exclaiming the 'Look Up In the Sky...' mantra...

Without this characters reactions then what Clark/Superman does stops being special, it becomes bland since no one around him is reacting to what he's doing.

The shooters should have reacted better to bullets bouncing off his back and to his not reacting to being hit at all.

This is a 20ish old guy that was just shot multiple times with two weapons and didn't flinch at it, didn't move an inch, yet the people that shot him reacted blandly, they reacted with an 'eh'.

That's not the reaction that such an action should have called for, nor the reaction of seeing this happen to the one that's going to be Superman of all characters should be, don't you think?

Dave Accampo

09-06-2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
In other words you wouldn't care if he got the S from the back of a box of cereal...

Yes, that's correct. In my opinion, those are just the trappings. Siegel and Shuster just made it an "S" because he was Superman. But later writers tried to put a little more effort into it, trying to tie it in with his heritage. The movie did this, and no one cared. Because the movie wasn't about where an emblem came from. Those are just explanatory details, and most writers, Waid included, make their stories about the characters, then use the details to enrich the evironment. In other words, the S symbol in BR is all about Clark learning to honor his birthright. It's the story about a young man ACCEPTING his alien heritage. At least in these first three issues. In further issues, we may just see him embrace his human heritage through other means. But the point is, the emblem serves as a tool to tell an emotional story.

And I'm sorry, but the "figure eight" vs. "S" in Smallville is a semantic detail, since we know what it's supposed to be. It's pretty clear.

See, that's one of the many things that you got wrong. The S is not just like his belt buckle, something to complement his outfit, the S is supposed to represent the name that the people that he protects gave him, it shouldn't be a letter or emblem that's subjective to a copyright.

You love to tell people they're wrong, and then follow it with an OPINION, don't you. The S isn't SUPPOSED to represent anything other than what a writer and artist tell you represents. Again, think about someone who has never read a superman story before. There's nothing stupid about the symbol, which may not even be an "S" , being from Krypton. Not yet. If, like the movie, he happens to GET the name Superman because someone saw an "S" in the symbol, then it works logically. Again, that not the STORY. It's just a detail, and it can be used different ways by different writers.

If Lois Lane had called him Superman but his emblem from Krypton were an E would he have to ignore the name the world has given him and instead go with one that starts with an E?

See above point. Maybe Lois wouldn't have called him Superman if he had an "E" on his chest. Since it has happened yet in THIS story, you can't really complain about it.

That's one of the many problems with making the S come from Krypton, it takes away an important aspect of the character, his connection with the people he protects.

Another opinion, and one that I don't agree with. Why what does the symbol have to do with the people he protects. If someone comes to a city and starts saving people while wearing a can of tuna around his neck, then that tuna can will come to represent a connection with the people he protects. Because it will come to mean something to THEM. You're basically telling me that Superman only works if the people of Earth call him Superman, adn THEN he comes up with an S symbol. That's...well, that's AN opinion.

The Superman identity it's not one he came up with to explore Krypton, it's one he came up with to help the normal people of Earth out in the open, that's it. That uniform and that emblem should represent people's expectations of Superman, it's what they recognize him as, it's what makes them look up in the sky and yell 'It's Superman!'[quote]

Once again with the should and supposed to. As I've said all along, if you just take this story at face value, the symbol begins as an embrace of Clark's heritage. But we know it's GOING to come to mean "Superman" to everyone. That doesn't change the value, since most people will just see it as an S. Where it comes from is inconsquential to everyone but Clark. And this is Clark's story.

[quote]Yes, but Luthor is there only because the producers didn't want to wait a decade for Clark to become Superman to use him, that's it.

Originally they were going to use Lois Lane too and next season they're having Perry in the show.

Clark is pretty much meeting all the people that he will interact with during his entire life in his teen years. That's because this is a 5 to 8 year long TV show, they have to cram all that stuff here if they want to use it.

Again, you fail to see the point. It's not WHY they chose to use them. It's HOW they use them. If I had never watched Superman before, and I watched Smallville and saw a story about a young man from another planet and a young businessman who takes an interest in him, it doesn't matter WHY he was put in place. The point is the actual STORIES they built out of it are quite frankly, far more interesting than the Luthor-Superman adult rivalry. It's more complex because we see Luthor and Clark on the roads to what they will become, and the shows writers have used his to build a fascinating dichotomy and develop rich characterization. It

Comics don't have that problem, so putting Lex in Smallville is not justified as Lex is supposed to be Superman's opposite, not Clark's.[quote]

LOL...he's "supposed" to be Superman's opposite, eh? That's too bad that writers have to be so hamstrung creating fictional stories because of these immutable "supposed to be" laws you've instituted. Why can't Lex be Clark's opposite. As I mentioned, Smallville shows that it can be done, and it can be done well. No other reason is necessary. It's all about the stories you can tell.

[quote]It's not JUST about Clark's reaction, it's about the reactions of those around him, they are the eyes and voices of the audience, the readers.

These no-name, no-background shooters/extras are the ones that should open their eyes in awe when they see bullets bounce off Clark's skin, they are the ones that represent the awe and shock of seeing Superman in action.

They are the ones that turn their heads up and yell the 'mantra' when Superman flies over the city.

What Waid did here with the shooters is no different than a crowd of people looking at Superman and saying 'eh, he does it with wires' instead of react to him like they should, by exclaiming the 'Look Up In the Sky...' mantra...

Without this characters reactions then what Clark/Superman does stops being special, it becomes bland since no one around him is reacting to what he's doing.

The shooters should have reacted better to bullets bouncing off his back and to his not reacting to being hit at all.

This is a 20ish old guy that was just shot multiple times with two weapons and didn't flinch at it, didn't move an inch, yet the people that shot him reacted blandly, they reacted with an 'eh'.

That's not the reaction that such an action should have called for, nor the reaction of seeing this happen to the one that's going to be Superman of all characters should be, don't you think?

Sigh...this again. I really want to go through I count the "shoulds" and "supposed tos", but I just don't have the strength. I'm not wrong, despite your finger wagging. Learn a little about the craft of writing. Clark's story is HIS emotional conflict. When you create a fictional world, which you do each time you write (I'm not talking about multiverses here, just the literal environment of your story), you ARE responsible for everyone's reactions. I agree with that. But you can't focus on every bystander who walks by. You make choices. So you focus on WHOSE story it is. That moment, which you completely fail to see, is really about Clark stepping in a conflict. It's about him taking an action. So because of this, Waid can't spend 30 pages in the heads of the terrorists, showing you why they might react the way they did. Well, OK, Writers CAN do that, but not in a linear heroic story like this one. So, what it comes down to is Waid giving us a reaction that YOU disagree with. Many other here did not and offered numerous reasons as to why it didn't bother them. You've even admitted that it's humanly possible to have reacted as such, given that you know nothing about their characters.

It wasn't the point of Waid's story, so he doesn't need to offer an explanation of some throw-away characters that were really only placed in the story as a physical threat that only Superman could and would stop. The reactions of the people in the truck are more important, as they are more consequential to Clark's story. I felt it was pretty clear they understood what had happened, but they didn't care what it meant. They only knew he had saved them. And that's what Clark needed to see in that moment, because it affects what happens later.

I think it's pretty clear you're going to keep harping on this point because you've really got nothing better to complain about. I think many of the posters here have gone to great lengths to offer answers to something that's not really even worth the time spent.

So, I give ya free reign to come up with other explanations about why I'm wrong and why Superman should be a certain way.

Carrie

09-06-2003, 06:25 PM

Carrie

09-06-2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
It's not JUST about Clark's reaction, it's about the reactions of those around him, they are the eyes and voices of the audience, the readers.

These no-name, no-background shooters/extras are the ones that should open their eyes in awe when they see bullets bounce off Clark's skin, they are the ones that represent the awe and shock of seeing Superman in action.

They are the ones that turn their heads up and yell the 'mantra' when Superman flies over the city.

What Waid did here with the shooters is no different than a crowd of people looking at Superman and saying 'eh, he does it with wires' instead of react to him like they should, by exclaiming the 'Look Up In the Sky...' mantra...

I can't speak for any one else here, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for proving my point that the shooters reactions were, in fact, a very natural human reaction. By comparing them to people who would see Superman flying overhead and assume he's using wires, you make them look very human. I am pretty sure that I am human, and having had minimal contact with Superheroes in my day to day life, the use of wires would be my first, logical reaction to a man flying through the air, just as a bullet proof vest would be my first guess as to why a seemingly normal man didn't fall down when he was shot.

jawaplumber

09-06-2003, 07:06 PM

And of course, it isn't a "silly" or "stupid" coincidence that everytime Superman flies up into the air, someone is standing right there and saying "Look up in the sky...etc., etc.." LMAO!

Shecky J.

09-06-2003, 11:59 PM

Reading this thread is like looking through a window into the minds of the obsessive compulsives.

09-07-2003, 12:02 AM

Reading this thread is like taking a look into the mind of people who still think about comics as nothing more than kid's stuff.

If we were talking about Harry Potter and I had suggested that maybe it's not important for Howarts to be an old castle and instead it could just be an old dampen box in an alley I'm sure I'd have gotten a different response.

Comics still don't get any respect from the people that read them OR work in them, yet those same people whine about how the mainstream has no respect for the industry at all...

Pathetic...

Shecky J.

09-07-2003, 12:18 AM

I wish DC would publish my Superman story. In my story, Superman would have a Magnum (Dirty Harry's gun), and he would just go around shooting criminals. Sure, he could take them out any number of ways using his super-powers, but he just really likes shooting people.

And he hunts, but not just regular animals. He hunts endangered species. There would be a scene where he flies over a heard of blue whales and starts shooting at them with his harpoon gun, waving to the Green Peace folks while he slaughters whales.

Also, he should know kung-fu, because it would be really pointless for a guy with unlimited strength to know kung-fu.

Who knows? Maybe I can sell it to Epic.

Taylor Porter

09-07-2003, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Reading this thread is like taking a look into the mind of people who still think about comics as nothing more than kid's stuff.

I know comics aren't just kid's stuff. But Superman is.

I don't mean that in a negative way; I just see it as the truth. Superman is a simple, child-like ideal. That's the main reason he's remained popular for so long. I know it's possible for adults to like Superman, but it's more important that kids will like him. I don't mean that you should stop reading the book now that you're an adult, but I think it's possible that you're applying the wrong kind of criticism to this particular character. I think you expect too much realism from a children's fantasy character.

Dave Accampo

09-07-2003, 05:09 AM

I agree with the obsessive compulsive comment. I clearly have a compulsion to keep banging my head against a brick wall. ;)

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Reading this thread is like taking a look into the mind of people who still think about comics as nothing more than kid's stuff.

If we were talking about Harry Potter and I had suggested that maybe it's not important for Howarts to be an old castle and instead it could just be an old dampen box in an alley I'm sure I'd have gotten a different response.

Comics still don't get any respect from the people that read them OR work in them, yet those same people whine about how the mainstream has no respect for the industry at all...

Pathetic...

But the above quote is downright insulting, especially after I've spent so much time expositing the values of literature and criticism as applied to a medium that I take VERY seriously. I buy my comics based on the abilities of writers, and I look long and hard at how they ply their craft. I take them more seriously than most people I know, and I've spent lots of time pondering the role that archetypal characters like Superman play in both comics AND pop culture.

