|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326
1000+ posts
|
OP
1000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326 |
Well, at 10:50 am this morning, my UPS guy delivered the copy of Supreme: The Story Of The Year I'd ordered from Amazon.com com just four days ago. I spent the next two and a half hours reading the book cover to cover, hoping that it would live up to all the hype and fanfare it's gotten. It definitely delivered the goods, in spades. I got a real charge out of the opening sequence involving reality distortions being described as "revisions." Talk about a backhanded slap to what DC did with Superman...but man, was it funny. So was the "I'm gonna destroy everything and wipe the slate clean" ramblings of Billy Friday. Do I detect a mockery of John Byrne with this guy? :lol: (Not to mention the bit where Friday's Supremium-enhanced multiplication was blamed on his being a British comic book writer whose work had the effect of making him "a huge, ungainly, sprawling mass." That sounds a lot like the post- Crisis Superman continuity to me. ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) ) I laughed like crazy when Supreme was described as a '90s model whose "powers may be so poorly defined as to be virtually limitless." And when Squeak the Supremouse showed up, I had some very warm flashbacks to Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse cartoons. And I was laughing my ass off when they did the flashback tale where Supereme imagined he married Glory ("Should I remind you who wears the tights in this family?") I tell you, this story really captures the zaniness and fun of the Silver Age without making it come off as stupid or antiquated. But most of all, what appealed to me about this story was the mythic, epic feel it gave its title character. Let's face it, Supreme/Ethan Crane IS Superman/Clark Kent as he was meant to be: awe-inspiring, courageous, intelligent, and nobody to be messed with. The poignancy of Crane outliving his friends and family was wonderfully done, another mythic quality that Superman should have but has been denied courtesy of Byrne/Jurgens. And Darius Dax? This guy is everything Lex Luthor should be, once was, and hasn't been since the Byrne revamp. He's brilliant, genocidal, and willing to kill himself in the pursuit of ultimate power and killing those who stand in his way...and he flaunts it for all the world to see with a smile on his face. And I dare say the treatment of Radar the Hound-Supreme puts DC's treatment of Krypto to shame. Where DC brought Krypto back only to lock him up in the Fortress of Solitude and forget he even exists, Radar is actually a character of importance and substance. And Suprema is the classic Supergirl in full, vastly superior to any of the morons DC's tagged the "Supergirl" name to post- Crisis. I also liked how all of the different Supreme incarnations coalesced together into Ethan Crane. He's the essence of the best of all of them, and all of his history is important to him. Why couldn't DC have done this with Superman in 1986, revamping him in a way that made ALL of his history matter to him? It would have not only honored those whose work came before 1986, but it would have made Superman a richer, more complex character to have everything from 1938 onward remain a part of his history. It also would have increased the mythic, epic quality that Superman should have and that Byrne/Jurgens erased. I re-read Byrne's Man of Steel before reading this for the sake of a comparison/contrast...and I was amazed by how pedestrian, dull, and lifeless Byrne's revamp really ended up being. Man of Steel has no awe, no epic feel, no mythic atmosphere, no power...it's just very flat and down to Earth in all the wrong ways. He flattened and homogenized Superman to the point where there was very little "super" left in him. And then the Jurgens era-crew finished the job of completely erasing the "super" from Superman. Compare Man of Steel and Supreme: The Story Of The Year, and you'll see the difference. Byrne's story as is empty and drained of awe/wonder as Moore's Superman homage is dripping with it. If anything, this story makes me feel even more strongly that Superman needs a total reboot that allows for all the best qualities of his 65-year history to remain instead of being permanenetly locked in the restrictive, dead-end straitjacket Byrne/Jurgens locked him in. Could you imagine what might have been had The Story Of The Year had been an actual Superman story, one that utilized his entire past the way Supreme is shaped by his various pasts? Could you imagine what might have been if The Story Of The Year had been the Superman revamp of 1986? My God, you would have had the comic book epic to end all comic book epics! Reading this book reminded me just how much was lost in 1986 and is still lost now. Kilgore, you hit the nail on the head. Supreme: The Story Of The Year IS one of the best Superman stories in years, and I would recommend it to anyone who longs for a great Superman yarn. And now that you've seen my reactions to the story per your request, I'll be waiting for you to return the favor with a reaction to my own recommendation, Kia Asamiya's Batman: Child of Dreams. But all the same, you were right. THIS is the way Superman ought to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
But it am a ripoff of the golden age sooperman! Surely it am not be any good!
Alan Moore am hack!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326
1000+ posts
|
|
OP
1000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
But it am a ripoff of the golden age sooperman! Surely it am not be any good!
Alan Moore am hack!
You am do very good impression of Byrne zombie. It really am no different than what me have seen elsewhere at other times.
Seriously, me think you would like this, if you am not read it already. It am bring back some wonderful memories of real Superman, not Super-Pansy in post-Crisis DCU. Me only hope Birthright am this good. Superman am need all help he can get.
Hello! :)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Eddie Berganza is a genius.. ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
So you want Superman to meet Mighty Mouse.
For you that be a great Superman story.
That's utterly pathetic.
Comics don't need to be infantile and idiotic to be good.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
If it has a dog with a cape I ain't buyin it, no sir! Don't care if it's the best thing in the planet, I ain't buying it!
I'll buy three monthly Superman books I don't like instead!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326
1000+ posts
|
|
OP
1000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
So you want Superman to meet Mighty Mouse.
For you that be a great Superman story.
That's utterly pathetic.
I see you're putting words in my mouth. Where, at any point in my review, did I say wanted a Superman/Mighty Mouse team-up?
Sheesh, if you're going to lose your lunch over a cartoon mouse appearing in Supreme, why weren't you this harsh on the Superman/Bugs Bunny team-up?
quote:
Comics don't need to be infantile and idiotic to be good.
That's absolutely right. And since Supreme: The Story Of The Year is neither idiotic or infantile, I'd say it qualifies as a good story.
It's a helluva lot better than Man of Steel, I'll say that. Would that The Story Of The Year had been the Superman revamp of 1986! The books might be in better shape than they are now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by King Krypton:
I see you're putting words in my mouth. Where, at any point in my review, did I say wanted a Superman/Mighty Mouse team-up?
You say that you want Story of the Year to be the reboot instead of Man of Steel.
Since in story of the year Supreme meets a Supremouse then you must want Superman to meet Mighty Mouse... or maybe Underdog.
quote:
Originally posted by King Krypton:
Sheesh, if you're going to lose your lunch over a cartoon mouse appearing in Supreme, why weren't you this harsh on the Superman/Bugs Bunny team-up?
Who says I wasn't? lol
I think that's one of the worst comics DC has produced in the last 20 years.
quote:
That's absolutely right. And since Supreme: The Story Of The Year is neither idiotic or infantile, I'd say it qualifies as a good story.
It has a Suprememouse and Supremebaby...
quote:
It's a helluva lot better than Man of Steel, I'll say that. Would that The Story Of The Year had been the Superman revamp of 1986! The books might be in better shape than they are now.
So for Superman to be a good character he shouldn't live like a normal man as he does in MoS, he should spend his time doing Superstunts and fly all the time.
In other words it should be 99.999% Superman with only a .0001% of Clark. That to you makes a good Superman story.
I'll still take MoS over Story of the Year. At least with MoS I get a Superman I can actually care about, not one I point at and laugh, like I do with Moore's Supreme...
I doubt the books would be any better now if Superman had met Mighty Mouse 20 years ago like Supreme did back in the mid 90's.
For one thing Supreme never sold more than Superman while it was being published, so clearly there isn't that much of an audience for this type of stories.
If you make the claim that more people would have bought it had it been Superman instead of Supreme I'll just counter that by saying that such a raise in sales would be an illusion as it would be made up of the people already buying Superman plus those that bought Supreme.
Turning Superman into a caricature of what he is isn't a solution to the problem...
This is who you think Superman should be:
Maybe we need a Sister Superman...
(I just noticed the rocking chair! Granny Supreme!! DAMN!! Last thing we need is Superman having brunch with Granny-El every Sunday!)
You know what's sad? The same damn thing happened to Magnus over at VALIANT.
In his case it was Alien Magnus, Sister Magnus, Bull Magnus and Virus Magnus.
The cycle goes on and on and on, writers ripping each other off to no end because they can't come up with anything original.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326
1000+ posts
|
|
OP
1000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326 |
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's absolutely right. And since Supreme: The Story Of The Year is neither idiotic or infantile, I'd say it qualifies as a good story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has a Suprememouse and Supremebaby...
And yet it's neither infantile or idiotic. You haven't the lsightest clue what you're talking about.
And you're still putting words in my mouth. I never said I wanted Superman to team up with Mighty Mouse. You're just blowing smoke. Further, I'm sorry that you can't appreciate anything that doesn't have the names "John Byrne" or "Dan Jurgens" plastered on it. Contrary to what you WANT to believe, comics didn't just pop into being in 1986, and Superman is not Byrne and Jurgens' private property.
And yes, I would have FAR preferred that The Story Of The Year been the 1986 Superman revamp instead of the lackluster Man of Steel. The former has heart, imagination, and power in spades. The latter is washed-out, watered-down, and lifeless. And the only reason "Sister Supreme" (who I thought was really funny) and Squeak the Supremouse were in the book was because Moore had to make up Supreme's backstory from scratch. Had this been a Superman story, he almost certainly would have used pre-existing Superman characters in their place. In fact, that's something I would have loved to see. Maybe a Superman revamp akin to The Story Of The Year might not have been a blockbuster seller, but I'll bet the books would have been of a much higher quality.
You can have the watered-down, stagnant, boring Byrne/Jurgens Superman. I want a Superman who has awe, power, and mythic weight behind him. And The Story Of The Year is as close as it gets to that Superman these days.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by King Krypton:
Contrary to what you WANT to believe, comics didn't just pop into being in 1986,
They just got better after 86. Had things continued like they were you can bet that Superman would have met a Granny-El...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 37
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 37 |
I don't really know anything about Supreme except what I've read on these boards, but what's really sad is, I think I'd prefer Supermam & Mighty Mouse to some of the recent Superman stories!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326
1000+ posts
|
|
OP
1000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
quote:
Originally posted by King Krypton:
Contrary to what you WANT to believe, comics didn't just pop into being in 1986,
They just got better after 86.
Yes, instead of a line-up of quality Superman writers, we got a grand total of TWO quality writers (Stern and Ordway) and a phalanx of mediocre ones (Byrne included) who ran the character into the ground. Then Jeph Loeb and Joe Kelly, the guys who were SUPPOSED to turn it around, ended up succumbing to the crapstorm themselves. Oh, yeah, the Crisis was such a boon to the comics. Stagnant mediocrity is SO much better than actually taking chances and being creative.
Give me a break.
quote:
Had things continued like they were you can bet that Superman would have met a Granny-El...
That's not the way Julius Schwartz ran things, you realize. heck, I don't even think Weisinger would have been that stupid.
Once again, you're making a faulty generalization.
quote:
I don't really know anything about Supreme except what I've read on these boards, but what's really sad is, I think I'd prefer Supermam & Mighty Mouse to some of the recent Superman stories!
Do yourself a favor and pick up The Story Of The Year. I think you'll enjoy it. It puts most of the post-Crisis Superman output to shame.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Uhh, Man of The Atom, Moore is apparently poking fun at the seriousness that books have taken in the past 20 years. Since he is the one that is partially responsible..he regrets any involvement he had in it..much like Frank Miller. He is conjuring up the Silver age..yes, but he is also lampooning Todd McFarlane, Byrne, Liefeld and all the rest who take themselves, their stories and their art too seriously...all the while telling an engaging story. Yes a suprememouse is absurd and it's supposed to be absurb....I don't think Moore wants Comet teh superhorse stories, but I also don't think he wants the staunch, boring realsitic, mostly crap comics have become today. He is also lampooning people who take comics too seriously..people like yourself obviously...
You're just flaming at this point....
and if you're going to flame you should atleast be funny like Mxy....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 67
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 67 |
KK... I'm so glad you enjoyed Supreme: The Story of the YearI knew that you would. I'm reading it now for the 5th or 6th time and it’s actually even more enjoyable to me each time I read it. ![[biiiig grin]](images/icons/grin.gif) I too believe that it would have (and actually still could have) been THE model for the reboot of the character of Superman. In Supreme: The Story of the Year everything in the characters history is intact INCLUDING the current "modern" incarnation(s) of the character. Supreme: The Story of the Year IS NOT about the 1940's version, the 1950's version, or the 1960's version of Supreme (Superman). He is in fact THE modern version with ALL memories of his former lives intact. And I think that is the beauty and CHARM of this story and oddly enough, its EVERYTHING that is currently missing in Superman's current comics. Supreme: The Story of the Year is the very definition of "Shock & Awe". On a side note: I think that arguing with those who have negative opinions about this book based on a blurb or a glance at a cover or even from reading what those of us who have really enjoyed the story is a waste of time. MOTA has already shown his true colors and continues to shit in his own nest. To continue to pontificate about a book that you haven't read is the height of idiocy and his rants should be treated as such and I-G N-O-R-E-D as they have no basis in fact or reality. Supreme: The Story of the Year is the Best Superman story in decades and if the Brain-Trust of Berganza and Co. had even one ball between them they would be backing the Brinks truck up to Alan Moore's house right now and leaving him the key and a note PLEADING with him for help. I loved this story and can’t recommend it highly enough to anyone, even MOTA, to read and enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by Kilgore Trout:
Supreme: The Story of the Year is the Best Superman story in decades
I loved this story and can’t recommend it highly enough to anyone, even MOTA, to read and enjoy.
If I wanted to read a Silver Age Superman story I'd read the real deal, I don't need to read about Sister Supreme, Grandma Supreme, Supremerat and Supremebaby.
Trust me, just because a comic character flies doesn't mean dogs can drive cars, no matter what you see on the Powerpuff Girls, which is a real parody of super heroes.
I feel sorry for all the Supreme fans who read the book before Moore turned it into... this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's absolutely right. And since Supreme: The Story Of The Year is neither idiotic or infantile, I'd say it qualifies as a good story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has a Suprememouse and Supremebaby...
Oh? Does having those characters automatically make the story idiotic and infantile?
Does that mean you have an Atommouse and an Atombaby...?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
Oh? Does having those characters automatically make the story idiotic and infantile?
Does that mean you have an Atommouse and an Atombaby...?
Having those elements means that the writer saw a character with a cape and decided that because he can fly it's ok to say that he's been doing it since he was a baby and that maybe having a version of the character that was a mouse might be a good idea.
That's not good writting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Having those elements means that the writer saw a character with a cape and decided that because he can fly it's ok to say that he's been doing it since he was a baby and that maybe having a version of the character that was a mouse might be a good idea.
That's not good writting.
You're only seeing the surface! Not just literally, by judging a book by it's cover, but also by judging the contents of the book (the little you've seen) by their direct definition and not seeing their true purpose.
There's much more to it than what you see That's why you enjoy Lefield's stuff and the current Superman comics so much... because they don't make you think.
Do you think the story is about a Supermouse? Do you really think that Moore introduced the character to say "Look, it's a Supermouse! Let's explore the possibilities a Supermouse has..."
I think you're imagining the book based on the comics you're used to. You think that, when a character is introduced, it's only to show several action scenes with pretty pictures of the character, and have several shots of their man-boobs.
Good writting is not what Lefield does... that's not even writting, it's just an excuse to show his art. Good writting has several levels and several readings. It's something that, hopefully, you won't fully understand the first time you read.
That's the best thing about Moore's comics. Everytime I read Watchmen, for example, I find something new that gives me a new perspective of the story.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
But it does have a dog with a cape...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587
7500+ posts
|
|
7500+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587 |
Man-child of the At-umm, your posts are not good writing. You are the stupidest person on the planet. You are an idiot. Stop thinking. Now. The world would be a happier place if less people like you existed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
I'm a big fan of Moore...but based on your review, I'm not sure I'd read it. It sounds like its relying to a great extent upon continuity in-jokes. Not sure that's my cup of tea.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
You're only seeing the surface! Not just literally, by judging a book by it's cover, but also by judging the contents of the book (the little you've seen) by their direct definition and not seeing their true purpose.
There's much more to it than what you see That's why you enjoy Lefield's stuff and the current Superman comics so much... because they don't make you think.
I hate the current Superman books, but of course your definition of current is '20 years ago till today' while my definition of current is 'the last five years'.
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
Do you think the story is about a Supermouse? Do you really think that Moore introduced the character to say "Look, it's a Supermouse! Let's explore the possibilities a Supermouse has..."
I think you're imagining the book based on the comics you're used to. You think that, when a character is introduced, it's only to show several action scenes with pretty pictures of the character, and have several shots of their man-boobs.
I think that he introduced the super mouse either because of Mighty Mouse or Hoppy the Marvel Bunny. The book reeks of being a bad copy of Silver Age comics.
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
Good writting is not what Lefield does... that's not even writting, it's just an excuse to show his art. Good writting has several levels and several readings. It's something that, hopefully, you won't fully understand the first time you read.
Good writting is not picking up a stack of Silver Age comics and seeing how many ideas you can steal from them and pass them as your own, like Moore has done here.
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
That's the best thing about Moore's comics. Everytime I read Watchmen, for example, I find something new that gives me a new perspective of the story.
I love Watchmen, I loathe Story of the Year.
One shows the greatness that comics can achieve, the other makes a joke of what they are.
