Many people write their blogs from either an investigative
or current point of view, often worrying about production details and credit. I
have always sought to write this blog from a reader's point of view,
trying to keep the perspective of a fan who read this wonderful material in
chronological order when it originally came out, not knowing what the future
would bring. I also did not know that this era was, or would be called, “The
Silver Age of Comics.”
There
is no one Superman,
Spider-Man or Avengers. They have been redone, restored, recreated, rebooted,
retired, resurrected, refrigerated (Captain America), reincarnated,
reconstituted, rethought, regurgitated, relinquished, restored, and made
over so many times. Spider-Man began as Amazing, but he has been
Spectacular, Ultimate, Avenging, Sensational, and I think, my favorite, “The
Inebriated Spider-Man.”
I
hesitated in including this in my Man of
Steel review because it may a sound a bit hypocritical and maybe it is. I don’t
know.
http://forbushman.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-review-of-man-of-steel-from-comic.html
http://forbushman.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-review-of-man-of-steel-from-comic.html
When
I go see a movie, or read a comic, I want to see something that I haven’t seen
before. That doesn’t mean I always need to see totally new characters, but I do
want to see a fresh story with an unpredictable outcome. The bad thing in the
hero movies, super or otherwise, is that we know that the hero is going to
survive, so I want the surrounding story to have some suspense to keep my
interest.
The
Man of Steel showed Superman in a new light. If you don’t
know the end of the movie you can keep reading until I tell you to stop!
This
certainly was not my Superman, but is that a good thing? My
inspiration for that belief comes from Steve Ditko. And I’ll get back to that
point in a minute.
It
was always unlikely that we were ever going to see comic books or
movies featuring brand-new characters, only the familiar ones
that we have known for at least forty years, being brought back.
If
you did not live through it, I cannot tell you what a joy it was to read the
Marvel comic books in chronological order as they were being published in the
early 1960s. Everything was new. The heroes, villains, the stories were all
something I had not seen in DC, Charlton or Dell comics. In those
Marvels, there were no footnotes that referenced stories that
took place 20 years ago to fill in the details. For example, when the Riddler
was brought back in a Batman comic
in 1966, the editor referred to a Riddler story that appeared 20 years earlier.
This was a comic that DC waited another 30 years to reprint. How, in 1966, was
I ever likely to see the beginnings of Edward Nigma?
However,
everything at Marvel started off new and fresh and I really enjoyed that.
DC
already seemed a little stale to me even as a kid, with dozens of years of
continuity on each character. I felt that I was reading my parents' comics
whereas, with Marvel, I felt like I was reading my own. Every succeeding
generation is like that. Each one has its own music, clothes, slang and popular
fictional characters.
I
thought the new Star Trek movie was enjoyable, but I did not think it was in
the least bit original. And many people gave me some static on that. They felt
that it was a good movie and it didn’t matter if it wasn’t original,
merely rewriting original scripts and recasting the main characters. I was
disappointed because I wanted them to go where no past episode had gone before.
So
what does Steve Ditko have to do with all this? Ditko redid three Marvel
characters - the Incredible Hulk,
Iron Man, and Doctor Droom. In every
case he was able to reach inside and see the essence of the character. So he
understood what made the character interesting. He would then change their
costume, their supporting characters or their environment and still keep the
important qualities that were developed earlier. Not a lot of writers and
artists had this ability. So his Iron
Man propelled the character into the modern jet age. Originally, in the
Jack Kirby costume, he wore his uniform like a British Knight. The character
was most often defensive; his big heavy armor protected him. Now, he could be
sleek and offensive, having the agility to attack and not just defend.
Ditko’s Doctor
Strange is so different from Dr.
Droom that it may be hard to see the connection. Maybe that is why, unlike
the Hulk, Ditko gave us a whole new
character and didn’t just redo Droom. Ditko placed the magician in incredible
psychedelic worlds, so not only was this Caucasian magician with powers rooted
in Asia (just like Droom) different, his world was totally changed. Oh yes, one
of those psychedelic realms was Greenwich Village.
Spoiler Alert: You may want to stop reading here.
What
disappoints me about the new Superman
movie (and here’s where I’m hypocritical) is that they did give us a new
character, but they did not keep the essence of what I considered important
about the old one.
It
first startled me when Pa Kent, played by Kevin Costner, suggests that Clark
should not have saved someone’s life because it gave away his powers. The movie
shows Clark standing and watching his father die when he not only had the
powers to save him, but the opportunity for the situation never to have ever
occurred. I remember Jeff East, as young Clark Kent, so regretting the death by
heart attack of his father in the 1978 movie. “All my powers…”
And
I am certainly bothered at the end when Superman
took the life of General Zod when the writers could have come up with
a way for him to avoid it. So here I am saying I want to see something new and
different, a character that I haven’t seen before, and I’m complaining that
they did not keep the essence of the character that I grew up with.
We
are not going to see a major new character from Marvel or DC. They cannot
create new ones anymore. Creative people no longer see comics as their future.
They want to have ownership and revenue, but they will not get it
from the comic book industry so they look elsewhere. Marvel must rely
on a stable of characters that is 50 years old and DC uses a reserve
that is 75 years old. Yet the corporations freely give those creative rights to
people who do their TV shows and Movies, just not the comics
I
have no solutions, no suggestions and no alternatives - but that doesn't stop
me from being a bit disappointed that this is not the Superman that I knew and want to know.
Nick Caputo is waiting for his Fantastic Four to return |
You made many worthwhile points in your blog. It's only marred by that goofy character covering up the beautiful Kirby/Stone cover.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreetings!
ReplyDeleteNot even the "Reeve transfiguration" in M.O.S. could redeem the movie.
Great article. Keep it up!
Thanks Richard:
ReplyDeleteThis movie turns out not to be a big hit, I think many people felt like we do. The 1978 movie is being watched 35 years later.
"I want to see something that I haven't seen before."
ReplyDeleteBut there's no reason to want to see warmed over re-bakes of things which have been seen before. The best thing would have been if all of the older comic book heroes had been gently retired starting around 1987. There could still be movies which featured older characters. But the comic books should have gotten busy on developing a totally new generation. That would have allowed the rejuvenation of a comic book universe. Trying to endlessly produce versions of old characters must wear thin at some point.