Woo, the early 20th century, when everything was awesome!

[seriousfic]

Look, guys, Superman started off as a vaguely socialist vigilante (socialist means "arresting people who are breaking the law," right?) and Wonder Woman started off as a walking bondage fetish. Who cares if those are traits that have been phased out through decades of storytelling and experimentation, to become a character that is "popular" or "recognizable"? Every character should be like they are the very first time they're presented. That's why everyone hates shows where characters grow and change. Mention "character development" to any writer, you'll be lucky to get out of there without a split lip. Why do you think people watch Glee?

So, Batman should clearly kill criminals, with guns, and not have a Robin, since that's the way he started out. And James Bond should hate women, gays, and minorities, since that's the way he started out.

Comments

[mymatedave.livejournal.com]

You know, sometimes I think you post things just to wind people up. If only I could think of some examples.
*sigh*

[seriousfic.livejournal.com]

I'm just kinda bored of people who think characters should be defined by their Silver Age, or worse, Golden Age incarnations. I mean, if we're going to judge Wonder Woman by sexual subtext that hasn't been anything more than an in-joke for literal decades, let's make Batman gay for Robin. What's the diff?

[fengi.livejournal.com]

Action #1 re-imagines the concept of Superman starting off as a vaguely socialist vigilante, which gives the character somewhere to go and seems quite contemporary given current events.

When it comes down to Golden Age, Silver Age, Foil Variant Cover Investment Bubble Age or Sue Dibney Is Raped And Murdered Age, I gotta go with the first two.

From what I'm reading, people embraced positive developments in terms of character, story and art (and printing quality) - if prior ages are now invoked, it's responding to aspects of the reboot which embody the worst of the 90s. With $2.99 for 22 pages, not one stand alone story and an uncertain continuity policy already setting up another crossover, I can see why folks may get nostalgic.

On some occasions originals were better. Every "adult" version of Captain Marvel makes C.C. Beck at his silliest seem like the apex of mature storytelling.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Action #1 re-imagines the concept of Superman starting off as a vaguely socialist vigilante, which gives the character somewhere to go and seems quite contemporary given current events.

The problem being that a number of fundamental underpinnings of the Golden Age Superman simply don't work within the context of a modern setting, at least not without taking on a ton of unintended baggage.

For instance, I don't doubt that outspoken leftist Grant Morrison intended for his point-for-point recreation of Superman's deeds in the original Action Comics #1 to be seen as a refreshingly progressive change of pace from the character's relatively conservative portrayals in the decades since the Golden Age, when Superman went from being a trust-buster to being a Boy Scout.

The problem, though, is that after the better part of a decade in which the Bush administration touted 9/11 as "proof" that America needed to throw its civil liberties straight out the window in order to "bring the evildoers to justice" and "protect homeland security" (which Obama hasn't seen fit to overturn in his three years in office), there's really no way for me to read a scene in which Superman uses torture to extract a legally inadmissible confession without thinking that Dick Cheney would be first in line to pat him on the back.

It's the same reason why Atlas Shrugged has become even more absurd than it already was in recent years, because for as much as conservatives masturbate over it like teenagers with their first copy of HUSTLER, the fact of the matter is that, if Dagny Taggart were real and alive in modern-day America, and pushing to install a cutting-edge new rail system, her biggest supporter would be JOE BIDEN.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

I get what you are saying, but I think Morrison is presenting this vaguely socialist vigilante as an immature, more alien Superman down to the unfinished costume. I think he's intentionally flawed, a tad creepy with smoking eyes and too rash with his strength (he breaks an abusive husband's hips and ribs). It's not as overt as it could be, but that may be DC's restraint and Morrison's rushed writing.

What Superman extracts with his approach ends up being bad intel, part of Luthor's trap, which calls such methods into question - it would have worked better except Morrison kind of botched the chain of events (it seems like a scene is missing or out of order). When Luthor calls Superman an invasive species, it's both a critique of anti-immigrant rhetoric (SandS called Superman an immigrant) yet Supes' extra-judicial and -terrestrial behavior plays into that.

