Print Thread
Big announcement re: Superman from DC coming soon?
Golddragon71
Well it was bound to happen! we all knew the marriage was gonna end soon anyway after the "I'm not going to let you run this story Lois" incident, but rather than getting a long protracted Divorce Lois and Clark are getting a simple continuity annulment.(exp: they were never married) The Good News is we can get another big Wedding issue a few years down the road once the dust settles.


Granted I'm not happy about it. To me Lois and Clark were one of the best couples in comics the last twenty years. I think it was in The Flash that Superman told Wally:

"Marrying Lois has protected her in a way I never could as Superman. There was a Time when everyone thought of her as "Superman's girlfriend", made her a target for every two-bit thug with a grudge to attack her her to get to me. when she Married plain old Clark Kent though all that stopped"


or words to that effect.
 
Sven-El
Superman: Agreed. I don't see them erasing The Death of Superman from the canon. It is the best selling graphic novel of all time. I could see them reverting Lois and Clark back to engaged status ( esp. with Smallville) or even using Smallville as a "loose continuity" for the "new Superman", if not Geoff John;s "Secret Origin". Seeing as DD spearheaded the "bring back Superman's cousin Supergirl" thing I don't see him getting rid of that.

Wonder woman: Oy, has she been through a mess. Seeing as her origin was already screwed up during JMS run, well, that can't make it worse.

GL: Well ,his supporting players and GJ's Secret Origin story are pretty much safe. Can we get rid of the Arisa and Hal romance please?

Batman: reasonably I could see Jason going back to the dead. Judging by how there's rumors of a Nightwing ongoing and a Batgirl ( starring Barbara) I think it'll go back to Dick, Babs and Tim. All four have gotten coverage oustide of the comics with BTAS. However, Batman's titles have been selling really well. To toss it all out would be a prime example of something being fixed that isn't broken.

Aquaman: Ditto.

Flash: I could see Wally going back to Kid Flash and Bart being eliminated .Wally has been featured as Kid Flash on Teen Titans and Young Justice ( not to mention as Flash on JL.) He's paied his dues.

Green Arrow-Probably "back to basics".

Teen Tiatns: probably more of a Young Justice cartoon lineup, featuring Superboy, Miss Martian, Dick, and Wally.



More later.

Edited by Sven-El on 05/06/2011 17:55


"You're here for a reason. Now I don't know what reason or whose reason but it's not just to score touch downs. "
-Jonathon Kent.
SUPERMAN: THE MOTION PICTURE
 
dresden88
Update: Regarding Batman, Damian Wayne is Robin, Dick is Nightwing again (although his tenure as Batman counts so the death of Bruce Wayne story remains intact) and Barbara Gordon is back as Batgirl. Jason Todd is becoming an anti-hero Red Hood, and no word on Tim Drake.
 
LovelyLanaLang

>dresden88 wrote:


Update: Regarding Batman, Damian Wayne is Robin, Dick is Nightwing again (although his tenure as Batman counts so the death of Bruce Wayne story remains intact) and Barbara Gordon is back as Batgirl. Jason Todd is becoming an anti-hero Red Hood, and no word on Tim Drake.


or in other words, Tim Drake is out?



About the Death of Superman, I really want DC to get rid of it. It was during Bryne era when Superman was de-powered. The Pre Crisis Superman would have kill the beast. In speaking of Doomsday, he have to be the dumbest villain I ever saw. Out of all the villains around DC and Superman like Alexander "Lex" Luther, Darksied, or even Brainiac, why Doomsday? It is just a grimmack to boost up some sells like the marriage of Lois and Clark.
 
Hypoxic
The entire arc of Superman's death and return is one of DC's finest moments. The middle of the arc alone is outstanding.
Easy, miss. I've got you.
_____

Get away from me, padre. You reek of the irrational. - Lex Luthor
 
copacetic

>LovelyLanaLang wrote:


>dresden88 wrote:


Update: Regarding Batman, Damian Wayne is Robin, Dick is Nightwing again (although his tenure as Batman counts so the death of Bruce Wayne story remains intact) and Barbara Gordon is back as Batgirl. Jason Todd is becoming an anti-hero Red Hood, and no word on Tim Drake.


or in other words, Tim Drake is out?



About the Death of Superman, I really want DC to get rid of it. It was during Bryne era when Superman was de-powered. The Pre Crisis Superman would have kill the beast. In speaking of Doomsday, he have to be the dumbest villain I ever saw. Out of all the villains around DC and Superman like Alexander "Lex" Luther, Darksied, or even Brainiac, why Doomsday? It is just a grimmack to boost up some sells like the marriage of Lois and Clark.


A de-powered Superman makes for a more interesting story - also adds a bit more conflict and urgency to a story. If Superman can just flick off an enemy without a moment's notice, then what's the point of even reading the story? No character development, no threat to the hero, no obstacle to overcome. It just becomes everything that non comics readers complain about regarding Superman - he's just too powerful so there's never any real danger to him in his stories.

Have you actually read about Doomsday and his origins? How he's not just a super powerful being, but that he's actually genetically engineered to keep dying over and over, and then evolve past whatever killed him the last time? And how he was brainwashed into wanting to kill Superman at all costs? Kind of a very cool, brutal origin for a villain who could have otherwise been just a freak of the week.

Also, Grimmack sounds like a really good villain name. Reboot time?
 
NeoRanger
or in other words, Tim Drake is out?

No, he's Red Robin again in the new Titans, along with the redesigned Wonder Girl, Kid Flash and Superboy. The good news for Superman fans is that Connor's still in continuity. The bad news is his redesign is horrible.
 
baalroo

>copacetic wrote:



A de-powered Superman makes for a more interesting story - also adds a bit more conflict and urgency to a story. If Superman can just flick off an enemy without a moment's notice, then what's the point of even reading the story? No character development, no threat to the hero, no obstacle to overcome. It just becomes everything that non comics readers complain about regarding Superman - he's just too powerful so there's never any real danger to him in his stories.


I think it's a bit silly to say it makes for a "more interesting story." It just makes for a different type of story. De-powering Superman makes him less "god-like," but more philosophical stories about uber powerful god-like entities can be just as interesting as stories about a Herculian character. Just because the danger isn't physical doesn't mean there's no danger.

It's just a different flavor, as usual I return to my mantra of "it's all about who's writing the story." A great writer utilizing the extremely powerful Silver Age Superman is going to tell a much better story than a crap writer utilizing the Byrne Era Superman.
 
MorganEdge
I may use the reboot as an excuse to get rid of my $10 a month habit... depends on the quality and how much they try to innovate.
 
Hypoxic
I think it's interesting how some people are outright questioning the quality of the rebooted stories, as if the writers themselves are being rebooted, too.
Easy, miss. I've got you.
_____

Get away from me, padre. You reek of the irrational. - Lex Luthor
 
copacetic

>baalroo wrote:


>copacetic wrote:



A de-powered Superman makes for a more interesting story - also adds a bit more conflict and urgency to a story. If Superman can just flick off an enemy without a moment's notice, then what's the point of even reading the story? No character development, no threat to the hero, no obstacle to overcome. It just becomes everything that non comics readers complain about regarding Superman - he's just too powerful so there's never any real danger to him in his stories.


I think it's a bit silly to say it makes for a "more interesting story." It just makes for a different type of story. De-powering Superman makes him less "god-like," but more philosophical stories about uber powerful god-like entities can be just as interesting as stories about a Herculian character. Just because the danger isn't physical doesn't mean there's no danger.

It's just a different flavor, as usual I return to my mantra of "it's all about who's writing the story." A great writer utilizing the extremely powerful Silver Age Superman is going to tell a much better story than a crap writer utilizing the Byrne Era Superman.


Or in other words, you want Superman to remain boring with his omnipotence and strength instead of being a character who goes through real trials and tribulations. Got it. Hope you like your food and women mild and boring as well then.
 
baalroo

>copacetic wrote:


>baalroo wrote:


>copacetic wrote:



A de-powered Superman makes for a more interesting story - also adds a bit more conflict and urgency to a story. If Superman can just flick off an enemy without a moment's notice, then what's the point of even reading the story? No character development, no threat to the hero, no obstacle to overcome. It just becomes everything that non comics readers complain about regarding Superman - he's just too powerful so there's never any real danger to him in his stories.


I think it's a bit silly to say it makes for a "more interesting story." It just makes for a different type of story. De-powering Superman makes him less "god-like," but more philosophical stories about uber powerful god-like entities can be just as interesting as stories about a Herculian character. Just because the danger isn't physical doesn't mean there's no danger.

It's just a different flavor, as usual I return to my mantra of "it's all about who's writing the story." A great writer utilizing the extremely powerful Silver Age Superman is going to tell a much better story than a crap writer utilizing the Byrne Era Superman.


Or in other words, you want Superman to remain boring with his omnipotence and strength instead of being a character who goes through real trials and tribulations. Got it. Hope you like your food and women mild and boring as well then.


did nothing I said sink in with you at all, or are you just intentionally trolling now? I'm actualy having a hard time figuring out how to even respond to such hollow prattle. Am I understanding correctly that you believe that to write a good superman story that the threat of superman getting physically beaten up must exist?

IMO, Superman has always been at it's best when it's used as a vehicle to explore what being a superhero means in the DC universe. I'd be perfectly happy reading Superman books and only getting an actual fight scene once every few issues or so... assuming a great writer was attached who could really explore those sorts of themes well. Comic books don't have to be all about punching and laser beams to be interesting man, and if you think they're "boring" without that sort of thing then IMO you are part of the problem with the medium and why the big publishers are afraid to do anything that's actually interesting with their titles. I mean, how many times can they rehash Superman vs. Doomsday before people tell them to F off? That whole "superman punches badguys in the face" thing has been pretty boring for, well, basically both of our lifetimes.

Look, a happy meal comes with a toy, but that doesn't make it less boring than a expertly aged and prepared steak. It's certainly less subtle and to someone with no taste it may seem more exciting, but I personally prefer something crafted with a bit more thought and substance. So sure, a de-powered Superman might have more BANG, POW, ZING in it, but that doesn't really address the quality of the writing. Heck, I could write a Superman book where every panel has somebody getting punched, and Superman bleeding from a headwound... but so what? That just doesn't really factor in to whether or not what you were reading was any good or not... does it? Does the fear of Superman getting punched real hard really trump the questions about what place a god can make for himself amongst mortals for you? because in my worldview the latter sounds a heck of a lot less "boring" than the former.

Edited by baalroo on 09/06/2011 04:29

 
copacetic


No, I think you're the one who completely fails at reading comprehension here. It's not about huge battles or fights or laser battles. It's about the hero being so completely powerful and invulnerable that nothing actually appears as a real threat to him. The crux of good fiction is conflict and how that conflict is overcome. That's the hero's journey - see a problem, be actually challenged by it, and then overcome it. But you would rather have our hero not even break a sweat when facing every single conflict or threat. Just a flick of his fingers, Silver Age style, and boom. Conflict over. What's next, do away with kryptonite completely too?

If you think I'm advocating more big explosions, fights, punches thrown etc. you're completely wrong. I was more criticizing your statement that the Byrne era Superman who was slightly de-powered was a bad thing. It wasn't. You ask anyone, comic fan or non comic fan, and they'll state that one of the reasons Superman is seen as a boring hero is because he's way too powerful. We all know he's going to win by the end of the day, but it's a lot more rewarding if we see the hero at least struggle. That's far more relatable than the hero just shrugging off every conflict; where's the fun in reading then?
 
baalroo

>copacetic wrote:




No, I think you're the one who completely fails at reading comprehension here. It's not about huge battles or fights or laser battles. It's about the hero being so completely powerful and invulnerable that nothing actually appears as a real threat to him. The crux of good fiction is conflict and how that conflict is overcome. That's the hero's journey - see a problem, be actually challenged by it, and then overcome it. But you would rather have our hero not even break a sweat when facing every single conflict or threat. Just a flick of his fingers, Silver Age style, and boom. Conflict over. What's next, do away with kryptonite completely too?

If you think I'm advocating more big explosions, fights, punches thrown etc. you're completely wrong. I was more criticizing your statement that the Byrne era Superman who was slightly de-powered was a bad thing. It wasn't. You ask anyone, comic fan or non comic fan, and they'll state that one of the reasons Superman is seen as a boring hero is because he's way too powerful. We all know he's going to win by the end of the day, but it's a lot more rewarding if we see the hero at least struggle. That's far more relatable than the hero just shrugging off every conflict; where's the fun in reading then?


I never said anything negative about the Byrne era Superman, you're just putting words in my mouth. You are positing that it isn't possible to write compelling fiction about god-like characters.

Again, you don't have to have a physical threat to write a compelling story. I agree, if you write stories about punching and explosions then a more powerful Superman is boring for the reasons you have stated, but nothing is forcing writers to write stories about punching and explosions when it comes to superman. I think a good writer will write good stories about nearly ANY character you want to give them, and a bad writer will write bad stories. It doesn't matter if it's Silver Age Superman, Byrne Era Superman, Yogi the Bear, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, or Steve from Accounting.

I just don't see why you seem to think that "struggle," "conflict," and "threat" only applies to physical confrontation. heck, have you ever read any of marvel's "cosmic" line, or the "fourth world" stuff kirby did for DC? a lot of those characters are WAY more powerful than even the Silver Age Superman, and still manage to be full of conflict. You seem to have a specific sort of Superman that you want to see, and you will argue yourself into any corner that you have to in order to justify why that Superman should be the one that is being written. I personally don't care how powerful (or not) they decide to make him, as long as it's an interesting read.

Edited by baalroo on 09/06/2011 15:19

 
Man_Of_Steel_
Here are the new covers for Superman #1, Supergirl#1 and Superboy #1 http://www.bleedi...-superboy/
It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Superman.
 
baalroo
I'm quite surprised that I don't mind the loss of the red undies, changing the belt to red actually works surprisingly well... however, Jim Lee sucks and the overall look of this stuff is awfully cheesy and reminds me WAY to much of the 90s Image Comics. I'm guessing these costume redesigns only last as long as the other artists feel obligated to follow them and hope that the better artists over at DC slowly morph this ridiculous crap into something a bit more subtle and classy as time goes on. I mean, this stuff looks about as lame and dated as the Mullet Supes. Seriously, Lee is so out of touch it's ridiculous and DC letting him do the redesigns is the biggest red flag I've seen for this whole relaunch. I thought they were supposed to be UPDATING these looks, not trying to harken back to the worst era for comic book art. I really don't understand why, if they want to be "forward thinking" with this relaunch, did they use an artist with the most dated art style I can think of to do the redesigns. Why not have someone with a "hip" artistic style like Jeff Lemire take the helm?

I'm starting to really get the impression that DC is just blowing a bunch of smoke up our rears and is, as usual, afraid to really shake up their good ole' boys club.

Edited by baalroo on 09/06/2011 18:08

 
LJW_Red_Dragons
Ok so they deleted the red trucks and made the suit look like it was armor? Why is it in all of those pieces?
Whatever can't do anything about it. It's a done deal now, on to the wheel, what can we change about that? I said it once and I’ll say it again, change for changes sake is always a bad idea.
 
sbeamish

>copacetic wrote:

It's not about huge battles or fights or laser battles. It's about the hero being so completely powerful and invulnerable that nothing actually appears as a real threat to him. The crux of good fiction is conflict and how that conflict is overcome. That's the hero's journey - see a problem, be actually challenged by it, and then overcome it. But you would rather have our hero not even break a sweat when facing every single conflict or threat. Just a flick of his fingers, Silver Age style, and boom. Conflict over. What's next, do away with kryptonite completely too?

If you think I'm advocating more big explosions, fights, punches thrown etc. you're completely wrong. I was more criticizing your statement that the Byrne era Superman who was slightly de-powered was a bad thing. It wasn't. You ask anyone, comic fan or non comic fan, and they'll state that one of the reasons Superman is seen as a boring hero is because he's way too powerful. We all know he's going to win by the end of the day, but it's a lot more rewarding if we see the hero at least struggle. That's far more relatable than the hero just shrugging off every conflict; where's the fun in reading then?


They decreased Superman's power level in 1971. They did it again in 1986. In the animated series that began in 1996, his strength and invulnerability (that's a laugh) probably reached their lowest ebb since the early Siegel and Shuster days. Through it all, as you noted above, people continued to say that Superman was boring, because he was too powerful. You can keep cutting his powers, until even you or I can take him out with one punch, but you'll never kill that cliche.

And let's not forget, even in the infamous Silver Age, Superman was loaded down with convenient, insidious weaknesses: kryptonite, red sun radiation, magic, virus-X, Q energy (whatever that was).
 
NeoRanger
The truth is in the middle in this regard. You really don't need to depower Superman to the point of laser-guns hurting him, like they did in the Animated Series. It's just unnecessary. At the same time, you can't go to Silver Age levels with planet-juggling, because you're asking for too much from the audience and whatever kind of viable threat you come up will be either an obvious plot convenience and ultimately a cop-out (like Kryptonite or Red Sun Lamps) or will just raise too many questions (if, say, a villain is powerful enough to challenge the Silver Age Superman at full strength, he's probably powerful enough to destroy the planet when Superman takes a bathroom break).
 
Hypoxic
In many regards, Superman is only as powerful as his nemesis. Having Superman so powerful has given us some fantastic villians. With that said, I personally think it goes into the realm of silly when Superman can pull planets out of orbit, but this isn't to say that a good writer couldn't write a good story with such an omnipotent Supes.

Anyway, we're getting off topic.

The new suit: discuss.

[img]http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/solicitation-artwork/September-2011/sm_cv1.jpg[/img] is not a valid Image.

I mostly like it, but there are a whole lot of superfluous lines. Jim Lee isn't drawing Superman #1 or Action Comics #1, so perhaps there will be some liberty taken.
Easy, miss. I've got you.
_____

Get away from me, padre. You reek of the irrational. - Lex Luthor
 
Jump to Forum: