Finally, I catch up with the 'Superboy-Prime' saga...my thoughts
By
Antigonus,
Posted on: 2010-12-23 08:49 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
Quote:
You mean like how Kal-L sees that the whole universe is going to hell in a hand basket because of a choice he made and can fix...and he can be indeed looked at selfish as he should still see he has a duty to New Earth being that it is an amalgamation of his earth and 4 others...but instead he selfishly seeks out "eternal peace" with lois...|
Originally Posted by SuperOz
That argument and example you provide makes no sense...in the scenario you've presented, the characters have changed time from what they know, as characters, that will have flow-on effects and consequences. They are aware of the necessity to restore the timestream to its original state because of the damage they see its done to everyone. Bruce acts selfishly to save his parents, but then realises that the act is not only wrong, but has terrible consequences.
|
Quote:
| The act they take then is selfless and heroic. |
Like you know, leaving eternal peace to save the world from it's heroes which is obvious if they could see the future or present...His primary motivation is not so save lois, though that might have tipped it, but rather to save the earth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
You mean like how Kal-L sees that the whole universe is going to hell in a hand basket because of a choice he made and can fix...and he can be indeed looked at selfish as he should still see he has a duty to New Earth being that it is an amalgamation of his earth and 4 others...but instead he selfishly seeks out "eternal peace" with lois...
Like you know, leaving eternal peace to save the world from it's heroes which is obvious if they could see the future or present...His primary motivation is not so save lois, though that might have tipped it, but rather to save the earth. |
I'm sorry, but I've really been civil all through this and I don't see the need for the tone or change of language.
I've already said, several times, that this is all about characterisation and writing. Kal-L's initial choice to be with Lois in the original Crisis is all about the heroic ideal: alone with Alex and Prime, these three have willingly sacrificed themselves to save the entire multiverse. The fact that Alex then manifests first Lois and then a means where they can enter 'Heaven' is essentially the resolution of those four characters' stories and if you will the payoff for that self-sacrifice. The events of IC are certainly not those of Kal-L's making and I'm having trouble where you draw that assumption from, frankly. His only choice at the end of the original Crisis is to go with Lois, Prime, and Alex. That choice is made after defeating the Anti-Monitor personally and accepting that the portal back to Earth-1 has closed, and that he would give up his life to save the multiverse. That does not logically follow to the events of Infinite Crisis, either through character or story logic.
How this compares to a 'duty' as you phrase it where as I said he willingly and knowingly is going to take lives is something I don't believe you've adequately demonstrated. I'm happy to be proved wrong.
...your second point contradicts your first. You're arguing now his primary motivation is not to save Lois? Is he not directly quoted as saying this is his goal? I'm really confused here to be honest.
And I note you still haven't answered any of my points from prior posts for some reason. I'm going to assume you've chosen not to and for what reason I can't obviously gauge. I've responded to your posts clearly, directly and opened myself to refutation but you only seem to pick up on points that you feel you can then create another, possibly contradictory argument from. I apologise if that's not the case, but it's certainly made it hard on my end to maintain a coherent discussion.
I'm happy to agree to disagree with you here, even though I'm disappointed that you don't seem to want to discuss my prior points.
S.
Part of Sister Flame's Clickey-Clack Posse
Oz, I think the problem is you didn't get the information that was in the Infinite Crisis Special, which basically shows what happens to Alex, Prime, Superman, and Lois throughout their time in the "paradise." It basically delves into all their motivations and such going into Infinite Crisis.
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
Not to nitpick, but kind of nitpicking: Hypertime is entirely the brainchild/fault of Mark Waid and Grant Morrison.
If you like Johns, pick up his JSA run.
Quote:
Kole was the name of the Titan that was created specifically to die in Crisis.|
Originally Posted by SuperOz
I agree with you except that I understand Prime was created before the Crisis..perhaps a year. I don't know his genesis in that regard, but I do know one of the Teen Titans at the time was designed to be killed off as Wolfman and Perez didn't want to lose one of their core characters. I also think Prime was symbolic of the memory of the old Superboy stories. That's just speculation on my part, however.
|
With DC wanting to do away with *all* of the multiple Earths, the tricky question was what to do about Earth-Prime, which was supposed to be *our* Earth. Superboy-Prime was created to root Earth-Prime as a fictional Earth just as much as Earth-2, Earth-S, etc. He was introduced in DC Comics Presents #87, almost simultaneously with his inclusion in Crisis.
