Revamping a superhero’s origin isn’t anything new to comics, but Superman: Earth One seems to be particularly alienating to readers. Considering the book came out yesterday, I’ll keep my comments spoiler-free and focus on the reactions to the story mostly. Due to the nature of the subject, I will have to discuss the plot in general terms, so if you’re firmly against even vague ideas of plot, then run and hide. Superman: Earth One is part of DC’s initiative to get new readers using original graphic novels as a starting place. Starting with a new take on Superman’s origin and moving into Batman’s in the next OGN, DC is trying something bold and for that, they should be applauded.
Notice that I left off the word “new” in my previous sentence, because ultimately (pun intended) they’re treading ground that Marvel has already paved previously. While retelling an origin story isn’t a terribly new concept, it’s particularly baffling that DC would choose to do this story now considering that Geoff Johns and Gary Frank had just recently wrapped up Superman: Secret Origin – a story that redefined the character without changing too much.
When J. Michael Straczynski came to DC, it was to work on Superman. He’s currently the writer on the main title and the writer for Earth One as well. He has been lauded as the savior of Superman due to his proclamations of how much he “gets” Superman. So far, JMS doesn’t seem to get Superman within either context of the OGN or the main series.
Now, my feelings on the current run on Superman have been well-documented in my article “Why the world needs a Superman” so I won’t reiterate them here, but in terms of Earth One, the question we have to wonder is: what is it’s function? Secret Origin has told a great story of Superman already to get readers into comic books, so that can’t be it. It seems that the official answer has been to see how well OGNs will sell. Given the success of the Brian Azzarello and Lee Bremejo Joker OGN, it seems relatively obvious that DC wants to capitalize off of a market that is hungry for longer form comics rather than collections of storylines. If for no other reason, then this should be enough to buy this comic – because it’s a great format that is worthy of support.
From a creative standpoint, however, the Earth One experiment is a bit more perplexing.
Earth One is a different take on Superman, but not too terribly different. All of the essential elements are there with only one very minor change, so there is nothing to fear on this front. Considering the Superman Hollywood movie rumors in the past (the infamous flightless, costumeless Superman who fights giant spiders in the failed Kevin Smith script to the invading Kryptonian army and wacky dancing suit of the failed J.J. Abrams project) the changes within Earth One are quite minute.
In fact, one could argue that there aren’t quite enough changes taken when one considers the radical revisions that the Ultimate Universe made to the Marvel mythos. After all, the purpose of the Earth One Project isn’t just to revise the Superman origin story, but to strike out in a new direction for the entire DCU, right?
Apparently not.
Creatively, the purpose of Superman: Earth One wasn’t to create new and wild concepts for the Superman mythology, but to simply update and slightly retweak the story of Kal-El for a new generation. Nothing fancy. Nothing more.
Some have found this to be underwelming. IGN, overly critical demonspawn of the internet, stated that they much preferred the way Smallville retold the origin story even with all of its faults. While I hate to ever admit that I agree with anything that the hate-mongering, paste-eaters at IGN say, I will admit that a few more chances could have been taken. Then again, had JMS gone out into new territory with the book, the IGN death squads of ignorant, puss-filled marmosets would have claimed that he strayed too far, but that’s just speculation on my part (no matter how right I may be).
What seems to be the most divisive point of contention within the OGN is how Clark Kent is portrayed. Quiet and unassuming in his hoodie, Clark Kent mopes about Metropolis and shuffles his feet along as he searches for his place in the world.
Katie Couric has stated her own displeasure with the storyline saying, “he looks like one of the vampires from ‘Twilight.’ A co-publisher at DC Comics tells the New York Post they wanted ‘to tell a story that’s hip, sexy and moody,’ showing a younger hero, struggling with his identity and his place. Is this the Superman we’ve been waiting for?”
And don’t forget my favorite line from her strange comments, “But loyal fans may wonder if you can really trust an angst-ridden hipster to fight for truth, justice and the American way.”
While Katie Coo brings up some excellent points (mostly because I’ve stated them before in my article “Why the world needs a Superman“) I’ve got two problems with her comments.
First, if Katie Coo is so concerned with the portrayal of Superman, then where was she during Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely’s All-Star Superman? If a powerful, loving, compassionate Superman is what we should be clinging to, then the sales of that series should be going through the roof. Fortunately, it is going to be released in an Absolute edition format soon, so maybe she could mention that, but let’s face it, that’s never going to happen.
Perhaps, like a troublesome middle child who is plagued by parental neglect, I should be thankful that someone from the mainstream media has acknowledged the comic book medium, but my rage just builds when I reflect on all of the media coverage that deals with comic books. Has everyone forgotten the hate that Fox news spread about Captain America due to anti-tea party signs in the background of an issue?
I don’t care how sexy Katie Coo’s voice is when you autotune her, she is contributing to this misinformation or rather a misrepresentation to the public that people might actually care about comic books. It’s just so damn funny to me that a journalist of her caliber would be upset with the way Superman is presented as if this is something that affects the every day lives of Americans.
Don’t get me wrong, I really want people to care enough about comic books that they would listen to Katie Coo’s comments and take them serious, but I live in the real world.
My second problem comes from the way Superman: Earth One has been interpreted. Both IGN and Katie Couric are rather harshly judging the content of the book rather than doing the responsible thing and actually trying to interpret what it all means. Katie Coo can be forgiven because it’s not really her job to do literary analysis, but (I had to work that in there somehow). I guess I should forgive IGN as well because they are a bunch of soulless, spineless fanboys without an ounce of critical credibility amongst them, but I just wish someone would have gone beyond a simple review and discussed the work more.
While I may not agree with how JMS presented Superman in his story, I appreciate what he is going for. Non-Superman fans claim that the character isn’t relatable because he is too god-like and too powerful. Well, here he is – the easily relatable Superman in all of his unconfident glory. He is searching for his place in the world and trying to find the good in humanity. He’s lost, confused and in desperate need to learn who he really is. What more could someone who hates Superman really want to get them into the Man of Tomorrow? It even concludes on a note of confusion and uncertainty that leaves the reader thinking, “yeah, that’s probably how things would go.”
So, while it’s certainly not the cheerful, hopeful Superman that is worth looking up to, he is certainly a Superman that seems more of an everyman to readers.
No, there weren’t many risks taken with this project, but it is a success nonetheless, maybe not for all readers everywhere,
Perhaps Comic Book Resources says it best in their review when they began their review with – “I just don’t get DC’s logic here,” my local comic shop guy said as he was ringing me up today, “they’re targeting an audience that doesn’t care about Superman. This is for teenagers and girls. They’re not interested in Superman.”
But isn’t that the point of trying something new? This might not have been the book we all wanted, but it’s a very Young Adult novel attempt at Superman and while it might not have been great, it was at least an attempt at gathering a new audience for the hero and for that, we should applaud DC.
Jesus Christ, I think IGN just burst into geek flames. Nice slaying. But, I wanted to say that you are 100% right that these reviewers should be delving into more than just the affectations of a character. What about the MEAT of the story? Then again, I guess if reviewers did this on a whole, there would be little need for Sequart.
“I guess if reviewers did this on a whole, there would be little need for Sequart.” – Heh. I thought this same thing.
Holy cow, there’s alot of links in this one.
I’m probably missing a large part of the point but my favorite representation of Superman (that I’m aware of, which isn’t nearly all of them) was in the 90s cartoon that aired on WB and later Cartoon Network, when it was its own show and not part of the Justice League. My favorite episode was when Clark Kent is trying to get a story about corruption in a major business so he works late at the Daily Planet, calls Lois to say ‘ha, I solve the mystery’, and on his way to meet up with her his car explodes and goes over a cliff into the ocean.
He’s totally unharmed but his clothes get burned off so he’s just in the Superman costume and there’s a fishing boat right by the cliff so people can see what’s going on. So, Superman stays underwater. By the time he makes it back to his spare “Clark” outfit, news of Clark Kent’s ‘accident’ has his the press wire and he can’t just show up unharmed. So he makes his way back to Kansas to see his folks. I loved the image of Superman, full costume, sitting in his parent’s kitchen, head in his hands, asking for advise from his dad while his mom is making coffee.
Enjoyed the OGN. No, it’s not revolutionary. And yeah, the Clark Kent angst feels a little Twilight. Didn’t enjoy the villains. The overlaying of his parents’ advice with contemporary events was a bit much. Or the convenient plot developments with Lois and Jimmy. But in general, it makes more sense than the conventional origin, which is clunky as hell. And even the convenient plot development had payoff. As a “first movie,” I appreciated how it tied the threads of the origin together — exactly as Hollywood insists upon but comics generally don’t. Complaints aside, I’m surprised how much of it worked. It’s not how I would have done it, but it’s maybe a little closer than what we normally get. And that’s about as good as the Ultimate Universe gets, and I still read those titles. Anyway, enjoyed the review. Thanks for the thoughts.
As an unabashed lover of Marvel’s “Ultimate” titles (until Jeph Loeb was given carte blanche…now only Spidey works for me…), I was excited that DC was going to try their hand at it. Though Straczynski doesn’t always do it for me, he certainly isn’t opposed to risks. Why is it, then, that what should have been a radical departure ends up a bit “been there done that…mostly”? Still, it was enough to keep my interest, but not enough to make me hungry for me, which makes me a bit concerned about the follow-up, “Batman.” Still, it’s Gary Frank on art, so I’m there.