The problem with the mainstream media’s focus on Superman

Well how about that! I managed to find a copy of that that told the readers what to think/believe is the problem with the Man of Steel these days. And I can’t say I’m happy with what they did here. First, the subtitling:

The Man of Steel is looking a little rusty. He’s not tragic. He’s not cool. Can America’s original superhero find a way to reconnect with us?

A better question might be - can the MSM find a way to reconnect with the consumer? Because this dud certainly doesn’t. Man of Steel is uncool? Please. And who needs more tragic than what we’ve already got? Gimme a break.

Superman is still the company’s flagship icon, but Batman outsells him…

Superman may not sell as well as he could, but I’m not sure if Batman sells that well either. In fact, last time I looked, Supergirl was the one selling really high on the charts, showing that a lot of people uphold the return of Kara Zor-El these days.

For America’s multimillion-dollar Superman industry, it’s a serious problem. This is a guy who’s from outer space–he was born on the planet Krypton, let’s not forget–but he’s also from another time. He debuted in the 1930s, when Americans liked their heroes like they liked their steaks: tough, thick and all-American. Nowadays we prefer our heroes dark and flawed and tragic. Look at the Punisher (wife and kids dead), or Hellboy (born a demon), or Spider-Man (secretly a nerd). Look at Batman: his parents were killed in front of him, and he dresses like a Cure fan. Now look at the big blue Boy Scout, with his cleft chin and his spit curl. He’s just not cool.

Sigh. This article is what’s really uncool. I’m sorry. And who sez that Americans don’t like their heroes tough and all-American anymore? Very cynical of Time, I must say.

They also interview/get some quotes from the writers assigned at the time to the three current series. But lo and behold, only two out of three writers are actually featured here, and the second one mentioned is one many would rather forget:

Jim Lee, who’s taking over the art on Superman, is fresh from a run on best-selling Batman, so he’s in touch with his dark side. But he admits it’s a challenge. “Batman is a more modern-era type character,” Lee says. “He’s fueled by vengeance; he’s the boogeyman. Superman is the altruistic alien hero that protects us all. It’s difficult to make that believable in this day and age.” In their first issue, Lee and writer Brian Azzarello have Superman in a church pouring out his heart to a priest. While Superman’s back was turned, a million people vanished from earth, including Lois Lane, and he’s powerless to do anything about it. He’s a brooding, angry, heavily shadowed Superman, riddled with self-doubt. “For the first time, I was really afraid,” he says. “Lost, without my rhythm.” You get through the entire issue before you realize not a single punch has been thrown.

When writer Chuck Austen got handed Action Comics, another Superman monthly, he knew punches would be thrown, what with the title and all. But Superman is on the receiving end for a change. “As someone who loved the dark side for a long time, I had little or no interest in Superman for years,” Austen says. “He was perfect–his powers left him with no vulnerability. So I requested DC allow some cosmetic changes–make him a bit less powerful, a lot more vulnerable physically.” Austen’s Superman can take a joke as well as a punch. He rags on his sparring partners for their lame trash talk: “What’s next? ‘Mindless cretin!’ Or ‘Had enough?’ Or my personal favorite–’No one can stand before the might of–(your name here).” The tone is light and fresh and surprisingly funny. “Much of it is the fun of playing against his type,” says Austen. “But much more of it is, without question, to upgrade him a bit. He’s the greatest superhero ever created! He needs to be cool!”

This part made me want to belch. Yet it doesn’t surprise me at all that, of all people whom they could interview, it’d be the one who’s now considered the joke of the industry, the one whose writing is astonishingly distasteful and sloppy, Chuck Austen. He exaggerated, of course, considering that Superman does have more vulnerabilities than just Kryptonite (giant robots and apes, for example), and the dialect Austen put into the book back then was simply annoying. Mainly because - while the Man of Steel most certainly can wisecrack, he’s still not Spider-Man, and what Awful Austen, now gone to Obscureland, put into the scrips he wrote then was simply not the Man of Steel at all.

The third writer assigned to Superman at the time whom they don’t mention is Greg Rucka, who, while not without his faults, was fairly better in his own efforts two years ago. And given that’s he’s considered by some to have more talent than either Azzarello or Austen, that’s probably why he was virtually blotted out of this puff piece for darkness altogether.

This also brings me to point to one of the biggest complaints I have today about DC comics: they lack a genuine sense of humor. That’s probably one of the reasons why I enjoy Gail Simone’s work on Birds of Prey much more, because she hasn’t allowed DC’s alarming editorial sabotage to get in the way of her talents. Thank goodness.

The Time article I’ve dissected above is but one example of what’s wrong with mainstream media coverage of comics today: they emphasize exactly the same thing without mercy: darkness. People do want and need mirth today, and if Time and their ilk are going to keep on with this, all they’re doing is showing why the MSM is not worth reading today.

Update: and while we’re on the subject, here’s a that ponders why the screenwriters of Superman Returns deliberately ommitted The American Way from the movie (Hat tip: ).