scans_daily | Interview with Jim Lee and Dan Didio about changes to Superman

sherkahn posting in

Newsarama has the interview, I have the rage.

Make Superman accessible, indeed.

Some excerpts behind the cut, and my counter argument after.

Fair warning: Yes, I am ranting.

"We've made Superman such an iconic figure over the years that we've lost some of the character and the ability to tell stories with that character," said Dan DiDio, co-publisher at DC. "There's so much continuity that's been built on this character. We really wanted to get a Superman that is more accessible to the audience."

If the stories are written well the character will still be able to be understood by newbies and sages of the lore alike. Complicated history can be looked up and treasured in whatever age or format (For the Man who has Everything), or forgotten/ignored (Masters of Doom) if they do not add the value of the myth.

The issue is that Superman tends to set the bar for all other heroes. Not just for himself and in his own universe...

... but among other venues of fiction as well.

(yeah, mega spoilers if you press play, and break out the hanky).

While it is a touching sacrifice, it is the Iron Giant's last words that make bring a lump to the throat. The machine with a soul reaches a moment of grace, and in his desire to be something greater than himself, he chose Superman.

Yes, it's a comedic moment. But in terms of Sloth, the shirt represents the limits that are imposed upon him by nature and nurture can be overcome by the strength of spirit and will. It's at once an rage of defiance against the world and also a testament of faith in heroism.

And that bar has been set because of past adventures that are core to the mythology. Sure, you can reinterpret the history and tell it from a new perspective (the presence of Luthor in Smallville during his youth, the Eradicator, his time around the world before becoming a reporter) but there are some essential core things you do not tamper with, otherwise you ruin the solid foundation they were built on. Things that tarnish the image that cannot be undone in the attempt to "renew" the image.

Much of the history and issues and struggles we have seen Superman go through will be meaningless, as well as the triumphs and joys. All the character development. Much like the argument made by the other big heavy hitter with a red cape at Marvel.

Superman will have to nearly-die at Doomsday's hands: again.
The great city of Kandor will go back into the bottle: again.
Luthor must discover and threaten Clark Kent's secret identity and those he loves: again.
All the past sparring and arguments between Lois and Clark will have to be repeated: again.
Supergirl would have to die at the Crisis: again.

Once these characters are introduced and old conflicts are revisited, everything else will be cheap imitations of things we have seen already.

So, bringing back the scenes with the Iron Giant and Sloth, these particular moments in their lives (and the ones in our own lives) would be hollow and worthless if we use DcnU Superman as icon they are trying to ascend to.

And it didn't need to happen. IMHO, what we are getting is something akin to Superboy Prime than Superman Earth 1/New Earth.

=======
The interview goes further....
=======

The theme of isolation will be further emphasized as Clark Kent has a sense of being an "alien." That sense of alien separation is not only being heightened in Superman and Action Comics, but also in Supergirl, where Clark's cousin will arrive on Earth for the first time.

"That's one of the things we're trying to explore much more," DiDio said. "We've told so many great stories over the years where Superman has embraced his human side and built stories around that side of the characterization. Now we're flipping it around a little bit and really embracing his alien side, so we can understand what it's like to be a man from another world, living amongst men, but not feeling like you're a part of it, but belonging to them all."

That's what other characters are for. Superman sets the measuring bar, other get to measure themselves against him, and thereby offer angle and perspectives (in terms of story). If you move the standard of measure, then other characters are weighed in relation to them feels worthless.

And if you want to tell the story of characters in an alien world, you have Warlord, Wonder Woman, Adam Strange, Hawkman (in both roles of being and alien here and as a man elsewhere).

=======
The interview goes further....
======

DiDio said there was very little dissent among ranks at DC about changing the status of Clark Kent from married to unmarried.

"We actually had, last year, a very large writers meeting about the general direction and tone of the DC Universe, and one of the conversations that was the biggest conversation in the room was about the marriage of Lois and Clark, and it was a much discussed topic," DiDio said. "Most people saw the benefits of making this change, because they saw what the story potential was and how much they could open up their ability to examine the character in a bigger way, once we decided to move in this direction."

And when the Superman writing team got together, DiDio said everyone agreed that the marriage should go. "It gave us more potential for the stories at the starting point. We needed a really strong starting point here, and we felt this was a great way to do it," he said.

And how about the dissent from the people who pay your salary: the fans? How soon will the newbies you are catering to be able to look up past great stories on scans_daily and other sights and begin to compare, for better or worse, to the current DCU?

Page 1 of 2 << [1] [2] >>

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

From:

aaron_bourque

And how about the dissent from the people who pay your salary: the fans?

The fans don't pay comic book creators salary. Not even people who buy single issues or TPBs. It's the store-owners who pay their salary.

That said, this displays a fundamental failure of understanding something very, very simple about Superman. Superman isn't human. But he's not an alien, either. He's the blending, the legacy of Krypton, and the promise of humanity. He's the best of both worlds, the greatest philosophy mankind has to offer with the Kryptonian physiology that allows him to live up to that philosophy. He's the lie that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," the example everyone should live up to. He is escapism in its simplest form. A man who can fly, who can do anything. Even relate to humanity.

And what's so great about being single? Why does that open more story opportunities, than being married? Why would it? Why does it have to be a starting point? People measure their lives by milestones, and getting married is one such milestone. Not being married . . . isn't.

From:

cleome45

(With the caveat that I'm speaking as somebody who can legally marry, not as somebody who has bigoted dipshits deciding for themselves whether I can marry or not: )

Oh, I think you could argue that deciding to not marry is a type of milestone. That is, IRL. We are very, very steered towards pairing (and then having kids) in the real world. Those who choose not to do one or both these things by the time they reach a certain age are often thought of (wrongly) as automatically being wrong in the head and/or somehow "never growing up."

In comics, where nearly all of the heroes are unmarried and have no kids, the same concept doesn't really apply.

Bringing the crack since December 2003

Interview with Jim Lee and Dan Didio about changes to Superman

Links