Most of the comics I buy are not even super-hero comics anymore. I love Optic Nerve, Palookaville, Y the Last Man, Queen and Country, Stray Bullets...the list goes on and on. But apparently because I think it doesn't matter if Superman's symbol comes from Krypton, then I must think comics are for kids, and the industry isn't worth my respect. WTF???? There's not even any logic involved in this statement.

I agree with the previous poster's statement. Comics aren't for kids, but Superman is primarily a children's fantasy character. He's a male adolescent power fantasy. I just happen to think that he can still be used for valid storytelling for kids and adults.

It's clear MotA can't or doesn't choose to distinguish between the various aspects of story that many people here have been talking about. I guess I knew that from very early on...but you know, obsessive compulsive and all that...

It's funny to me that I've even been defending two issues of a series that I think is "just alright." I guess I just get fired up when someone just bashes a writer based on nothing of real value, and then lashes out when he's got nothing else to say.

Tellos0

09-07-2003, 11:18 AM

Is there any chance to ban MOTA from these boards? Im asking this not because he has different opinions from the rest of the users, but because he cant discuss anything with anyone in an orderly fashion.

Besides, he is starting to irritate most users around here...

09-07-2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Taylor Porter
I know comics aren't just kid's stuff. But Superman is.

I don't mean that in a negative way; I just see it as the truth. Superman is a simple, child-like ideal. That's the main reason he's remained popular for so long. I know it's possible for adults to like Superman, but it's more important that kids will like him. I don't mean that you should stop reading the book now that you're an adult, but I think it's possible that you're applying the wrong kind of criticism to this particular character. I think you expect too much realism from a children's fantasy character.

I think that Superman is a book that people of all ages can enjoy equally, but you should check the character's history to see what kind of character he was before he became a fantasy character.

That didn't start till the 60's, the dreaded Silver Age, and Mort's editorial reign.

Superman is a story that can include many fantastical elements but he's not a fantasy character in the same way that Atreyu is a fantasy character...

jawaplumber

09-07-2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
I think that Superman is a book that people of all ages can enjoy equally, but you should check the character's history to see what kind of character he was before he became a fantasy character.

That didn't start till the 60's, the dreaded Silver Age, and Mort's editorial reign.

Mort became editor and implemented the elements you so "dread" back in the 60's, huh? Try hopping back a decade, and I don't mean just back to 1959. As for being a fantasy character, last I checked, Superman was revealed to be an alien in his earliest of apperances. And the inspiration for Superman was drawn from Popeye to pulp heroes like Doc Savage and Flash Gordon. If that isn't a "fantasy" character, what is?

Maybe YOU should check the character's history before you start shooting off at the mouth. You continue to prove the point so many of us have made that you criticize the history of Superman pre-MAN OF STEEL, when you truly have no understanding of it, nor do you seem to have a true understanding of what exactly "science fiction" or "fantasy" are.

09-07-2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
As for being a fantasy character, last I checked, Superman was revealed to be an alien in his earliest of apperances.

Alien doesn't mean fantasy...

OMAR

09-07-2003, 09:04 PM

I haven't been reading Birthright, but MOTA you do realize it's just a meaningless Elsewords, don't you? The Superman of today's post-Crisis DC continuity is not a vegetarian. His favorite meal growing up was some kind of beef dish. It's actually figured pretty prominently in some of the major story arcs from the past couple of years - Lois and Clark had set it up as a password to let one another know they were OK in situations where he as Superman cannot see her personally.

Oh, and those of you who wre unsure thaqt the public knows Superman is an alien simply don't know enough about the character (again, as currently established in DC continuity) to really be arguing with MOTA. Anybody who has read Superman stories through the past few years would know that it's public knowledge.

09-07-2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by OMAR
I haven't been reading Birthright, but MOTA you do realize it's just a meaningless Elsewords, don't you? The Superman of today's post-Crisis DC continuity is not a vegetarian. His favorite meal growing up was some kind of beef dish. It's actually figured pretty prominently in some of the major story arcs from the past couple of years - Lois and Clark had set it up as a password to let one another know they were OK in situations where he as Superman cannot see her personally.