I do think it's a rush job for all the themes Morrison was trying to convey, and Rags Morales art is ill suited to convey subtext as he seems incapable of drawing faces consistently from panel to panel. But as a reflection of brash youthful populism - both positive and negative - Action #1 ends up being a nostalgia trip with a touch of inadvertent timeliness.

[jlbarnett.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure most Americans aren't willing to define something that's pure physical intimidation as torture. And I don't think it's purely in the last decade. I'm sure Batman has held mooks over the edge of a building before the 00's.

Besides Glenmorgan is a rich white guy so I doubt Cheney would agree it's okay there. As for the inadmissability, I think you have to invoke your rights. Meaning Glenmorgan could say something like "at least in jail I'll be away from the lunatic alien." and confess and plead guilty.

You look at fictional plots, what heroes do to bad guys for various reasons, loved ones in danger, some massive threat and people have been fine with the heroes doing whatever they have to to the villains. Bush's policies, besides being real, were they were torture at policy and as pragmatism. Tell an average person that a US soldier stuck someone's head into a toilet repeatedly to try to extract info on his own and the reaction would probably be far different than the same soldier being ordered to do it using a specially designed device. Popular opinion or at least popular fantasy in America is "You've wronged me or someone I care about. I get to fuck you up, now."

[mcity.livejournal.com]

>I'm pretty sure most Americans aren't willing to define something that's pure physical intimidation as torture.

It's not pure intimidation, seeing as he actually dropped the guy. That's an escalation from "threats".

>I'm sure Batman has held mooks over the edge of a building before the 00's.

"Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A Dark Knight."

Also, the closest parallel Batman has to this is actually dropping someone in order to break their legs in Dark Knight. One of the themes of the film, which is considered one of the darkest versions of Batman, is that if he goes much farther, he's going to end up actively killing people. In this case, it was a few stories, not a skyscraper.

>You look at fictional plots, what heroes do to bad guys for various reasons, loved ones in danger, some massive threat and people have been fine with the heroes doing whatever they have to to the villains.

I...I don't think you realize who you're dealing with here.

[jlbarnett.livejournal.com]

nah, I've had encounters with Box. Plenty of them.

As for the fact that he dropped him.... he's Superman. He can catch him, I know he can catch him and I'm not going to forget it just to allow the writer to increase the drama or to let myself get upset about the morality. I don't enter stories to that degree.

[mcity.livejournal.com]

Also, he already had enough information for the cops to indict. So there was literally, no reason for Superman to do this, besides his evident enjoyment.

Also, Morrison has stated, in interviews, that he honestly believes Superman is right in what he does. That's right, Morrison thinks Superman should drop suspects off of buildings to scare them for his own sadistic pleasure. This isn't "entering stories", this is the writer's openly stated intent. I don't think anyone should stick their fingers in their ears about it.

[jlbarnett.livejournal.com]

okay. I don't generally go searching for interviews and such for info on creators. But I still think it's "entering the story"

Superman is a great deal different from real world people. He can catch the people he drops off buildings with no harm to them. He the most reliable witness in the world. It just seems like a lot of trouble to empathize with a character that is shown no positive traits. It's like "oh, he's a human being, he must have this or that, or whatever." But it's fiction. They're created characters. The guy could be a bigger monster than the devil. And within the confines of the story he's probably feeling as close to the helplessness he'd inflict on others right there at that moment.

[jlbarnett.livejournal.com]

supposedly there's going to be some one and done stories. They're not writing for the trade anymore. Either the writers weren't told in this case or they've forgotten how to do it.

[mcity.livejournal.com]

>Why do you think people watch Glee?

Sue and showtunes.

[daniel basch-tetreault (from livejournal.com)]

As usual, there's an appropriate TVtropes term for this kind of thing.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EarlyInstallmentWeirdness

Obsessive fans of continuity should really know when to pick and choose which moments are worth keeping, and which to throw away. Too bad everybody keeps chucking out the fun stuff, since "respectable" art has serious themes. Here's a relevant comparision; when Steven Spielberg started making movies for the critics instead of his audiences, his popularity plumented.

Comic companies keep feeling that they've got to prove they're "relevant" to prove that comics are no longer just for kids, but they keep forgetting that potential audience left them when they showed no interest in telling any stories they felt personally invested or relateable to.