This comics tells you that because a man wears a cape so must a mouse and that both have to co exist with each other or are somehow connected.
It's a freaking mouse...
Idiotic and stupid.
At least when Ordway reintroduced Hoppy it was a good story that made sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by Kilgore Trout:
Supreme: The Story of the Year is the very definition of "Shock & Awe".
Heh, I saw this again and thought I should comment on it.
If there's one thing I really hate about current comics is the 'shock'.
I'm ok with the 'awe' and the cosmic ideas but 'shock' for the sake of 'shock', that's something I've never liked.
It's one of the many reasons why I don't like nu Marvel.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 67
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 67 |
It really pains me to have to respond to stupidity on such a titanic level but I must. What possible reason could any R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L person have to respond to a post about a book they haven't even read and then try to shit on everyone who actually did enjoy it? MOTA, did you read Dave’s post? Short, concise and clear. He’s not interested. Cool. Mistaken, but cool No one is WRONG because they like or dislike this story. Its just a story. You don't like it MOTA. You've made it abundantly clear with your every increasing bizarre and hyperbolic posts. We get it: YOU THINK ITS STUPID!Great, don't buy it or read it. :) No Sweat. You made your point. Now why don’t you grow the fuck up and go the fuck away?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 37
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by King Krypton:
Do yourself a favor and pick up The Story Of The Year. I think you'll enjoy it. It puts most of the post-Crisis Superman output to shame.
Okay, King K. I've just placed my order at Amazon. But if it sux, it's all your fault!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
I hate the current Superman books, but of course your definition of current is '20 years ago till today' while my definition of current is 'the last five years'.
If you hate them, then why do you buy them? I thought you liked good stories... And I also thought you wouldn't spend your money on something you think you won't like, and certanly not in something you know you won't like.
And by the way, unlike King Krypton, I love the Byrne/Wolfman/Ordway/Stern/Jurgens/Perez/Simonson/Kesel/Micheline/Immonen Superman. I just think that the Silver Age version is a much purer version of the character. The "Byrne/Jurgens" (like KK calls it) Superman wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Silver Age Superman. The Byrne/Jurgens Superman is an homage to the Silver and Golden Age Superman.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
I think that he introduced the super mouse either because of Mighty Mouse or Hoppy the Marvel Bunny. The book reeks of being a bad copy of Silver Age comics.
But see, thinking is not your thing, you've alredy proved that.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Good writting is not picking up a stack of Silver Age comics and seeing how many ideas you can steal from them and pass them as your own, like Moore has done here.
So, you think Moore thought "gee, I hope they don't realize I'm using elements from the Silver Age Superman..."? Come on. I know you're only trying to defend your initial commentary about the book (one you didn't give much thought to), but... Come on.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
I love Watchmen, I loathe Story of the Year.
...which you've never read.
Wait a second... "Watchmen"? Isn't that the comic where Alan Moore pays homage... I mean, rips off the Chartlon heroes?! Isn't that the comic where he "picked up a stack of Silver Age comics and saw how many ideas he could steal from them and pass them as his own"?! How can you like that?! I mean, it even has a damn MASKED DOG in it!!!
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
One shows the greatness that comics can achieve, the other makes a joke of what they are.
This comics tells you that because a man wears a cape so must a mouse and that both have to co exist with each other or are somehow connected.
It's a freaking mouse...
Idiotic and stupid.
At least when Ordway reintroduced Hoppy it was a good story that made sense.
Wow, you certanly have a great understanding of the story and the motives of the writer... and without even reading it! You would come in handy during a trip to the comic store, to decide which comics I buy and which comics I don't (I don't buy comics I don't like, oddly enough... but that's just me.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Heh, I saw this again and thought I should comment on it.
If there's one thing I really hate about current comics is the 'shock'.
I'm ok with the 'awe' and the cosmic ideas but 'shock' for the sake of 'shock', that's something I've never liked.
It's one of the many reasons why I don't like nu Marvel.
...and you like Rob Lefield.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
If you hate them, then why do you buy them? I thought you liked good stories... And I also thought you wouldn't spend your money on something you think you won't like, and certanly not in something you know you won't like.
And by the way, unlike King Krypton, I love the Byrne/Wolfman/Ordway/Stern/Jurgens/Perez/Simonson/Kesel/Micheline/Immonen Superman. I just think that the Silver Age version is a much purer version of the character. The "Byrne/Jurgens" (like KK calls it) Superman wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Silver Age Superman. The Byrne/Jurgens Superman is an homage to the Silver and Golden Age Superman.
