Spektre wrote:The word according to Kurosawa. Now if you turn your hymnals to the book of Wonder Woman...
I'm sure you do not understand Wonder Woman, either.
We've been through this so at the expense of being redundant its much easier just to copy and paste.
So let me see if I have your clear and concise way of looking at characters as opposed to the "crazy" method I have.
What defines a character is the creator's wish when they create the character. This is sacrosanct and if anyone messes with this character they can eat shit and die!
Well unless the creator himself changes the character. Then we either ignore the change “Daily Planet, yellow boots, source of powers, progeny, etc.) or accept the changes (no killing, Boy Scout persona, flight, etc.).
Characters do not exist in a vacuum. A character like Superman is not like a mythological character whose stories were passed down through oral traditions. No, Superman was created by people, people who we do know about, and yes, their vision and their development of the character is the most important thing. This applies to all characters-the people who create them, or the people who develop them the most during their developmental period (like Wolverine, created by Len Wein but mostly developed by Chris Clairemont) are the best guide to figuring out what the characters are and what they are about. To understand Superman and to write Superman, any writer should be familiar with Jerry Siegel's work. And yes, just like with ALL writers, there were things that changed, story ideas that were touched on then abandoned (like Xavier's attraction to Jean), but if you understand comics at all, you know that you look at the entire body of work to see where a writer was going with a character. And Siegel's Superman overall, the body of work, paints a very consistent character. It should, as Superman is his character and was a very personal creation. These comics are done by humans, not robots, and humans change. It's just the law of averages, really. Jerry Siegel wrote a Superman for 4 years who killed on very rare occasions and a Superman for 15 years that did not kill. 15 is more than 4. Therefore, in the vast majority of Superman stories written by Jerry Siegel, which is the vast majority of Superman stories written by any writer-Superman did not kill.
It's not that damn hard to do. Unless you think Superman always sucked until John Byrne got ahold of him and threw the baby out with the bathwater, that is.
This gets really confusing since the creator changed the character most every month, so in this case we appeal to authorities in the field to tell us what we read. (ENB, Waid, etc.) but only those experts that aren’t on our no-fly list (Byrne, Snyder, etc.). In these cases the creator’s wishes aren’t sacrosanct , these authorities are.
Claiming Siegel changed Superman most every month is a complete and total lie. Period. And the only reason you are bothered that I appeal to any authority is the authority I appeal to is not you, or the ones you approve of. All I can say is, put Mark Waid, Zack Snyder and John Byrne all in a room and ask them a ton of questions about Superman. I think we all know who will win.
But but but but…hold on sometimes none of this applies because you don’t happen to care about the character. If you don’t care about the character, anything goes. And your consistent methodology doesn’t bother to define these characters.
Actually, it does. But it bothers you because I do not define Superman as being a creation of John Byrne.
Unless hold the phone! All bets are off if the creator, whose wishes are sacrosanct unless they aren’t, gets paid. Show Kurosawa the money, and the whole point is rendered moot.
Lucas willingly sold Star Wars of his own accord, but he does have at least an advisory role. I'll judge the new movies on their own merits, but I also admit that if they seem too far removed from what he did, using elements like flashbacks, etc, then I will certainly divide SW into Lucas and a Post-Lucas designations just like DC is divided into Pre and Post-Crisis.
Yes, yes, I can definitely see where that is much more consistent than, I dunno, reading the books and defining the character based on what you read
Except you do exactly what I do-you pick and choose the books you count as defining the character. You ignore all the work by the characters creator, and you ignore all the books that were the most successful and introduced the most new characters and concepts, and instead you embrace the books by a writer who treated the character and his basic concepts with contempt. So your definition of Superman comes from your personal affection for John Byrne. My definition of Superman comes from the aggregate of Superman stories from 1938-1986. I use the stories to reach conclusions-in most Superman stories, he has a code against killing, consistently from 1942-1986. So since most of the time he didn't kill and had a code against it, Superman does not kill. Law of averages.
See more of the circular argument. You think Superman doesn't kill because you don't want him to kill. And you don't want him to kill because Superman doesn't kill.
You're just chasing your tail with this kind of debate framework.
Again, you are wrong and you fail to understand how I look at things. Superman does not kill because the vast majority of evidence shows he does not.
You leave an important modifier out of these assertions. Let me rephrase them..
"That is looking at the comics that I hand-pick and choose that stay within my self-defined comfort zone and the creators that I also hand-pick and choose. Those stories and creators that don't fall within my rose colored, self defined world view can eat shit."
No, those are the Superman comics that sold the most in terms of overall copies and more comparable, market share. Superman's most successful decade by FAR is the 60's. That's not my opinion, that is fact. Consistently, year in, year out, 6 of the top ten books always Superman Family comics. Lois Lane sold more in the 60's than Spider-Man or Fantastic Four, or even Uncle Scrooge. That is how dominant Superman was in that time. He never dominated sales charts like that before or since. That's not my opinion. That is a fact.
Chasing your tail again Kurosawa. "Superman is this way because that's what the creators wanted." Well it's what the creators who happened to make the character the way you wanted him want him.
Everyone knows that the cut-off date for Superman being done in a manner that was evolved from Siegel and Shuster's original ended with Byrne's MOS when he destroyed their concept as Clark Kent and Superman being different characters and made him the same guy in and out of costume. The claim was Clark was the "real" persona, but in reality Clark and Superman acted almost just alike-the was only one persona. What Byrne did in his revamp that hurt the most is he got rid of Clark Kent. And that is when the talk of Superman being impossible to relate to really exploded and became the way a lot of people felt. At least before you could point to Clark and show how Clark was an expression of Superman's own flaws and fraility. But Byrne's version was a god 24/7.
You don't hear people talk much about Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis Batman. That's because although a lot of details were changed, the Post-Crisis Batman was true to the spirit and the core concepts of the Pre-Crisis version, while the Post-Crisis Superman was not. He was a more modern Batman but he was a clear evolution of Finger and what's-his-name's original.
LOL. It would be akin to me suggesting laissez-faire economies are the correct economy because economists say so. Well yes, Austrian school economist do, but Keynesians would have a heart attack at the same ideas.
Well, that is a completely different debate, but with Superman there is data that completely supports that the 1938-1986 Superman was more successful than the 1987-2002 Superman, and that the 60's Superman was the most successful of all. And that's not because I like the 60's version most (I like the 70's stuff and Maggin's novels a little more), but because it simply WAS the most successful. Again, numbers. Cold, opinionless numbers.
Really, which ethics would that be. The ethics of the character who kills people, or the one who doesn't kill people? You're (sic) "Supermen" were both.
I love Superman because in the vast majority of his stories, he has morals and ethics that appeal to me. And yes, the versions of Superman that I accept have killed and have not killed, but the best version to me-the Silver/Bronze Age version-absolutely did not kill and would renounce his powers if he did. The version you accept killed three unarmed and depowered people because they goaded him into it. He is not just as bad as the MOS version, he is worse. At least the idiot in MOS killed a Zod with his powers.
Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple.