Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum MOBILE
Byrne Robotics | The John Byrne Forum Page of 3 Next >>
Topic: Charles Schulz On Superman Post Reply | Post New Topic
Author
Message
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
Posted: 21 July 2017 at 1:19pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

I recently purchased the first volume of PEANUTS: THE COMPLETE COLLECTION. At the back of the book, there's an interview with Charles Schulz, the creator, conducted in 1987. He did touch upon all sorts of comics/genres. Here's what he had to say about Superman:

Superman was destroyed on several levels. In the first place, a comic strip cannot appear in its original form in too many areas because then the tension goes out of it. You cannot have a daily strip going, a Sunday page going, Action Comics going, another Superman comic book going, a movie going. You can't have all these things going because he can't be damaged in one area and be undamaged in another. There are too many things going on at the same time. Now, Superman was great until he began to be able to see through things and fly. Superman shouldn't fly; Superman should jump. So they made a lot of mistakes.

Not entirely sure I agree with all of that.

Is he making a point about over-saturation in his initial point? If so, I understand.

I *think* I understand him saying about something being damaged. I get the idea of a tainted brand. I wonder if there's not an FF comic being published right now due to the negative perceptions from that film that was said to be woeful (I didn't see it).

I don't think it's a bad thing that Superman can see through things - or fly.

Anyone have any views on his words?

EDIT: Clarity.


Edited by Robbie Parry on 21 July 2017 at 1:20pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne

Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132135
Posted: 21 July 2017 at 1:21pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

He's absolutely right.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
Posted: 21 July 2017 at 1:25pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

I hope I'm not missing his point (never hurts to ask if one is unsure), is he referring to Superman having multiple books?

I'm torn between it. In the 90s, I thought adding a fifth title, SUPERMAN: THE MAN OF TOMORROW, was over-saturation, but as a kid, I did enjoy ACTION COMICS, SUPERMAN, DC COMICS PRESENTS, JLA and other adventures. Sometimes I think you can have quality and quantity, although they don't always get that right.

I also would not have been a fan of a Christopher Reeve Superman film without flight. ;-)
Back to Top profile | search
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
Posted: 21 July 2017 at 1:48pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

I agree with most of what he said. I think it's mistake that Superman have so many powers. But I would give him the ability to fly.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne

Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132135
Posted: 21 July 2017 at 2:13pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

Animation gave Superman flight. The animators said he looked like "an anthropomorphic kangaroo" leaping about. But, when we think about it, that's just what Schulz was talking about -- Superman being translated into a venue for which he was not intended.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Stephen Churay
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 25 March 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 8369
Posted: 21 July 2017 at 2:16pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

I think over saturation is part of it. But
when he's discusing being damaged in one
place and not in another, I took it as
trying to manage continuity between all
the different mediums and formats the
character is seen.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Nathan Greno
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 20 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 9154
Posted: 21 July 2017 at 2:23pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Stephen: I think over saturation is part of it. But
when he's discusing being damaged in one
place and not in another, I took it as
trying to manage continuity between all
the different mediums and formats the
character is seen.


---

That's how I read it.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian O'Neill
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 13 November 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 1964
Posted: 21 July 2017 at 4:30pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

That is a good point, however I think Schulz missed a point, in thinking that 'there are too many things going on at the same time'.

Schulz has admitted he paid almost no attention to comic books (as opposed to strips) once he 'outgrew' them in his teens, and this statement would indicate a lack of familiarity with comic characters having a wide-ranging continuity of different writers, titles, etc. 
His point about there being too many titles has been valid in a number of instances(including, at times, Superman). but I would think that Schulz's apparent lack of understanding that Superman can be in more than one comic on sale at the same time,but the stories are not taking place simultaneously, is 'civilian' perspective creeping in...even from a 'non-civilian' like Schulz.(Sort of like someone in one branch of the military having a flawed understanding of how another branch might do things differently?)


Edited by Brian O'Neill on 21 July 2017 at 4:31pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Drew Spence
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 19 February 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 225
Posted: 21 July 2017 at 4:45pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

I've always felt like Superman was being edited by a six-year-old arguing with another six-year-old. And they just one-up each other so that their guy is more powerful than the other....

"Well my guy can read minds"
"Oh yeah, well my guy trained his mind so it can't be read"
"Then...then my guy can fly real high and fast"
"But, but my guy can fly so fast he can go back in time"
"My guy can see your guy all the time, he's got super-eyes"
"yeah, my guy can...can turn super- invisible...and hide everything he owns..and his door is locked with a key that weighs 100 tons...
that only he can lift or find...cause, you know...it's invisible"


Edited by Drew Spence on 21 July 2017 at 4:46pm
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
Posted: 21 July 2017 at 5:02pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

One of the reasons why I never took to Superman was because he was just too powerful. I found very little entertainment in reading a character like that. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
Posted: 21 July 2017 at 5:12pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

For similar reasons, it's why Spectre and Phantom Stranger didn't appeal to me.

I know likes of Flash, Silver Surfer and Dr. Strange are very, very powerful - but the writers seemed to be able to create legitimate threats for them. As did our host with Superman. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Drew Spence
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 19 February 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 225
Posted: 21 July 2017 at 5:13pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

If you go purely by comics, it's Roger Moore verse Sean Connery. As a kid I liked Moore and HATED Connery. As an adult I switched.

I think it's the same for Superman and Batman...
Aside from the extra properties Superman works in the day and Batman, mostly at night. Mostly. [cue Newt].
Back to Top profile | search | www
 

Page of 3 Next >>
  Post Reply | Post New Topic |

Forum Jump

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login

You are currently viewing the MOBILE version of the site.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SITE