where do you get" Not act like Jesus and lord over people like this all-knowing, all benevolent figure." from "he inspires us towards our best, yes."

QUOTE: " . . . claim that JB is the first and only deconstructionist that destroys characters and franchises . . ." Say WHAT?!  Seriously - that's one I hadn't heard. I am literally shaking my head right now thinking about how ridiculous that statement is.

To be fair, a lot of Superman fans fans have been saying that for a long time now, even some that NEVER read Silver Age or JB's Superman.

That's why I don't like Superman fans, BTW.

To Pedro I agree about Superman fans.  Most of them are bone heads who don't know how ridiculous they sound commenting on things they know nothing about.

Gerry, haven't you noticed that in ASS Superman has acted aloof and detached from humanity. How can some one who has no idea what humanity goes through steer us toward the right path? I mean all of our progression has been made through the complexity of the human spirit and the depth of our emotions. ASS Superman doesn't have that much depth to his emotions. Nor is he very complex in terms of his spirit.  He wouldn't understand our ability to understand other people and broker peace between neighboring countries etc.  Nor would understand love or any of those emotions.  It would all be alien to him.

 Which I think the Silver Age fans are nuts because Frank was taking Batman back to his roots and removing the horrid 60's campiness from the comics.  Batman doesn't belong in the sci-fi genre IMHO.  He's a pulp hero like Daredevil, Sherlock Holmes, etc,.

***

I'm not nitpicking you specifically, Michael, since I"ve seen many people make similar comments, so don't take it personally, but that was an example of something that always pops out at me.

Why is Miller always mentioned as having taken the "campiness" out of Batman? Miller did some great Batman work, but didn't O'Neil and Adams and Englehart and Rogers and Colan, etc. work on Batman in the 70s and early 80s, before Miller made his mark?

Obviously something's lost in translation between Morrison and Superman...he even describes how he's discussing a "new take" on Superman. Maybe it's poor choice of words. I don't disagree with a "different" take, but Morrison has to be such a damn rock star about it. As if no one has written Superman stories "quite like" his. And it doesn't gain my confidence that he finds inspiration in some cat in a Superman suit blathering on in Superman persona, but saying nothing particularly profound. Batman doesn't see eye to eye, whatever.

Any time anyone makes a religious connection to Superman, even marginally, it really chaps me. I've been working on a novel centering around a Superman-type character, and by the nature of the work Superman is a "savior" but he never operates within the theatre of religion. He remains humble, as a man, but he's also the only superhero on Earth (everyone else is just a Pulp Hero ie without superpowers), so when failure comes for Superman, it comes in the form of a grand realization that mankind is too dependent on Superman; in fact, Superman might be causing more harm than good.

I think I'd operate from that standpoint with the actual Superman: realizing that his power, or superheroes in general, could be a detriment to a civilization dependent on them, Superman marginalizes his impact so people can solve at least SOME of their own problems. Might be interesting if Superman actually tried convince some other powerful heroes, Lantern or Cap Marvel, the same thing. Maybe that's even where KINGDOM COME was coming from. If you want a different take, then making Superman more aware of himself and his impact on civilization is one way to go.

>>Miller didn't ruin Batman, but everyone trying to copy Year One and Dark
Knight Returns did. Although Morrison is to blame as well, because a lot of
people were aping his "most dangerous man alive" Batman from JLA. <<

Not to forget Morrison's "sequel to Killing Joke", "Arkham Asylum" - which is a major cog in the "Batman is just as crazy as the Joker" machine.

The X-Men just don't look that great in what amounts to almost street clothes with X symbols plastered on them either. The ONLY X-Man I thought looked good that way was Iceman in the trenchcoat and sunglasses. He actually looked (pardon the pun) slick.

Aaron -- I've read O'Neil and Englehart's runs on Batman and both were top notch and brilliant takes on the caped crusader.  The problem is from what I remember at the time is that people still associated Batman with that stupid 60's television show and not what was being written in the 70's and early 80's period.  When Frank Miller came on and did Dark Knight Returns it was like slapping the whole fan boy nation in the face and giving the world a huge wake up call as to what was happening at the time in the industry.  That's why I mentioned Frank Miller because people largely aside from those here haven't read O'Neil and Englehart's work with the character.  Which reminds me I still need to read O'Neil's Batman: Venom.

Michael --  I agree that writers Post-Miller tried to follow in his foot steps.  But I think they didn't realize that Miller was writing a love letter not only to the Golden Age Era Batman, but also to the O'Neil/Adams Era Batman.  Which is why Batman was rife with bad stories.  Grant Morrison made it worse when he created plot device Batman who could pull any gadget for any required occasion out of his utility belt and could out-think cosmic entities like Darkseid. 

Troy -- Sometimes I think Grant Morrison and Alan Moore are twin brothers when it comes to their beliefs because when I read the premise of both on Wikipedia I knew they were books I was not going to read.  Batman may have socializing problems as well as emotional problems, but he is not crazy like the Joker.

Larry -- Regardless of which character said it.  Morrison was being disrespectful to the franchise and all the readers who had been reading up to that point.  Not to mention the ones who were trying to get back into the X-Men after years long hiatus.