Mega Double Dog Exclusive Preview of Superman: Doomed #1 : The News Stand - Page 2 - The Outhouse

Mega Double Dog Exclusive Preview of Superman: Doomed #1

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

Chessack

Great Scott!!!

by Chessack » Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:20 pm

outsider wrote:"one person"...? Out of 4 people in this thread?

Sorry, as I was writing it I couldn't remember who had said it. I just wanted to make clear that I didn't think the person I quoted (Draco) had said it, because I knew it wasn't him.

Doomsday was certainly a Maguffin device, but it worked for me. Every time Superman tried to take the fight out of Metropolis and away from people, he/it seemed intent on causing as much destruction.

But my question was always why... WHY was Doomsday so intent on causing as much destruction as possible? What's his motivation? The grafted-on history might explain why Doomy wants to beat up Kryptonians (by the way, it wasn't even original... it's plagiarized rather heavily from Paul Kupperberg's Kryptonite Man story in Superman and Supergirl from the early 1980s... they changed it slightly, in ways that made it stupider). But it doesn't explain why Doomy wants to kill us (earthlings).

If you read Peter David's book on how to write comics, which I recently did, David makes this very clear. Everyone knows the motivation of the hero, because the hero is a well-worn character, especially when it's Superman. Nobody is wondering what makes him tick. So to make the story work, to make it believable, you have got to nail the villain's motivation. WHY does Lex Luthor want to kill Superman? WHY does Darkseid want to occupy Earth-2's space with Earth-1? WHY does the Anti-Monitor want to consume all the positive-matter universes? If you don't get that right, the story doesn't work.

And they didn't get it right with Doomsday. They made him essentially a wild berserker, unreasoning, full of rage, with an impossible-to-believe origin, and no good reason for doing what he was doing. A mindless, rampaging brute is not a good villain, except as a peon to serve the true master (e.g., Nom in Superman II, who is referred to by Jor-El as a "mindless aberration", and who served Zod). Now, if Luthor had created Doomsday and used him to kill Superman, then, maybe, OK. Because the real killer is then Luthor, who is intelligent, crafty, and cleverly evil, not mindless, and Doomsday then becomes a weapon (and maybe even, if written cleverly enough, just as much Luthor's victim as Superman). But they didn't do that. The start and end of the story was this repetitive, drawn out, mind-numbing, STUPID battle between a raging, foaming-at-the-mouth imbecile, and Superman. How is that the way for the Man of Steel to go out?

Superman should have been beaten by an evil mastermind. Instead, he was beaten by an empty-headed lummox. It was laughable. And literally, I laughed at it. Yes, I admit it. The story was so stupid, the final blow was so incredibly contrived, idiotic, and badly executed (not to mention horribly drawn) that I cracked up, put the comic-book down, and said, "Wow, that was stupid. What a waste of my money."

Compare to the death of Jason Todd at the hands of guess who -- the Joker. That was epic, and incredibly well-written. Clearly if someone is going to kill a Robin, it needs to be a villain like the Joker. Not some guy Dan Jurgens made up 20 minutes ago who has the IQ of a grizzly bear.

Chessack

Great Scott!!!

Outhouser since: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:07 pm
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4773
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by Chessack » Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:20 pm

outsider wrote:"one person"...? Out of 4 people in this thread?

Sorry, as I was writing it I couldn't remember who had said it. I just wanted to make clear that I didn't think the person I quoted (Draco) had said it, because I knew it wasn't him.

Doomsday was certainly a Maguffin device, but it worked for me. Every time Superman tried to take the fight out of Metropolis and away from people, he/it seemed intent on causing as much destruction.

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

by Draco x » Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:42 am

Chessack wrote:
The biggest problem I had with Doomsday was his utter mindlessness. If Superman is going to be taken out, it should be by someone extremely intelligent, someone who figures out how to kill him, not just someone who mindlessly punches him to death. I could have seen Lex Luthor doing it. Or Darkseid. But Doomsday? He looks stupid, and is even stupider than he looks. (Or at least, he was, as incarnated during the Death of Superman story -- what has happened to him since, I have ignored.) What's his larger goal, his purpose? At least someone like Lex has a plan, something he is trying to accomplish, be it world domination or what have you.

The problem with Doomsday is that he was invented out of whole cloth for the purpose of killing Superman. He had no history in the DCU outside of that (although, of course, a history was grafted on ex-post facto). And the writers, including Dan Jurgens, did not see fit to make a believable character out of him. He's a mockery of what super-villains ought to be.

If Superman was going to die, he should have died intelligently, at the hands of a smart, savvy villain, one with gravitas, history in the DCU, and the respect of the fans (again, someone like Lex Luthor or Darkseid would fit the bill, but there are plenty of others). Not at the hands of "Sir Punch-alot". It didn't help that the final punch, as depicted, didn't even look like it was physically impossible (for TWO offensive punches to land at exactly the same time, as depicted -- bodies don't even move that way, Superman or not).

As for it "revitalizing the DCU" for years as one person said -- maybe, but Doomsday was not the cause of that. ANY story that involved the Death and Rebirth of Superman would have done that, mostly because comic-book fans are apparently suckers with little taste. But people didn't buy the story because of Doomsday -- nobody knew or cared who he was at the time. We all knew he was going to "kill" Superman, because DC told us ahead of time, but I submit that if it had been Bizarro, or Darkseid, or the Joker, or one of any number of DCU villains, it would have sold as well -- indeed, if it had been someone with a real history in the DCU, I suspect the sales would have been even better.

I do agree that Doomsday was basically a plot device when he was created but I won't lie when I was a kid in the 90's that Doomsday was a scary walking force of nature to be contended with. Plus the one good thing about the Death Of Superman was that it gave me Reign Of The Supermen which was arguably my favorite Superman story ever.

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

Outhouser since: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 16021
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by Draco x » Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:42 am

Chessack wrote:
The biggest problem I had with Doomsday was his utter mindlessness. If Superman is going to be taken out, it should be by someone extremely intelligent, someone who figures out how to kill him, not just someone who mindlessly punches him to death. I could have seen Lex Luthor doing it. Or Darkseid. But Doomsday? He looks stupid, and is even stupider than he looks. (Or at least, he was, as incarnated during the Death of Superman story -- what has happened to him since, I have ignored.) What's his larger goal, his purpose? At least someone like Lex has a plan, something he is trying to accomplish, be it world domination or what have you.

The problem with Doomsday is that he was invented out of whole cloth for the purpose of killing Superman. He had no history in the DCU outside of that (although, of course, a history was grafted on ex-post facto). And the writers, including Dan Jurgens, did not see fit to make a believable character out of him. He's a mockery of what super-villains ought to be.

If Superman was going to die, he should have died intelligently, at the hands of a smart, savvy villain, one with gravitas, history in the DCU, and the respect of the fans (again, someone like Lex Luthor or Darkseid would fit the bill, but there are plenty of others). Not at the hands of "Sir Punch-alot". It didn't help that the final punch, as depicted, didn't even look like it was physically impossible (for TWO offensive punches to land at exactly the same time, as depicted -- bodies don't even move that way, Superman or not).

As for it "revitalizing the DCU" for years as one person said -- maybe, but Doomsday was not the cause of that. ANY story that involved the Death and Rebirth of Superman would have done that, mostly because comic-book fans are apparently suckers with little taste. But people didn't buy the story because of Doomsday -- nobody knew or cared who he was at the time. We all knew he was going to "kill" Superman, because DC told us ahead of time, but I submit that if it had been Bizarro, or Darkseid, or the Joker, or one of any number of DCU villains, it would have sold as well -- indeed, if it had been someone with a real history in the DCU, I suspect the sales would have been even better.

Chessack

Great Scott!!!

by Chessack » Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:17 am

Draco x wrote:I do agree that Doomsday was basically a plot device when he was created but I won't lie when I was a kid in the 90's that Doomsday was a scary walking force of nature to be contended with.

But this, in a way, makes my point. Superman was killed by... a force of nature? (And you're correct, that is how Doomsday was, in a sense, portrayed, although even that part of it was executed very badly -- with the mindless fury of a force of nature). They might just as well have Superman be killed by an actual force of nature, like a super-nova or an earthquake. They're equally senseless, and equally unsatisfying as endings for the Man of Steel.

If you could go back in time, to right BEFORE Doomsday appeared, and talk to people, especially non-comics fans but probably even comics fans, and say to them, "DC is going to kill Superman. Guess who does it," you would probably get one of two answers: Luthor, or Zod. Luthor would be picked because he's Superman's long-time arch-enemy. He appears not just in the comics but in TV shows, movies, etc, about Superman. Everyone knows he hates Superman, and we know he knows about Kryptonite. So one would figure that he somehow uses the K to kill Supes. Zod would be picked because he is another Kryptonian, and thus has exactly the same power level as Superman. Plus he is well known from the 1980s movie and the comics, among other things. Zod is an evil version of Superman in a way -- Superman without the morals. So that fits.

What NO ONE would say is, "Oh he should be killed by a mindless force of nature." Not because "no one is expecting it," but because it makes no sense. The greatest hero of all time should be killed by the greatest villain of all time... not by a force of nature.

I understand, you were a kid, and things look different to a kid than they do to an adult. But in a way that actually makes my point -- you have to look at the story with the uncomplicated mind of a child to find it satisfying... or even interesting.

Draco x wrote:Plus the one good thing about the Death Of Superman was that it gave me Reign Of The Supermen which was arguably my favorite Superman story ever.

But as I have said, Reign of the Supermen, which I agree wasn't all that bad (and way better than the death story itself) would have happened regardless of who the killer of Superman was. It would have happened if Zod killed him, or Luthor, or Darkseid, or Lois Lane, or anyone else. The Reign story does not hinge on Doomsday being the guy who takes down Superman. One has nothing to do with the other. It only depends on Superman being pseudo-dead, which would have happened not matter who the villain was.

Chessack

Great Scott!!!

Outhouser since: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:07 pm
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4773
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by Chessack » Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:17 am

Draco x wrote:I do agree that Doomsday was basically a plot device when he was created but I won't lie when I was a kid in the 90's that Doomsday was a scary walking force of nature to be contended with.

Draco x wrote:Plus the one good thing about the Death Of Superman was that it gave me Reign Of The Supermen which was arguably my favorite Superman story ever.

fieldy snuts

Rain Partier

by fieldy snuts » Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:29 pm

When i was a kid in the 4rd grade I also thought Liefeld's work, much like the 90's, was cool.

Then I grew up. I now know better.

fieldy snuts

Rain Partier

Outhouser since: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:34 pm
Location: The 3040
Posts: 21883
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by fieldy snuts » Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:29 pm

When i was a kid in the 4rd grade I also thought Liefeld's work, much like the 90's, was cool.

Then I grew up. I now know better.

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

by Draco x » Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:29 pm

fieldy snuts wrote:When i was a kid in the 4rd grade I also thought Liefeld's work, much like the 90's, was cool.

Then I grew up. I now know better.

Sure you do.........

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

Outhouser since: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 16021
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by Draco x » Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:29 pm

fieldy snuts wrote:When i was a kid in the 4rd grade I also thought Liefeld's work, much like the 90's, was cool.

Then I grew up. I now know better.

Sure you do.........

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

by Draco x » Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:31 pm

Chessack wrote:
But this, in a way, makes my point. Superman was killed by... a force of nature? (And you're correct, that is how Doomsday was, in a sense, portrayed, although even that part of it was executed very badly -- with the mindless fury of a force of nature). They might just as well have Superman be killed by an actual force of nature, like a super-nova or an earthquake. They're equally senseless, and equally unsatisfying as endings for the Man of Steel.

If you could go back in time, to right BEFORE Doomsday appeared, and talk to people, especially non-comics fans but probably even comics fans, and say to them, "DC is going to kill Superman. Guess who does it," you would probably get one of two answers: Luthor, or Zod. Luthor would be picked because he's Superman's long-time arch-enemy. He appears not just in the comics but in TV shows, movies, etc, about Superman. Everyone knows he hates Superman, and we know he knows about Kryptonite. So one would figure that he somehow uses the K to kill Supes. Zod would be picked because he is another Kryptonian, and thus has exactly the same power level as Superman. Plus he is well known from the 1980s movie and the comics, among other things. Zod is an evil version of Superman in a way -- Superman without the morals. So that fits.

What NO ONE would say is, "Oh he should be killed by a mindless force of nature." Not because "no one is expecting it," but because it makes no sense. The greatest hero of all time should be killed by the greatest villain of all time... not by a force of nature.

I understand, you were a kid, and things look different to a kid than they do to an adult. But in a way that actually makes my point -- you have to look at the story with the uncomplicated mind of a child to find it satisfying... or even interesting.

But as I have said, Reign of the Supermen, which I agree wasn't all that bad (and way better than the death story itself) would have happened regardless of who the killer of Superman was. It would have happened if Zod killed him, or Luthor, or Darkseid, or Lois Lane, or anyone else. The Reign story does not hinge on Doomsday being the guy who takes down Superman. One has nothing to do with the other. It only depends on Superman being pseudo-dead, which would have happened not matter who the villain was.

