Source: Action Comics vol.2 #9 (2012)
Type: Alternate Earth
In Grant Morrison's latest issue of Action Comics, the Superman of Earth-23 (in Reign next week!) faces off against a Superman from another Earth (number pending). Here's its story in a nutshell: On a high-tech Earth, Clark Kent, Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen build a machine that networks their minds and creates solid thought movies. They decided to make a messiah out of it called Superman, who lasted all of 24 minutes and gave them a tear-inducing ethical code to live by they forgot as soon as he disappeared. So they went to a big corporation for more funding, and sold out the inspirational Superman "brand". By networking 500 "experts", this new corporate Superman would be whatever the zeitgeist wanted him to be. Sadly, they wanted a monstrous anti-hero who conquered other dimensions and ate superheroes.
So what is Morrison saying with this? The metaphor isn't difficult to decipher, is it? Siegel and Shuster as creators, selling an inspirational idea that becomes a global marketing icon, one transformed, corrupted and denatured by a committee. As someone who has just re-imagined Superman, isn't he one of the 500? Or should we perceive some kind of dissent in this story (after all, only issue 9 and already taking a break from the official Superman character)? Not quite as clear as Chris Roberson's breaking with DC over creators' rights issues. Will there be similar repercussions? Or is Morrison too big to burn?
I'm reminded of another story about the way big companies treat characters - the Cerebus/Spawn crossover in Spawn #10 by Dave Sim and Todd MacFarlane. I even did a piece on it a few years back.
Type: Alternate Earth
In Grant Morrison's latest issue of Action Comics, the Superman of Earth-23 (in Reign next week!) faces off against a Superman from another Earth (number pending). Here's its story in a nutshell: On a high-tech Earth, Clark Kent, Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen build a machine that networks their minds and creates solid thought movies. They decided to make a messiah out of it called Superman, who lasted all of 24 minutes and gave them a tear-inducing ethical code to live by they forgot as soon as he disappeared. So they went to a big corporation for more funding, and sold out the inspirational Superman "brand". By networking 500 "experts", this new corporate Superman would be whatever the zeitgeist wanted him to be. Sadly, they wanted a monstrous anti-hero who conquered other dimensions and ate superheroes.
So what is Morrison saying with this? The metaphor isn't difficult to decipher, is it? Siegel and Shuster as creators, selling an inspirational idea that becomes a global marketing icon, one transformed, corrupted and denatured by a committee. As someone who has just re-imagined Superman, isn't he one of the 500? Or should we perceive some kind of dissent in this story (after all, only issue 9 and already taking a break from the official Superman character)? Not quite as clear as Chris Roberson's breaking with DC over creators' rights issues. Will there be similar repercussions? Or is Morrison too big to burn?I'm reminded of another story about the way big companies treat characters - the Cerebus/Spawn crossover in Spawn #10 by Dave Sim and Todd MacFarlane. I even did a piece on it a few years back.
Comments
Great Gene Ha artwork. And an all-black Justice League. Odd, but still an interesting take that there are so many black/Asian/etc. heroes with so few being spotlighted in the nu52. Cyborg's sole reason for being in the JL seems to be that he can create boom tubes.
As you say, it may have been more "the committee" vs. Morrison instead of vs. S &S. But I'd say a little of both. Great post, Siskoid.
Protest it or change it from the inside. I'm not saying Morrison is doing the latter. I'm saying there's more than one way to express your integrity and working for DC is not necessarily an unethical thing to do.