Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Pre-crisis, everything from Krypton was somehow indestructible. But I tend to think that his costume and cape in this iteration are more specifically a hyperadvanced material thing, although I don't think he's made that clear.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:He should be a paragon, but that kind of makes him boring for long serialized fiction (good in contained stories).
It'd be presumptuous to simply point to 80+ years continuously in print, I suppose. The current dominant form in modern American storytelling holds up the arc as the summum bonum. The rise of arc-as-all runs parallel to the rise of libertarianism -- the narrative of the individual's effort to overcome his community. In popular culture terms, we're talking about the transformation of Survivor into Lost and the mode of Lost proliferating across the other networks and into film. The destruction of the planet Vulcan by J. J. Abrams is its ultimate expression for us geeky types.
The whole process is about cycling dramatic energy up and up and up with twists and turns until the protagonist is raptured away into self-actualization. Events cannot be repeatable in this form because everything is directed toward the protagonist's contingent but imminent destiny: the whole world of the story exists only for his transcendence. The endless soap opera with its interminably retiring and arriving cast suddenly becomes deadly finite. In other words, the story takes history (or at least the phantasmagoria of history) as seriously as gravity (again, more specifically, the phantasmagoria of gravity). And all these arc-is-all stories have a heavy emphasis on the "realistic" (e.g., the Nolan Batman films).
There are some problems. First, we don't tell stories for the same reason that we study history. There's a lot of confusion about that (the whole "those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them" deal) and most people are deeply devoted to the idea of history just being a series of stories that we tell in order to make sense of reality. We do that, too. We do that in novels and films and even comic books and video games. And our most persistent form of storytelling is myth. It seems to me that DC is always trying -- and failing -- to be slick and with-it which is funny when their characters are thousands of years old. Marvel is the opposite -- Marvel is eternally contemporary rather than being eternal in contemporary times. Marvel is always on the cutting edge of the current culture, which is one of the reasons they do so much better at the box office than DC (and, to be fair, why they usually sell more comics). But to say that "symbols aren't good characters" is a little too glib, a little too naive. Arc-as-all is the style of now, not of forever and ever amen.
And the age of the libertarian is ultimately morally and practically unsustainable. When this latest Tower of Babel topples, the pantheon of DC will still be there. Superman will be waiting, as always, to save the day. I think that that safety net is why we can take so many liberties with super heroes, from Watchmen to Kick Ass. On the page, they cannot die. Bullets bounce right off of Superman's chest. They never seem to find Batman at all. And in the real world, we can't kill them, either. All the fads come and go, and Superman still stands for truth and justice. And somehow, darkly, so does Batman.
[
Jesus Christ Manchu, I have no idea what you're talking about. The comic book "Superman"...... I find it boring. I find him a boring character...that's all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anung Un Rama wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Anung Un Rama wrote:The casting was good though.
Wha? I mean, I think Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey were 100% perfect. But Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth? No way those were good choices.
To be honest, I don't remember Lois that much. But I thought Brandon Routh was a great Superman and Clark Kent and I liked Spacey.
I agree.
Anyways, I liked Superman Returns. That's right, I said it. I only know two people who liked it and I'm one of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/23 19:38:53
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I find it boring. I find him a boring character...that's all.
Have you ever come to a point in your life where you felt compelled to ask "why do I think the things that I think?"
Yes, but Superman and comics aren't one of those things. Sometimes I just want to be entertained by an entertaining story. In fact, the essence of being bored may be that what your reading is not generating any thoughts like that.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:In fact, the essence of being bored may be that what your reading is not generating any thoughts like that.
I agree. If a story doesn't inspire me to reflect on it (i.e., is boring), it's not really worth my time. The reason I like comics and think they are valuable is because they encourage me to reflect on, among other things, what is going on with us culturally and socially.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:In fact, the essence of being bored may be that what your reading is not generating any thoughts like that.
I agree. If a story doesn't inspire me to reflect on it (i.e., is boring), it's not really worth my time. The reason I like comics and think they are valuable is because they encourage me to reflect on, among other things, what is going on with us culturally and socially.
Oh, this could be a very interesting debate. I'm a bit torn over the issue. I really enjoy reading things like Manchu wrote and I enjoy thoughtful analysis of movies and game etc.
On the other hand, I doubt I love Batman: Hush, Deadpool: Suicide Kings or Frankencaste for its social commentary.
In my view, we all do this analysis on some level. It has to do with how we read narratives. There is this concept of reading in one moment, finishing that, and then thinking about it. Like you go into the theater and while the movie is playing, you're doing nothing but watching it -- you know, "receiving" it. And then you leave the theater and that's when you can start reflecting. No, I don't think that's how it works in reality. You're thinking while you're watching or reading. That's what makes you like something or not. You can ignore the fact that you are thinking but you still are, like breathing. Unlike breathing, being conscious of your thinking (the quality of self-awareness) can make the experience more meaningful.
I think I know what you mean and as I said, I enjoy a good analysis, but the way you say it, sort of undermines the simple joy things liek Batman punching Superman.
I try to think more about why I like the things I like and sometimes I come to some interesting conclusions.
Hey, no one is going to pay me for writing this stuff. I know my writing is not that good. It's conversational. I'm telling you guys what I think quickly, and that isn't always very clear and it isn't always completely thought-through. Right, because it is a conversation? Not a final draft, as it were. I'm not saying, oh here is the secret meaning that you have to come to. No, this is just my argument.
Also, you won't be surprised, but I don't believe in "simple joys."
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/07/23 21:15:01
I don't follow Superman comics, but I'm intrigued by the
Jesus Christ analogy. Which storyline, would you say, is the
one where Superman is betrayed and sacrificed?
Like I said, I don't read much superman, so this interests me. I'd
be interested enough to pull the storyline in question.
DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++ Get your own Dakka Code!
"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
Whoa brother. I didn't say Superman = Jesus, like some completely literal one-off prestige edition. I said Superman is a story about Jesus. It's a reworking of John 3:16. Here's a little baby that is actually the mightiest being on the planet raised by simple rural people, Mary and Joseph -- er, I mean Jonathan and Martha. And he grows up and realizes that he has to save people because only he can do it. He doesn't necessarily want to but tht's his duty. So he gives it a shot and it's terrible. He's reviled by the authority of his times, a.k.a., Lex Luthor, who will save the world through science and finance (you know, the things that are killing it). And even though he's doing good things, the people always turn against him. In story after story, Superman is stamped down and seemingly defeated and then, because he's true to his mission, he manages to do the impossible thing and save us all.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/07/23 22:14:32
KamikazeCanuck wrote:In fact, the essence of being bored may be that what your reading is not generating any thoughts like that.
I agree. If a story doesn't inspire me to reflect on it (i.e., is boring), it's not really worth my time. The reason I like comics and think they are valuable is because they encourage me to reflect on, among other things, what is going on with us culturally and socially.
Don't take this the wrong way but it's just that last analytical post made me laugh a bit. It's some kind of super-meta-analysis but honestly if I closed my eyes and randomly grabbed 10 comics of the shelf your post would probably have more thought put into it than 8 of those comics. You know how sometimes a cigar is just a cigar? Sometimes Superman's just punching a giant robot.
I'm not so sure. Anyway, we've discussed how we all view fiction through or own cultural experiences and I must say I've never thought of Superman as Jesus. He seems a lot punchier than Jesus. There's no biblical equivilant to Krytonite that I can think of. I don't seem the similarities between the two personally.
Whenever I think about Superman, I just remember "Hush".
Batman wrote:
The boy is trembling. Not much older than I was when...
He's probably just as terrified of me as he is of what's happening.
It makes me think about Clark and how he'd handle the situation. Not just the bending steel and flying out.
Clark could smile. That Boy Scout thing. And then say something homespun to put the boy at ease.
But, the boy doesn't have Clark.
He has me.
In my city. Gotham City.
It is better that way.
It fits, in my mind, what a few of the writers over the years have said. That Gotham is the dark side of Metropolis, the flip side of the same coin.
The cities need their own distinct protectors.
Metropolis has a bright, shining hero who makes them proud and uplifts their spirits.
Gotham has an avenging shadow, who makes the innocent feel safe and the guilty afraid.
Both of those heroes have their own trials and tribulations, but when it comes down to it...Batman was shaped by a completely different life experience than Superman was.
Batman became who he did through tragedy. He shaped himself into a weapon, shaped himself into something more than he could ever have been as Bruce Wayne the billionaire philanthropist. He does what he does because he feels he needs to do it.
Superman chose to become who he is because he was raised in a loving home with an emphasis placed upon the needs of others rather than just selfishness. Like Bruce, he does what he does because he feels he needs to do it.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I'm not so sure. Anyway, we've discussed how we all view fiction through or own cultural experiences and I must say I've never thought of Superman as Jesus.
Virgin birth.
Came " from above".
Died and came back...
... I would suggest it's something to do with the construction of his story tapping into several "mythological"/religious archetypes. Which is, possibly, why the character is so successful.
Possibly.
.. when Rush was droning on about how the new Batman film is an attack on Republicanism/Romney I was waiting for someone to point out that Supes is, essentially, an aillegal immigrant.
-- he's not of course, he's been granted full USA citizenship several times, pays his taxes and even has a social security number.
.. well Clark has the latter anyway, Mark Waid has it memorised.
He seems a lot punchier than Jesus.
.. well it's a modern American Jesus.. be grateful he's not using a six shooter.
There's no biblical equivilant to Krytonite that I can think of. I don't seem the similarities between the two personally.
I would suggest sin or evil perhaps ? Especially some of the more interesting affects some of the different coloured types have.
In light of the recent events in Aurora, and in consideration of the victims and the families of the shootings, DC Comics has decided to postpone the release of the third issue of Batman Incorporated because the comic contains “content that may be perceived as insensitive in light of recent events”. They are asking any retailers who do receive copies not to put them out for sale.
The comic was originally intended to go on sale on July 25th. The sale date has now been postponed until August the 22nd.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
"Comics don't kill people. People Guns kill people." Keep passing the buck ...
In other news:
Do comic book company execs care about enraging their fanbase? There's been a nasty rumor ever since OMD that Marvel intentionally tries to make their fans angry because "angry fans are more likely to buy issues than happy ones." I know that's nonsense. But I can't help but sarcastically think the same is true for DC. Do any DC execs or editors actually CARE about upsetting fans? Because at this point it seems like they couldn't give two gaks about their fanbase.
Gail Simone wrote:Hmm.
This answer is a little complicated.
Okay, no, they don’t want to enrage the fanbase, I have never heard that. However, there is definitely a line of thinking that some people have, and it’s not just publishers, that the more people are talking about a book, good and bad, the better it sells.
It’s hard to argue with, in some ways. I don’t agree with it, but everything that has INFURIATED the internet fanbase lately has sold really well…the New52, like it or not, reinvigorated the entire industry…even other publishers came up and said that it gave retailers the resources to support other publishers. The AvX thing that everyone was pissed about is Marvel’s biggest hit in years. The Harley stuff that made people so mad is actually making Suicide Squad one of the only books trending UP in sales.
It’s the flip side of things like the One Million Moms’ failed boycotts, that only made sales of the targeted books stronger.
I don’t agree with this thinking, and even if I did, I think it’s a mistake to deliberately upset loyal readers, it’s uncalled for. But some people do believe it.
The thing that I do believe, and this upsets people every time I say it, but the vocal contingent on message boards and social networks sadly do not seem to reflect the readership at all. I’m not sure if they ever did. I know this is sometimes sad to hear, but it’s true, it’s absolutely true.
If it were true, the best-selling books at DC would be Batgirl and Secret Six and at Marvel, they would be X-23 and Young Avengers, and so on.
If it were true, the top ten books, with a few exceptions, would sell almost nothing.
I know it stings a bit. But the vocal internet community is an elite part of the readership. They are like gourmet readers, in my view. They have very good taste as a rule…but the books they love the most sell nothing and the books they hate are huge hits.
We have to address it, we have to quit kidding ourselves. Critical acclaim is lovely, but Tumblr buzz bears no relation to a book’s actual success, in general (I’m sure there are exceptions).
So, I think we have trained publishers not to take internet upset too seriously at this point. If we are outraged and disgusted by crossovers, and they continue to sell like hotcakes, eventually, publishers listen to numbers and not to bloggers.
I wish this weren’t the case…I don’t know if it’s the same for prose and film and music, but in comics, people will rave and rave about a book, it sells nothing, and then because they have raved about it so much, the poster or blogger feels that the company hates them personally because that book was so loved.
But no one bought it.
I don’t like talking about sales, I have never taken an assignment for sales. I don’t keep track of sales issue by issue like some writers do. I don’t find out what an issue actually sold til months after it has been out. To be honest, I am sad even to bring up this topic at all.
But realistically, if a book didn’t sell with a great creative team, the odds are not great of it EVER selling with the same or similar team. And there are people at each company who have to watch over that stuff. They have my sympathy, sometimes it means they cancel their own favorite books, or books by their good friends.
But eventually, books have to make enough money to continue publishing them.
I’m not sure if you are asking about the Steph thing. But if you are, I’m disappointed, too. When BQM told me he got Steph in Smallville, i was delighted, and I did my best to promote the book without giving away the secret. It makes me sad they took her out…best case scenario is they want her to make a debut somewhere else, worst case scenario is some arcane thing I don’t understand yet, I guess.
Anyway, hope that makes sense. If the only place you get comics intel is Tumblr and message boards, you are almost guaranteed to get a skewed version of what’s actually popular. That’s why I also talk to retailers as often as possible, to find out what people are actually buying, you know?
It sucks, but we (tumblrs and message boarders) are kind of the elite, and as such, our tastes are always going to differ some from the mainstream taste. It’s a good thing, and sometimes a sad thing.
.. I had a whole thing about how Krypton could also represent a (secular) Garden of Eden.. a scientific land of perfection and plenty, destroyed through ignorance and an unwillingness to confront the unknown.
How he can never, ever return there -- except in imaginary stories in the the future when he's done X/Y/Z -- much like "we" can never return to Eden/our sinless state.
In fact if he does go there or come near it then it's affects are fatal ( or they change him), much like how the light of heaven, or even the mere presence of God is too much for mortals to bear.
Then there's the whole "..el " thing that echoes through the superman mythos.
In classic Judaic/Christian theology the letters " ..el " normally symbolising the angelic or those " from the lord " ( IIRC it does translate as " the shining ones" in... err... some language from around that area of the world :
Michael Raphael
-- Ariel, Azrael, Chamuel etc etc and so on.
Then you come across the peculiar number of L L characters in the books -- Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, Lori Lemari ( although alliterative names are common in comics, often ( according to Stan Lee) as they're easy to remember or recall ).
Of course Lex Luthor -- a mortal man, who who through science and ego could, perhaps, achieve dominion over the mortal world... if that dratted Superman -- who never kills Lex as he believes that, ultimately, deep down inside him, there is something good, someone (.. or something dun dun duh! ) that's worth saving.
And his name starts with a reversion of the "heavenly" "el", so it suggests that he is the opposite of the angelic/superman.....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/24 14:24:04
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Lex Luthor is the pharisee to Superman's Christ. Like the pharisees, Luthor can claim to be a learned authority on the values of our society. Like the pharisees, Luthor is always trying to trap Superman in moral conundrums that will force his hand. And like the pharisees, Luthor is ultimately shown to be a morally bankrupt manipulator time and time again.
See John 8:3-11 for a great Superman story. If I were going to write a Superman story, I would start with that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/24 14:30:53
See John 8:3-11 for a great Superman story. If I were going to write a Superman story, I would start with that.
.. hmm.... needs more Krypto and Streaky the superhorse but...
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Automatically Appended Next Post: TBH, I think one of the reasons I'm so tough on Alan Moore is because that -- in a classic Cobra Commander move -- he killed off Krypto (as well as everyone else!) in Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow? Honestly, what kind of fether kills off Krypto? It's like something Disney would do -- emotional manipulation.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/07/24 14:54:19
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I know Morrison really likes the Moses thing, what with the ship leaving Krypton. But Moses was found by and raised as royalty -- the opposite of Superman. And the key significance of Moses is that he formed this people Israel and led them out of Egypt. Superman does nothing like this. So I've always thought that was stretch.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/24 15:30:22
I've heard some people wondering if the dog in the new trailer is "Krypto" -- not Krypto the super-powered dog from Krypton, but a regular canine with that name.
I think the -El thing is almost certainly from Siegel and Shuster's religious background. Never thought of the colors of Kryptonite as the seven deadly sins, or something like that. That's an interesting thought.
But I thought Brandon Routh was a great Superman and Clark Kent and I liked Spacey.