Oh, and those of you who wre unsure thaqt the public knows Superman is an alien simply don't know enough about the character (again, as currently established in DC continuity) to really be arguing with MOTA. Anybody who has read Superman stories through the past few years would know that it's public knowledge.

I know it :)

Tell it to Eddie Berganza and Dan Didio, who proclaimed in the last Wizard World Con that it was, only to have Eddie say that it wasn't two weeks later at Supermanhomepage, yet the fans are still holding on to the supposed announcement at Wizard World, plus DC also released that starting in January and with Superman/Batman BR was the new origin, which it can't possibly be, it doesn't fit with anything that's been done in the last 17 years.

Forcing it to be the new originwill only serve as an excuse for Waid's Hyper Crisis...

jawaplumber

09-07-2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Alien doesn't mean fantasy...

Then what would you say that it means? "Reality"?

In all seriousness, you are trying to say stories of aliens fall more into the category of science fiction, right? Depends on your point of view, but to most people, it all falls into one blanket category. It's fiction that takes place in a reality where "fantastic" things happen. And while aliens can be considered "exclusive" to science fiction, when you consider the other elements I mentioned that Siegel and Shuster drew their inspiration for Superman from (Popeye, Doc Savage, etc..), they are also using what is known as traditional "fantasy". The fact that this needs to be explained is just silly.

09-08-2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by jawaplumber
Then what would you say that it means? "Reality"?

What would you say that Chewbacca is? A fantasy character or an alien?

I say he's both, but only because Star Wars works under the science fantasy model, not the science fiction one...

I bring up the above example as a pre-emptive strike in case Star Wars ever becomes part of this debate later on...

Science

Fiction

You gotta admit, that's a pretty damn great mix right there.

Science represents reality, fiction represents imagination...

Fantasy and Fiction, however, are not the same thing...

It's one thing to have a character like Atreyu and then have another one like Superman...

They are clearly not the same kind of character, one is set in a realistic world while the other one lives in a fantastic one.

In Atreyu's world is it accepted that a boy can be the greatest hunter there's ever lived. In Superman's world, the fact that he flies has to be impressive enough so that not everyone can believe it's true, so Superman works best when placed in a realistic setting because of the unrealistic things he does...

Originally posted by jawaplumber
In all seriousness, you are trying to say stories of aliens fall more into the category of science fiction, right? Depends on your point of view, but to most people, it all falls into one blanket category.

Just like comic books, and most people, both those that read them and those that don't, are wrong about that too...

Originally posted by jawaplumber
It's fiction that takes place in a reality where "fantastic" things happen. And while aliens can be considered "exclusive" to science fiction, when you consider the other elements I mentioned that Siegel and Shuster drew their inspiration for Superman from (Popeye, Doc Savage, etc..), they are also using what is known as traditional "fantasy". The fact that this needs to be explained is just silly.

I think that Superman has moved so far away from S&S's original intention that it's a moot point to even debate what the original intention was as Superman no longer fits that...

Dave Accampo

09-08-2003, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Science

Fiction

You gotta admit, that's a pretty damn great mix right there.

Science represents reality, fiction represents imagination...

I generally agree with this definition. Science Fiction is simply fiction (stories) that uses science to speculate situations and environments that reveal some Truth about the human condition. Fantasy is similar, except it drops the science and simply creates a new world or a new situation that operates on its own internal logic. But the stories, whether they are about lizard men or wookies or elves, have to still reveal something of the human condition, as that is why we, as humans, read stories. Writers basically use fantastic worlds to separate out all the doldrums of reality, so that what is left is the bare essence of human conflict.

So, I basically agree with the sentiment you've put forward. Also, (and not to start any debate, I just think it's a good example), I'd drop Stars Wars firmly in the Fantasy category. I agree it has some trappings of science in that the general idea of space travel is based on our own science, but it's really been so filtered through Lucas' pulp influences, that one can hardly call it science. It's really much more about him simply creating a whole new canvas to carve out a mythological epic that speaks to the human notions of good and evil.

My only point here is that, generally speaking, there's no science in Superman, either. Just really bad pseudo-science that's common in comics. I tend to think they fall under the fantasy catagory for two reasons:

1) the science is barely researched, mostly just thrown together because readers of the genre, in general, accept the fantasy nature. They tell us gamma rays made a guy turn into a monster, and that's enough, because the story isn't about gamma rays, it's about the monster inside of the man. That's where the stories come from. It could have been a magic potion, and it would have had the same effect. Comics, and much of science fiction, have used hastily-strung together scientific ideas to replace "magic," because readers in the 20th century seem to accept that more readily.

2) The USE of the science is for fantasy. It's a fantasy in the sense that it is the dream of what a man or woman granted great power would do with that responsibility. That, and the fact that the whole secret identity thing is clearly designed to appeal to young men who believe that secretly, inside, they are Superman, even if everyone only sees the mild-mannered Clark Kent. Of course, this doesn't really fit my definition of fantasy as stated above, but I think the PURPOSE of the fiction shows why science has really always just been a more viable substitute for magic. I don't think Siegel and Shuster were really thinking about alien worlds and the differences in anatomy and physical abilities. They clearly just want to bring an immigrant to earth who could right all the injustices thanks to his dual heritage: his belief in his new country (planet) and the abilities taken from his old one.

That's my thought on the whole fantasy/sci-fi thing anyway.

09-08-2003, 02:33 PM

Cool.

Dave Accampo

09-09-2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by OMAR
I haven't been reading Birthright, but MOTA you do realize it's just a meaningless Elsewords, don't you?

Guys, I *swear* I'm not trying to keep this thread going or anything, but I have to admit, I'm actually seeing new things each time I scan the posts. :)

This isn't really an argument, just a point of view. I read Omar's quote and got caught on the words "meaningless" and "Elsworlds."

First, I thought: "The term 'Elseworlds' only EXISTS for comics fans who need to discern between an official "continuity" and "stories." I mean, for many of us, this is just another Superman story, like a remake of the movie, told in 12 parts. And so I thought that on THAT level: "it's no more 'meaningless' than ANY story."

But then that got me thinking; my favorite Superman story in years has been Superman: Red Son. But if you completely ignore that there even IS a continuity, and just take them as stories, is Red Son really just another Superman story the way "Superman For All Seasons" is?

Thinking on it, I think there is a subtle difference. And so perhaps there is more to the label "Elseworlds." :)

Superman For All Seasons, Birthright, Superman the Movie, Man of Steel, and even the Smallville TV series, use different details and focus on slightly different themes, but they all (try to) capture the essence of the character. The story emphasis can often be vastly different, but they are all trying to honor the mythos of the character in some way.

Stories like Red Son, on the other hand, try to take the details and completely re-envision the form they take. They can even fundamentally change the character by altering the environment in which Superman is created. It's as though the idea of Superman is drawn as a starting point, a sketch, and then the idea is subverted for the sake of a new story.

Bear in mind, I'm not commenting on the QUALITY of any of these stories here. That one little comment by Omar made me realize the different things you can do with an iconic character like Superman. Not too many characters you can say that about. I think it's a testament to the nature of S&S's creation.

Just a thought.

09-09-2003, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Stories like Red Son, on the other hand, try to take the details and completely re-envision the form they take. They can even fundamentally change the character by altering the environment in which Superman is created. It's as though the idea of Superman is drawn as a starting point, a sketch, and then the idea is subverted for the sake of a new story.

Now change Red Son to Birthright and you got it :)

At first I was keeping away from critizing the quality of BR, but after reading it my hands stink with the stench of ackward exposition, inconsistant characterization and concepts, and really, really bad art.

