I had an odd reaction, reading DC’s description of the new DCU Superman as “Timeless and modern, classic and contemporary, but younger, brasher and more brooding” earlier today. Something along the lines of “Superman isn’t brasher or brooding.” It’s a silly reaction to have, of course; Superman is a fictional character, so he’s whatever his creators decide he is at any particular moment, but he’s a character with such a long history – and, more importantly, such a consistent history, in terms of portrayal – that the idea of him being anything other than inherently good, stable and… well, vaguely paternal, in a strange way, seems “wrong” to me.
(The idea that Superman should be paternal is probably something that DC Comics would hate – It makes him harder to relate to, for younger readers, after all – but it’s also something that they’ve accidentally promoted for decades, by making Superman the role model and inspiration for so many of their other characters: By making a point of showing him as the figurative Daddy of the DCU, he immediately becomes a father figure to readers, too.)
This isn’t the first time that we’ve seen Superman reimagined as younger and brasher, or broody: Think about Superman: Earth One, or Smallville. It seems that that’s what Superman does, when he escapes regular continuity – He gets younger and brasher and maybe a little broodier, as well (The only place that wasn’t true was All-Star Superman, giving me the strongest hope that the new DCU Superman will be more than the latest installment of The Man Of Steel Pouts Because No-One Understands How Hard It Is To Be All-Powerful And An Alien). It feels overly reductive, and insulting to the audience – A suggestion that, in order to be the kind of character that the readers can more easily empathize with, he has to be moody and mopey and angst-ridden. Why can’t we just have Superman being the Superman we all expect him to be, and just have great stories starring that guy?
(Also: How long can a character really be “younger, brasher and more brooding” before that goes beyond getting old and turns into being annoying? That’s the starting place for a character, somewhere for them to grow from, surely?)
July 18th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
go read some of the earliest golden age adventures of the character. there is precedent for all of this.
July 18th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
I think, or at least hope you’re misreading where Morrison seems to be taking the character. My assumption is that his rebooted, early-in-his-career Superman will hearken back to the 38/39 Jerry Siegel original, who certainly had an edge to him–nothing fatherly about him at all. That guy had a fierce, mocking disdain for corruption of all kinds. He was more concerned with busting heads than serving as a self-conscious role model to the children of America. I love the mid-70′s benevolent liberal Superman of anti-litter campaigns; heck, it’s what I grew up on. But I really think DC could use a little more Champion of the Oppressed right now. And that guy was a grimly smirking, ruthless son of a bitch. He wasn’t merely good and stable. He was righteous and supremely confident. If Morrison gives us some of that, I’m going to be pretty happy.
July 18th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
1. If you are among the Morrisonians, you will give Grant every chance to show you what he’s doing. I know I am. And for that reason above all others, I am ignoring words like “brooding” for the moment. Grant doesn’t let his heroes brood. Even his Batman doesn’t brood.
2. That said…yeah, Graeme, you are not alone. It feels like DC is once again trying too hard to reinvent Superman to make him more relevant. They tried with Birthright, they tried with Secret Origin, and they tried with Earth One, and still it seems like they don’t get that maybe Superman shouldn’t be relevant.
3. But I did like Earth One a lot. And wonder why DC couldn’t leave things about with Supes in the monthlies and throw even more support behind JMS.
4. There is a really odd review of a Shakespeare play being performed in Central Park over at io9. The critic sees echoes of Clark Kent and Superman in the play (Measure for Measure). But starts out be declaring how utterly boring he finds Superman. I suspect that DC is trying to draw people like this writer in with their changes. Though it’s telling that not a single comment post agrees with the premise. Or even talks about the play.
July 18th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
I wouldn’t mind a more Golden Age sensibility to Superman. It might be a good way to bring back General Lane as an archnemesis (assuming he is not still dead in the reboot). It might even allow for a more organic emnity with a corporate Lex Luthor. I do hope Grant remembers it is Superman, not Marvel Boy.
July 18th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Who is Superman? Not some twit with a dish towel stapled to his underoos, that’s for sure.
July 18th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
I like the idea of bringing him closer to the Golden Age Superman, but at that time, he was already an adult and definitely not on a “learning curve”. Moreover, he was just not violent – he was more of a “stopper” than a “puncher”.
I still think DC chickened out at the most interesting approach to Superman that was given by Joe Kelly. That’s what Superman is supposed to be: a cunning peace-oriented superhero, a voice of reason. That’s hardly where writers are placing him: he seems to be fighting and punching every Joe, hero or walking material as if he was a dumb “got fooled again!” second-rate superhero. He is the peacekeeper, not the warmonger. I don’t think Morrison is addressing this at all.
There are two other forgotten issues at stake now:
1) Once again, it seems he was never Superboy, and Supergirl is not the same one that has just visited the Legion. Once again, Legion stories are being retconned – since it wasn’t apparently affected by DCnU.
2) How is DC dealing with the fact that Superman is sooooo much younger than most of the other titles? I mean, Green Lantern, Booster Gold and even Hank & Dove will likely be older than him!
