superboyprime: (Default)
[personal profile] superboyprime posting in [community profile] scans_daily
DC's Retro-Active project continues, bringing us new stories from DC's writers and artists of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, a.k.a. before the company was ruined by Dan DiDio and the cronies puckering up to his ass.

This week, the Retro-Active issue for Superman in the 70s came out, from the creative team of Marty Pasko, Eduardo Barreto, and Christian Duce.
















Also, on a somewhat related note, a while back, Mr. Pasko wrote online about what he and the other Superman writers' approach to the Lois/Superman relationship was back in the 70s. It's an interesting and somewhat surprising read:

And just in case you want to know what the Bronze Age writers were thinking: as one, I can tell you we thought that, in the comics, Kal-El and Lois first had sex as CLARK and Lois (some fans have accurately described the "Boeuf Bourguignon" gag runner as a metaphor for spending the night together). Just before I left the SUPERMAN title, I did a protracted sequence in which the adult Lana Lang returned to Metropolis, and her overly aggressive chasing after Superman forced the Man of Steel to frankly declare his love for Lois. (I revisit a little bit of that in the upcoming '70s Retro-Active one-shot.) By that point, we were all operating on the assumption they were sleeping together routinely.

Len Wein took the continuity in a different direction, but Julie Schwartz and I had planned to have Superman propose and see how long we could play out an engagement. (You might recall he'd already proposed as Clark and she had turned him down.) We figured, why not? By 1981, Superman II had very unambiguously showed Superman and Lois in bed together, so it seemed kind of silly to be too coy about their sexual history in the comics (within the bounds of being family-friendly, that is).

But for God's sake, can we stop talking about "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" or the mechanics of intercourse between Superman and Wonder Woman? Larry Niven was making a -- sorry -- somewhat puerile joke. And I'd have to agree with the suggestion that anyone over the age of 14 who spent any serious time fantasizing about the sex lives of comic book characters -- that is, who wasn't getting paid to do so (like, say, a writer) -- could probably use some, uhm, horizon-broadening.

Whether it matters if they're married or just dating at this point is probably moot. Each is a viable strategy, and given the continuity's ability to endlessly morph and stunt and reset itself ad infinitum, we will probably see them go back and forth between the two states, on movie, TV, computer and iPhone screens (though probably not so much on printed pages), many more times in the decades to come.

There are really only two things you need to know about Superman and Lois:

1. Whatever happens to them will be whatever WB's filmmakers, in consultation with Diane Nelson, Dan DiDio, Jim Lee, Geoff Johns, et. al., and any other stakeholders as protracted litigation might create, deem is most marketable and best for the continued, healthy exploitation of the franchise; and
2. It probably won't be permanent.


He gave some further clarification later on:

I made a comment elsewhere on this board that those of us who were writing the character in the '70s thought that they were, but my point has apparently been misunderstood. What I was trying to say was that thinking about these characters in sexual terms was not generally done by comic book writers then, because the presumption was that the readership comprised kids exclusively. So most male comic book characters had about as much testosterone as Howdy Doody.

And whether it really was true or not that only prepubescent kids read comics, the general public and the news media certainly thought so, so any mere hint at sexuality -- as opposed to "love" or "romance" -- would be bad for business, especially if the Comics Code failed to catch it. If you can't believe how "repressed" the era was, try to remember that on TV in that day, married couples slept in twin beds with an endtable between them, and that taboo didn't fall away until the mid-1970s (on shows like McMillan and Wife).

But thinking about the Lois & Superman (or, more accurately, Lois & Clark) relationship in those terms -- though not necessarily writing it that way explicitly -- was something the Superman writers in particular were forced to do. That's because by 1976, it had become common knowledge around the DC offices that the Christopher Reeve movie would be a bit more explicit about Superman's sexuality than the Code would ever allow the comics to be. There was a growing sense that, even though Clark wasn't going to be returned to the Daily Planet, nor would there be any other wholesale changes in continuity to conform to the films, it would be a bad move to look too out of step with the their tone and style (which is one of the reasons the Superman material remained so whimsical for so long in the Bronze Age, well after everything else was becoming so relentlessly and tiresomely grim).

Looking back at Golden and Silver Age Supes, however, and citing panels or scenes that supposedly imply sex between Lois and Clark (leaving aside Imaginary Stories in which they were married with children, of course) is a waste of time. The further back you go, the stronger and more inviolate the sex taboo.

The Lois Lane played on TV by Coates and Neill was clearly an asexual virgin, and the George Reeves TV show is the best indicator of the traditional DC thinking about the relationship. That show is the utter embodiment of the image DC wanted to put forth because, unlike the Adam West Batman show in the following decade, Adventures of Superman was produced by DC itself and the company exerted total creative control over it (something it could not do on Batman because of ABC and 20th Century-Fox).

Prior to the '70s, only bored artists (or bootleg "Tijuana Bibles") ever spoke about the characters in sexual terms, like all the jokes Carmine Infantino used to make about what was going on between Adam Strange and Alanna.

Date: 2011-07-30 05:56 am (UTC)
q99: (Default)
From: [personal profile] q99
Next-to-the last page is missing, but otherwise pretty cool :)

Mod Note

Date: 2011-07-30 01:41 pm (UTC)
benicio127: (Mod mask!)
From: [personal profile] benicio127
This post is currently being discussed by the mod team.

Date: 2011-07-30 02:07 pm (UTC)
thatnickguy: Oreo-lovin' Martian (Default)
From: [personal profile] thatnickguy
I prefer the term "Dildio". =D

Date: 2011-07-30 02:27 pm (UTC)
simiansyndicate: (Default)
From: [personal profile] simiansyndicate
You know what really gets me about this? Look at the art here. It's pretty damn great, and goes to show that these creators still have what it takes...so why not get one or two of the old guard on a book once in a while? Hell, this post alone makes me want to see more of Eduardo Barreto's work, not only here but on some Marvel titles.

Date: 2011-07-30 08:00 pm (UTC)
cleome45: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
Agreed.

This would be the up side to remembering how they made comics in the past, as opposed to so much of the unfortunate baggage that TPTB seem to hold up as positive when they talk about the Silver Age, et al. :/

Date: 2011-07-30 02:39 pm (UTC)
golden_orange: trust me, i'm wearing a vegetable. (Default)
From: [personal profile] golden_orange
So, just to clarify, these are stories done in the style of what was being done in the seventies? Because this looks pretty cool.

And to be honest, I've always had a hankering to check out some 1970s-1980s Marvel and DC stuff, but haven't really known where to start. Dunno why, but that era's always just had some kind of appeal to me.

Date: 2011-07-30 07:30 pm (UTC)
shanejayell: (Default)
From: [personal profile] shanejayell
Well, each is in the style of a different era, I think. Check the date on the covers....

Mod Note: First Warning

Date: 2011-07-30 06:33 pm (UTC)
benicio127: (Mod mask!)
From: [personal profile] benicio127
[personal profile] superboyprime, regarding your comment, "Dan DiDiot and the cronies sucking his cock," this is your FIRST OFFICIAL WARNING. Please note that if you receive two further warnings you will lose the ability to post on this community.
This is due to the fact that the sentence contains both creator bashing and homophobic insults, which are both against the rules and ethos of Scans_Daily.

Please reacquaint yourself with the rules of conduct. We also ask that you edit this post within the next six hours.

Re: Mod Note: First Warning

Date: 2011-07-30 07:19 pm (UTC)
blue_bolt: (Default)
From: [personal profile] blue_bolt
I'm not trying to be overly technical here, but "cronies" is a actually a gender neutral term. I fully agree that creator bashing is not acceptable, but I don't see how the author of this post is being homophobic.

P.S: Please don't get angry at me for being pedantic.

Not A Mod Here

Date: 2011-07-30 07:31 pm (UTC)
cleome45: (fire1)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
"Cock sucking" used in this context sure seems homophobic (and sexist) to me. It's using a sexual act in the context of an insult, isn't it?

Is there something wrong with using a term like "fawning" or even "kissing up"? Y'know, one that gets the point across without quite so much baggage attached?

No, I'm not a fan of how Didio's running the place, either. But that's not the point here.

Re: Mod Note: First Warning

Date: 2011-07-30 07:40 pm (UTC)
venatosapiens: griffin vulture (Default)
From: [personal profile] venatosapiens
I think the homophobia comes not from "cronies" but "sucking his cock." That is decidedly not gender neutral. Rather specific, in fact. :P

Re: Mod Note: First Warning

Date: 2011-07-30 07:55 pm (UTC)
benicio127: (Mod mask!)
From: [personal profile] benicio127
The trouble is not with the word ("cronies") which the poster chose to describe the professionals who answer to Didio - the problem is that they chose to use a sexual metaphor to describe the corporate culture and the fact that all or most of the professionals in question are male. "Sucking up" to someone is widely accepted to be a derogatory way of describing somebody's behaviour towards an authority figure - sucking, specifically, COCK, is placing oral sex (in this case, specifically, homosexual oral sex) in a derogatory context; the OP is using sexualisation and homosexualisation as a way of defaming people whose work they doesn't like. We hope this explanation is useful to you.