Dave Accampo

09-09-2003, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by ManofTheAtom
Now change Red Son to Birthright and you got it :)

At first I was keeping away from critizing the quality of BR, but after reading it my hands stink with the stench of ackward exposition, inconsistant characterization and concepts, and really, really bad art.

Well, you've dug your own grave so deeply on this point that there's really nothing for me to add. You completely missed my meaning, though I understand it's impossible for you to appreciate anything outside of your own agenda. I just hope someone else out there sees something in my little epiphany, which was really about the different ways to use the iconic stature of a 20th century American mythological character through different storytelling techniques.

Of course, you have to be open to it -- able to judge writing truly and not just through an incredibly narrow-minded filter.

09-09-2003, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
Well, you've dug your own grave so deeply on this point that there's really nothing for me to add. You completely missed my meaning, though I understand it's impossible for you to appreciate anything outside of your own agenda. I just hope someone else out there sees something in my little epiphany, which was really about the different ways to use the iconic stature of a 20th century American mythological character through different storytelling techniques.

Of course, you have to be open to it -- able to judge writing truly and not just through an incredibly narrow-minded filter.

My agenda...

Well, my agenda is to get the best written comics done by the best writers available with the best art that a penciler can produce...

BR is not that comic.

Forget continuity, I'm talking about the book itself.

Let's look at the internal consistancy first:

Page 20:

'You speak our language well for an American, Mr. Kent'.

'I'm a good listener.'

So here Waid has just established that while there are no < > in the dialogue boxes, that the characters are not speaking English, but an unnamed African language from whatever region of that continent the story is taking place in...

A few pages later, Kobe is telling Clark how one African tribe is subjutating the other by making them forget their culture and making them learn theirs (at least that's what I got from the story. One tribe holds the other to the position of servants and forces them to learn their (the 'evil' tribe's) language and their culture at the expense of the good tribe's own)...

And to make his point he hands him a book with english writing on the cover...

I'm going to give Waid the benefit of the doubt and assume that the language of the 'evil' guys that are trying to turn the 'good' guys to their way of thinking is english... but shouldn't he have made this clear for those of us that don't know that much about life in Africa and which parts of it have English and which ones don't?

I'm all for comics being smart, but comics go out of their way to explain the most incredible of things, like how Lobo's blood works, yet they can't bother to explain something about a region of our own world for the benefit of those that might not know?

It's a mistake on the writers part to assume that everyone that reads this book is going to know what happens in Africa or how people live there.

Hell, just yesterday I had a 10 minute conversation with someone over the fact that it's cold where I am! He assumed that because I'm in Mexico it never gets cold, and it's not the first time I've had that conversation over the years...

Waid bothered to establish that the dialogue in the balloons is not English, but then the art throws it on its head by introducing a book with english on it without any explanation or reaction (yep, that damn word again).

Then let's look at the dialogue in the tavern:

'How long have you been traveling?"

"Blah, blah, blah, exposition, exposition, I have to use this page to establish what I skipped, blah, blah, over'

Does that sound realistic to you?

Just earlier people were praising Waid for how the shooters reacted realisticaly to shooting Clark, yet earlier in the issue Clark let out his lives story when the question he was asked requiered the simpliest of answers...

Does anyone talk like this to people they just met? That's why the cliche 'I didn't ask for your lives story' was invented, to shut people like Clark up...

The books itself is FULL of flaws, it's not Waid's best by far.

Clearly the man has his intentions laid out before him and he knows where he wants to go with the story, but in the process he's skipping the most basic of stoyrelling techniques for the sake of simplisity and rushing the story...

Continuity is the least of this story's problems. The main problem is that it has no editorial control, and that's an unbiased opinion. Forget that I don't like what Berganza has done to the books, the fact is that this is a poorly writen story and people are being blind to that because they, as you pointed out earlier, see it as something normal in a super hero comic, something that should be there or something...