We respectfully agree and disagree and some issues but overall I have no interest in rehashing this concept in the New 52 so far.

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

Outhouser since: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 16021
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by Draco x » Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:31 pm

Chessack wrote:
But this, in a way, makes my point. Superman was killed by... a force of nature? (And you're correct, that is how Doomsday was, in a sense, portrayed, although even that part of it was executed very badly -- with the mindless fury of a force of nature). They might just as well have Superman be killed by an actual force of nature, like a super-nova or an earthquake. They're equally senseless, and equally unsatisfying as endings for the Man of Steel.

If you could go back in time, to right BEFORE Doomsday appeared, and talk to people, especially non-comics fans but probably even comics fans, and say to them, "DC is going to kill Superman. Guess who does it," you would probably get one of two answers: Luthor, or Zod. Luthor would be picked because he's Superman's long-time arch-enemy. He appears not just in the comics but in TV shows, movies, etc, about Superman. Everyone knows he hates Superman, and we know he knows about Kryptonite. So one would figure that he somehow uses the K to kill Supes. Zod would be picked because he is another Kryptonian, and thus has exactly the same power level as Superman. Plus he is well known from the 1980s movie and the comics, among other things. Zod is an evil version of Superman in a way -- Superman without the morals. So that fits.

What NO ONE would say is, "Oh he should be killed by a mindless force of nature." Not because "no one is expecting it," but because it makes no sense. The greatest hero of all time should be killed by the greatest villain of all time... not by a force of nature.

I understand, you were a kid, and things look different to a kid than they do to an adult. But in a way that actually makes my point -- you have to look at the story with the uncomplicated mind of a child to find it satisfying... or even interesting.

But as I have said, Reign of the Supermen, which I agree wasn't all that bad (and way better than the death story itself) would have happened regardless of who the killer of Superman was. It would have happened if Zod killed him, or Luthor, or Darkseid, or Lois Lane, or anyone else. The Reign story does not hinge on Doomsday being the guy who takes down Superman. One has nothing to do with the other. It only depends on Superman being pseudo-dead, which would have happened not matter who the villain was.

We respectfully agree and disagree and some issues but overall I have no interest in rehashing this concept in the New 52 so far.

fieldy snuts

Rain Partier

by fieldy snuts » Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:31 pm

Draco x wrote:
Sure you do.........

You think Doomsday is cool. You lost all credibility when you said that.

fieldy snuts

Rain Partier

Outhouser since: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:34 pm
Location: The 3040
Posts: 21883
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by fieldy snuts » Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:31 pm

Draco x wrote:
Sure you do.........

You think Doomsday is cool. You lost all credibility when you said that.

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

by Draco x » Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:44 pm

fieldy snuts wrote:
You think Doomsday is cool. You lost all credibility when you said that.

And you will parlay this into a 90's comment, right?

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

Outhouser since: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 16021
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by Draco x » Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:44 pm

fieldy snuts wrote:
You think Doomsday is cool. You lost all credibility when you said that.

And you will parlay this into a 90's comment, right?

fieldy snuts

Rain Partier

by fieldy snuts » Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:03 pm

Draco x wrote:
And you will parlay this into a 90's comment, right?

You already did it for me :lol:

fieldy snuts

Rain Partier

Outhouser since: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:34 pm
Location: The 3040
Posts: 21883
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by fieldy snuts » Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:03 pm

Draco x wrote:
And you will parlay this into a 90's comment, right?

You already did it for me :lol:

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

by Draco x » Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:23 pm

fieldy snuts wrote:
You already did it for me

Anything for a fellow 90's fan. LOL.

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

Outhouser since: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 16021
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by Draco x » Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:23 pm

fieldy snuts wrote:
You already did it for me

Anything for a fellow 90's fan. LOL.

Chessack

Great Scott!!!

by Chessack » Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:29 pm

Draco x wrote:We respectfully agree and disagree and some issues but overall I have no interest in rehashing this concept in the New 52 so far.

That is a really interesting way of putting it.

It's the "New" 52, right? So why are they rehashing old concepts? Doesn't that make it the old 52?

Chessack

Great Scott!!!

Outhouser since: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:07 pm
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4773
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by Chessack » Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:29 pm

Draco x wrote:We respectfully agree and disagree and some issues but overall I have no interest in rehashing this concept in the New 52 so far.