You're right about that, if it hadn't been for how bad the character got in the Silver Age then Byrne would have never had a chance to rebuild him.
That's what separates say Superman from Dick Grayson.
While Superman had to be rebooted, Dick Grayson is still the same character after Crisis that he was before because he wasn't drowining in SA shit, like Superman was.
Ever wondered why characters like Martian Manhunter and the New Gods never got a Man of Steel or Year One-type reboot?
They didn't need one, they were good enough to use both pre and post Crisis.
Superman wasn't, he needed to be taken out from the marketting rot he was in to work again.
quote:
So, you think Moore thought "gee, I hope they don't realize I'm using elements from the Silver Age Superman..."? Come on. I know you're only trying to defend your initial commentary about the book (one you didn't give much thought to), but... Come on.
I doubt he gave a damn.
You bought it because it was by Moore, not because it was Supreme...
I doubt you cared that much about what you were reading, all you cared aobut was that you were reading Moore's newest comic.
When I bought the ABC line I didn't do it because it was 'by Moore', I bought them because I wanted something to replace VALIANT with as an alternative to DC and Marvel.
When I bought Watchmen I didn't buy it because it was 'by Moore', I bought it because I wanted to see what the big deal was.
Of course, reading it 15 years after the fact the effect of the story wasn't that great. It was like watching the first TV show that aired in color after watching TV shows in color for 20 years.
quote:
...which you've never read.
And you haven't given me ONE reason to want to read it :)
quote:
Wait a second... "Watchmen"? Isn't that the comic where Alan Moore pays homage... I mean, rips off the Chartlon heroes?! Isn't that the comic where he "picked up a stack of Silver Age comics and saw how many ideas he could steal from them and pass them as his own"?! How can you like that?! I mean, it even has a damn MASKED DOG in it!!!
Masked dog? The dog didn't have a mask.
And Moore didn't choose to pay homage/rip off anything, he had to do it out of necessity because DC told him he couldn't use the Charton characters.
What Moore ended up doing here was create a group of original character that were superior to those he wanted to use.
What he did with Supreme was take old issues of Superman and use the same plots on Supreme.
quote:
Wow, you certanly have a great understanding of the story and the motives of the writer... and without even reading it! You would come in handy during a trip to the comic store, to decide which comics I buy and which comics I don't (I don't buy comics I don't like, oddly enough... but that's just me.)
I haven't seen one reason to read it while I've seen plenty of reason to stay away from it, mostly how similar it is to the Silver Age, a period of comic book history, specially Superman's, which I really hate because it cheapened who the character was and watered down the concept.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
...and you like Rob Lefield.
I like his work on Heroes Reborn and the ideas he had at Extreme. I never got the chance to read them but saw nothing wrong with them.
Moore's Supreme is no different from Elli's Planetary.
Both rip off someone elses creations and pass them as their own (and fyi, I do read Planetary, so I know what I'm talking about. Patrolmen/Green Lanterns, Amazon Princess/Wonder Woman, and alien baby/Superman).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
I feel sorry for all the Supreme fans who read the book before Moore turned it into... this.
Yeah, so do I, as I do any moronic loser that considers Liefeld to be a producer of quality literature. Being that dumb can't be enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
Yeah, so do I, as I do any moronic loser that considers Liefeld to be a producer of quality literature. Being that dumb can't be enjoyable.
Maybe if he had added a Suprememouse to his version of the character you'd consider it a great series.
I bet that you'd admit that this is a stupid idea if it had been Liefeld's instead of Moore's.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Umm, there has never been a New Gods related comic that has gone beyond issue 30..because apparently no one really cares about the characters... the last kirby created book to go more than 30 issues was kamandi...
And Dick grayson turned into Nightwing..if that's not a reboot I don't know what is...
Superman has only changed Post-crisis in that..he is still the only kryptonian (for now), and theer are less colors of Kryptonite..everything Byrne did has been slowly eroded..and we again have a planet pulling superman that is less fun and interesting....
So what's your point..???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326
1000+ posts
|
|
OP
1000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326 |
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
I hate the current Superman books, but of course your definition of current is '20 years ago till today' while my definition of current is 'the last five years'.
And by the way, unlike King Krypton, I love the Byrne/Wolfman/Ordway/Stern/Jurgens/Perez/Simonson/Kesel/Micheline/Immonen Superman.
Well, now, I happen to be a huge fan of Stern and Ordway's work on Superman. Those guys went a long toward capturing the proper blend of awe, fantasy, and humanity required for the character. Those guys delivered top-notch work that I think remains the high point of the Byrne-instigated continuity, and are proud additions to the Superman canon.
Kesel COULD have been good (I loved TAOS #508), but he got dragged down by inferior writers. Perez spent most of his time collaborating with Stern, so I really can't judge how he would have handled Superman on his own. The rest are just forgettable.
I don't think the Byrne/Jurgens Superman was a COMPLETE train wreck. Stern and Ordway remain two of my all-time favorite Superman scribes. But as soon as they were both off the books, the crapstorm really took hold and hasn't let go yet....
quote:
I just think that the Silver Age version is a much purer version of the character. The "Byrne/Jurgens" (like KK calls it) Superman wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Silver Age Superman. The Byrne/Jurgens Superman is an homage to the Silver and Golden Age Superman.
Now there's an interesting way of putting it. I've never heard that said before. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I've honestly never heard that viewpoint offered before.)
quote:
I haven't seen one reason to read it while I've seen plenty of reason to stay away from it, mostly how similar it is to the Silver Age, a period of comic book history, specially Superman's, which I really hate because it cheapened who the character was and watered down the concept.
And yet the Silver Age is the era that defined Superman more than any other, and remains the most beloved of them all, warts and all.
This is a "watered down, cheapened" Superman? More like the Superman people love best, if you ask me.
And by the way, Kilgore, I'll still be expecting your Batman: Child of Dreams review at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by Pig Iron:
Umm, there has never been a New Gods related comic that has gone beyond issue 30..because apparently no one really cares about the characters... the last kirby created book to go more than 30 issues was kamandi...
Combine the series, you don't necessarily need one of Kirby's books to go over X number of issues, the concepts alone are enough.
Plus I was using it as an example, there are many more.
quote:
Originally posted by Pig Iron:
And Dick grayson turned into Nightwing..if that's not a reboot I don't know what is...
Dick becoming Robin is not a reboot as it didn't rewrite his past, it was character growth. A character going from being one thing to another.
quote:
Originally posted by Pig Iron:
Superman has only changed Post-crisis in that..he is still the only kryptonian (for now), and theer are less colors of Kryptonite..everything Byrne did has been slowly eroded..and we again have a planet pulling superman that is less fun and interesting....
He wasn't the only Kryptonian pre Crisis, back then he was one of millions.
And not everything Byrne undid has been undone... yet! Not till Birthright #1 comes out, but even then not everything will have been undone, the character will just suck... a lot!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
You're right about that, if it hadn't been for how bad the character got in the Silver Age then Byrne would have never had a chance to rebuild him.
That's what separates say Superman from Dick Grayson.
While Superman had to be rebooted, Dick Grayson is still the same character after Crisis that he was before because he wasn't drowining in SA shit, like Superman was.
Ever wondered why characters like Martian Manhunter and the New Gods never got a Man of Steel or Year One-type reboot?
They didn't need one, they were good enough pre and post Crisis to be used.
Superman wasn't, he needed to be taken out from the marketting rot he was in to work again.
Ummm... Let's see. Superman was rebooted. Bat-Man was rebooted. Wonder Woman was rebooted. See a pattern there? I know it's a asking too much... but think for just a second and tell me what those the characters DC decided to completely reboot had in common.
quote:
I doubt he gave a damn.
You bought it because it was by Moore, not because it was Supreme...
I doubt you cared that much about what you were reading, all you cared aobut was that you were reading Moore's newest comic.
When I bought the ABC line I didn't do it because it was 'by Moore', I bought them because I wanted something to replace VALIANT with as an alternative to DC and Marvel.
When I bought Watchmen I didn't buy it because it was 'by Moore', I bought it because I wanted to see what the big deal was.
See, you're not even paying attention. I've said THREE TIMES now that I haven't read Supreme yet. If this is the kind of attention you give when you read, no wonder you only see the surface of things. I always thought comics from people like Lefield and McFarlane weren't necessary. Now I know I was wrong. There's people that just can't see more than what's in front of them. For those people, simple, two dimensional, one level stories are done.
It's quite ironic that you blame me for buying a comic just because it's done by Moore, when you buy comics just because they're Superman books. At least when I buy a comic just because it's done by Moore I can expect a level of quality. With the Superman books you don't get that level of a quality... hell, you don't even expect it! You buy even though you admit you hate it...
I do buy comics just because they are done by Moore, but that doesn't mean that if he does a crappy comic I'm gonna like it. For example, I got the Spawn issues by Moore and Gaiman, but HATED them. The Gaiman one was kinda good, excellent by McFarlane/Lefield standards, but very inferior to Gaiman's other work. And the Moore issue... I kept checking the credits box to make sure it was Alan Moore who was writting that. After I read that, I didn't buy anything else from Moore done in the 90's. Only when I read From Hell I realized Moore still has it, and I started buying the ABC comics.
quote:
Of course, reading it 15 years after the fact the effect of the story wasn't that great. It was like watching the first TV show that aired in color after watching TV shows in color for 20 years.
You mean after reading the comics that used the elements introduced in Watchmen? You mean the WATCHMEN RIPOFFS, by your "logic"?
How many reading did you get from Watchmen? How many levels of the story did you get? I bet you stuck with what was presented to you.
quote:
And you haven't given me ONE reason to want to read it :)
Well, how about this: It's Superman. The name and look where changed, but still it's Superman. Now it doesn't matter if you think it's crappy because it has Silver Age elements, you'll buy it anyway.
quote:
Masked dog? The dog didn't have a mask.
And Moore didn't choose to pay homage/rip off anything, he had to do it out of necessity because DC told him he couldn't use the Charton characters.
What Moore ended up doing here was create a group of original character that were superior to those he wanted to use.
What he did with Supreme was take old issues of Superman and use the same plots on Supreme.
The dog didn't have a mask? My bad.
It's incredible how much you know about Moore's Supreme. You actually know the plots of the comics. And all by looking at the covers and some individual panels.
They are NOT the same plots, from what I've heard. They are the same plots... with a twist. He picks up all the elements and uses them to tell a new story. If it's anything like Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow, it's a story that makes those elements feel like they were created all those years ago only to be used at THIS moment.
quote:
I haven't seen one reason to read it while I've seen plenty of reason to stay away from it, mostly how similar it is to the Silver Age, a period of comic book history, specially Superman's, which I really hate because it cheapened who the character was and watered down the concept.
Well, then stick with that. Don't pretend you know everything there is to know about that comic. If you don't wanna give it a try, say that and leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Moore's Supreme is no different from Elli's Planetary.
Both rip off someone elses creations and pass them as their own (and fyi, I do read Planetary, so I know what I'm talking about. Patrolmen/Green Lanterns, Amazon Princess/Wonder Woman, and alien baby/Superman).
Right, you know what you're talking about with Planetary (another comic you hate but keep buying? whoa... you must have a lot of money.) But, as long as Supreme goes, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA, get that into your head.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326
1000+ posts
|
|
OP
1000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326 |
quote:
And not everything Byrne undid has been undone... yet!
Which is a shame. In fact, Aside from a power boost and horrifically mangled and convoluted "re-imaginings" of classic Superman characters, not much of anything Byrne did has been undone. It's all been minor, cosmetic stuff that leaves the bulk of his work intact.
quote:
Not till Birthright #1 comes out, but even then not everything will have been undone, the character will just suck... a lot!
The only reason Birthright won't make any lasting changes to Superman is because DC's too afraid to give Superman his cojones back. Birthright may well be a story on par with Kingdom Come and The Story Of The Year, but since DC's going out of its way to avoid acknowledging it, we'll still be stuck with the boring, watered-down Superman of Byrne/Jurgens.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Maybe if he had added a Suprememouse to his version of the character you'd consider it a great series.
I bet that you'd admit that this is a stupid idea if it had been Liefeld's instead of Moore's.
Lefield would have introduced the Suprememouse only to show his man-boobs. Or to show him masturbating, like that character from Youngblood.
Tell me honestly, do you really think Lefield would have been able to come up with something like Watchmen?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326
1000+ posts
|
|
OP
1000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326 |
quote:
Originally posted by DuplicateMan:
quote:
Originally posted by King Krypton:
Do yourself a favor and pick up The Story Of The Year. I think you'll enjoy it. It puts most of the post-Crisis Superman output to shame.
Okay, King K. I've just placed my order at Amazon. But if it sux, it's all your fault!
And I'll accept the blame without complaints, if that's the case.
But I think you'll dig it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 67
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 67 |
Hell, I'll give you a full refund! ![[cool]](images/icons/cool.gif) If you really like comics, their history and magic, you'll love this book. Just be sure to post a critique, good or bad after you've read it ! Note to Dave: I'll mail you my copy (postage paid) if you're still unsure
|
|
|
|
|
