Journalism and "Superman: Earth One"

[Snaploud]

However, there's also no reason that childrens' stories and entertainment should be deformed or made to conform to the tastes and demands of grown-ups in order to continue to feed their enthusiasm.

They've already given a reason. Adults read these comics. Kids don't...

That's pathetic.

It's not pathetic. It's reality. Publishers publish to their audience.

Kids do read Superman, BTW.

Some, yes...

That no one reads expensive format comics in sufficient numbers for the comfort of the publishers is unfortunate but no tragedy.

Well, then, it's no tragedy that they'll be making comics for the audience they do have.

If the comics industry implodes tomorrow the popular characters will continue in other media.

Nobody said they wouldn't...There will always be kid-friendly versions of superheroes, but there will also be the more adult-oriented variety.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

It's almost another topic, but there's something to the fact that when I was a kid, I would go to the store and pick up the regular Superman books, but if your take you kid to get comics now, you get them Superman Adventures.

(Yes, I'm aware that's not in print anymore, but the point is the same.)

 

[FluffyUnbound]

Also, in the context of Earth One, remember that this guy was willing to (among other things) become a professional athlete to financially support his mother. While the ends would certainly be just, the means by which he would have achieved them would have meant eclipsing others who may have work hard their whole lives and maybe beating someone out of a position that sees that person's hopes and dreams in flames. OK he didn't do it, but it wasn't because of any moral objection, it was because he perceived journalism as a more noble pursuit.

I think this clip highlights the big problem with engaging in discussions of the ethics of being Clark Kent / Superman - he's not human.

The ethics appropriate to a human being may not be appropriate to him in all circumstances.

If we judge Clark exactly the same way we would judge a human being, there's absolutely no reason for him not to be a professional athlete and dominate all sports. Everyone in professional sports today has some kind of "natural" edge on the average person; they've got a talent, and they're using it. Clark Kent, NFL running back who scores on every play, would not be doing anything different ethically from any other NFL running back if he chose to participate.

But that doesn't sound right, does it? We feel at some basic level that he's just so superior to human beings physically that it wouldn't be "fair" for him to be a professional athlete. We're putting him into a special ethical category all his own.

If the "athletic ethics" appropriate to Superman are uniquely his [or belong uniquely to the super-powered] than why wouldn't it be appropriate for him to his his own unique journalistic ethics, too?

 

[Myasishchev]

But everyone loves Johns!

Oh, no they don't.

[snipped a repetitive rant, which I've no doubt made here before]

But, for your viewing pleasure, a slam on two writers in one handy SAT-style analogy:

Geoff Johns:Hal Jordan::Steve Englehart:Mantis. Discuss.

But that doesn't sound right, does it? We feel at some basic level that he's just so superior to human beings physically that it wouldn't be "fair" for him to be a professional athlete. We're putting him into a special ethical category all his own.

I'd like to see Superman basketball. Hey, it's not travelling if your feet don't touch the floor.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's not pathetic. It's reality.

It's both. And trying to demand that stories about a guy in a red cape who flies and fights aliens from outer space conform in some way to "reality" or plausibility in any adult sense is what's truly pathetic.

But hell, we live in an age where the consumer economy does its best to cater to middle-aged children whose tastes have never matured whether the product is entertainment, fashion or food. We're participants.

 

[Kegg]

But hell, we live in an age where the consumer economy does its best to cater to middle-aged children whose tastes have never matured whether the product is entertainment, fashion or food. We're participants.

Don't you read them, though?

I'm a fly by commenter who likes raining on JMS's parade. My arrogance masks the fact I only vaguely have an idea what I'm talking about.

 

[Snaploud]

It's not pathetic. It's reality.

It's both. And trying to demand that stories about a guy in a red cape who flies and fights aliens from outer space conform in some way to "reality" or plausibility in any adult sense is what's truly pathetic.

But hell, we live in an age where the consumer economy does its best to cater to middle-aged children whose tastes have never matured whether the product is entertainment, fashion or food. We're participants.

You're posting in a discussion about Superman comics...in a forum dedicated to Science Fiction and Fantasy...on a board dedicated to Star Trek. Yeah, I'd say you're a participant. Welcome to the land of the "pathetic" where "middle-aged children" run rampant. Feel free to buy a t-shirt during your stay.

 

[Myasishchev]

I'm not middle-aged.

 

[Snaploud]

I'm not middle-aged.

*shrugs*

I'm twenty-six. Whether or not that's middle-aged hasn't been determined yet for me...

 

[the G-man]

^ Exactly and why shouldn't an adult be able to still enjoy something he/she did as a kid? Just because society doesn't accept that?

No reason at all.

However, there's also no reason that childrens' stories and entertainment should be deformed or made to conform to the tastes and demands of grown-ups in order to continue to feed their enthusiasm.

Superman is about a baby shot in a rocket from another planet, who can fly and lift whole worlds and see through walls with special vision. Nothing can hurt him. When he changes his clothes no one recognizes him. He often has a flying dog. How sophisticated do you have a right to expect such stories to be?

If you can enjoy this stuff in the way that a child does, then great. Otherwise move on or just get used to disappointment.

Exactly. Superman is, at it's heart, a children's story.

You can enjoy a good children's story like Superman as an adult, especially if a sufficiently talented creator finds a way to make it work on two levels.

But demanding it be updated for your adult tastes is a little like getting frustrated that nobody's written a sequel to "Green Eggs and Ham" where Sam I Am has to deal with high cholesterol.

 

[Christopher]

^But that's misunderstanding the way the comics are written these days. Children do not read comics very much anymore. When they do, they read sidebar imprints like Johnny DC and Marvel Adventures which are specially geared for them. The mainstream Marvel and DC comics these days are primarily read by older teens and adults, and they are written with that audience in mind, with adult themes, considerable violence, a fair degree of sexuality, and often a fairly dark tone overall. Not only are they not read by children, they shouldn't be read by children.

Also, it's ridiculous to say that there's some fundamental divide between a "children's story" and a "grownup story." Stories are stories. The same basic premise can be written for an audience of any age. It's particularly illogical to say that Superman's basic story is somehow inappropriate for adults, because Superman's backstory is basically a retelling of the story of Moses.

 

[Admiral_Young]

If Superman is at it's heart a children's story then where does Superdickory fit in?

 

[Nerys Myk]

But everyone loves Johns!

Oh, no they don't.

[snipped a repetitive rant, which I've no doubt made here before]

But, for your viewing pleasure, a slam on two writers in one handy SAT-style analogy:

Geoff Johns:Hal Jordan::Steve Englehart:Mantis. Discuss.
.

Englehart created Mantis. So what ever Steve wants to/wanted to /did do with Mantis ( or any of her analogs) is fine. On that point alone the analogy fails.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If Superman is at it's heart a children's story then where does Superdickory fit in?

Children are dicks.

 

[Myasishchev]

But everyone loves Johns!

Oh, no they don't.

[snipped a repetitive rant, which I've no doubt made here before]

But, for your viewing pleasure, a slam on two writers in one handy SAT-style analogy:

Geoff Johns:Hal Jordan::Steve Englehart:Mantis. Discuss.
.

Englehart created Mantis. So what ever Steve wants to/wanted to /did do with Mantis ( or any of her analogs) is fine. On that point alone the analogy fails.

What?

The point is, he wants to fuck it.

But Johns:Jordan:: Dini:Zatanna, if you want to get hung up on the issue of creation. Except Dini actually got his wish.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Oh, no they don't.

[snipped a repetitive rant, which I've no doubt made here before]

But, for your viewing pleasure, a slam on two writers in one handy SAT-style analogy:

Geoff Johns:Hal Jordan::Steve Englehart:Mantis. Discuss.
.

Englehart created Mantis. So what ever Steve wants to/wanted to /did do with Mantis ( or any of her analogs) is fine. On that point alone the analogy fails.

What?

The point is, he wants to fuck it.

But Johns:Jordan:: Dini:Zatanna, if you want to get hung up on the issue of creation. Except Dini actually got his wish.

Since you didnt elaborate I had no idea what you were talking about. I guess your rant isn't quite as well known as you believed.

So Johns wants to fuck Hal Jordan????? Really????? He seem quite taken with the character, but seems to love Barry Allen just as much. But fuck him??? Fuck him up maybe ( according to some)

I've read Engleharts Mantis since the beginning. Never got that impresssion. Though I suppose a prostitute/priestess/madonna/martial artist could be his dream girl. What lines are you reading between? Or did Steve say something?

Fucking a woman dressed like Zatanna ( Dini's wife?) isn't quite the same. !SEY DOG HO !SEY !SEY

 

[the G-man]

^But that's misunderstanding the way the comics are written these days. Children do not read comics very much anymore. When they do, they read sidebar imprints like Johnny DC and Marvel Adventures which are specially geared for them. The mainstream Marvel and DC comics these days are primarily read by older teens and adults, and they are written with that audience in mind, with adult themes, considerable violence, a fair degree of sexuality, and often a fairly dark tone overall. Not only are they not read by children, they shouldn't be read by children.

But a lot that is because DC, for about twenty years, gave up on trying to figure out a way to bring kids into the books and starting trying to write for the fanboy/collector audience.

And even if your point is 100% accurate, the real question is: Is Superman a character that should marketed to adults or should DC just find ways to market him, in whatever media, to kids and young adults?

It seems to me that Superman should be something a "gateway" character: the bright colors, the kind of silly secret ID, the wish fulfillment powers, etc., all are very kid oriented. Rather than try and ignore that, DC should just embrace it. Let Superman be written for younger kids and, for example, the more intense Batman be marketed slightly older.

Putting aside their half-hearted attempts at stuff like the Johnny DC line, it never ceased to amaze me that DC (and Marvel for that matter) seem to think that every character, no matter how unique, should be written just like every other character. And, in fact, I can't think of any other major entertainment company that does that. Movie studios don't produce films for only one age group, TV networks don't think that (for example) "Everybody Loves Raymond" has to be set in the same universe as "CSI."

But come hell or high water the big two are going to keep trying to market every one of their characters to the same ever-dwindling, aging, market until there's no one left.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I think DC has taken to focusing on children through their animated arm now..."Brave and the Bold" really was an effort to draw in a younger crowd. I dunno...I started reading Spider-Man when I was around three or four years old (I'm 30 now). I take it you yourself don't read comics then? This thread has kind of spun out of control.

 

[Christopher]

But a lot that is because DC, for about twenty years, gave up on trying to figure out a way to bring kids into the books and starting trying to write for the fanboy/collector audience.

And even if your point is 100% accurate, the real question is: Is Superman a character that should marketed to adults or should DC just find ways to market him, in whatever media, to kids and young adults?

It seems to me that Superman should be something a "gateway" character: the bright colors, the kind of silly secret ID, the wish fulfillment powers, etc., all are very kid oriented. Rather than try and ignore that, DC should just embrace it. Let Superman be written for younger kids and, for example, the more intense Batman be marketed slightly older.

Even granting the truth of all that, it doesn't make it any less elitist and ignorant to say something like "Well, it's just a kids' story, so how sophisticated can you expect it to be?" as Dennis did. If he thinks kids' stories can't be sophisticated, he hasn't been reading or watching the right kids' stories. And personally I'm always dismayed by the attitude that things created for children should be assumed to be inferior in quality. No decent human being would apply that mentality to creating, say, safety equipment or medical care for children, so why should anyone think that mentality should be applied to stories for children? Don't we owe it to our children to give them the very best we can offer? So to use "kids' story" as a dismissive insult is just... ugh.

 

[Myasishchev]

Englehart created Mantis. So what ever Steve wants to/wanted to /did do with Mantis ( or any of her analogs) is fine. On that point alone the analogy fails.

What?

The point is, he wants to fuck it.

But Johns:Jordan:: Dini:Zatanna, if you want to get hung up on the issue of creation. Except Dini actually got his wish.

Since you didnt elaborate I had no idea what you were talking about. I guess your rant isn't quite as well known as you believed.

So Johns wants to fuck Hal Jordan????? Really????? He seem quite taken with the character, but seems to love Barry Allen just as much. But fuck him??? Fuck him up maybe ( according to some)

I've read Engleharts Mantis since the beginning. Never got that impresssion. Though I suppose a prostitute/priestess/madonna/martial artist could be his dream girl. What lines are you reading between? Or did Steve say something?

Fucking a woman dressed like Zatanna ( Dini's wife?) isn't quite the same. !SEY DOG HO !SEY !SEY

Now, truly, I give Dini a hard time. Even though there is something really Neil Gaimanish about writing a character, meeting a woman who is the real-life version of a character, marrying that woman, and then writing an ongoing series about the character, it's totally harmless and Dini is probably super-happy. I've never actually read Zatanna so it might be the best comic ever. Maybe I'll even pick it up next time I'm at the shop; I mean, I sort of like Dini, and I like Zatanna, even though her power set is broken.

I can also presume most Zatanna plots do not revolve around someone her capacity to be fertilized, so Dini/Zatanna can be easily distinguished from Englehart/Mantis in that manner.

I suppose this also distinguishes Englehart/Mantis from Johns/Jordan, although I sort of like the idea of Hal Jordan being the celestial madonna, and a storyline involving Per Degaton arriving from the future, intent on forcibly wedding the greatest Green Lantern of them all.

But you know, I do actually rather like Steve Englehart's work (and, for what it's worth, Celestial Madonna is sitting on my shelf, the one with the ugliest, most odd-model Mantis you're ever likely to see on its cover).

The main thrust of my deleted rant was that Geoff Johns, despite being an imaginative person and a creator with a good grasp of craft, has four main weaknesses as a writer: inability to separate his good ideas from his bad ideas; poorly executing his good ideas; relatedly, a nostalgic bent that undermines his judgment; and, in his current environment, no incentive to get better. I think he could be a lot better than he is.