Broken Frontier

In April 2004, the Superman books introduced readers to the new creative teams for each of the four titles. One year later, the Superman line is set for another fresh start with many new faces (in May, following a one-month guest stint by Judd Winick, Ian Churchill and Norm Rapmund). But did the Class of 2004 creators live up to the hype DC promoted them with? Following last week’s article on Adventures of Superman and Action Comics, I look back at the last year of Superman/Batman and Superman.

Superman/Batman #9-18; Primary Creative Team: Jeph Loeb (writer), Michael Turner, Peter Steigerwald, Carlos Pacheco & Jesus Merino (art).

Superman/Batman is a book for fans who want big, flashy, action-packed comics. If you keep that in mind, the series is enjoyable.

Generally, this book tends to be very light on substance. Guest appearances and cameos are frequent, although they seem geared more towards serving the whims of the creative team rather than the plot. Michael Turner is best known his drawing of women, so naturally Wonder Woman and Barda appear during his storyarc. Wonder Woman’s inclusion at least is plausible, as she completes the triumvirate of DC Heroes with Superman and Batman. Barda, on the other hand, seems to appear merely to give the heroes a ride off planet and then to be captured. Similarly, the appearances of the Teen Titans, Outsiders, JLA and JSA at the end of the Supergirl arc are painfully awkward. They serve no real purpose to the story (which would be fine if they remained in the background); however Loeb donates a full panel to each team in order for Turner to do a larger drawing of each.

Unfortunately, Loeb sacrifices many good storytelling opportunities in favour of what is convenient. Wonder Woman and Batman’s concerns about Superman being too eager to accept Supergirl’s seemingly improbable origins are fitting. Given the history that the three heroes share, I find it difficult to believe that the best intervention Batman and Wonder Woman could stage would be an ambush attack to kidnap Supergirl (even if it was to “test her”, as Batman claims later). In cases like this, I would be much more interested in seeing how the two heroes could convince Superman of their claims. A different example is Loeb’s efforts to provide motivation for the new Supergirl. He tries to convince readers that the death of her friend, Lyla, and the fight with Superman, are incidents that haunt her. Loeb fails to give either event enough “coping with” time for readers to gain empathy for Supergirl.

Another difficulty I have is that some elements of the stories just don’t seem to make sense, or are poorly thought out. Why would Darkseid from the future, who seems to be ruling the Earth with no heroes to oppose him, make a deal with Superman in order to restore time to its proper order? For that matter, once time was restored, why would Superman feel obligated to honour that debt? If I have even a loose grasp of time travel theory, the being he made the deal with will never exist. For that matter, if that time has been altered, and that future will never occur, how could they have made the deal in the first place? Confusing.

Superman/Batman is also one of the best arguments that can be made in favour of Crisis on Infinite Earths. When the Crisis series streamlined the DC mythos, the company made the decision to jettison parts of their universe that made it less accessible to new readers. Loeb, who has been quite vocal about his love of the Pre-Crisis DC Universe, uses every opportunity in this book to re-introduce many of these elements. While he has done some successfully in the past (Krypto the Superdog, Lex Luthor’s battle armour), it now almost feels as if he is running down a checklist, as each successive story introduces another – Kara Zor-El and the Legion of Super-Villains, most recently. While these returns give many long time fans a nostalgic thrill, there doesn’t seem to be any reason beyond that, for these characters to be re-introduced. Rather than add depth to the DC Universe, it only serves to make it more confusing (for example, try to explain the history of Supergirl to any non-regular DC comics fan).

Each arc on Superman/Batman features a different creative team, which this past year consisted of Michael Turner and Peter Steigerwald on “Supergirl From Krypton” and Carlos Pacheco and Jesus Merino on “Absolute Power.” Turner is not an artist who I have ever enjoyed. I find his abstract views of anatomy awkward, the heavy line in his panels confusing and don’t think he does a good job conveying emotion. Pacheco tends to lean more towards realism, but his characters often seem “squinty-eyed” and too squat. Despite this, his artwork grew on me over the course of his arc, as he provided some very strong pages (Superman killing Wonder Woman in #15 particularly stood out as emotionally powerful).

Some of my criticisms about Superman/Batman may work out by the time Jeph Loeb ends his run with issue #25 (it’s clear that Loeb has a longer term vision for this title, and the recent announcement of Infinite Crisis may have some bearing on this). What I can say in favour of Superman/Batman is that Loeb does an excellent job at comparing and contrasting the two heroes. Both characters narrate the majority of the stories, colour-coded captions showing how Superman and Batman view the events differently. Despite their differences, Loeb never loses sight of the fact that these two men are friends and that bond doesn’t not feel forced at all.

Superman/Batman is a fine book for those looking for pure superhero adventure or those, like me that are completists (events of the book have had a direct impact on the other Superman titles). Despite the fact that the book stars DC’s two most well known characters, I would never recommend it to anyone without a deep knowledge of the DC Universe. 

---

Superman #204-215; Primary Creative Team: Brian Azzarello (writer), Jim Lee & Scott Williams (art).

The biggest problem about Azzarello and Lee’s “For Tomorrow” was that it should not have been in the core Superman title. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that their interpretation of Superman was acting out of character, but it felt like there was something missing. A key element of Superman is the fact that, despite his great powers, he does question himself. This Superman was very pensive, reflective, unsure and detached. It is these uncertainties that put the events of “For Tomorrow” into motion but, if you put the story in context with the rest of the Superman titles (or even the 203 issues of Superman that preceded Azzarello and Lee’s run); it’s difficult to see how Superman arrived at such a crisis of faith. From a business prospective, I realize the intention of putting Azzarello and Lee on the title was to boost sales, but “For Tomorrow” is a story that works alone, and would have been better suited as a mini-series or graphic novel.

Looking at “For Tomorrow” as a story on its own, I think that Azzarello and Lee did a respectable job. The difficulties I had following the story on my first read, disappeared quickly when there wasn’t a 30-day delay between chapters. By keeping the secret of the Vanishing until closer to the end, Azzarello effectively put readers in Superman’s place – disoriented and isolated from any familiar comforts. In that context, it was easy to see how Superman became detached from his humanity, with “Superman” becoming the dominant role over that of “Clark Kent.” Adding to Superman’s confusion, Azzarello kept reinforcing the idea of Superman as a saviour. Throughout the story, the words “Superman, save me” are repeated frequently, before concluding with the Man of Steel’s own question, “who will save me?” A number of writers have effectively captured the wonder of being Superman, but Azzarello is one of the few that managed to convince me of the loneliness.

Visually, Azzarello and Lee achieved a masterpiece with “For Tomorrow.” Jim Lee may not be the best penciller in terms of achieving a photo-realistic look, but his page composition and visual imagery is very powerful. Setting the first issue of their run in a church, Lee and Azzarello presented many strong images, visually juxtaposing Superman with a crucified Christ and the angels in the stained glass windows. Simple panels like these, or that of Superman casting away a peach pit as Father Leone begins quoting “let him with the biggest sin cast the first stone,” create powerful images that emphasize the story. At the conclusion, Lee’s pencils mirror Azzarello’s symmetry, as Superman relocates the Fortress of Solitude from a desolate mountain peak, to the teaming, life-filled jungle.

Despite this, there were some serious failings with “For Tomorrow.” At 12-issues, the story was too long, especially the extended fight that encompassed the final three chapters. This may have been a concession to Jim Lee’s art and love of large panels, much like the appearance seemingly forced appearances by the JLA cast. An unfortunate side effect of the Azzarello’s efforts to create a sense of isolation was that the supporting characters from this arc felt weak. Rarely rising beyond their base archetypes, characters such as the war-mongering Equus, the mysterious Mr. Orr and the tortured Father Daniel Leone did not make any lasting impact on Superman mythos. The surprise villain of the arc, General Zod, suffered from this as well, playing the role of the vengeance obsessed dark reflection of the Man of Steel. Further hampering the character is the fact that this is the fourth “General Zod” to appear in current Superman continuity.

“For Tomorrow” is best summarized as an interesting experiment. Strong arguments can be made both in favour and against Azzarello and Lee’s handling of Superman, but there is no doubt that they did provide a new perspective on an old character. 

- Fletch Adams