JulianPerez
Council of Wisdom
 Offline
Posts: 1168
|
 |
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2006, 09:32:41 AM » |
|
Previously, I would have said Kurt Busiek would be the ultimate Superman writer, because of his love of Superman's history and his gift for tragic and pognant characterization would make him a natural for writing a misanthropic guy like Luthor with his definitive Maggin characterization. Also, it would give the opportunity to showcase villains that have been tragically underused. Plus, his characterization of Superman in JLA/AVENGERS was right on the money.
Although I'm not as certain about that as I once was when I said that the only man that can save Superman now is Kurt Busiek.
For one thing, Busiek has stated that he does not believe that Superman should be intelligent. I believe his exact words were something to the effect of "I think he should be problem-solving smart." Superman doesn't have to speak every earth language and memorize every work of great literature, however, this concerned me because one of Superman's defining traits is his ability to solve problems cleverly. Without smarts, he's just a big, flying version of the Incredible Hulk. One of the reasons I admire and like Cary Bates is because he had Superman use his powers in totally different ways; he made even mundane Super-Events like breaking a comet interesting because Superman never did it the same way twice.
Say what you will about SUPERMAN II, the resolution in the Fortress of Solitude was pretty clever, predicting Luthor's own duplicitousness and using it to trick the Phantom Zoners. If Superman beat General Zod and the others by chucking buses at them in the big fight scene, it wouldn't have been as satisfying or interesting.
Then, as I strain my brain back over all the times Busiek has written Superman...he never really showed Superman demonstrating any type of resourcefulness or achievement by using his noodle. JLA/AVENGERS, Superman beat the snot out of something like 90 combined Marvel and DC villains because he had Captain America's shield and Thor's hammer, which was very entertaining and breathtaking but was still just Superman as the biggest tank with the biggest gun on the battlefield. Also, in his JLA arc, Superman and Ultraman just traded blows at one another, chucking each other down volcanoes. It was Batman, Wally West, and John Jones that proposed most of the plans of the team; Superman stood around hitting spaceships against the Void Hound.
Another thing Busiek said that concerns me: "You see, I LIKE some of the things in the Byrne years." Nobody shouted Kurt down because we all had stars in our eyes from the fact he was answering our questions and being a real swell guy despite the fact he could be telling us all to bite his rich, rich keyster the way a lot of Marvel editors do (yes, I AM looking at you, Tom Brevoort). I like some things that happened in the Byrne years too: the robot butler, Maxima, Riot, the setting of Hawaii for Superboy (heck, in TEEN TITANS, Geoff Johns has got me liking Conner Kent too), Jerry Ordway's art, and Superman's "General" moments in Roger Stern's classy PANIC IN THE SKY.
But the whole POINT of a website like SUPERMAN THROUGH THE AGES is this: that Superman in his Byrne reboot is divorced conceptually from Superman's history and characterization; it is the most atypical of all origins. There was a list that SuperMonkey wrote on one occasion saying "In every incarnation but one of Superman..." which included dozens of things very basic to Superman. I'm not saying everything done in this period was worthless, however, if Busiek doesn't realize that there was something anomalous about the Byrne reboot, he doesn't get who Superman is.
I remain optimistic about Busiek and Johns's upcoming ACTION COMICS run. I will buy it. But I amend my earlier enthusiasm about the possibility of Busiek writing Superman.
If you were to ask me right now who would be the best choice to write Superman...I'd say Alan Brennert.
|
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM