. . . serveral "fans" actually wrote in demanding to know if this was what Seigel and Shuster "intended", as if they had left some kind of "bible", dictating the direction their character was to be taken in for the next 50 years or so. I always laughed.
I vaguely remember the whining about Man of Steel, which didn't make sense. I've never felt that you've had to justify what you did to anyone other than the people handing out the paycheck.
Unless I'm wrong (and I'm finding out I'm wrong more than I think), you've always been very faithful about researching and knowing what went on before you when you do any comic series.
We may disagree on this, but your work doesn't have to be about what creators of the past intended. You've done (damn) good work. And when we consider what people who complain about you think of as good comics, well...
I always do my homework. As I said at the time I did MAN OF STEEL, I felt my job was to see how much I could keep , rather than how much I could throw away.
The astonishing thing was discovering how many of the different elements of the Superman mythos were The Most Important to some people. I mean, really! I honestly did get a letter from one guy castigating me for getting rid of Beppo, the Super Monkey! He really and truly believed Beppo was vital to the myth!!
You think people would have liked it if you reverted Superman back to just leaping?
*******
I did raise this question, at one of the conferences up at DC before MAN OF STEEL got under way. Should I take it all the way back?
I think there would have been a lot to play with, there -- but of course it would have placed Superman pretty close to the bottom of the totem, power-wise!
Sometimes I think that fans who complain about what you do are afraid of the JB magic. You're one of the few guys who can remove extraneous stuff from a long running series and still make a great comic that is true to the spirit of the concept.
So many creators feel they have to walk into all the crap and keep it, and they make bad comics. And so many fan-atics will take a bad comic that they feel is true is true to continuity over one that is faithful to what makes a character what he is.
Let's see, addressing motivation and actions, how does today's Superman hold up to the following standards:
1)"... decided he must turn his titanic strength into channels that would benefit mankind."
2)"Champion of the oppressed..."
3)"...sworn his life to devote his existence to helping those in need!"
1) Passing grade- saving people definitely helps mankind.
2) Fail- he may be their role model, but he doesn't do much about civil and political matters.
3) Pass- but again he specializes in physical dangers and stays out of politics and government.
The story doesn't address his motivation, but the first expanded version, implied that he acted morally because he was raised that way.
Notice this page also contains the first DC continuity error: In the description of the source of Superman's powers, "Upon reaching maturity, the people of his race became gifted with titanic strength!"In panel three we see baby Superman hefting a chair, and text describing his "feats of great strength"
Notice this page also contains the first DC continuity error: In the description of the source of Superman's powers, "Upon reaching maturity, the people of his race became gifted with titanic strength!"In panel three we see baby Superman hefting a chair, and text describing his "feats of great strength"
*****
This also references the "race of supermen" who gave birth to Superman -- and who got weaker and weaker as he got stronger and stronger. By the time he could fly off into space under his own power, different reasons for his abilities had to be invented (yellow sunlight, low gravity) and the race of Krypton became mere mortals like the rest of us.
"What if Superman was one of us?
"Just a slob like one of us. . ?"
I've often wondered what Superman comics would be like today if the writers portrayed him as he was in the early stories- a vigilante "mystery-man" who constantly took the law into his own hands and seemed to focus on correcting social problems as much as he battled criminals. He destroyed slums because he knew the government would build new housing to take its place and exposed the brutal treatment of prison inmates. He tried to reduce the number of auto-accidents by destroying used car lots that sold defective automobiles and threatening reckless drivers. He was technically guilty of dozens of crimes in the late 30s, and wanted by the police. Imagine what kind of press DC Comics would get if he was portrayed like that today!
(edited for spelling)
This message has been edited by kevinbennett007 on Oct 19, 2003 1:05 PM This message has been edited by kevinbennett007 on Oct 19, 2003 1:05 PM
Imagine what kind of press DC Comics would get if he was portrayed like that today!
*******
DC is so nervous about that, I was only allowed to hint in the vaguest possible manner to Batman and Superman's killer pasts in GENERATIONS' 1939 episode!
(One of the things that has fascinated me for years is the number of hardcore Superman fans, people who have memorized every comma, who still took me to task for making him a "murderer", when "Superman has never killed!")
Coincidentally enough I found an interesting book in the free bin at The Iliad. It's called "The Adventures of Superman" by George Lowther.
Some of you likely already know this one. It's a children's novel written very early on in 1942 - three years after the first appearance. It had been very very rare and out of print up until the mid 1990's when it was published again.
This is from Roger Stern's 1994 introduction which applies to the discussion in this thread:
"There is one last interesting facet to Lowther's novel.
In coming up with a realistic explanation for how the Kent's, a normal human couple, could conceivably raise their alien foundling, Lowther chose to discount the two brief scenes from the comics of the infant boy performing amazing acts of strength. Instead, he hit upon the idea of having young Clark's powers manifest themselves gradually. Some four decades later writer/artist John Byrne - working without the benefit of Lowther's long out-of-print text - arrived at the same solution for the 1986 "Man of Steel" miniseries which renewed and reestablished the hero in the world of comics. And so, this book has parallels to even the newest version of the Superman comics."
Pretty cool, huh? Great minds think alike. And another example of a sacttershot history for Superman.
Anyone looking to try this book may need to be warned that it's written for children in the 1940s, so some of teh language is really clunky. Jonathan and Martha are called "Eben and sarah" and Eben talks ike a hillbilly. But the book it's worth it for the illustrations by some guy named Joe Shuster!!
JB, first to respond to your reply to me: I think that it actually would be really cool to see somebody do a comic today that holds litleraly true to Superman's original conception, but not in the "real" DC world. People would throw a fit if you would have taken him back that far and made it permanent.
BTW, I vaguely remember somebody once telling me who was doing like mondo research on this; that Superman was convieved as a villian in a story first, much different in a lot of other ways too, but that this singular comic that I don't believe ever saw print anywhere, or maybe just barely saw print, had been and has been lost for a long time and that Superman actually became successful when introduced as a hero years later? Has anyone else heard this? My friend, I believe related this story from a book which Seigel and Shuster(or both) were quoted in. I could be wildly wrong about all this though, since I aquired this info secondhand and it has been so long since I first heard it.
In any case, I think that people just take for granted that the Superman they know, is the one that has always been. That goes for a lot of cases too. They're just confused. The Superman we know, as many other characters, are probably safer to look at as works in progress. Or at least, created as works in progress. Not just all figured out in the first go.
Siegel and Shuster produced a fanzine called Science Fiction while still in high school. In 1933 they published a prose story called "Reign of the Super-Man" written by Siegel with illustrations by Shuster. The story was about a villainous despot with mental powers. True to their later format, he was also bald.
Later that same year they produced a comic book called "The Superman" about a non-costumed hero with super-powers. Only the cover remains of this early comic. Years later, they prepared the early Superman strips for newspaper syndication, but it was turned down again and again. Eventually, the strips wound up at DC when they were looking for new material. I don't have a scanner, but some pictures were printed in Les Daniels' book, DC COMICS: SIXTY YEARS OF THE WORLD'S FAVORITE COMIC BOOK HEROES.
The Siegel and Schuster Superman is not a Superman I'd want to read on a regular basis. I respect it, but to me it's a bit more imperialistic than my favorite Superman, Cary Bates'. Superman today is horribly characterized, IMO.
...it would have been an interesting story to see in GENERATIONS if Superman had retain the same power level he had in 1938 through the years. He'd go from a overnight sensation to a has-been as other more powerful heroes came into the spotlight. What would have been the big deal of a guy leaping when you had heroes who could fly? Or what is so great about outrunning an express train when somebody could run at the speed of light?
Looking at this one-page origin, I realize how much of what many "civilians" consider essential to Superman was added much later -- chiefly flight and X-ray vision.
Waid, in SUPERMAN: BIRTHRIGHT, rushed to add the Council Speech back into the origin. But why? What makes it essential other than that's what he (and most of us) grew up with?
While we can assume that Superman has a mother, this origin does not mention her or her involvement in sending the young Superman into space.
(Digression: I always hated the later versions of the origin that had Lara choosing to die with the man she loved rather than accompany her son in the rocketship -- what mother would do that? And what father would let her?)
The Kents are referenced simply as "a passing motorist." Now, imagine what would have happened if MOS had given us a Clark Kent raised entirely in an orphanage? (Though that's the implication from this one-page origin.)
The Kents are referenced simply as "a passing motorist." Now, imagine what would have happened if MOS had given us a Clark Kent raised entirely in an orphanage? (Though that's the implication from this one-page origin.)
*****
Indeed, later portrayals show "a passing motorist" (singular) who takes the baby to the orphanage. The Kents come into the mythos later.
I've never understood the criticisms of JB's MOS. I thought it was a great reworking or perhaps reweaving of the Superman mythos into a workable character for our times. Of course just about the only bit I didn't like about MOS -- the new version of Lex Luthor -- was otherwise almost universally approved, so I guess I'm just out of step with fandom on both sides of the question!
I never saw that one.Thanks.
Mark Millar used an interesting Elseworlds spin for the origin of "The House of L" in his Red Son mini-series,but i won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't read it.
I enjoy all the versions of Krypton,but I have to admit that John Byrne has come up with the best one.Although ,thanks to "Hypertime",they're all valid.(Now if only someone would use the "flowing stream" aspect of Hypertime and put Captain Marvrel back into his own universe.)
I'm also one of those guys that didn't like Luthor being turned into a corporate version of the Kingpin.
I loved Luthor as the mad scientist/evil genius. I remember Alan Moore doing that great story in Swamp Thing where Swamp Thing's girl gets arrested in Gotham and he gets pissed off and shuts down the whole town with his powers. The cities higher ups or the head crime bosses...can't remember which hire Luthor to help solve the problem. As they are explaining the situation to Luthor who is barely paying attention and just doodling on a note pad they look a little miffed that he doesn't seem that interested. He turns his head up and hands them the sketch he was doodling and tells them to build this prototype gun that he just then designed. They build it and with one shot take out Swamp Thing. Luthor demanded his money and then walked out of the meeting. It was AWESOME! That is the Luthor I love.
The details might be sketchy since I am doing it from memory but essentially Luthor could design a gun in minutes that could take out the Swamp Thing only from second hand knowledge of the creature. It made him a BAD ASS! To me he was like Doom in his genius. As a business man he just never did anything for me.....Wilson Fisk is a business man and a baddie why make Luthor the Kingpin?
Sorry JB I love artwise what you did on Superman and pretty much everything else except a few things like Luthor and the Batman and JLA thing...
I also love the evil genius Luthor,but Byrne did come up with a better reason for Luthor to hate Superman.Grant Morrison has already written Luthor as a "true" supervillain,while keeping Byrne's basic changes intact.I think its only a matter of time before Luthor becomes "super-smart"...I mean He's President...whats left for him to achieve?(its odd that it was more important for DC to restore Luthor to his silverage youth and slimness, than give him back his intellect.)
This message has been edited by fatbeagle on Oct 20, 2003 3:15 PM
I think that the great history of World's Finest and their team-ups made great sense. I think two people of opposing views can be friends and it seemed to be DC's attempt at solidifying FM's take on Batman from the Dark Knight. I didn't like it. Batman and Superman being friends is cool.
Superman,Batman and Wonder Woman were never in the JLA....
This I hated most of all. The Justice League is "The World's Greatest Super-Heroes" not The "dumbest collection of Second-String losers" When Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman were retroactively taken out of the League it ruined 25+ years of comics. The big three
NEED to be in the JLA taking them out was just stupid!
The Blue Beetle/Booster Gold.."BWAH, Ha, HA, Haaaaa" JLA was retarded at best. I didn't mind the revamp of Superman but to ruin the Justice League was IMHO very poor decision making. A re-vamped Superman could have been in the JLA as well as Batman and Wonder Woman. It would not have ruined continuity and would have worked just fine.
Ahh...gotcha. I thought you meant something that was JB-driven regarding them, which I couldn't recall.
Overall (not just in MOS), the Batman decision seemed forced, but probably a reflection of what had been established pre-crisis. The JLA decision just seemed sort of stoopid. Let's have the world's greatest heroes without...y'know...the world's greatest heroes.
(...bad spelling...)
This message has been edited by BobS620 on Oct 20, 2003 3:48 PM
I've never understood the criticisms of JB's MOS. I thought it was a great reworking or perhaps reweaving of the Superman mythos into a workable character for our times. Of course just about the only bit I didn't like about MOS -- the new version of Lex Luthor -- was otherwise almost universally approved, so I guess I'm just out of step with fandom on both sides of the question!
*******
Remember, most of fandom labors under the delusion that is was Marv Wolfman, not me, who "created" the new Luthor -- so that was "okay" to like!
It always reads to me as if Bruce and Clark had been the good friends we knew from pre-Crisis. Do "enemies" or even strained professional colleagues call each other at home.
It carries weight for Bruce and Clark to wind up where there were in Dark Knight if they were good friends in more idealistic times. People grow apart.
Of course, a young Bruce Wayne who behaves like the older Bruce Wayne is also far less affecting.
That's why I liked the "MAGEDDON" stoyline in JLA.Batman shaking Superman back to his senses,with the line"We NEVER lose!".Only close comrades can have that kind of rapport.Byrne just cut away the fat,and laid a solid foundation for future stories.I don't think he meant that they can never be friends.....just that if it would take a long time,if they ever did.
In DC 1,000,000 Morrison gave back Superman all his Pre-Crises power.....but that's in several thousand years(of course he also brought back Krypton,with everyone having their full yellow sun powers..hee hee)
[DARK KNIGHT] always reads to me as if Bruce and Clark had been the good friends we knew from pre-Crisis. Do "enemies" or even strained professional colleagues call each other at home.
******
At the time, I commented that DARK KNIGHT was the first Pre-CRISIS story published after CRISIS. One of the many things that makes it "an imaginary story".
"Remember, most of fandom labors under the delusion that is was Marv Wolfman, not me, who "created" the new Luthor -- so that was "okay" to like!"
So it WASN'T Marv who created the new Luthor? He's been claiming he did since 1986! He just reiterated it again, in fact, in the new tpb collection of the first few issues of the rebooted Superman books.
Wolfman was offered the Second Chair on the Superman relaunch, to write what was then going to be ACTION COMICS, with a new title to be created for the team-up book.
He called me to discuss something he had in mind for Luthor, a "fix" he had been working on in his head for several years. Before he would tell it to me, however, he had a couple of stipulations:
1) It must be all or nothing. Either I accept his proposal in its entirety, or I take nothing from it. He was very insistent on this point: he wanted my promise that I would use nothing from his proposal if I did not take all of it.
2) If I decided I did not like his version of Luthor, he would decline the Second Chair and we would have to find someone else to write ACTION.
I agreed to both these terms, since they seemed very fair, to me. Plus I always like it when all the cards are on the table up front. That's how I play.
Then he told me his version of Luthor in exactly these words:
"Outside Metropolis, on a high mountain, in his palatial Xanadu-like estate, lives Lex Luthor, the world's richest man, and his mistress, Lois Lane." He paused, for dramatic effect, I suppose, then said "See, she's drawn to power!"
It took me about 3 nanoseconds to say "No." I said I liked the "world's richest man" angle, but what he was proposing was more of a reboot of Lois than it was of Luthor, and I already knew who I wanted Lois to be -- or, more exactly, what I wanted Lois to be: likeable ! And the Lois he presented was not my definition of "likeable"!
So I said "Thanks," and suggested maybe there would be some project in the future that we might work on together, and I was about to say "Good-bye" when Marv said "Well, we don't have to use that part!"
"But you said we have to use all of it," I reminded him.
"Oh, no! If you don't like the part with Lois, we don't have to use it!"
Huh.
So I told him I would think about it, and over the next few days, after discussions with a number of people (including Roger Stern and Mark Gruenwald) who all heard the story as I have told it above, and who had suggestions on what I could do with Luthor as "the world's richest man", I decided that basic four-word seed was a good place to go with the character. Of course, since I saw Metropolis as New York (quite literally) I didn't want any mountains poking up along side the city, so that went away, and I built the character as a cross between Donald Trump, Ted Turner, Howard Hughes and maybe Satan himself!
Later, when everything was launched, and ACTION COMICS had become the teamup book and Wolfman was writing ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN (the title was my suggestion, to invoke both the George Reeves' TV series and the old ADVENTURE COMICS home of Superboy), I found out that he was claiming sole credit for "creating" Luthor. I shrugged it off. It did not seem important enough to worry about.
Years later I found out Wolfman got paid a bonus for his "creation" of the new Luthor. Something that, somehow, no one at DC had thought necessary to tell me about.
After a most unsatisfactory first year of "collaboration" Wolfman's contract was not renewed, and I took over writing ADVENTURES, with Jerry Ordway doing a fair bit of the plotting.
Was Alan Moore ever involved with the reboot at any point? I can't remember exactly where I read it, but I do recall reading that he was slated to take one of the titles.
Years later I found out Wolfman got paid a bonus for his "creation" of the new Luthor. Something that, somehow, no one at DC had thought necessary to tell me about.
=================================
Why would someone tell you what Wolfman makes? In my office, it's policy not to make your salary or bonuses public. There's actually supposed to be discinplinary measures if we blab about those things.
JB, did DC even ask you to write the introductions of the new trades? I think that they reprinted one of your colums from the first trade. Any requests for new pieces?
Why would someone tell you what Wolfman makes? In my office, it's policy not to make your salary or bonuses public. There's actually supposed to be discinplinary measures if we blab about those things.
That whole incredibly fascinating, and sad, story and you ask who spilled the beans about Wolfman's bonus? WOW! Talk about missing the forest for the trees!
Why would someone tell you what Wolfman makes? In my office, it's policy not to make your salary or bonuses public. There's actually supposed to be discinplinary measures if we blab about those things.
That whole incredibly fascinating, and sad, story and you ask who spilled the beans about Wolfman's bonus?
Luke: Huh? No, I asked *why*, not *who.* I don't think DC needs to tell employees who gets what bonuses. Why would DC feel compelled to tell people who got what bonus?
Luke: I don't think DC needs to tell employees who gets what bonuses. Why would DC feel compelled to tell people who got what bonus?
I think it's perfectly reasonable that in the comics industry you know who's getting bonuses for 'creating' characters. It prevents errors such as this, where one writer gets money that he probably doesn't deserve.
It's also good for other writers and artists as it shows what bonuses are available for.
The "world's richest man" wasn't exactly original with Marv, either. It had been floating around fandom for years in a slightly different form: "If he's so smart, how come he's not the world's richest man?"
BTW the post-Crisis Lex is still a scientific genius, right? That's how he got to be so rich (and eventually President, I'm told). The 5-minute genius Luthor in Moore's Swamp Thing story (referenced above) is post-Crisis.
BTW the post-Crisis Lex is still a scientific genius, right? That's how he got to be so rich (and eventually President, I'm told). The 5-minute genius Luthor in Moore's Swamp Thing story (referenced above) is post-Crisis.
*****
He's been played as a genius, tho that was not my intent. The SWAMP THING appearance was done without persmission from the Superman office. I wanted Luthor to be someone who exploited the talents of others, while not necessarily possessing any of his own.
Thanks for answering, JB. A very interesting story indeed.
I remember reading those early reboot issues when they first came out, and as I recall, I found that your stories and Marv's differed from each other a great deal, in terms of tone, mood, types of villains, etc. Two very different flavors of the same character and universe.
I hope you don't mind me asking this -- Was that the reason why the first year of the reboot was, as you described it, "a most unsatisfactory collaboration"? Because the two of you had such different approaches to the stories?
(I have to say, with no insult intended to Marv, whose work I have admired for many years, that I much preferred the JB issues of Superman during that first year. The reboot was what brought me to Superman as a regular reader, after I spent years waiting for the comics to be more like the Christopher Reeve version. I found that the JB issues gave me more of what I wanted as a reader.)
I hope you don't mind me asking this -- Was that the reason why the first year of the reboot was, as you described it, "a most unsatisfactory collaboration"? Because the two of you had such different approaches to the stories?
******
Wolfman failed on almost every point to meet the obligations of his contract. When it came up for renewal, DC declined the option.
My favorite JB Luthor is the one from Generations (who has the Ultra-Humanite's brain). Now, that's one fellow who is wholly evil but also brilliant. I'm really partial to Luthor being a genius -- the whole brains vs. brawn thing. Of course, Luthor, as an evil bastard, is also the flip side of Superman, who represents the best in us.
A part of me does like the tragic Luthor, one who Superman would call "Lex" and be, well, disappointed in -- "All this talent gone to waste." It would say a lot about what drives Superman.
Speaking of the Generations Luthor, I think the most powerful moment in the first series is when Luthor murders Lois in front of Superman. Distraught, he cries out, "You animal! You monster! I'll kill you for this or die trying!" In one sentence, we see the gentleness of the character reinforced (a loss would have to be completely devastating for him to even consider homicide), as well as his heroic determination: He will stop Luthor even if it costs him his life. There's no other choice.
(Another other "angry" Superman moment is during JB's Lori Lemaris story in which Superman calls out "Run.. Schmidt... run, but if she dies, there's nowhere on Earth you can hide from me!" And you realize that... he's right. Piss off Superman and where can you go? These moments work well because Superman is who he is -- he's not the Punisher, always threatening and angry. He's a gentle but powerful man, so gentle you almost overlook the power.)
(Another other "angry" Superman moment is during JB's Lori Lemaris story in which Superman calls out "Run.. Schmidt... run, but if she dies, there's nowhere on Earth you can hide from me!" And you realize that... he's right. Piss off Superman and where can you go? These moments work well because Superman is who he is -- he's not the Punisher, always threatening and angry. He's a gentle but powerful man, so gentle you almost overlook the power.)
******
Credit where credit is due: The Lori scene, as with most of the stuff in that issue, came from the original Superman run, from the first 2 Lori stories.
I don't know who wrote them tho I think it might have been Jerry Seigel. I would welcome a correction from anyone who actually knows.
In THE GREATEST SUPERMAN STORIES EVER TOLD, the credits listed for the first tale, "The Girl from Superman's Past," identify Bill Finger as the writer. I don't know about the second story.
As far as I've read,Morrison's Lex was not a "super"genius,because the Hard light Holograms were created by Dr.Light and Mirror Master.Also it turned out that Bruce Wayne could beat Luthor at his own game using the same "hostile -takeover tactics".(I think the good anti-matter Lex is a genius,but he also altered his own genetic structure ,so that he was super-strong)
The Swampthing Lex was a genius but he seemed pre crises because he allowed himself to be hired(maybe he needed money quickly, so that he could finish a gadget that would allow him to shape his next continuety change)
