Action Comics #1
Gordon Dymowski on the issue!
As many readers of my blog have already read - and many listeners of Zone 4 will find out in Friday's episode - I did not like Justice League # 1. So my hope for Action Comics # 1 was tentative, and although I liked the idea of a more socially conscious Superman, part of me wondered if this revamp was nothing more than a creative end-run given the current legal battle with a co-creator's heirs.
Legal matters, aside, I can honestly say that I'm astounded that Action Comics # 1 wasn't the leadoff of the "new 52". It not only has historic resonance, but Morrison, Morales, and Bryant give us a Superman for the 21st century.
"Oh, sure," you're thinking. "Gordon's swallowed the hype." Not at all - the book begins with a typical Morrison rush-of-exposition, focusing on bad men doing bad things. It's the kind of scene you might expect in a pulp-era story. However, we're introduced to a Superman who is....well, he's not your father's Superman. Possibly your grandfather's, with lines like these:
"Rats. Rats with money. And rats with guns. I'm your worst nightmare"
"Nobody's so big they can't be taken down a peg or two"
"You know the deal, Metropolis. Treat people right or expect a visit from me."
No, this isn't Morrison writing Superman like Batman - this is, quite ironically, a more human Superman. As the story progresses, we learn that he's been "in operation" for about six months. There are some gentle nods to the past (and some oh-so clever possible Easter eggs), and there are some very clever character touches. (For example, learning that Clark Kent reports on injustice....and that Superman seems to allow him to take a more "hands on" approach). All of these touches are wrapped in a story that is pretty much non-stop action. In short, this is the comic that Justice League # 1 should have been, but wasn't.
Morales' art is, well, up to its usual standard, but I have to mention one thing that particularly bugged me (and consider this a potential spoiler) - didja have to give Clark Kent a rather Potter-ish vibe? Granted, I understand why that might be the case (if superheroes didn't arrive until "five years ago", you're probably going to pull from more recent popular culture), but it does seem like too obvious a reference for the younger set. That's probably the only major problem I have with the book - it's minor, but it seems like too obvious a ploy to get the "younger reader." If Justice League # 1 was all sound and fury at the right tone, Action Comics # 1 is just the right amount of plot, action, with an obvious reference that seems to distract from the story.
(And for those of you who are going to argue that the Shusters and/or the Siegels are being greedy - let me remind you to please read Men of Tomorrow by Gerard Jones for some background. Then, please feel free to drop me a note, and then we'll talk. On a personal note, the fact that much of the "new 52" seems motivated as much by legal and rights issues as it does recapturing an audience leaves a bitter aftertaste after reading this book. Yes, it's a good book, but it's the kind of book that has me wondering whether this was done for purely creative reasons. Just some speculation on my part: nothing further....)
There's been a lot of talk about the "new 52" in the past few weeks, and quite frankly, I honestly believe that Action Comics # 1, by taking a few steps back to the "original" Superman, has given the character a new lease on life...and possibly a slightly brighter future.
This is a comic well worth buying and reading.
blog comments powered by Disqus