In my opinion, DC should have started a brand new Earth, moved its current chronology to Earth-4 or something like that and start a new Universe from scratch, just like Silver Age did.
July 18th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
WHAT’S WITH DC?? LET ME KNOW WHEN THE NEXT REBOOT(ITS NOT A REBOOT) TAKES PLACE TO PUT THINGS BACK TO NORMAL… UNTIL THEN I AM DONE WITH DC COMICS!
July 18th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
http://livingbetweenwednesdays.com/?p=3077 – Some strips of GA Superman
July 18th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Isn’t Morrison the guy who likes to whine about how Marvel “reversed everything” about his X-Men run? And now he’s writing “One More Day Part 2: The Superman Years”?? Well, I guess this bursts the bubble for anyone who actually still thought Morrison was some kind of relevant force in the world of comics.
July 18th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
You know how there is room in the world for many different interpretations of Batman and we just kind of accept them and let them co-exist? We should do that for Superman, too. And I think that the sensitive, avuncular nice-guy parental figure is legit. I also think the brooding, confused teenager learning his way is legit. They’re different takes on the same archetype and since this is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER, we can’t really say that one counts and another doesn’t. They’re just different interpretations.
“It seems that that’s what Superman does, when he escapes regular continuity – He gets younger and brasher and maybe a little broodier”
It might be worth noting that each time that happens, it’s very successful and popular. Something to think about.
“It feels overly reductive, and insulting to the audience – A suggestion that, in order to be the kind of character that the readers can more easily empathize with, he has to be moody and mopey and angst-ridden.”
Each generation gets the heroes it asks for. That you would make this statement doesn’t suggest that Gen Y doesn’t understand the “real” Superman (a flawed way of thinking anyway) as much as it suggest that you don’t understand Gen Y. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong but if you want to be relevant, you have to communicate on their level.
“Why can’t we just have Superman being the Superman we all expect him to be, and just have great stories starring that guy?”
Because they don’t sell and nobody can relate to that iteration of Superman. I mean, they don’t sell to the extent that DC wants them to… I am all in favor of doing different versions of the same character for different audiences but DC has decided they need the emo hipster dollar if they want to survive. If YOUR interpretation had resulted in cash revenue, they’d do it your way.
Speaking on this topic, I got a kick out of the following comment:
“I think, or at least hope you’re misreading where Morrison seems to be taking the character. My assumption is that his rebooted, early-in-his-career Superman will hearken back to the 38/39 Jerry Siegel original, who certainly had an edge to him–nothing fatherly about him at all. That guy had a fierce, mocking disdain for corruption of all kinds. He was more concerned with busting heads than serving as a self-conscious role model to the children of America. I love the mid-70′s benevolent liberal Superman of anti-litter campaigns; heck, it’s what I grew up on. But I really think DC could use a little more Champion of the Oppressed right now. And that guy was a grimly smirking, ruthless son of a bitch. He wasn’t merely good and stable. He was righteous and supremely confident. If Morrison gives us some of that, I’m going to be pretty happy.”
Hell yeah! That’s actually my favorite version of the character. I want to see a ball-busting, scrappy, New Deal hero of the people who doesn’t take any crap from anyone. THAT would resonate with a lot of people these days, as our country is going to the dogs and we have less voice than ever before.
July 19th, 2011 at 5:10 am
Who is Superman to me? Equal parts John Byrne Reboot + Christopher Reeve + George Reeves + The Super Friends + The Bruce Timm Superman TAS/Justice League + All-Star Superman + Smallville. Who is NOT Superman to me? Any JMS versions to this point and whatever it was that they did to the character starting with the New Krypton storyline. I’ll miss the Kents but I have a whole box of Superman, Action, Man of Steel, and Man of Tomorrow to scratch that itch. DC, all that I ask you to do is to make this version worth all of the hand wringing and speculating that we’ve seen.
July 19th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
I was also ammused by DC’s eagerness to disolve the marriage. I think it’s a sign of a poor writer to do such a thing just to make the story easier to write instead of stepping up to the challenge. Also, I’m confused how playing up the “alien” in him makes him more “relateable” than being a married human-like man. At any rate my idea of what Supes should be is what he is- a man trying to give hope to a world that doesn’t want it.
July 19th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
“I think, or at least hope you’re misreading where Morrison seems to be taking the character. My assumption is that his rebooted, early-in-his-career Superman will hearken back to the 38/39 Jerry Siegel original, who certainly had an edge to him–nothing fatherly about him at all. That guy had a fierce, mocking disdain for corruption of all kinds. He was more concerned with busting heads than serving as a self-conscious role model to the children of America. I love the mid-70′s benevolent liberal Superman of anti-litter campaigns; heck, it’s what I grew up on. But I really think DC could use a little more Champion of the Oppressed right now. And that guy was a grimly smirking, ruthless son of a bitch. He wasn’t merely good and stable. He was righteous and supremely confident. If Morrison gives us some of that, I’m going to be pretty happy.”
a thousand times “YES!”
July 19th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Couldn’t agree with you more, Graeme.