Superman 75th Anniversary Animated Tribute

Neat little tribute.  Watching this got me thinking maybe DC could help itself out my making a new Superman cartoon based on The New 52, or perhaps some kind of Justice League project.  Seems to me that if they're serious about this new DC universe, they should introduce the character/s to some (gasp!) actual kids.  But if the comics themselves are any indication, kids are the last thing on DC's mind right now.

Looking back: The Dark Knight Returns

Nineteen eighty-six is considered to be a seminal year in superhero comics, both in terms of quality and creativity.  Alan Moore's Watchmen hit stands.  John Byrne rebooted Superman in the The Man of Steel miniseries.  Frank Miller penned the magnificent Born Again storyline in Daredevil. But none more influential on pop culture or the future of superhero comics than The Dark Knight Returns.  It is widely considered to be among the finest superhero comics ever written.  What else can be said without invoking hyperbole?  The Dark Knight Returns wasn't the first comic written for a more mature audience, but it's certainly the marker laid down for when superhero comics evolved to include darker, more violent and intelligent content (the last has often been discarded in favor of the first two in the years since).

For those who have yet to read TDKR, it takes place in Gotham City of the near future, perhaps ten years or so (from 1986). Superheroes have been outlawed, although it's unclear exactly why, something to do with a series of incidents that caused the public to become more fearful and distrustful of them). The government has become more powerful and authoritarian (Reagan is still holding onto the presidency).  The United States in is still in the midst of the Cold War and tensions with the Soviets are nearing a breaking point.  As the story begins, Batman has been retired for ten years.  His enemies are safely locked up, but Gotham is worse than ever.  A gang calling themselves the Mutants are terrorizing the city.  Batman comes out of retirement to deal with them.  But this Batman is older, meaner, and even more inclined to break the law.  Lined up against him is not only the mutant gang, but the media and the public.  As his war in Gotham escalates, it gets the attention of the federal government who dispatches Superman to deal with him.

The art is solid, if unspectacular and looks very unlike his artwork before or since.  His lines are thin and numerous with a sketchy look to them.  This is only enhanced by Klaus Janson, who takes a minimalist approach to inking. Lynn Varley's colors look like watercolor, very washed out but distinctive since the comic is very gray throughout. Visually, the book's strength is Miller's masterful panel by panel storytelling.  The pages have a distinctly cinematic look, and he is able to effectively create pace, drama and action throughout.

The story does a great job of satirizing the shallow media-saturated culture of the 1980s that has only gotten worse in the years since, which is a big part of why the book is still compelling.  But it doesn't stop there.  Miller explores a number of themes, including the limits of law and order, vigilantism, freedom vs. security, chaos vs. order, anarchy, fascism, political correctness, the responsibility of individual citizens to maintain justice, the cost of compromising your values.  The story asks what does it look like to be good in terrible world?  Can we escape who we really are?  Does violence, even if it's for a good cause, create more violence?

What I appreciate most is that Miller doesn't seem to come down hard on any side of these issues.  For example, his wonderful satirizing of pop psychology in the character of Dr. Wolper. On the one hand, Miller mocks the psycho-babble Dr. Wolper dispenses, like when he explains how Batman creates criminals. On the other hand, as the story unfolds, Batman's return clearly awakens the Joker and sparks an escalation of violence among would be vigilantes.  Where is Miller on this issue?  I think he respects his readers enough for them to sort that out themselves, which is why I still regard TDKR as one of the most intelligent comics ever written.  Today, politics in comics are bluntly spelled out to us by a chorus of left-wing writers with no sense of subtly or respect for their audience.

In spite of Miller's ambiguity, fans and pundits still offer confident proclamations about the story's politics, as writer Mark Waid did when he declared the story was about liberalism vs. conservatism.  Miller certainly uses the Cold War as a geopolitical canvas to tell his story, where the broader scope of Batman's thematic tensions play out.  This is effective, but it tethers the story forever in the 80's.  As does the goofy caricature of Ronald Reagan.  I get the satire, but it comes across a little dated, and belies the story's sophistication.

One of the legacies of The Dark Knight Returns is that it defined the characters of Superman and Batman for a generation.  Batman is mean.  Superman is nice.  Batman is clever.  Superman is simple.  Batman is the realist.  Superman is the idealist.  Batman breaks the rules to get things done. Superman won't.  Batman is cool.  Superman's not.  Batman won't back down to the man.  Superman is the man.  This interpretation, which is in my view a cursory take on the story, the characters and their relationship, is nevertheless the predominant perception held by fans and many creators.

This frustrates me because it idealizes Batman, and simplifies Superman.  Miller's Batman is an angry PTSD-laden egomaniac, albeit a compelling one.  But most fanboys like to think of Miller's Batman as a freedom fighting vigilante revolutionary.  But unlike the character in Christopher Nolan's films, this Batman wants to force the world to conform to his vision.  The people have allowed themselves be subjugated under an authoritarian government, and he believes it should be up to him and other superheroes to fix the world; to reshape it. He resents Superman for not only failing to use his vast powers to do this, but for surrendering his power and playing along.

Bob Goodman, writer for the TDKR animated adaptation agrees, "Superman is not only working with no moral authority, He's on the wrong side."  Personally, I like that Superman doesn't take this power into his hands.  His restraint is part of why he's a hero in my view.  Do we want people with fantastic powers to take over our politics and rob us of our self-determination just because they can?  Unlike Batman, Superman understands people and societies cannot be forced to change.  He would rather change people by his example; by doing good and helping others, but he must compromise himself in order do so, "I gave them my obedience and my invisibility. They gave me a license and let us live.  No, I don't like it, but I get to save lives--and the media stays quiet."  And for this, he's a stooge.  And Batman's a hero.  I dont' buy it.  I don't think Miller does either.

The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 trailer

I welcome the release of The Hobbit movie this December as a great excuse to re-read one my favorite books of all time, even though Peter Jackson has seen fit to somehow stretch a 320 page book into three full-length films.  Much the same can be said for this new animated version of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, part 1 slated for release in September, part 2 sometime next year.  I have always hoped for a live action adaptation, but that's more doubtful than ever with The Dark Knight Rises touching on similar themes and story points.  The good news is that DC's best products are not coming from the print side of the company, but rather from their animation division which has put out a slew of solid, entertaining films the last few years, including Justice League: New Frontier, Green Lantern: Emerald Knights and Batman: Year One.  The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 definitely looks the part, with several familiar and iconic images from the 26-year-old story.  The choice of Peter Weller to voice the aged Caped Crusader sounds, at first impression, spot on.  I'm excited to see how they handle Superman and his conflict with Batman, as well as the social and political elements that were influenced by Cold War America in the 1980s. If nothing else, perhaps it will give kids who've never read the original an opportunity to discover one of the classics.

"Man of Steel" Teaser Poster

Comics Are Gay

Reaffirming that comic book publishers have long abandoned any effort to appeal to families or kids, DC and Marvel Comics are now competing for the honor of being the most gay-friendly publisher.  Dan Didio announced Sunday that DC Comics will be changing the sexual orientation of an established character.  DC's senior VP of Publicity Courtney Simmons confirmed the story yesterday, "One of the major iconic DC characters will reveal that he is gay in a storyline in June."  So apparently it will be a male character to go along with their openly lesbian hero, Batwoman.  Not to be outdone, Marvel announced today that Northstar, who came out back in 1992, will marry his partner in Astonishing X-Men #51.

Well, I guess I'm supposed to be impressed by this cynical effort to get some cheap publicity, following on the heels of President Obama's "evolution" in support of gay marriage.  But I'd be far more impressed if these publishers put as much energy into the creativity and quality of their books as they do with trying to be cool or superficially relevant.  I wasn't aware the public was clamoring for more gay superheroes, so I'm glad Marvel and DC are taking steps to better represent that 1.4% of Americans who identify as gay and are no doubt as concerned about this issue as they are the economy, unemployment and the war in Afghanistan.

Despite its pretentiousness, this announcement does serve a somewhat useful purpose, which is to confirm once again just how Liberal the comics industry has become.  The last few years have seen repeated efforts to push characters and stories in an increasingly progressive direction, one more consistent with their worldview.  From the industry's worship of Barack Obama to taking shots at the Tea Party, from Superman renouncing his citizenship to filmmakers bending over backwards to avoid any patriotic overtures in the Captain America movie, many creators seem more interested in producing comics for each other and their circles of Liberal friends.

Does this matter?  Probably not.  I gave up on comics years ago, although DC piqued my interest in the last few years, particularly with it's relaunch, which turned out to be giant dud.  The problem for the industry is people like me who loved superhero comics growing up, will not encourage our kids to take up the hobby.  Who wants to expose their children to the dark, politicized, hyper-sexualized and exclusively adult nature of comics today.  Not even the most wholesome heroes are exempt.  Yes, I remember The Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, but that stuff was the exception, not the rule, as it is today.  With so many better options for entertainment, even superhero entertainment (Avengers cartoon?), why bother with comics?

Well, I guess the only thing left to do is speculate on which character will soon be dressing snazzier.  It's not clear how major of a character it will be.  Despite the hype, DC will probably anger some in the LGBT community by announcing some wallflower like the Atom or the Blue Beetle.  I know many people will automatically guess Aquaman, but he is married (to a woman) and bears little resemblance to the character we knew from Superfriends.  Some will say Robin, but that would open up too many questions about Batman, who is DC's hottest brand.  If it's not someone like Plastic Man (no jokes), then I'm gonna guess ...Green Arrow.  He's not one of the big five, nor is he an unknown.

"Man of Steel" logo

Comic Delusion

So the other day I watched Secret Origin: The Story of DC Comics.  It's a solid documentary.  I learned some new things about DC's history and how the major comics and characters came to be.  It also includes some great interviews with a number of different creators and their perspectives on superhero comics.  Especially eye-opening was the strange personal life of Wonder Woman creator William Moulton Marston, and the S&M that was not so subtly displayed in the panels of the early Wonder Woman comics.

But what really stood out watching this documentary is the discussion over the direction of comics in the 1980s, focusing primarily on Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore's Watchmen.  Mark Waid, a great writer and someone who I have tremendous respect for as a creator, begins the discussion like this: "In the 80s, there's a whole new Conservative grip to the nation.  Some of the younger comic book creators weren't too keen on that."

Apparently, to Liberals, having a Republican President represents a "Conservative grip" over the country.  As they begin discussing The Dark Knight Returns, Waid goes on to describe his interpretation of the story as though it was the objective and widely accepted view: "The whole climax of the book ends up being Superman and Batman literally trading blows, as Batman reigns upon him with Kryptonite gloves, and really in that moment, you're seeing the fire of Liberalism pound the crap out of the staid Conservative era of the 1980s."

Please.

Take that, you right-wing stooge!

I've read numerous reviews, interpretations and discussions of The Dark Knight Returns, and that has to be most idiotic, simplistic mischaracterization of I've ever heard.  Nowhere have I seen Miller's story described as an illustration of Liberal vs. Conservative worldviews. Most conspicuously, Miller himself has never characterized his book that way.  I don't know if DC was trying to cling to a particular narrative during this portion of the documentary, or if these were Waid's actual views, but he presses on with this theme as the discussion moves to Alan Moore:  "The whole concept of Watchmen is a reaction to Thatcher's England, that very Orwellian sense of government power, and sense of censorship, and sense of personal freedoms being curtailed."

Good grief.  You'd think we were behind the Iron Curtain during the 80s.  And when did Thatcher come to be viewed as such a tyrant?  I guess helping to win the Cold War and defeating communism doesn't count for much these days.

Alan Moore (self-proclaimed anarchist), speaking at the time, describes his views this way:  "It seems to me that anything these days which is slightly to the left of Ghengis Khan is immediately labeled as subversive.  If, in this current time, tolerance and sensitivity of any kind are labled loony left or subversive than I would be quite proud to be considered a subversive."  Wow. That's ballsy.  And profound.  To stand up to the fascist, authoritarian regimes of England and America during the dark, dystopian days of the 1980s took real courage.  All I can say is, if the left-wing delusions of these writers help them create good comics, more power to them.

One other segment of the documentary left me mystified.  While discussing the pathetic Death of Superman storyline, writer Louise Simonson actually moves herself to tears.  No, not tears of shame, but of genuine sadness and mourning.

Really?

Killing Superman

(Warning: some rough language)

This video has been making the rounds on the internet for the last week or so.  Max Landis, son of movie director John Landis, has made this short film apparently to rant about his dislike for Superman.  The young Landis focuses his drunken scorn for the Death (and Return) of Superman publicity stunt--er-uhh.. storyline from the early 1990s. The film's mocking, sarcastic tone wears thin pretty quickly, as does Landis's unconvincing Dean Martin act with an adult beverage and everything.

As a fan of Superman, I didn't find Landis's criticisms of the character particularly funny or original, but his lampooning of the Death of Superman crystallized the absurdity of the storyline, the pathetic lack of creativity of the writers and Editors at DC comics in the 90s.  I can remember thinking at the time, "Is this the best they can do?"  The whole thing was just so silly, uncompelling and uninspired, especially given this was the medium's flagship character, and how much DC was investing in the project.  It just reinforced everything I disliked about DC at the time:

• Lame characters, outside the top 10 or so.  Booster Gold?!  Was Aqualad not available?
• Lame stories (i.e. lame writers)
• Lame art

And it reminded me why Marvel Comics was so much better.  Which brings me to today.  DC comics made huge strides forward during the last decade, equaling, perhaps even surpassing Marvel in talent and creativity.  Last year, DC decided to reboot their entire comics line (The New 52!), apparently to re-invent and re-ignite their brand. Trouble is, if the first six months is any judge, DC has taken several steps backward. And if they keep this up, smartasses like Landis won't have to go back twenty years to find material.

The New "Man of Steel"

Click to enlarge

Given that Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch) is directing this, I'm not very hopeful.  Henry Cavill looks the part, I guess, but I wish they would have stuck with Brandon Routh.  There no denying though, it's got a great cast.  Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Ma and Pa Kent, Amy Adams as Lois Lane, and Russell Crowe as Jor-El. As far as the photo, my initial thoughts are:

a)  This looks more like a promotional photo rather than a still shot from the film.  

b)  That is a REALLY long cape.  And... 

c)  The filmmakers really want to you to know this is a darker, more action-packed Superman movie; not a plodding, character driven film.  In other words, it's not Superman Returns (which I liked a lot by the way).  

What do you think?

Deleted Opening Scene From Superman Returns

I'm generally not a fan of special edition movies with deleted scenes plugged in.  The Lord of the Rings had some cool scenes that were added to its extended editions. Fanboys loved them, but the added cuts just made the movies longer and clunkier without really adding much the films themselves.  In the case of Superman Returns, this deleted opening sequence adds a great deal to the movie by giving some needed detail and context to his departure and return to Earth.  It also gives weight to a major plot point that is only afforded passing mention in the rest of the film.

Superman: Braniac

It's been years since I collected comics. Superhero books have become so joyless and dark, they hold little appeal anymore. Sometime in the last twenty years, Marvel and DC quit marketing to kids altogether, focusing instead on the aging fanboys that make up the peer group of the industry's writers and artists.  The tangled continuities and regular reboots that infect the characters and worlds of comic books are enough to keep casual readers away. Which makes it all the more enjoyable to find Superman: Braniac.

In my view, Superman is rarely done well, but writer Geoff Johns and penciler Gary Frank form a creative marriage that serves the Man of Steel well.  As the title suggests, the story centers around the return of Braniac who sends his probes around the universe looking for civilized planets to steal knowledge from and promptly destroy, but only after shrinking and abducting a city from each one to keep as a specimen.  As it turns out, these robotic probes are what Superman has been fighting all these years, not the real Braniac.  One such robot comes to Earth.  Superman promptly dispatches it, but not before the probe analyzes the Kryptonian's blood and sends the information to the real Braniac.  Turns out, Braniac doesn't like the idea of someone out there sharing Kryptonian culture and science, which he believes now belongs soley to him.  So naturally, Superman must be eliminated.  Fearing Braniac's probes will destroy other planets, Superman goes searching the galaxy for the creature. Only problem, Braniac captures him and sends another probe to destroy the Earth.

The narrative is intriguing and moves quickly.  Johns is one the few guys who seems to have a solid grasp on the Superman mythos.  He has respect for the character, and it shows here.  Superman and his world are recognizable, and casual readers will have no problem jumping into the story.  The Braniac portrayed here is sort of a technological boogeyman who terrorizes the galaxy.  He is genuinely creepy, somewhat reminiscent of the Borg in Star Trek.  My only quibble with the story was a less than epic feel given what was at stake with the plot.  I think there was room to go farther with the story and characters.

The visuals are supplied by former Hulk artist Gary Frank, and it's his best work yet. Frank was born to draw Superman.  His art has a clean, clear quality to it, despite fine details.  He also does what few artists can, which is to give every character his or her own unique face.  None better than Superman himself who Frank renders in a near perfect likeness to Christopher Reeve.  Frank fails in only one area.  The layout, particularly the fight scenes between Superman and Braniac, is at times boring and uninspired.  This hurts the dramatic weight of a story that wasn't very deep to begin with.  All said however, Superman: Braniac is a satisfying read, and one of the better Superman stories.

Superman Returns

Well, here's the new Superman trailer.

It looks pretty intruiging, but I liked the teaser trailer better.

Based on the response when I posted the teaser trailer before, I represent the minority of my friends who are excited about this movie. Some have said that Superman just isn't that interesting. Others have that superhero movies are getting to be old hat. Personally, I think a Superman movie can be very compelling because it deals with questions of how one can be good in a world that is evil. If the movie were being made by Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay, I wouldn't bother, but since Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X-Men, X2) is in the director's chair, there's reason to be excited. He's a fan of the original and wants to tell a good story. Besides, how good will Kevin Spacey be as Lex Luthor?

And while I agree that Superman has rarely been done well in comics, the first two movies were arguably the best superhero movies to date. Yes, the genre has been over-done as of late, with good and bad results, but I'm ready for one more good one - especially if its Superman.

What happened to Comic Books?

I started collecting comics in about the 8th or 9th grade. Recently I was reminded how far things have changed for the worse when I picked up the newest issue of Superman (#212) at the bookstore. Superman has always been one of my favorites and even though I don't collect anymore, I still look for stuff I may enjoy. In this recent run of Superman, one of my favorite artists, Jim Lee, was drawing the book so I thought I'd take a look. What begins with Superman taking Lois Lane in his arms and flying off, ends with Mrs. Lane wrapped only in our hero's cape which barely covers and in some places accentuates her nude form. In the following panel she says to him, "Incredible. Just as mind-numbingly incredible as the first time." Then she looks over her shoulder with a sexy smirk and tells him "You really are something of a man of steel aren't you?" To which our hero cleverly remarks, "Glad you noticed."

Are you kidding me?

Thank you DC comics. You finally ruined comics. You finally ruined the last GOOD superhero. You corrupted Superman by turning his comic into a thinly veiled harlequin romance. Look, I'm not naive. I realize comics have become more gritty, sexier, with a bent towards realism, but why do I need to know about Superman's sex life?  Is this why people read his comic?  To watch the Last Son of Krypton get busy with Lois Lane and engage in silly pillow talk?  Nevermind that it does not even make the slightest attempt to be ambigious should a younger reader pick it up.

Maybe I am naive.

In the late 70s and early 80s comics began to shift toward a more realistic product. This was done sporadically with certain characters in certain comics. Writers and artists who loved the characters as kids wanted to make their heroes accessbile to a modern audience and bring the stories up to date. I can remember one of the major shifts in the early nineties when many of the top artists left Marvel Comics and founded their own company, Image Comics. I remember at this time comics were starting to be more violent, outfits became tighter and skimpier, breasts got larger, but there were still some standards. The vast majority would still be appropriate for all age groups.

Since then, comics continue to be increasingly vulgar, violent, and sexualized. In a medium that was originally intended to tell fantastic/supernatural stories of good and evil to kids, the current product is completely inappropriate for kids.

And it goes beyond sex and violence. Writers and artists now seek to use comics as a vessel to relay their politics. Back in the 60s, Stan Lee created the X-men. The appeal of the X-men is that they were different, shunned and even hated by society. Many kids at one point or another could relate to X-men for this reason. Communicating values in story telling one thing. Politics is quite another.

In 2003, Marvel restarted the Captain America series. It began with a post 9/11 story called The New Deal. In it Captain America is faced with the new threat of global terrorism. OK fine. I'm okay with seeing Cap putting the hammer down on some Islamo-Fascists the same way he did the Nazis in WWII. The story is shameful. Captain America finds himself trying to explain America's role in causing the 9/11 attacks. So now, readers are at the mercy of writers who use one the most beloved comic book characters as a platform to spout their leftist, anti-american politics.

I know comics have been marketed toward adults for a long time, but my question is at what point did comics stop marketing to kids altogether?

Batman and Wolverine always had room to be grittier and darker. But not Superman and Captain America. They're the boy scouts! Their appeal lies in their determination to stay true to their values.

Marvel and DC comics should be ashamed of themselves. Not only have they disregarded a sense of deceny in content and marketing, but they have fundamentally changed the character of the heroes that made them beloved by the public.