Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION Dr. Gym'll's Cultural Rarities Lardy's Roundtable (Gym'll's Ed.): Grant Morrison

I can't say if there's been any extended run showing his potential, but I certainly share the dislike for the forays into bad-ass Supes. With the latest take on the character (which I haven't read) in which he walks around America, so to speak, I would have thought they were going for basic goodness and empathy with the common folk. Maybe good, heroic Superman can't sustain an extended run - only go for a mini-series - regardless of the era and the audience.

Purity of heart is certainly Superman's distinguishing characteristic for me - or it could be. Incorruptible goodness speaks truth to power, and can kick ass if it has to.

Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns took that goodness and twisted it into a duped Superman, at the beck and call of the U.S. government, who eventually had to be purified by the Sun. (Valor was also cast into that role in DnA's Legion run, working for President McCauley.)

FC, I haven't read much of the current Superman but what little I have read came across to me as very dry and preachy.

Superman's portrayal in Dark Knight Returns is one of the many reasons I despise Frank Miller.

Amen to that.

After many reviews I'm a bit pressed for time but wanted to link to this thread which doesn't answer your question but gets at the topic from another angle (and you might find interesting)...

Very cool thread, Cobie. It should be required reading for every prospective Superman writer. Which only makes me wonder more than ever how it is that it's always been so hard for most of his actual writers to get him right.

I know the Silver Age Superman era is very popular, but I think that the Silver Age Superman was a dick, and the Silver Age Lois Lane was a shrew. I know there's a separate thread about the Superdickery website, but for the sake of expediency, I'll post the website address:

http://superdickery.com/

And when you have some time, Cobie, I would appreciate if you did a long, detailed post in this thread about what exactly makes the late 80s-mid 90s Superman so great in your opinion.

I’ll try (you know I can’t resist an offer to be overly wordy ) but I will admit that I have not read these Superman stories since they came off the rack, unlike several other eras. I know when I was reading Superman from say 1989-1994-ish, I considered the four Superman comics to be some of the very best comics in the industry. Superman, as a franchise, has never been as good since, and after reading a plethora of other eras, it was never as good before.

A few things are more business/editorial driven: I liked the weekly format with each title leading into the next but each having it’s specific storylines & supporting characters. I thought it was amazingly well done and has never been mirrored.

I thought the creative teams were amazing. Writers like Roger Stern and Louise Simonson were fantastic, and the artwork was a joy to behold. Jurgens & Breeding were a delight and IMO have the best look for Superman ever. The Bog had an awesome, completely different style that was part-Kirby and part out there. Later in the era, Barry Kitson and others joined.

But getting at why I liked this era specifically, especially the depiction of Superman:

- The cast of characters was vast and complex. Every one of them had multiple layers. There were so many characters that writers of the last 15 years just can’t seem to fit them all in. I miss Bibbo.

- Lois was incredibly strong, savy, intelligent and above all—compassionate and a good person. All her bad qualities had been stripped away. Lois Lane during this era is perhaps the single most attractive female personality wise in the history of comic books.

- Metropolis & Smallville were completely fleshed out places with sub-sets of locations and characters. You felt like Metropolis was so big that Superman wouldn’t need to leave it.

- The villains were complex and different, and there was a great mix of new & old.

- The adventures themselves were all almost excellent from a story-telling perspective. Each issue had a complete story, even if it was a chapter to a larger story. The stories had larger themes that weren’t beating us over the head, and yet they were full of adventure.

- The adventures were also diverse. There was space-opera, super-villain craziness, social issues, gang-type stories, comedic stories, sci-fi driven stories and many more. And through all of these, even though Superman can basically beat anyone in a fight, they all seemed to be the right adventure for him to be a part of (even gang-type stuff). I also enjoyed the stories that were sentimental, like the Christmas stories by Jurgens.

- Usage of Lex Luthor was fresh for the first time in decades (and the last time). And he didn’t dominate the series; he was more a supporting character which helped limit the annoyance factor.

- Getting to the most important: the depiction of Superman himself. He was portrayed as nothing short of heroic; yet, he didn’t have any of the super-dickery qualities he had in the Silver Age. He was compassionate but not a cry-baby wuss like the 70’s at times and then the years following this era (I don’t know how that was allowed). He was tough, smart and he also liked to laugh. He was a fully–rounded person yet still maintained his iconic-ness. I didn’t think it was perfect, but I thought it was the most well-balanced depiction in Superman history.

Something else else to add: I didn’t see Superman as my father; my boss; my older brother; my buddy; some alien; something too abstract to understand. He wasn’t any of these things. He was Superman, and he wasn’t pigeonholed into any of those roles.

This era wasn’t perfect and not every story was a hit. Sometimes the writing or art flubbed and sometimes it just didn’t work. But I’d say 90% of the time, they were nailing it. By the end, things began to trail off and head into a territory where a lot of the good became watered down (certainly by the break-up before the marriage this era had moved on to something else). Actually, even the very beginning of this era wasn’t perfect and it took awhile to pick up steam.

Did you collect during this era, FL? Any opinions—or is it more mixed (I realize I’m lumping in a lot together when perhaps I shouldn’t but I feel its all one big era).

Cobie, in answer to your question, I did collect this era of Superman for a brief time. I loved the exiled-in-outer-space arc (although I hated the story that set it up, the one where Byrne had Superman kill the Phantom Zone criminals.) I loved two of the three Armageddon 2001 tie-ins (Yay to Louise Simonson's Adventures of Superman Annual, probably the best that Maxima was ever written; yay to Roger Stern's Action Comics Annual, where Superman becomes President; nay to Dan Jurgens' Superman Annual, where a personal tragedy drives Superman over the edge and Batman kills him with the Kryptonite ring. Bleh.) And the artists -- Gammill, Perez, Grummett, Ordway, Jurgens -- were generally turning out fine work.

Where I felt it jumped the shark was when it became event-driven, starting with Death of Superman, which I consider the single biggest ripoff in the history of comics. The death of Superman should have been an operatic, multilayered story, not an endless fistfight with a lame new villain (I know, I know, if DoS and Reign of the Supermen and Return of Superman are all looked at as one big story blah blah blah...sorry, but DoS was so lame I wasn't very well going to stick around for the sequels.)

I guess my main problem with this era was that despite a few bright spots pre-DoS, the stories overall were a little bland for my taste, which I think was an almost inevitable consquence of having all the books so closely tied together, instead of each book being its own separate entity -- what we ended up IMO with was some talented writers having to supress their individual voices most of the time.

I get your gripe with DoS, but like you mention, I look at it as the first chapter of a larger arc including the excellent Funeral for a Friend 8 parter (focusing on the cast) and Reign of Supermen, which was IMO awesome.

And then the subsequent 2+ years are when things really kicked into high gear.

I need to come up with some issue numbers to explain where I'm talking about I think. When the good really starts, Byrne was long gone. Certainly 'Panic in the Sky' was part of what I loved. Weezie's entire Superman: Man of Steel run is included.

Probably right around when Superman proposes to Lois and she finds out he is Clark Kent are when things just get really excellent. Or when Luthor comes back as his son with the long red hair.

Things were excellent well beyond the culmination of the Luthor subplot / destruction of Metrpolis. Actually, beyond even Zero Hour (1994) with the Kenny Bravermen issues.

Loved this are of Superman as well. I thought the death, while a stunt, led to some great storytelling for characters that wouldn't normally get the amount of facetime they did there.

Loved Time and Time Again, as well as Panic in the Sky. The books at that time were a fun read for me. There were definate clunkers in there, but from the relaunch to around the proposal...like Cobie said above, things were actually pretty good. I stopped reading a little before the proposal...so I guess my mileage may be a little different. I have thought about going back and filling in any gaps up to the wedding and leaving the bulk of my collection with that run.

Panic in the Sky is perhaps the most under-rated superhero slugfest / adventure in the last 25 years. It owns 98.5% of all superhero crossovers. It's the good parts of Secret Wars with a plot and integrity.

I'd have to agree with Cobie and Dev about Superman's glory days, though I haven't exactly read every era significantly enough to present myself as an expert on such. But for me Superman's glory days began with Byrne's Man of Steel miniseries and ended when Dan Jurgens left the franchise.

Superman was at the top of his game during that era. Other than the harm and confusion done to the Legion it caused, the reboot was an absolutely perfect jumping-on point for fans to get into Superman. Unlike the wishy-washy Batman reboot in which some pre-Crisis things happened and others didn't, everything you needed to know about his continuity unfolded right before your eyes. You didn't have to know diddly-squat about what happened prior to MoS. If they wanted to reintroduce old concepts, they did and reimagined them right before your eyes.

And, you know, there was a LOT of merit to Superman being the only Kryptonian and having never been Superboy. This made him feel more important, more unique and his adventures more meaningful as you read them. I've said before and will say again, the ENTIRE DCU ahould have been rebooted in the wake of Crisis like Superman was (and Wonder Woman was) and without all these soft or years later reboots. Call Crisis The End of the old continuity and just start fresh, and things would have probably gone better overall. Yes, great fan-favorite runs like Wolfman on Titans and Levitz on Legion would have ended prematurely, but in either case in hindsight, was the best truly ahead for those runs?

Anyhow, that's a BIG digression, but it feeds into my point about how damn good and accessible Superman was in those days. The stories were great and Superman was relatable and above all human during those times. I'm not so sure that he should ever have killed those Phantom Zone villains, but I have to admit Byrne really presented it convincingly with what all we were shown of the scenario. Mixed feelings or not, I think Byrne saved his best for last with that story.

But the creators who picked up the baton after Byrne left immediately lifted everything to a higher level. Their development of the supporting cast, the terrific story arcs, the sense of identity that all titles still managed to maintain throughout, the development of the mythos and some of the finest artists ever to grace a comics page (my faves being Jerry Ordway, Dan Jurgens, Jackson Guice and Kerry Gammill) combined to make it an era I'll always remember extremely fondly.

Even the Death stunt meets with my approval because it turned the attention of fandom at large to what the Super-team was doing. Before this, sales were languishing, and these books weren't getting the attention they deserved. But even after Reign was over, sales continued to soar for a long time as many realized what a terrific read these books were.

But all things must pass, so exit Jurgens and enter Loeb and McGuinness. At first, I enjoyed what they were doing, but more and more, it became apparent that their goal was to restore the Silver Age. The Byrne origin was scrapped. Jor-El and Lara looked like their classic versions, Krypto and Kara brought back and on and on. Suddenly, that tight continuity was gone and the question of whether certain stories ever happened at all. (No matter what's been said, it's a pretty sure thing that the Matrix/Linda Danvers/Supergirl has been wiped out, for example.) There are certainly good things about having Krypto and Kara back among other things, but I think those of us who enjoyed that era have to feel at least partially thrown under the bus.

But really, that era was Superman for me. The character was at his best during that time, and the stories and art matched him well. I've a feeling that as much as I've dabbled here and there with Superman since Jurgens left, that I'm probably done with following the character longterm and will only jump on and off with certain creative teams. Makes me kind of sad, really.

That's a valid point, Chief. I just think it's a shame that the stunt didn't work as a stand-alone story and that Doomsday was such a lame character.

I do think the 'Death' storyline would have been more powerful if an established Superman villain (preferably Brainiac, 'cause I loathe the terribly overused Luthor) had been responsible.

Really, the only thing that the whole 'Death of Superman' event has done is give us Conner, in the long-term, and that, IMO, makes it worth it.

I think that Steel, while many creators have not been able to figure out what to do with him, is a great addition and should be utilized more. I thought what was done with him at the beginning of the JLA was cool.

Set, I agree that it should have been an established Superman villain.

Never a big fan of Conner or Steel, myself. Of the four core members of Young Justice (Cassie, Tim, Bart, Conner), my least favorite by far was Conner.

Actually, my favorite Conner moment was in an early issue of Peter David's Aquaman, where Aquaman shows him who's boss -- "Hey, punk, impressed yet?"

Sometimes (but rarely), stunts do work for enhancing longterm sales. Captain America's death did the same for Brubaker's title. That title's sales weren't up to the quality being put out but have been higher ever since. It's a shame that it takes stunts like that to get a quality title the recognition it deserves.

The Super-team had their reasons for doing it with Doomsday instead of an established villain, but I don't remember all the particulars from the interviews.

And yes, we got Conner (and Steel) out of the whole thing. No one should overlook the great work Kesel and Grummett did on the character, especially in his solo series. Makes me wonder in hindsight why Johns killed him, then brought him back? Was it all really about that lawsuit?

That was bizarre. Johns supposedly is Conner's biggest fan. I suspect the DiDiot's hand in Conner's death and in the quick reversal.

Of course no one admits it, but it's the only logical conclusion. After his death, He was only referred to as "Conner" and any flashbacks, statues, etc. went to great lengths to not show the "S" Shield. This extended to other characters, including the awkwardly re-named "Superman Prime" and the equally awkward "Superman" in the Legion cartoon.

When the lawsuit extended to stake a claim on "Superman", I think DC realised that it was all or nothing now, and just started publishing all things "S" again (because, really, they couldn't just scrap the entire "Superman" line).

BUMP

Welcome back to Lardy's Roundtable. I believe that it's been far too long since this thread was last active.

What I think is a topic worth discussing is one that spins out of a brief recent discussion about the 1986 Batman mini-series "The Dark Knight Returns." I've cut and pasted what I believe to be the key posts in that discussion:









The discussion went no further than that, but I feel it raised a lot of things worth exploring:

Dark Knight and Watchmen came out nearly 30 years ago, and the aftershocks are still being felt, albeit in a very twisted and disturbing fashion. My question is, did the industry merely copy the wrong things, as Dave noted, or are these two "landmark" limited series simply overrated exercises in end-of-the-20th-century negativity for its own sake?

I should add that while I personally despise Frank Miller's work, I also believe that Alan Moore is the best writer in comics history and that he has produced many superior works. But I have never been impressed with Watchmen, no matter how much I've re-read it and analyzed it. I think it lacks the warmth and humanity of Moore's best work, with what I consider to be its coldly self-regarding displays of technique, its cardboard characters, and its muddled climax.

So, are they as great as their reputations, are they flawed but still worthy, or are they just overrated and overhyped to the point that comics would have been better off without them?

I haven't re-read DK1 in a long time, so I feel somewhat unqualified to comment on exactly how well it holds up. I do think that both it and Watchmen are justifiably considered groundbreaking for helping get comics recognized by the mainstream. I'll never forget, for example, seeing Watchmen on the shelves at my college's bookstore and realizing that it was being taught in at least one course. Also, I'm sure that they were responsible for one of my literature (young adult class, iirc) teachers convincing me to do a presentation on comics for the class after she learned of my intense interest in comics.

I do think that their impact in and of themselves has diminished over time, but their longterm effect of showing to a wide audience that the medium has grown up is significant. Maybe they are even partly responsible for the boom of (mostly) quality superhero and comics-based movies that we've been seeing since the X-Men and Spider-Man films debuted, at least tangentially.

I will say that the last time I re-read Watchmen was around the time that the movie was being released. For some reason, I lost interest around chapter 9 or 10 and didn't finish it. I'm honestly not sure why. It was still well-told, but maybe I found it a bit of a slog that go-round. It is a bit deliberate, shall we say, in its pacing. Plus, well, the surprises and shocks just aren't that surprising or shocking after a while.

As for DK1, again, I just have to re-read that one again to make more of an assessment. But my favorite Miller stuff has always been his Sin City stories, my favorite being That Yellow bastard. I will say, though, that I recently purchased and read the Daredevil Omnibus which reprints his entire first run on the book (thru DD 191), and I wasn't very enthralled. A lot of it just doesn't age well, and the best-illustrated issues were probably the ones where Klaus Janson did full art.

I only read The Dark Night Returns, which was impossible for me to understand without reading the first comic. I can only comment on Frank Millar in general, as I have read (and watched due to the movies and video games) his Daredevil work. I understand he was going for a type of realism that was big at the time, mostly in the underground comics, but you can also see it in Golden Age Comics. Will Eisner was a big influence on Frank Miller as seen in the book Miller/Eisner.

I saw the Watchmen movie before I saw the comics. I enjoyed the movie, though it didn't do well because it was too slow for the target demographic of the movie theater (i.e young men who want tons of action). Now that I have read the graphic novel 5 or 6 times, I agree with those that said it would have been better as a mini-series on cable.

The main thesis of Watchmen has been undermined by time and current events (the podcast on the book by Legion of Substitute Podcasters explains this). However, it does present a nice history of the comic book medium up until the 1980s. It went from a popular novelty item mostly populated by non-powered characters into a medium dominated by very powerful characters. The Golden Age stories were a lot darker than the Silver Age, and there are lessons about them about realism that I think Moore wanted to apply to his story. At the same time, he was acknowledging that lots of topics taboo then were taboo in the 1980s. I think ultimately, Watchmen remains as a cool comic for that and its dark tones appeal to certain audiences, such as teenagers.

DKR was the first series ("Dark Knight Strikes Again" was the 2nd). Is that the series you mean?

Lardy, I agree that Watchmen and DKR helped comics become more respectable and accepted by the mainstream, but I haven't yet been able to reach a consensus in my own mind as to whether that's a good or bad thing. Mainstream acceptance has, in my observations, led to a gradual chipping away of comics' more subversive possibilities, though they do live on to some extent in the better indie titles.

Emily, it is indeed true that comics were darker before they became hamstrung by censorship beginning in the early-mid 1950s. The last quarter or so of the 20th Century saw a gradual loosening of restrictions, leading to what might be termed an "awkward phase" which lasted until the turn of the millennium, when, in my opinion, comics somehow bifurcated into both an increasingly crass mainstream (which started when Joe Quesada became Marvel EiC in 2001, leading to Dan DiDio copying Quesada's style after he became DC EiC in 2003) and a blossoming of creativity and diversity in the independent sector. Will these two paths intersect eventually? And should they?

I apologize for dredging up a past topic in this thread, but this is a question I've often seen and I wanted to address.

Fanfie, I highly recommend the Cary Bates run from the early 80's on Superman (the 1939 title). In particular, I would look at Superman #385-386, a Luthor two-parter and a bit of unexpectedly deep writing for a pre-Crisis DC comic. Overall, I think the Superman stories that Cary Bates wrote exemplify the character at his best: powerful yet restrained, godlike yet humble, and more likely to solve his problems with his head than his fists.

Stalgie, if money wasn't so tight, I'd rush out and buy a bunch of Bates Superman issues. And if DC would ever do their own equivalent of Marvel Unlimited, I'd look at the run there. But sometime in the future, I will definitely check out that run. Thanks.

I do hope you'll chime in on the current topic sometime, though. I always enjoy reading your perspectives.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts when you get the chance to check them out.




My perspective on Watchmen and DKR is that of many comic historians in that they were watershed moments that ultimately brought novel ideas to the table while simultaneously pushing off what was there before them. One new advent I think they brought about was an emphasis on comic collections and the rise of the "trade/graphic novel" market. People began to want standalone story arcs to be collected for easier consumption, which became even more prominent when comic prices rose and single issues became less feasible on a monthly budget. Even now, you'll see Watchmen is probably the most purchased graphic novel almost 20 years since it hit the stands. Graphic novels have come to replace the single issue as the preferred form of reading in most casual and new comic fans's minds. Just the other day I was speaking to a classmate of mine about the Batman vs Superman movie and he was excited that it was based on the Dark Knight Returns. In every instance of bringing the story up, he referred to it as a graphic novel. I think that speaks to how ubiquitous DKR and Watchmen made the graphic novel format.