BTW, if you like the idea of Superboy-Prime, but don't care for Infinite Crisis, you should read Kurt Busiek's "Superman: Secret Identity" (pencils by Stuart Immonen), which is a stand-alone, non-canon take on the idea of Superboy-Prime without Crisis. It's one of my favorite Superman stories ever.
BTW, regarding Kal-L's personality change -- my take is that with reality shifting and changing from out from under him while he stands alone outside of the change but able to observe it causes the idea that the resulting "post-Crisis" universe is not *real*. And if he operates with the knowledge that his actions will essentially be "retconned" if he is successful, then why not do anything and everything to ensure that desired end.
By the end of Infinite Crisis through, Kal-L is convinced of the essential "realness" of post-Crisis/New Earth, thanks to the intervention of pre-Crisis Wonder Woman. Superboy-Prime never does, because he doesn't have that connection, that backstory. He's an empty vessel. Johns' meta-commentary either makes this all work for you or it doesn't.
Global name: @k26dp
Quote:
Oh, I'm aware of it....but I'm still going to stand by my argument that I don't believe their motivations and characterisations are well-written.|
Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang
Oz, I think the problem is you didn't get the information that was in the Infinite Crisis Special, which basically shows what happens to Alex, Prime, Superman, and Lois throughout their time in the "paradise." It basically delves into all their motivations and such going into Infinite Crisis.
|
S.
Part of Sister Flame's Clickey-Clack Posse
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ThePill
Not to nitpick, but kind of nitpicking: Hypertime is entirely the brainchild/fault of Mark Waid and Grant Morrison.
|
Ah, Morrison. He of the 'WTF?' school of writing....
But Hypertime is awful....S.
Part of Sister Flame's Clickey-Clack Posse
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RosaQuartz
Kole was the name of the Titan that was created specifically to die in Crisis.
With DC wanting to do away with *all* of the multiple Earths, the tricky question was what to do about Earth-Prime, which was supposed to be *our* Earth. Superboy-Prime was created to root Earth-Prime as a fictional Earth just as much as Earth-2, Earth-S, etc. He was introduced in DC Comics Presents #87, almost simultaneously with his inclusion in Crisis. BTW, if you like the idea of Superboy-Prime, but don't care for Infinite Crisis, you should read Kurt Busiek's "Superman: Secret Identity" (pencils by Stuart Immonen), which is a stand-alone, non-canon take on the idea of Superboy-Prime without Crisis. It's one of my favorite Superman stories ever. BTW, regarding Kal-L's personality change -- my take is that with reality shifting and changing from out from under him while he stands alone outside of the change but able to observe it causes the idea that the resulting "post-Crisis" universe is not *real*. And if he operates with the knowledge that his actions will essentially be "retconned" if he is successful, then why not do anything and everything to ensure that desired end. By the end of Infinite Crisis through, Kal-L is convinced of the essential "realness" of post-Crisis/New Earth, thanks to the intervention of pre-Crisis Wonder Woman. Superboy-Prime never does, because he doesn't have that connection, that backstory. He's an empty vessel. Johns' meta-commentary either makes this all work for you or it doesn't. |
I don't mind that Prime was introduced in the way he was; my understanding that because Byrne wanted to do his reboot of the Superman continuity and do away with the Superboy part of the mythos, they wanted to keep a Superboy alive in some format to have DC's acknolwedgement of the 'classic Superman' (Golden Age) and the portion of the former Superman continuity that a lot of readers had spent their adult lives reading.
As for Kal-L's reasoning and actions, I keep coming back to the writing and characterisation. I don't think I ever once encountered his character acting without forethought or concern for other living beings. Now, depending on how Kal-L comes to the conclusions you've stated is crucial. To me, the notion of any Superman not being aware of or disregarding the consequences of his actions is deeply mischaracterising the character. I don't think because DC effectively removed him from continuity should therefore mean they can write that Superman any way they wish...in fact, they should be acutely aware of the implications any changes to that character mean. If you start effectively changing core elements of his personality, you are then responsible for any and all critiques regarding the consistency of that portrayal. More importantly, you're passing commentary on the character and in turn on all the characters bearing the name and personality traits.
Superman is a thorny question, because you can't easily make comment on his character because it's so firmly entrenched in the broader mainstream consciousness. When or if you bring that into question or commentary, you're on shaky ground. Saying that the current universe isn't real and his actions won't have consequences is also shaky ground, because then you've effectively given yourself a get out of jail free clause for any bad writing you've made. 'Oh, I knew the story was bad, but I knew also that it was going to be retconned so I wrote whatever.' Story actions without consequence come down to wish fulfillment scenarios in my mind.
I don't think Johns' writing in his metatextual way does work because it allows him to overwrite and overrule a character's natural responses. It draws attention to him as a writer and practically begs the question of whether you feel he could address the story without that device. And if so, given that the original Crisis as written by Wolfman was drastically more complicated in terms of the continuity that had to be addressed and he didn't need to make such commentary, why couldn't Johns?
My problem remained and remains that I wind up paying more attention to his commentary than the story, and that's not his job. There are more than enough fanboys, critics, essay writers and so on to say what would be wrong with a comics continuity. It's a writer's job to construct a believable and credible story (even with the automatic suspension of disbelief you must bring to superhero stories) that should attempt to convince you that this happens without resorting to methods that stop being about storytelling.
If the original Crisis was so much more a tough nut to crack (DC at the time had to sort through dozens of characters and worlds and continuities and decide which ones were going to survive), then why did Johns apparently opt out of trying to address just one universe's continuity in the same manner in favor of a writing technique that becomes effectively an opinion piece? The only difference here is that he has the backing of the DC editors.
That's a criticism I level at DC generally, because like Marvel they've really just refused to address their critics and do something outside of an event to say something about the continuity changes (like saying 'oh, this wasn't Jason Todd, it was someone brainwashed into thinking he was, etc.' Ed Brubaker did an exceptional job of believably bringing back Bucky and was applauded for his work, and he needed no meta-event to do so.
The first Crisis I see as a necessary event after fifty years of confusing and contradictory continuity that had never really been addressed or corrected. This latest Crisis, only twenty years later, is largely waving away further continuity errors/changes by the weak story device of 'reality punching'. DC was and should be held to high standards of storytelling, and here I feel they've lowered the bar dramatically.
S.
Part of Sister Flame's Clickey-Clack Posse
Quote:
Well in order to determine if something is well-written it helps to read it. |
Originally Posted by SuperOz
Oh, I'm aware of it....but I'm still going to stand by my argument that I don't believe their motivations and characterisations are well-written.
S. |
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
Reading this topic, I get the impression Super Oz has a bigger issue with the fact DC basically went back and twisted a happy ending send off than anything else. These characters were crapped on in his mind and that irks him as almost some someone dug up and murdered his childhood all over again heh. (Ultimately they were throw away characters the bulk of fans couldn't give a rat's behind about it's merely what they represent that I think is the issue. Given this topic exists I think their commentary was warrented.)
The irony is that's the metacommentary Johns is trying make in the first place. Continuity can be a wonderful thing(it seems to exist best in limited runs handled by a single team or writer that keeps their vision consistent to a predetermined end. ) but the problem is if you write something with an indefinite end (basically until becomes unprofitable.) and all other cooks into the kitchen as books get handed off to other writers all time then things are going have contuinty errors. Problem if continuity gets too big and complex it becomes it's own enemy after awhile. It's hard to remember everything that's happened as there's so many issues and details to cover, and .... comics are ****king weird sometimes. (those links are highly relevant to this topic heh. I thought about the first and saw the second as I was writing all this.)
Ongoing series have the ugly role of trying stay relevant. Change too little you get stagnant; Change too much you alien the fans. It's really a dark art to survive and still maintain fans as you can't make everyone happen. Sometimes characters change due to a natural progress (for example Robin/Dick Grayson becoming Nightwing.) Others because of shockvalue or largely of poor quality story telling. Sometimes the changes spawn from some trend that writers think fans want because something is successful, that means they must want more of that so they superimpose that condition of the rest of the industry as perceived success is sure to follow. (such as the Dark knight returns and watchmen seems to helped kicked off the dark age because grittiness = good not because people like well written stories. Someone will always try use gimmicks in the place of quality in all industries not just comics.)
This problem compounds when older fans become the writers as a adults. As we've seen people think the current version of the character isn't their version of the character. Such as Joe Q wanting make Brand New Day (not the Album by Sting. ) Again with Kevin Smith wanting to litterally crap all over batman's continuity heh. You have this war of old vs new. Mine is better the old way and you better like it. Heroes who don't have serious issues or kill people are boring...bleh.
I guess the sad part is these people are selflish and miss the point of it all. These characters don't belong to any person or generation. Not to their characters or the companies that publish them. Once you let something into world it takes on a life of it's own and people can on their own take on how it's viewed. They belong to everyone, and become whatever they need to be as the legends that live on will be eternally retold. I think there's room for all kinds of different versions of every character that exists. There's some middle ground in all, even if it's rarely found.
Ultimately if something is well written and awesome people will enjoy it regardless of it's origin as quality is universal. Gimmicks are not. That will never change.
- Justice
Lastjustice- lvl 50 defender
Leader of Eternal Vigilance.
- Freedom
Lastjudgment - lvl 50 corruptor
Member of V.A.M.P.
Beware:NERDS ARE THE WORST FANS!!
Lastjustice,
I think I've spent several posts here reiterating that my issue has and has always been the quality and consistency of the writing. I have no real attachment to Alex Luthor, Prime, Kal-L or Lois Lane. I was a teenager when I read Crisis and whilst it meant that some things that I enjoyed were going away forever (for example, I accept Nightwing's origin was fundamentally changed for good reasons, but I did think it hurt the concept and the character later on), I accepted the reasoning of the DC staff at the time that fifty years of continuity was too much baggage for anyone to manage.
My childhood wasn't murdered; in all reality, I read only one comic book (and have) since about 2008, and it's not even DC. Comic books aren't really part of my life anymore and while I'll make a point of going back and reading things like I did with Legion and Infinite Crisis, I'm actually borrowing them from the library rather than pay for them. I think the 'event' miniseries has been done to death by Marvel and DC and the quality suffers.
I don't remotely question that characters are open to be used by any author who is allowed to or is able to use them and reinterpret them if that's their desire. But what I have argued and will continue to argue, are fundamentals of writing. And that is consistency, continuity and coherency. I learned and trained in filmmaking in university, and scriptwriting is probably one of the hardest things I found personally to and it's not totally dissimilar to scripting for comics in terms of the breakdowns and pacing you work with.
I in fact love Nolan's Batman films and am a huge supporter of them, because he did indeed take this iconic character and reinterpreted him, showing us how he would function in the real world. I love anything that is intelligent, well-written, and makes internal consistent sense.
Again, and I can't believe I have to say this: I have problems, which I believe I have detailed and in-depth, with the characterisations and story logic of both Infinite Crisis and Legion of Three Worlds.
That's it. Period. My childhood isn't ruined. I'm not ******** and moaning over this otherwise I WOULD SAY SO and I frankly resent the assumptions that I am. Durakken ignored whole chunks of points when I started raising them (and I was and remain open to straight up debate and discussion) and now you've made presumptions on my viewpoint even though I've clearly stated them.
I dig quality, I dig something awesome. I didn't and don't find Infinite Crisis and Legion of Three Worlds awesome, I didn't find it universally of good quality and I thought it was gimmicky.
S.
Part of Sister Flame's Clickey-Clack Posse
Quote:
Point taken, sir. I haven't been able to find it to read it, and I will happily post any change in opinion should I be able to. I'm opinionated, but I'm not ignorantly opinionated. |
Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang
Well in order to determine if something is well-written it helps to read it.
|
S.
Part of Sister Flame's Clickey-Clack Posse
Quote:
I read them, and did not attempt to discuss them because it is more important to me to find out what your difference in opinion comes down to...where the split between what I think and what you think is.|
Originally Posted by SuperOz
Durakken ignored whole chunks of points when I started raising them (and I was and remain open to straight up debate and discussion)
|
You say that your problem is with consistency and yet you agree at first that Prime is showed to be at least consistent, while Kal-L it seems that you don't like what they did and are trying to come up with arguments for it rather than it really being about those things.
At that point it becomes worthless to try to discuss the point because we are coming from two different points. I don't think what they did with the characters are bad. Nor do I think they is anything important inconsistent, out of character, or that there is lack of quality in the writing.
I can see how the people came to those conclusions and how they could think they were in the right. You are saying you can't, even when showing an example of a similar situation. This to me shows that you just don't like the idea of how the characters were used rather than there is any actual problem with what they did with the characters.
Quote:
And for what it's worth, the special was written by Marv Wolfman, not Geoff Johns. So if you have problems with it being inconsistent with Crisis... well, the irony would be delicious.|
Originally Posted by SuperOz
Point taken, sir. I haven't been able to find it to read it, and I will happily post any change in opinion should I be able to. I'm opinionated, but I'm not ignorantly opinionated.
S. |
Personally, I really don't have a problem with it, but I get why you would. I don't know if it's "bad writing" or "it's not your cup of tea". Maybe somewhere in between. I'm generally a Geoff Johns fan, but don't count Infinite Crisis as one of he best works, though parts are very entertaining.
Global name: @k26dp
Rosa,
I wouldn't find there to be too much irony in that, to be honest. 
I met him and listened to him on a panel earlier this year and he's really become a 'I write what they tell me to' sort of writer. So he's solid enough and all, but he freely admits that he writes for the paycheque rather than for creative expression these days.
I spent some time trying to follow his writing on Nightwing and found that I couldn't stay with him on it. I don't remember all the details of a discussion I had with him over the comic (I seem to recall that I was confused about a particular direction Nightwing had gone in the comic) and he responded by saying that 'this was what the editor told me to do, so I did it'. That was something of a surprise, because I'd previously had an impression of him that suggested he was very passionate about his work, and I thought he would've had at least some opinion on the subject rather than just an acquiesence.
That wasn't lost on me meeting him and George Perez both, and hearing Perez say he's really just out to draw everyone ever in the DC and Marvel universes before he can't draw anymore, but at least George still has immense passion for his work...and you can't entirely blame an artist for what a writer sets in front of them.
Oh, I agree. There are parts I do find entertaining in both Infinite Crisis and Legion, but overall I just didn't buy into what was being presented to me. It could've been a story with completely different characters but it wouldnt've changed my reaction to the story, which is where I've come from with this.
S.
PS I should say I forgot to mention I have read the Busiek story you mentioned and I thought it's probably one of the better 'real world Superman' stories out there too.
Part of Sister Flame's Clickey-Clack Posse
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
I read them, and did not attempt to discuss them because it is more important to me to find out what your difference in opinion comes down to...where the split between what I think and what you think is.
You say that your problem is with consistency and yet you agree at first that Prime is showed to be at least consistent, while Kal-L it seems that you don't like what they did and are trying to come up with arguments for it rather than it really being about those things. At that point it becomes worthless to try to discuss the point because we are coming from two different points. I don't think what they did with the characters are bad. Nor do I think they is anything important inconsistent, out of character, or that there is lack of quality in the writing. I can see how the people came to those conclusions and how they could think they were in the right. You are saying you can't, even when showing an example of a similar situation. This to me shows that you just don't like the idea of how the characters were used rather than there is any actual problem with what they did with the characters. |
Well, I don't think that's an entirely fair assessment considering I rather thought the same things (though from the opposite perspective) about your arguments. I think that's somewhat judgemental, but to each their own.
I'll agree to disagree with you on it and leave it at that. One man's water is another man's wine, after all.
S.
Part of Sister Flame's Clickey-Clack Posse
Quote:
I hope you manage to track it down. It was actually pretty informative, and each of the multiverse survivors were given their own section.
|
Originally Posted by SuperOz
Oh, I'm aware of it....but I'm still going to stand by my argument that I don't believe their motivations and characterisations are well-written.
S. |
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
Quote:
I'll see what I can find...thanks for the info, Foamy. There's an irony not lost on me that I'm very interested in checking out a certain MMO that has a bit to do with DC, and Johns and Wolfman wrote the main story arc and a lot of missions respectively...|
Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang
I hope you manage to track it down. It was actually pretty informative, and each of the multiverse survivors were given their own section.
|
But hey, I'm really wanting just to hear Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill do their thing....S.
Part of Sister Flame's Clickey-Clack Posse
Quote:
You might hate to know that i have an extra magic ticket to wolfman's and Johns' story factory that I'm not sure what to do with at the moment... and they do a great job of loaning their voices to our favorite comic heroes once more.|
Originally Posted by SuperOz
I'll see what I can find...thanks for the info, Foamy. There's an irony not lost on me that I'm very interested in checking out a certain MMO that has a bit to do with DC, and Johns and Wolfman wrote the main story arc and a lot of missions respectively...
But hey, I'm really wanting just to hear Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill do their thing....S. |
And as far as the arguments go I just think that the arguments are coming from a like/dislike point of view and not any real argument, but that's not a bad thing... it's just you can't really convince someone to like or hate something. If the argument was actually that it was inconsistent or bad quality then we could go in and see where either of us are wrong because consistency only means that the character could possibly have gone this way and quality is a matter of technical stuff, such as why LotR to me is a horrendous book that gets way too much praise, because the praise comes from being a good book, and not from being an awesome example of world building. Now on the former I can see that it is possible that they act that way. And I don't think anyone has ever dinged him on bad writing form a technical standpoint... so for you to have a legit argument from one of those points is to explain how it is not possible that those characters could have made those decisions or that the book itself is somehow written badly.
And because of this we go to the base opinion of I do or don't like the story and explain why
For example, in one story, Superman and Batman are sent back in time and are about to witness the Waynes' murder. Bruce stops it and then Superman travels 30+ years into the future and sees that I believe Zod has taken over the Earth which prompts Superman to grab Bruce and go back in time again and stop Batman from stopping the murder.
Superman and Batman literally rewrite time twice because they think it will be better this way or that way. This is exactly the same thing that you are saying that Superman has never done.
It is never "wrong to do" when its you thinking that the universe isn't the right way because it's not your universe, but it's always that the other guy doing it that is the villain.
Kal-L is acting in accordance with his character and in the right when he does what he does. He is only portrayed as villainous because he is acting in opposition to the "heroes" that wish to preserve their universe and not because he acting all evil and mwahahaha I'm going to destroy you.
Okay, now you just seem to be ignoring whole portions of the discussion....but I'll try once more:
That argument and example you provide makes no sense...in the scenario you've presented, the characters have changed time from what they know, as characters, that will have flow-on effects and consequences. They are aware of the necessity to restore the timestream to its original state because of the damage they see its done to everyone. The act they take then is selfless and heroic. Bruce acts selfishly to save his parents, but then realises that the act is not only wrong, but has terrible consequences.
Comparing that to Kal-L, who is willingly and knowingly trying to alter a reality for the sake of one person, is also aware of the consequences (that not only billions will die, but whole realities will be wiped out) and still doesn't care is villainous. He is also in possession of knowledge that Bruce and Kal-El do not have and never could under normal story circumstances. Kal-L not only acts selfishly to save his wife, but he realises it's wrong, knows it has terrible consequences, but does so anyway. It's effectively genocide if he succeeds. It's not only villainous, but it is completely out of character for Kal-L to do.
S.
Part of Sister Flame's Clickey-Clack Posse