Additionally, please note that saying "please don't get angry with me" is actually fairly useless. If you ask a respectful question, people will either understand that your honest request for explanation is not worth their anger or they will be angry anyway - as is their right - and resent your attempt to placate them and invalidate their reaction to your comment.

In this case, we aren'tangry - this is just a word to the wise.

Re: Mod Note: First Warning

Date: 2011-07-31 12:39 am (UTC)
benicio127: (Mod mask!)
From: [personal profile] benicio127
Aside from the homophobic connotations remaining regardless of who specifically the insult is used against, denigrating women for "sucking cock" isn't okay, either.

Re: Mod Note: First Warning

Date: 2011-07-30 11:49 pm (UTC)
benicio127: (Mod mask!)
From: [personal profile] benicio127
[personal profile] superboyprime, while I appreciate that you have changed a part of the inappropriate comment I pointed out, it still contains creator bashing.

Referring to Dan DiDio as "Dan DiDiot" is in part creator bashing by referring to him as an idiot. While you and many others here may not like his policies, tactics or the way that he as a co-publisher runs DC, insults, personal attacks and creator bashing are not allowed at Scans Daily under our rules and ethos. It is possible to criticize without reverting to name-calling. Please revise this to spell his name correctly.

Date: 2011-07-30 07:29 pm (UTC)
shanejayell: (Question)
From: [personal profile] shanejayell
*reads added notes*

The problem with ignoring the whole sex issues is that modern readers are at least mid to late teens and have the internet. They KNOW ABOUT SEX. And some are science nerds too. So I'm sorry, they are gonna write in and ask certain questions.

(I tend to ignore the sillier bits of Man of Steel, Women of Kleenex, but it does raise some realistic points. Like the odds of Superman killing some poor woman in sex...)

Date: 2011-07-30 07:33 pm (UTC)
cleome45: (fire1)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
I'm not the first person to point this out here, but why get realistic about how super-powers affect somebody's sex life when so much else about super-powers in their daily life is so blatantly UN-realistic?

Date: 2011-07-30 07:36 pm (UTC)
shanejayell: (Default)
From: [personal profile] shanejayell
*shrug* Yet DC tries to deal with the characters powers with pseudo-scientific explanations and internal logic. It's kinda like DC wants it both ways...

Date: 2011-07-30 07:41 pm (UTC)
cleome45: (lightning1)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
Yeah, but that's the point: it's pseudo science, not the real thing. It can just as easily be used to explain why safe cross-species sex is possible, not impossible. (Some fanfic writers, for instance, have dealt with the whole "Kleenex" issue by saying, "Oh, just put on your very low-powered Kryptonite ring or condom or whatever and let's get busy!")

I often wonder what would happen if we suddenly had to apply the "Kleenex" principle across the board? Do telepaths accidentally fry their non-powered partners' brains during sex? Do characters who can shoot energy blasts accidentally do the same to their non-powered partners' physical forms?

Unless I'm visiting a kink meme somewhere, that's usually I door I personally prefer to leave closed. [shrug]

Date: 2011-07-31 05:32 am (UTC)
bariman: by perletwo (Default)
From: [personal profile] bariman
I figure if Superman can pull off amazing feats of muscular control during super-fights, he can handle not hurting someone during considerably less-stressful sex. Alternately, cowgirl.

Date: 2011-07-31 01:59 am (UTC)
terabient: A girl looks up at a glowing machine (DC: Clark Kent - frown)
From: [personal profile] terabient
I find the last panel inexplicably hilarious.

The Superman sex talk reminds me that the next part of Superman: Earth One is supposed to focus on uh, the mechanics of superpowered sex. I wonder why there seems to be this sudden increase of interest in what's frankly the boring parts of superhero sexytimes.

Date: 2011-08-01 06:03 am (UTC)
khaosworks: (Default)
From: [personal profile] khaosworks
They should have gotten Elliot S! Maggin to do the writing chores on this one.

Profile

scans_daily: (Default)
Scans Daily

Extras

Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, [community profile] scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.

Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, [community profile] scans_daily is probably not for you.

Please read the community ethos and rules before posting or commenting.

April 2019

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 2627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags