| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 3:48pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
The best Superman stories I've read were in the SHOWCASE PRESENTS DC PRESENTS Superman team-ups. Not only for the Jose Garcia-Lopez art, among others, but how well Superman works in that team-up scenario. And for the ultimate example, seek Garcia-Lopez's SUPERMAN VS WONDER WOMAN, which is incredible to look at.
For my money, the art of Superman comics prior to the mid-1980s, and then Frank Miller's "dumbing down" of the character, twice in two Dark Knight series, created some kind of atrophy about Superman. And in terms of Miller, an excuse to use Superman as a symbol of Government oppression and misguided morality. A wrong-headed interpretation which seemed to embed in an entire generation's mind.
If Superman is "boring," I can only ascribe it to the pre-CRISIS Swan era of art. I really respect people who love Swan, and I've read great Swan stories, but Swan wasn't the kind of dynamic artist Marvel was pumping out, nor Perez or Adams or Byrne. If any character had ever needed a dynamic artist, it was Superman. Jack Kirby should have been the only Superman artist needed on Superman in the 1970s. George Perez and Marv Wolfman should have been on Superman comics all through the 1980s, instead of creating a forgettable Teen Titans book (and sure, I loved NEW TEEN TITANS too, back when, but was it really essential?) Wolfman, Perez, Superman and the Justice League of America. Should have happened.
Then CRISIS came along to show off the Superman of Earth-2 ie "Golden Age" Superman as its star. In short order, E-2 Superman was given more poignancy than E-1 Superman, despite the death of Kara-El. This reinforced the idea Kal-El wasn't very interesting, even on the grandest of stages, even though the two Supermen were the same character. The difference was, E-2 Superman had more emotional resonance, something E-1 Superman had lost. And maybe the whole of the DCU before CRISIS.
John Byrne's Superman only partially solved the problem, as I see it. JB never really unleashed on his Superman books. They were good, workmanlike, and maybe by the "Superman: Executioner!" story, JB was reaching his first real plateau. But he was gone after that, and Roger Stern came in to do bang-up stories with all kinds of excitement and great art by guys like Tom Grummett, Bob McGleod, and the like.
Really, the late-1980s Superman was anything but "boring," but what was really great about that time was ignored in favor of "The Death of Superman." Suddenly everybody and their mother was trying to make Superman more relevant, more "hip." New costumes, new supporting characters, new mullets--nothing worked.
As we speak of Superman now, he's the epitome of corporate interference and creative malfeasance. I'm not surprised creative minds have lost ways to make Superman relevant, since Superman's irreverence has always been at the core of the most important Superman stories. Whether the Kal-El of the '50s-'80s, or the Clark Kent of the mid-late '80s, most of the good Superman stories perceived Kal-El/Clark as removed from modernity. That Superman hails from an advanced civilization, while also being a symbol of 1950s Americana, is why the character was so unique: Superman is emblematic of a fantastic future AND a noble-flawed past.
And even if you don't buy that, getting back to my DC PRESENTS point, Superman is still at his best as a foil for other characters, to make them better or even interesting just in contrast/comparison. As the greatest superhero, Superman will always be the watershed, which is always poignant.
|