Took the words out of my mouth there.
DC to REBOOT???
- Thread starter Professor Zoom
- Start date
- Status
Took the words out of my mouth there.
I tend to agree. I have to preface this next comment by stating that I have never read anything written by Grant Morrison in the past, but this just doesn't sound interesting to me at all.
I believe Morrison is doing what he wanted to do with his "Superman Year One" prequel proposal to "All Star Superman" but just in the confines of this relaunched continuity which is why there are all these changes. "All Star Superman" is considered by those who have read it one of the best Superman stories ever...and it's in my personal top three. This will either be along those lines or it will be a disaster.
Oh, well, you totally should. I haven't given the poor man anything but shit for four years, but he's probably the second most important living comics creator.
Admiral_Young said:
I'll skip my usual complaints about it and just agree that it's incredibly good. It's positivity time!
I don't disagree. But the "human" aspects were in both his personas and in large part a result of being adopted by "earthlings."
I've also thought (and this is largely my own theory) that "dorky" Clark is partially because, when he puts on the glasses, etc., Superman needs to hold back so much of who he is--his powers, his abilities, even the way he speaks and stands--that he almost is dorky.
Think about how you'd move if you had to pretend to be blind, deaf and infinitely slower than you really are. You'd come off as pretty tentative and clumsy too.
Just as a normal person would have trouble pretending not to have all his or her senses, Superman has trouble pretending to be human because it takes so much effort.
There was a cute, almost throwaway, line during the 1970s where Superman thanks about dumping the Kent ID and then says (paraphrase) "Oh, who am kidding? Being Superman is like being rich. You always wonder if they'd like you otherwise."
He was being glib but I think it ties into (to some extent) your point that he can't help but be Clark. He was raised on earth, by humans. His parents (at least the ones he knew) were human. His friends were human. Like everyone else he wants to fit in with his friends, his family, even his society. In a way he WANTS to be human.
But he can't. The best he can do is pretend to be human. Because otherwise, as they said (again, paraphrase) in the 1978 movie, he might like look them but he won't be one of them.
That, to me, is part of the essence of Superman and was for the first fifty years. And if Morrison can bring that back in a satisfying way, more power to him.
I much prefer Byrne's take on the character to the previous twenty years.
There's nothing to be "concerned" about here. It's a comic book, and in a few years they'll change it to something else yet again.
There's nothing to be "concerned" about here. It's a comic book, and in a few years they'll change it to something else yet again.
Yep it's going to be interesting to explain the meshed relaunched continuity.
I doubt within the first year (at least), it's even mentioned in any way.
Of course wouldn't he try to "fix" the world forever?Do re-booters realize that at some point we just stop caring about the whole damn mess? We fanboys are often disdained for our love of "continuity", but isn't the essence of continuity good storytelling and consistent characterization? When characters can have their memories, histories and personalities wiped every goddamned time I turn around, why should I care to follow their adventures any more? If it's okay to re-boot every couple of years, then why not once a year? Once a month? Hell, let's re-boot every series on every fifth page of every story!!! Jesus!
What they realize is that there's a turnover of readers of comics every few years - even now - and the "core" that they need to hold onto is always moving. You risk alienating some long-time readers in order to accommodate new readers to the best of your ability.
Continuity is a factor in telling a story, but not the "essence" of it, especially in serial fiction like comics and soap operas. Just as important is a mechanism for retiring old continuity. Soaps do it by benign neglect; perhaps these restarts are not the best way for comics to do it, but they're the way it's being done.
I see this argument all the time, and I don't buy it. Continuity only ties a writer's hands if he lets it. Just don't refer to old baggage, and the old baggage doesn't matter any more! Pretty simple.
And comics don't have a regular turnover anymore...that's the whole problem! They used to be read by kids, who grew up and moved on, but now they're read by 38-year-old males who want all 75 years' worth of stories acknowledged on every page! UGH.
Last edited:
I know - I see this comeback all the time on the Internet, but writers and other creators just continue doing what they know they need to do to tell their stories nonetheless and that's one thing that's not going to change. Continuity mavens will continue to be frustrated and dismayed that creators "don't get it" and the entertainment industry will roll ahead anyway.
The only real way to avoid this is, frankly, to deep-six the notion of these eternally-renewing, endless franchises and properties altogether. Tolkein, or J.K. Rowling and Warners can "get continuity right" - more or less - because they're telling stories with a beginning and a middle and an end. If you want to watch Star Trek or Doctor Who or Spider-Man from your cradle to your grave, though, you'll just have to accept this kind of continual mutation, reset and revision.
Generally I prefer this approach myself - "retiring continuity," it's called - but how exactly do you do that with stuff like Supes' marriage to Lois when that no longer serves its purpose? The creators should have their hands tied throughout time because of creative decisions made by other people that the folks involved now feel are dragging the property down? Uh-uh; no way. After a while no one will want to work on the property except for fanboys who will cater to the biases of the hard core who privilege continuity above everything else, the audience declines and the property dies.
According to an interview DiDio did with the Advocate, Clark isn't the only Superman to lose his marriage:
But, at least Apollo and Midnighter are still fucking. Also, maybe I missed it, but when was Midnighter "repressed"?Danny Boy said:
And really, there's the argument in favor of resetting Lois and Clark - the writers can, if they choose, retell the romance in whatever way they think works best for a new audience...and maybe without catering to the foregone conclusion that it moves forward and on to marriage at all.
He's now wearing a chin-spike...a chin-spike.... if that doesn't say repressed, I'm not sure what does. Anyway, as discussed before, the marriage is going to be the least of their problems as characters in the DCU.
"More Lemonade Midnighter?"
"Why thank you Martian Manhunter that would be lovely".
I never cared for seeing Superman and Lois married to begin with, so undoing it is perfectly fine with me. He's already the most powerful man on Earth, with dozens of fantastic superpowers... and now he's married to the super sexy woman of his dreams too? I just never saw where the drama was in that. If anything, it made him even MORE boring.
I think just having Lois ultimately learn his secret would be interesting enough.
I think just having Lois ultimately learn his secret would be interesting enough.
- Status
Similar threads
