Journalism and "Superman: Earth One"

[the G-man]

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.

I agree with this point.

When I say I think Superman should be marketed primarily at kids I mean, with quality stories, art and/or animation.

In fact, is part of why I groused a bit about the Johnny DC line. Way too many books in that line come off as throw away knock-offs of the animated series and, IMO, aren't likely to bring in kids any more than an overly agnsty JMS style book would.

(Though, it should be noted, that a couple of the kids books, including Ty Templeton's Batman stuff and Jeff Smith's Shazam, were actually better written than their mainstream counterparts).

Basically, if you ask me, given the commercial and critica success of "the Incredibles" (and, to a lesser extent, Megamind) DC/WB is insane not to be backing a money truck up to a guy like Brad Bird (the Iron Giant, the Incredibles) and begging him to do a Pixar-style Superman cartoon.

 

[Red Ranger]

It's really unfortunate that they brought back the dumb, "Clark Kent interviewed Superman" shtick that was also in John Byrne's Man of Steel. In the original Superman movie, Clark gives Lois the interview, which shows he's both ethical and selfless. I always preferred that version, as it shows Superman as the boy scout he's supposed to be, exemplefied by the line, "Lois, I never lie."

I also agree Lois and Clark probably did the best job at trying to show they're both investigative reporters. And while Clark does use his powers in his job, I'm not sure how unethical that would be. I also think The Adventures of Superman tried to show they're both reporters.

This line from Superman: The Movie also shows that Kent has certain reporter skills that Perry White admires: "Not only does he have a snappy, punch prose style, not only does he show his editor-in-chief the proper respiect, but he is, in my years in this business, the fastest typist I've ever seen." Again, Superman uses his super-speed to meet his deadlines, but he apparently has a writing style White likes. That doesn't come from his super-powers, but his abilities.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This line from Superman: The Movie also shows that Kent has certain reporter skills that Perry White admires: "Not only does he have a snappy, punch prose style, not only does he show his editor-in-chief the proper respiect, but he is, in my years in this business, the fastest typist I've ever seen." .

Is there anything more superficial and pointless that the writers could have had White say? I swear to God, there was more than one scene where it seemed like the director just told Cooper to spout whatever came into his head when the cameras rolled.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

Amazingly well.

 

[Sci]

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.

I think you're right.

I also think Dennis is right.

How's that?

Well, it seems to me that the thing that marks children's stories as children's stories is this: While they may go into dark places, and may sometimes deal with sophisticated concepts, they must, at the end of the day, moderate these elements so as to present them in a manner in which a less-developed mind can assimilate them.

I think that there's a tendency on many people's parts -- and particularly upon many very intelligent people's parts -- to take what they remember of their mental states in early adolescence -- 11 or 12 or thereabouts -- and project that mental state backwards both upon their younger selves and upon all other younger persons. And that's just not accurate or fair; most children are not gifted, and even the ones that are gifted are often less intellectually developed than an adult might remember being at a similar age (in part because memory is unreliable).

And that's not just an issue of intellectual development -- it's an issue of emotional development, too. Dark and painful feelings are things that children have, and it's completely appropriate for a children's work to explore them, but children's works have, in my view, a moral obligation to moderate these feelings by adding less-troubling elements to the story to leaven things out, as it were.

Now, I think that these stories have an obligation to be as smart and sophisticated as possible, given those caveats. But the idea that children are as intellectually and emotionally developed, and thus as capable of handling complex and/or troubling stories, is just false and unfair to children. Life is hard and they're going to learn that soon enough if they haven't already; there's no reason not to give them stories that moderate the darkness in life, that gives them a way to begin to grapple with complex ideas without overwhelming or boring them. They'll be adults soon enough; there's no need to try to impose adult standards of storytelling upon children's stories.

 

[Christopher]

^Even so, that doesn't mean a children's story can't be made with enough quality to satisfy the mind and aesthetic sense of an adult. The idea that children's stories should be unworthy of adults' attention is what I have a problem with. Aside from the quality issue, there's the fact that parents and guardians should experience children's stories along with them, either by reading books to them or by watching shows and movies along with them to offer guidance. So really, by definition, we should treat children's stories as stories meant to be experienced by both children and adults.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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.

Considering the source, I'll take that.

 

[FordSVT]

Yes, but if you lie for personal gain, that's an ethical violation. The writer wasn't complaining about Clark using his powers, but about Clark authoring a fradulent newspaper article (i.e. "I, Clark Kent, interviewed Superman") in order to advance his career. The problem is that he used his identity as Superman to get himself a job under false pretenses and undermine another reporter in the process.

Peter Parker never would have had his job without all of the exclusive Spider Man pictures either. I think this is only an issue with JMS at all because he promised something more realistic.

 

[Christopher]

Peter Parker never would have had his job without all of the exclusive Spider Man pictures either.

Well, yeah, but one expects Superman to be held to a higher standard of morality. Besides, Peter (usually) doesn't fabricate the events, he merely misrepresents how he obtained documentation of them. (There was the time he faked a photo of Spidey changing into Electro in order to sell it to JJJ, but he came to regret it. More recently, he faked a photo to exonerate JJJ of something and lost his job because of it. So it's not something he makes a habit of.)

I think this is only an issue with JMS at all because he promised something more realistic.

That's definitely a part of it. He made a big deal of how his experience as a journalist would let him represent the profession better than it's been represented in past Superman comics, but apparently readers familiar with journalism think he totally dropped the ball on that promise.