:: Captain's Personal Blog ::

Stardate: Monday, October 13, 2003

Through The Ages, We May Be Blind

I don't know what it is. Really. I've been racking my brain, and still I come up with nothing. The simple fact of the matter is that I don't understand the attraction of the new MARK WAID mini-series, SUPERMAN: BIRTHRIGHT. Now, before I continue, I have to warn all readers that I am about to go HARDCORE into some comic speak, so if SUPERMAN isn't your cup of tea, tune out now.

First, a brief history of SUPERMAN:

1938: ACTION COMICS #1 is published, featuring the first appearance of SUPERMAN, created by two men by the names of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

1939: SUPERMAN #1 is published. It is the first issue of a comic devoted entirely to the Man of Steel. A word about Superman at this time. Superman's powers were terribly less evolved than they are today. Included was that he could leap 1/4 of a mile; hardly flying distance. Nothing short of a bursting shell could penetrate his skin; hardly invulnerability. The rest of his powers were mere abstracts. Superman was sent to Earth by his parents, Jor-L and Lara. His name was Kal-L. He worked for the Daily Star under Editor Tyler.


It wasn't until the 40's and 50's that many aspects of Superman began to take the shape that they are today. His origin was amended slightly. His family name was now EL and not just the letter "L". He enjoyed a life on Krypton as a child, prior to being sent away. He was a Superboy before he was Superman. His powers also began to develop. The now-familiar powers of Flight, Invulnerability, Super Speed, Heat, Telescopic & X-Ray visions, Super Hearing, and Super Breath were later joined by such fantastic powers as Super Ventriloquism, Super Memory and Super Kissing (I'm serious.) The Superman family was extended to include Supergirl, Krypto (the Superdog), Comet (the Superhorse), Streaky (The Supercat), and Beppo (the Supermonkey).

1986: After a failed attempt to pare down Superman's ever expanding abilities, DC COMICS hires John Byrne to re-write the history of Superman. To re-envision his origin story and make it a bit more modern. Also, to make him a little less god-like. Byrne changed many of the tenants of Superman including the following:
Superman was conceived in a birthing matrix on Krypton. The matrix was sent to Earth, with Superman being born here.
Ma and Pa Kent survived Superman's childhood, and are still alive today.
There is only one form of Kryptonite -- Green
Superman can NOT travel through time, is not impervious to ALL pain and weaponry. He can not juggle planets.
Clark Kent is not the uber geek/clutz. He's just a regular guy.
Lex Luthor is not a criminal genius, he is a billionaire industrialist who owns 75% of Metropolis. He just happens to not be a nice guy :)
Superman's costume is NOT from Krypton. It is made from Earth cloth and is kept invulnerable from an aura exuded from Superman's body.
Superman designed the "S" symbol with his parents. Period.
Krypton was a cold and sterile place. Byrne felt this was necessary to ensure that Superman didn't feel nostalgia for the planet. Earth was his home, and that was that.
Superman no longer spouted any of the following: "Great Rao!" "Great Moons of Krypton" etc. See the last point as to why.

With all that said, let me say that I was extremely happy with the way Byrne's Superman was presented. He seemed to me to be the most plausable of all incarnations that I had seen. He was a man, before he was a Superman, and that was where his humanity lie. He used his powers for the greater good but was uncomfortable with being the legend that he became. He was the most human representation of the character to date. He had a moral code against killing that was born into him, but was reinforced by a fatal confrontation with three supervillains. Now there are detractors of this version out there. At another website that is devoted to the Man of Steel "through the ages". They are not fans of Byrne's Superman or the ones that followed. On that notion, I only half disagree. Byrne's Superman was wonderful. When Dan Jurgens took over, he continued to steer Superman in a direction that was true to Byrne's vision. For me, the beginning of the end for Superman came just before the Electric Blue Superman made his appearance. Slowly, it seemed as though the team forgot the human cornerstones that made the stories so lovable. Instead, we were treated with what I can only describe as creator nostalgia for a bygone era. Superman began to become the more alien character of the 70's, the Kirby Fourth World characters became a stronger influence, colorful aliens and incredible situations (again, much like those created in the late sixties, early seventies) were brought forth. It was a distinct move away from what we had been given. Even the old time Bizarro was making a reemergence.

Finally, in the 21st Superman, the Man of Steel suffered the ultimate indignities. Superman's origin was left ambiguous as it was "discovered" that everything we knew of Superman's origin from 1986 was a lie. Krypto was back, the Phantom Zone was back, Krypton began to resemble the planet from the 1978 movie more than it did the 1986 version. Superman was getting even stronger (recently he heated up the entire Earth from somewhere near the Sun using his heat vision.) He began to embrace his alien side and was a master of anything he put his mind to. How is this the new and improved Superman? How can we relate to him? How can we even aspire to be him?

Now that we've gotten past the "history" of Superman, it's time for me to set my sights on the true point of this rant. These watchdogs who watch Superman "through the ages" are in support of MARK WAID'S new BIRTHRIGHT series. After lambasting Byrne's retooling of the mythos, they support WAID's just because it bears a slight resemblance to their own history. I say that's just wrong.

Waid has decided to put his own spin on the mythos, which is fine. I would be a hypocrite if I said I liked Byrne's without allowing for the possibility of someone else leaving their mark. What I can say is that while there are a few good touches, Waid has pretty much missed the boat as badly as he did with THE KINGDOM (don't get me started on that spectacular misfire. Glad to see that we're not just limiting ourselves to making people like John Byrne obsolete, but legends like George Perez as well. Hell, maybe I'll hit that in another post.)

Again, we are back to Superman being born on Krypton. Fine. No big (although it blows out an interesting story from the 90's where Superman is elected President -- because he technically was BORN in the United States.) Now, we've taken the SUPERMAN; THE MOVIE mythos one step further. In the film, the "S" symbol was the crest of the house of El (Superman's family.) Now it has become this worldwide symbol of Krypton, synonymous with such a notion as hope. In my mind, this detracts from the uniqueness of the symbol and just makes Superman little more than a religious person who wears a cross. It is no longer his symbol (a symbol of justice) but a symbol of his alien nature. Also, the idea of having Superman travel the planet before he reached Metropolis never really appealed to me much. That is what Batman did. He traveled the world, learning all that he could. Superman did not need to do this. It is unnecessary and also opens up the wide possibility that a thousand and one people can figure out his identity. This was hinted at in Byrne's version, but was more palatable by the fact that he didn't travel to learn, he traveled to help. He also tried to keep a low profile. It wasn't until he was forced into the spotlight that the traveling had to end.

Talk of destiny has always left me in the cold. In my mind it takes away from what makes a character special. Is it more special that he makes the decision to help people because he wants to, or because it was his destiny? While this wasn't exactly stated in the comics, I do realize that they are taking some "pages" from SMALLVILLE. Smallville has made it clear that Superman has a destiny. If they choose to adapt that aspect for the comics, I may have a problem. Waid has already adopted the Clark/Lex history dynamic for his comic, and that's got me upset. I like SMALLVILLE as entertainment goes. I'm not TOO offended by it, because it has always (to me) stood outside of continuity. It's a nice "what if?" However, when these concepts are brought into continuity, we have a problem. Lex knew Clark before he was Superman, and before he wore glasses. WHY CAN'T HE RECOGNIZE THAT CLARK IS SUPERMAN!!!! Anyone who knew Clark before he wore glasses (up into his late teens-early twenties, anyway) should be able to figure it out. People don't change that much! Recognizing Superman as Clark isn't the issue. The issue is recognizing Clark as Superman. (Figure that out, if you can.)

Essentially, I don't like the way we're going here. And just as I didn't get it when so-called STAR TREK watchdog Robert Altman was a fan of ENTERPRISE, I don't understand how these "through the ages" people could possibly be a fan of BIRTHRIGHT. It's not what I want, and it doesn't appear to be what they want. Ah well. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I just don't understand theirs.

THUS ENDETH THE COMIC BOOK RANT----------------FOR NOW.................
:: J 1:50 PM [+] ::
...