That is a really interesting way of putting it.

It's the "New" 52, right? So why are they rehashing old concepts? Doesn't that make it the old 52?

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

by Draco x » Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:56 pm

Chessack wrote:
That is a really interesting way of putting it.

It's the "New" 52, right? So why are they rehashing old concepts? Doesn't that make it the old 52?

Pretty much. Whether or not anyone liked Death Of Superman, it served its purpose in the 90's and don't see the need to revisit it.

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

Outhouser since: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 16021
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by Draco x » Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:56 pm

Chessack wrote:
That is a really interesting way of putting it.

It's the "New" 52, right? So why are they rehashing old concepts? Doesn't that make it the old 52?

Pretty much. Whether or not anyone liked Death Of Superman, it served its purpose in the 90's and don't see the need to revisit it.

Chessack

Great Scott!!!

by Chessack » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:59 am

Draco x wrote:Pretty much. Whether or not anyone liked Death Of Superman, it served its purpose in the 90's and don't see the need to revisit it.

Its apparent purpose this time is to kill, not Superman's body, but people's confidence in him as a hero. If you read the solicit, Superman has to unleash "so much power" to stop him, that people come to fear (and probably eventually hate) Superman. This pattern has been teased and hinted at (or maybe more than that) since the start of the New 52 -- that Superman is going to turn into the mistrusted, misunderstood hero that people run away from instead of applaud. Basically, they seem to have been trying to turn Superman into their version of the X-Men.

Here's a question, though: Didn't Morrison say that the Doomsday stuff had already happened during that "5 years" about which we know so little? And if so, is this now a SECOND appearance of Doomsday? Or are they wiping Morrison's continuity and making this the FIRST appearance? It kind of looks like they are.

The one thing that is pretty well undeniable is that the DCnU is a mess, whatever else they are doing with it. What a stupid way to do a reboot -- to reboot the universe and make it MORE messy than the one you rebooted from. Ugh.

Chessack

Great Scott!!!

Outhouser since: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:07 pm
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4773
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by Chessack » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:59 am

Draco x wrote:Pretty much. Whether or not anyone liked Death Of Superman, it served its purpose in the 90's and don't see the need to revisit it.

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

by Draco x » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:32 pm

Chessack wrote:
Its apparent purpose this time is to kill, not Superman's body, but people's confidence in him as a hero. If you read the solicit, Superman has to unleash "so much power" to stop him, that people come to fear (and probably eventually hate) Superman. This pattern has been teased and hinted at (or maybe more than that) since the start of the New 52 -- that Superman is going to turn into the mistrusted, misunderstood hero that people run away from instead of applaud. Basically, they seem to have been trying to turn Superman into their version of the X-Men.

Here's a question, though: Didn't Morrison say that the Doomsday stuff had already happened during that "5 years" about which we know so little? And if so, is this now a SECOND appearance of Doomsday? Or are they wiping Morrison's continuity and making this the FIRST appearance? It kind of looks like they are.

The one thing that is pretty well undeniable is that the DCnU is a mess, whatever else they are doing with it. What a stupid way to do a reboot -- to reboot the universe and make it MORE messy than the one you rebooted from. Ugh.

And hence one of the main reasons why I have no interest in this story arc. As I said before, the smartest thing they could have done with New Coke 52 was to make it a separate reality but no they chose not to.

Draco x

Regular-Sized Poster

Outhouser since: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 16021
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post

Search Threads
Search Posts

by Draco x » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:32 pm

Chessack wrote:
Its apparent purpose this time is to kill, not Superman's body, but people's confidence in him as a hero. If you read the solicit, Superman has to unleash "so much power" to stop him, that people come to fear (and probably eventually hate) Superman. This pattern has been teased and hinted at (or maybe more than that) since the start of the New 52 -- that Superman is going to turn into the mistrusted, misunderstood hero that people run away from instead of applaud. Basically, they seem to have been trying to turn Superman into their version of the X-Men.

Here's a question, though: Didn't Morrison say that the Doomsday stuff had already happened during that "5 years" about which we know so little? And if so, is this now a SECOND appearance of Doomsday? Or are they wiping Morrison's continuity and making this the FIRST appearance? It kind of looks like they are.

The one thing that is pretty well undeniable is that the DCnU is a mess, whatever else they are doing with it. What a stupid way to do a reboot -- to reboot the universe and make it MORE messy than the one you rebooted from. Ugh.