Re: DCnU Superman Thread (re: Action Comics and Superman)

[thecolorsblend]

Is he actually dead? Well, (A) he looks pretty fucked up to me and (B) he never came back for another episode. So at best, his fate is uncertain.

No, he's not.

He never came back to the show.

Try to ignore this faggot putting additional (and unnecessary... and poorly integrated) music into the background.

But Brainiac came back in Season 10, did he not?

Not dead.

Before that, he was back in season 8. But those don't change Clark's intention in that scene. He thought he was wiping Brainiac out for good, irrespective of what ended up happening later.

But DID he kill him?

Living or dead, as above, it doesn't change Superman's sentiment. He didn't consider Bizarro to be "alive" in that continuity and he clearly thought nothing about killing him. Whether or not he ever got around to doing the job is beside the point.

So having "Superman" murder and maim is ok, as long as it's part of a "team book"?

Surely you jest??

No, what I said was "nothing about Justice League indicates to me that the story aspires to the level of scrutiny to which it is being put". It seems to want to be the equivalent of a brainless action movie that you don't analyze too much. And even THAT ignores whether or not the parademons are robots or not.

Sorry, I can't switch into "Apologist" mode. I don't have the proper mental deficiencies to do that.

It's not about being an Apologist or not. It's about interpretation. It comes down to "tone" and "intent". Grant Morrison's body of work handily demonstrates that he mostly writes comics that are to be analyzed and critically reviewed. They're meant to be put under that kind of microscope. He generally doesn't do brainless entertainment.

Geoff Johns can go either way but it looks like he's mostly just having fun doing Justice League with Jim Lee. Nothing about Justice League indicates that it's supposed to be put under an interpretive microscope and carefully dissected. Not every book, movie or whatever is meant to be that way.

You DO know those scenes come AFTER the one I posted, right?

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The point is that it's not like Superman pushed him off a building. He carried him on the way down and, oh yeah, Glenmorgan survived; anything else you want to include in there is pointless semantics.

But you are A-Ok with out-and-out killing?

What I'm not okay with is subjecting writing to a level it doesn't aspire to. Justice League doesn't try to take itself too seriously. Action Comics takes itself very seriously. The rules are different for each book. And, based on conversations I've had and things I've read online, I'm still not convinced Superman was even killing in Justice League.

If one doesn't warrant scrutiny or question, something lower on the felony scale should be ignored outright.

Correct?

It depends on what the individual writer intends of his work. You can't hold Geoff Johns to the standard that Grant Morrison expects of himself. Tone and intent. Geoff Johns is writing a brainless, fun comic book while Morrison seems to have invested far more thought into character motivation. Thus it's a bigger deal for Morrison to write what he did than for Jim Lee to pencil his latest action wankfest. They're miles apart from each other.

[Apologist Puncher]

He never came back to the show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallo#Lois_.26_Clark:_The_New_Adventures_of_Superman

When Metallo kidnaps Clark to use him as bait for luring Superman, it's up to Lois and Jimmy Olsen to save Clark, but nothing can save Metallo after a final run-in with Superman, who, now aware of his Kryptonite power source, keeps his distance, using his super breath and heat vision to defeat him. Emmett is captured, but Rollie manages to escape with Metallo's Kryptonite, leaving Metallo lifeless.

Before that, he was back in season 8. But those don't change Clark's intention in that scene. He thought he was wiping Brainiac out for good, irrespective of what ended up happening later.

You can't ignore something that HAPPENED and focus on what someone THOUGHT was happening.

Living or dead, as above, it doesn't change Superman's sentiment. He didn't consider Bizarro to be "alive" in that continuity and he clearly thought nothing about killing him. Whether or not he ever got around to doing the job is beside the point.

Let me clarify something:

I posted a picture of "Superman" maiming and decapitating creatures in the middle of a fight. Not talking about it. DOING IT.

Just so we're clear.

No, what I said was "nothing about Justice League indicates to me that the story aspires to the level of scrutiny to which it is being put". It seems to want to be the equivalent of a brainless action movie that you don't analyze too much. And even THAT ignores whether or not the parademons are robots or not.

If I saw a "brainless action movie" starring Gandhi, and it showed him maining and killing, you better believe I would take notice.

Kind of like this:

It's not about being an Apologist or not. It's about interpretation. It comes down to "tone" and "intent". Grant Morrison's body of work handily demonstrates that he mostly writes comics that are to be analyzed and critically reviewed. They're meant to be put under that kind of microscope. He generally doesn't do brainless entertainment.

Ignoring things right in front of them and creating things in their mind to "justify" things they have no answer for AREN'T Apologist tactics?

Geoff Johns can go either way but it looks like he's mostly just having fun doing Justice League with Jim Lee. Nothing about Justice League indicates that it's supposed to be put under an interpretive microscope and carefully dissected. Not every book, movie or whatever is meant to be that way.

You really lose me with these types of comments.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The point is that it's not like Superman pushed him off a building. He carried him on the way down and, oh yeah, Glenmorgan survived; anything else you want to include in there is pointless semantics.

You're right.

He dropped him.

What I'm not okay with is subjecting writing to a level it doesn't aspire to. Justice League doesn't try to take itself too seriously. Action Comics takes itself very seriously. The rules are different for each book. And, based on conversations I've had and things I've read online, I'm still not convinced Superman was even killing in Justice League.

Despite the visual evidence to the contrary?

It depends on what the individual writer intends of his work. You can't hold Geoff Johns to the standard that Grant Morrison expects of himself. Tone and intent. Geoff Johns is writing a brainless, fun comic book while Morrison seems to have invested far more thought into character motivation. Thus it's a bigger deal for Morrison to write what he did than for Jim Lee to pencil his latest action wankfest. They're miles apart from each other.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

"Superman" killed.

[non_amos]

Remember the story from the original Action #1? Superman walked on power lines with some crook in tow. Said crook thought they'd be electrocuted. Superman was like 'nonsense, birds walk on 'em all the time'. He went on to state how if they stepped on a certain part, then they'd be electrocuted. He then went on to act like he almost stepped on said part. I understand that down the line somewhere early in Superman's history, he showed little or no remorse if some goon got their 'just desserts'. So that Superman was tough but also somewhat brutal & uncaring. Could this be what they're trying to do now at DC, replicate that?

The elimination of the 'boy scout' though does raise some concern. I recall a while back at duh Homopage in comments to one of the MOS developments, I believe the concern was that since it looked like they were going 'retro' with Superman, then this is what would happen. Duh apologist basically said that the early Superman was a 'brute who would kill' or some such, but that his own Superman was like the one embodied by Christopher Reeve. Whatever the case, it does seem that DC is going 'dark' with Superman. Or are they just returning him to his roots? You be the judge.

AP, speaking of Gandhi though, hey, I don't speak German!

But that guy must really get around. Watch him attack Sam Winchester:

[Apologist Puncher]

Remember the story from the original Action #1? Superman walked on power lines with some crook in tow. Said crook thought they'd be electrocuted. Superman was like 'nonsense, birds walk on 'em all the time'. He went on to state how if they stepped on a certain part, then they'd be electrocuted. He then went on to act like he almost stepped on said part. I understand that down the line somewhere early in Superman's history, he showed little or no remorse if some goon got their 'just desserts'. So that Superman was tough but also somewhat brutal & uncaring. Could this be what they're trying to do now at DC, replicate that?

Take a look at this image, which started this conversation, and see if that's the case:

The elimination of the 'boy scout' though does raise some concern. I recall a while back at duh Homopage in comments to one of the MOS developments, I believe the concern was that since it looked like they were going 'retro' with Superman, then this is what would happen. Duh apologist basically said that the early Superman was a 'brute who would kill' or some such, but that his own Superman was like the one embodied by Christopher Reeve. Whatever the case, it does seem that DC is going 'dark' with Superman.

He now KILLS. That goes beyond eliminating the "boy scout" aspect of the character.

People just "accepting" it, or flat-out refusing to believe it HAPPENED, is troubling.

Or are they just returning him to his roots? You be the judge.

No.

AP, speaking of Gandhi though, hey, I don't speak German!

Check again....

But that guy must really get around. Watch him attack Sam Winchester:

Isn't that the same episode that Paris Hilton was in?

[non_amos]

Apologist Puncher wrote:

Isn't that the same episode that Paris Hilton was in?

I think so. It's been a while since I watched the entire episode but yeah, I think you're right. And she gets decapitated in the end!

As for Gandhi though, why did I get that in German? On these forums, I usually click 'Watch On Youtube' & that's what I got. I even just checked the bookmark & it's still in German but when I do the same thing now on this site, I get it in English. What's up with that?

[thecolorsblend]

He never came back to the show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallo#Lois_.26_Clark:_The_New_Adventures_of_Superman
Thank you for proving my point. The relevant excerpt comes from the video snippet I posted.

He never came back to the show.

When Metallo kidnaps Clark to use him as bait for luring Superman, it's up to Lois and Jimmy Olsen to save Clark, but nothing can save Metallo after a final run-in with Superman, who, now aware of his Kryptonite power source, keeps his distance, using his super breath and heat vision to defeat him. Emmett is captured, but Rollie manages to escape with Metallo's Kryptonite, leaving Metallo lifeless.

And he never came back to the show.

Let me clarify something:

I posted a picture of "Superman" maiming and decapitating creatures in the middle of a fight. Not talking about it. DOING IT.

Just so we're clear.

And when I said, among other things, that Superman has tried to kill other villains, you asked for examples of when he tried. Then I provided them.

No, what I said was "nothing about Justice League indicates to me that the story aspires to the level of scrutiny to which it is being put". It seems to want to be the equivalent of a brainless action movie that you don't analyze too much. And even THAT ignores whether or not the parademons are robots or not.

Ignoring things right in front of them and creating things in their mind to "justify" things they have no answer for AREN'T Apologist tactics?

Ignoring the artist's intention (or lack thereof) isn't willful ignorance? Apologists refuse to acknowledge the truth under any circumstances. Even IF these new school parademons are sentient and alive and Superman killed them, Justice League doesn't hold itself up as deep, philosophical writing. It's a mindless, fun action romp that isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's not ideal but it's hardly a crisis for Superman to take such actions in that kind of context.

For him to even threaten it when a writer like Grant Morrison is holding the pen though is a very different ball of wax for reasons I've already outlined.

Tone and intent. These things matter.

What I'm not okay with is subjecting writing to a level it doesn't aspire to. Justice League doesn't try to take itself too seriously. Action Comics takes itself very seriously. The rules are different for each book. And, based on conversations I've had and things I've read online, I'm still not convinced Superman was even killing in Justice League.

Despite the visual evidence to the contrary?

At best, it's unknown if the new parademons are even conscious, sentient beings. If they're robots, your entire argument doesn't exist. If they're alive and sentient, again, hardly ideal but also hardly a crisis either in the kind of brainless action fest that Justice League aspires to be.

[Apologist Puncher]

He KILLED.

He didn't think about it. He didn't talk about it. He didn't assume he did. He murdered those creatures WITHOUT first determining whether they were alive or not.

Period.

[thecolorsblend]

Action Comics #4. Dug it. But is Superman's t-shirt still blue? Or is it white now? Seems routinely "colored" white for most of the book but it's blue on the covers and for two of the three panels on pg 4.

The big conspiracy theory has been that DCnU wasn't as carefully planned out as it could've been. The story has been that most of the creators have barely had any lead time on their books. That has yet more credence now as Action Comics #4 ends saying the story will resume in #7. The issues in between will be an "interlude". Something tells me this is being done to give Morrison and Morales time to get ahead on the next chapter of this thing.

Anyway. So Superman has a brief throwdown with Metallo. Brainiac attacks and shrinks Metropolis. If any of these plot threads sound familiar from the Geoff Johns run... well, they should! I'm enjoying the story, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't feel like Morrison is dealing with stuff Johns hasn't already tackled. You could argue Morrison's doing it better than Johns did, and there's probably some truth to that. But the similarities are really starting to become prominent.

[webhead2006]

The changing colors could be colorist errors. But can you post images of those changes? As for writing probably right there with things not been planned out well for all the writers.

[Apologist Puncher]

Looks white to me. One page, maybe a mistake. But almost the entire thing?

Fail.

[webhead2006]

thanks for the images.

[thecolorsblend]

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/inter-action/inter-action.php?topic=ask-editor/ask-matt

Generally speaking, I usually find the "Ask [whoever]" comics thing the Eunuch page does to be a waste of time. "Great question! I'd just LOVE to give you an answer but instead I'll say something completely evasive, vaguely promise some future issue will deal with that and then deny all knowledge after we do our next continuity-altering event! Stay tuned!" But every now and then, you get something worthwhile.

In this case, Idelson breaks down the supporting cast of Superman (ie, the monthly comic), who works for which company and all that jazz. I'd thought I recognized several of those names and sure 'nuff, they're all real people. Check 'em out on facebook, if you don't believe. And, hey, they're all friends with George Perez. A lot of 'em are mostly cosplayers that you see at major cons. Beyond the names, the characters are usually even drawn to resemble their real life counterparts (Heather Kelley, for example). But whatever, here's the list.

PGN
William McCoy - Host of "The Real McCoy"
Rick Stafford - Helicopter pilot
Dough Hubler - Helicopter cameraman
Heather Kelley - PGN reporter
Danny [Kelley]
Derek Rich - Anchor
Chuck Truscott - Meteorologist
Nathan Jessee - Anchor

Anyway. It probably wouldn't affect anybody's enjoyment of the book one way or the other but it's still nice for me to know I'm not crazy and imagining things.

[thecolorsblend]

Read the new Action Comics yesterday. This is basically a flashback to the origin, where Kal-El is launched from a very Pre-Crisis type of Krypton. The ship lands on Earth, is found by the Kents, etc. The usual. Morrison doesn't introduce a whole lot of new stuff to the origin sequence but one innovation is that Brainiac AI is installed into Kal-El's ship and serves as the guidance system to find the planet Earth.

The last five pages... maybe I'm missing something there but they didn't make a lot of sense to me. Then again, I sort of had to rush through reading them.

[Apologist Puncher]

Well, I guess if MY planet was being destroyed under MY feet, I would definitely be as verbose and expository as possible too......

[webhead2006]

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/GraphicCity/news/?a=52602

COMICS: Superman, Superboy and Supergirl To Have Crossover Event This Summer
The Bat-family just had their crossover event officially announced but it seems that details have also leaked on a crossover event for Supes and co. dropping this summer.
Graphic City aka Mark Julian - 1/10/2012
Source: Superman Homepage


DC Comics editor Matt Idelson revealed in an interview with the Superman Homepage site that Superman will star in a major storyline with Superboy and Supergirl. Idelson states that you should look to Action Comics #5 and #6 for hints at the storyline.

Said Idelson, "Many things that will be factors in [Action Comics] this year are being established in issues #5-6, Frank. Grant (with the help of guest-artist Andy Kubert) has sprinkled an incredible amount of fun hints inside a really challenging story.

Meanwhile, Keith and Dan are plotting some really star-spanning stuff for Supes, though before that we'll be doing an event between Superman, Supergirl and Superboy in the summer. Superman hasn't met Superboy yet, and his relationship with Supergirl isn't exactly lovey dovey."

He added: "Seeing how they function as a unit under those circumstances should be interesting, to say the least."

[thecolorsblend]

Said Idelson, "Many things that will be factors in [Action Comics] this year are being established in issues #5-6, Frank. Grant (with the help of guest-artist Andy Kubert) has sprinkled an incredible amount of fun hints inside a really challenging story.

I assume this relates to the last four or so pages of the newest Action Comics... which isn't so much "sprinkling" as a "came the fuck out of nowhere to dominate the spotlight" moment.

[webhead2006]

Action Comics #6 Preview:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=preview&id=11285

The breakneck pace of Grant Morrison's run on ACTION COMICS continues as the Superman of the present day must team up with suspiciously different versions of the Legion of Super-Heroes to save the jeans-wearing Superman of five years ago! Whose hand is that on the cover? Why, the leader of the Anti-Superman Army, of course!

Plus, a backup by Sholly Fisch and ChrisCross that spins directly out of the lead story!

[thecolorsblend]

Had a thought a while ago. Earth 2 (the upcoming monthly title) is, as I understand it, supposed to be a JSA book that takes place on, wait for it, Earth 2. The press release that I posted a few weeks ago in the general DC Comics section seems to confirm that the Earth 2 versions of the Huntress and Power Girl are back fo realz.

All of this makes me wonder if the Earth 2 Superman will be on the Justice Society of America. This could be part of the reason why the Earth 1 Superman got a new costume. You'd be able to discern the Earth 1 and Earth 2 versions from each other at a glance if the Earth 2 Superman wears The Suit while the Earth 1 Superman wears that new thing. Plus, we get to have our cake and eat it too in terms of Superman being the first superhero to operate openly while at the same time giving him a heritage with the JSA.

In fact, part of me wants to think that this entire thing has been a conspiracy on somebody's part to get Superman back on the JSA but that seems a little too sunny and optimistic, esp given some of DC's more recent business and creative decisions.

[webhead2006]

That would be interesting idea man, and would earth 2 supes be classic look?

[thecolorsblend]

Really dug on Action #6. Part of that is how much I like the concept of the Legion meeting Superboy (or "young Superman" or Clark as a teenager or whatever) as it more deeply enfranchises both the Legion and Superman into the DCU (or New 52 or what have you). So obviously this issue was always going to be right up my alley.

Also liked the back up story. But what really stood out to me was how similar the Kent farmhouse interior, especially the kitchen, looks like it came right out of Smallville.



The pages give a much better impression overall but that's okay as a sample. Surely I'm not the only one wondering about this.

[thecolorsblend]

URL- http://wordballoon.blogspot.com/2012/01/2012-comic-book-industry-watch-with.html

This is a comic book podcast episode that features Marty Pasko as a guest. I've got my opinions about him because I've heard he's badmouthed The Mighty Curt Swan on a few occasions. Pasko implied that, given his druthers, Swan might not have drawn some of his Superman stories.

But anyway. Neither here nor there. Point is that he shows up and offers his theories on the New 52 revamp less from a creative standpoint and more from a legal one. He explains the reasoning behind making these types of changes for purposes of developing relationships with licensees, building franchises, all that jazz. And he hits upon a lot of the changes that fans haven't responded well to (losing the trunks, for example) could have a deeper purpose than Jim Lee simply not respecting the character's history. Rather, that's intended to serve a larger corporate agenda.

The majority of my professional experience revolves around working either for or with lawyers. So while I can't say I'm a lawyer myself, I'm somewhat familiar with some of the lingo and what he says makes a lot of sense. It adds up.

For bonus points, he also explains the complications that go into developing DC superhero movies. Apart from egos at the studio (which is it's own battle), even though DC is owned by WB, it's not quite accurate to say that some shithead director has the right to throw a Wonder Woman cameo appearance into his Hawkman movie for legal reasons.

Somewhat esoteric stuff but worth listening to if you want to get a better insight into how these sorts of things play out.

You first have to go through an interview with Steve Wacker from Marvel to get to the Pasko stuff. But that's not bad either since it's a pretty in depth interview and he and the host hash through stuff you normally don't have much access to, I dunno, some Wizard article or what have you.

[non_amos]

So what's the deeper meaning with dropping the trunks? I want a straight answer from someone at 'TPTB', not some 'change the subject' answer. Is it due to some legal mumbo jumbo with duh heirs? Which, with DC publishing Superman for nearly 75 years, we shouldn't even be having to deal with anyway.

[thecolorsblend]

So what's the deeper meaning with dropping the trunks? I want a straight answer from someone at 'TPTB', not some 'change the subject' answer. Is it due to some legal mumbo jumbo with duh heirs? Which, with DC publishing Superman for nearly 75 years, we shouldn't even be having to deal with anyway.

The point Pasko attempted to make in that podcast episode is that DC/WB may be trying to convince the courts, because of the updates, changes and evolution of the character over the decades, that the character they publish now is entirely different from the character originally purchased from Siegel and Shuster in 1938. That's an easier point to make if he looks visibly different. From a narrative point of view, I think it's quite clear that Superman long ago stopped being the two-fisted, New Dealing social crusader/champion of the people that Siegel first wrote about and became an icon and general superhero. Even so, The Suit has been pretty consistent ever since Action Comics #1 (I don't give a flying fuck what Bryan Singer ever said to the contrary) and so, ONLY in the context of the argument they're apparently trying to make, it's a logical change to make.

So basically, The Suit being mothballed is yet another thing we can blame the Siegels for. It's just more impetus for me to find Joanne Siegel's grave and piss all over it. And lest any of you think I'm joking about that, if I ever have the opportunity to do it without getting arrested, she'd better get ready for a golden shower.

[webhead2006]

Interesting stuff colors, I got to check out that podcast later when I get the chance. Just been busy as hell all week with work and I got a bunch of web stuff I need to caught up on.

[Apologist Puncher]

Had a thought a while ago. Earth 2 (the upcoming monthly title) is, as I understand it, supposed to be a JSA book that takes place on, wait for it, Earth 2. The press release that I posted a few weeks ago in the general DC Comics section seems to confirm that the Earth 2 versions of the Huntress and Power Girl are back fo realz.

All of this makes me wonder if the Earth 2 Superman will be on the Justice Society of America. This could be part of the reason why the Earth 1 Superman got a new costume. You'd be able to discern the Earth 1 and Earth 2 versions from each other at a glance if the Earth 2 Superman wears The Suit while the Earth 1 Superman wears that new thing. Plus, we get to have our cake and eat it too in terms of Superman being the first superhero to operate openly while at the same time giving him a heritage with the JSA.

In fact, part of me wants to think that this entire thing has been a conspiracy on somebody's part to get Superman back on the JSA but that seems a little too sunny and optimistic, esp given some of DC's more recent business and creative decisions.

Hate to break it to you, colors. 'Earth-2':

Spoiler:

[Sponsored content]