Great Krypton! I just read online that today marks the 70th anniversary of the publication of Action Comics #1, Superman's first appearance. Even though a quick perusal of the internet finds many sites that agree or list the date simply as "June," I find this unlikely.

Action Comics #1 is indeed cover dated "June 1938." (See for yourself here.) Since comic books, like other periodicals, have always -- at least for over a century -- been cover dated two to three months in advance in order for newsstand vendors to tell when to switch their inventory, it seems to me much more likely that Action Comics #1 was published in April.

In fact, Superman Homepage, a pretty darn authoritative source for all things Super, reports that 200,000 published copies of Action Comics #1 were released to vendors on April 18, 1938. (By comparison, these days only the five or so top-selling comic books each month sell as many as 100,000 copies of each issue.)

So is the reporting of the date "June 14" as the release date of Action Comics #1 just lazy reporting, especially considering that other sites dedicated to Superman say otherwise? Or is there a legitimate question over this seminal American event? Mistake or mischief? Ah, the internet: proving once again that with great power must come great responsibility.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Tags: comic books news superman

Happy Birthday, Superman!

That's right: Superman's official birthday is February 29. At least so far as DC Comics has long been concerned. (Other dates have popped up over the years in Superman's multiple media appearances.) This way, he only ages one year for every four that pass. Since he appeared fully grown in Action Comics #1 in April 1938 -- not a leap year -- his first birthday would have been in 1940. There have been 17 leap years since 1940, making this Superman's 18th birthday! He can finally vote! (No doubt, he's an Obamamaniac.)

I suppose a surprise party is out of the question since it's impossible for most people to use the giant key to enter the Fortress of Solitude, much less reach the North Pole. Probably no point in a cake, either, since even novelty re-lighting candles are no match for Super-Breath. And if you're planning a gift, you'd better use lead gift wrap. The best thing that you can probably do for Superman is simply not get into any trouble for 24 hours. Even the Man of Tomorrow needs leisure time.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Tags: birthday holidays leap day superman

You may have noticed that in that last post (Feb. 20), Superman was hiding behind a rock on the Action Comics and Superman covers. You may have asked yourself why the Man of Steel was spying on Bizarro's love life. Turns out that's just the way Superman rolls.

And it's probably justified. It seems that Superman's supporting cast can't go anywhere without getting into some improbable fix that only an invulnerable interplanetary alien with the powers of flight, speed, and strength (among others) can extricate them from. Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen got into so much trouble, Superman had to give him a beeper.

Â

Some friends Superman has there. What happens when Superman isn't paying enough attention? That's right: Bizarro attacks.

Â

Lois wears bridal fashions like I wear Batman t-shirts. She appears in a bridal gown on 9 different covers (twice on issue 37 and four times on issue 86!) of her 137 issue run in Superman's Girlfriend Lois Lane. Make that 10 covers, if you count her red cloak worn during her marriage to Satan -- yes, Satan -- on the cover of issue 103.

Meanwhile, Jimmy appears dressed as Superman on only 6 covers of the 163 issue run of Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen. Seven covers, if you count Jimmy's remote control usage of a Superman robot on the cover of issue 9. In a rare guest appearance, Lois Lane manages to wear her fraying wedding gown when she weds Jimmy on the cover of Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen issue 21, but Jimmy misses the golden opportunity and lamely wears a tux.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Tags: comic books lois lane love spying superman

There was a time, not so long ago, that I wanted to go to Comic-Con in San Diego. Once upon a time, it was a great place to revel in comic book fandom with the artists and publishers themselves. That time has past. Goodbye, Superman in Action Comics, hello Robert Downey, Jr. in Iron Man, the Movie. Now the event is just another hype factory for Hollywood. If months and months of incessant, repetitive commercials for toys and bedspreads at Wal-Mart, fast-food tie-in "premiums," and soft news stories covering the actors' personal lives isn't enough to sate America's desire for overblown marketing, well, now there's Comic-Con, where the price of admission is just $65 and your soul.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Tags: comic books comic-con movies rant

Wait just a darn minute. How come Harry Potter gets 20-acres of theme park before Superman? Just because Potter has sold more than 325 million books in his short, six-book publishing career, making J.K. Rowling reportedly the first author-turned-billionaire, he gets the run of a Florida theme park? Why, if Superman and Action Comics are conservatively estimated to have sold a mere 40,000 copies per issue (which is not bad for a modern comic, but laughable compared to the titanic numbers of even 10 years ago), Superman has moved almost 25% of Harry's haul with two comic book titles alone. Where's his theme park?

You can forget about those Superman rides in Six Flags parks across America. Six Flags is the worst theme park chain by far, and their run-down, cramped attractions that like Kryptonite sap the life from the Man of Steel can hardly be called Super-parks.

Roller Coaster Database tells me that there are 12 active Superman themed coasters worldwide. Think about how awesome it would be to ride a dozen Superman themed rides through a single park divided into areas representing Krypton, Smallville, Metropolis, and the Fortress of Solitude. Coasters simulating flight, cyclotrons demonstrating Superman's ability to drill through solid rock, shooting ranges with heat vision, and, of course, a few carnival games testing your strength, speed, reflexes, and mental dexterity, among other comparisons to Superman's many, many powers. I can hear the barkers now: "How many people can you hear yelling for help?" "See a man blow on this cup of water until it turns to ice!" "I challenge you to hold your breath during a brief trip around the moon!" "Guess the number of people trapped inside the burning building!" Why, even the metal detectors checking guests for weapons as they come in the door could be turned into a comical demonstration of Superman's X-Ray Vision!

I understand that Metropolis, Illinois, has pursued a Superman themed attraction for years, but I'm sure it would end up more like South of the Border than Cedar Point. (No offense to South of the Border, but it's not really all that Super, unless third-world truck stops are your thing.)

Oh well. I guess I'll just have to keep wearing my Superman underoos while leaping off my roof. At least the admission price is right.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Tags: amusement parks metropolis ride of steel six flags superman

In honor of Action Comics #1's June 1938 cover date, I'm declaring June "Superman Month"! (No, I don't need a better reason than that. It's my blog, dammit.)

Don't miss the annual Superman Celebration in Metropolis, Illinois June 7-10. Even though Erica Durance cancelled, Noel Neil is still scheduled to be there. Maybe you can have too many Loises in the same place at the same time.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Tags: lois lane metropolis superman

Here's something a little scary for you on this Friday the 13th: more evidence that Dr. Frederick Wertham, author of the industry influencing Seduction of the Innocent, was right arguing against the subtle, damaging influence of comic books on America's youth. These panels are all in sequential order as presented in Superman's Action Comics #20, published in 1940.

Sure, I eliminated some filler panels there, but only to make the subtext clearer for scientific examination. Gay equals good times. Not gay equals bullet in the face. Clearly the message here is that if you are a heterosexual, you shouldn't go to any gay Hollywood parties. They'll kill you. I suppose that this really makes you look at those post-Oscar parties in a whole new light, doesn't it? Note that Superman is not at the party. Why? Because Superman is not gay.

With messages like these buried in super hero comics, it's no wonder that Rock Hudson and Tom Cruise turned out gay. (Personally, I think Rock Hudson would have made a great Superman, by the way. Were he not, you know, dead.)

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Tags: comic books rock hudson seduction of the innocent superman

I've now seen Superman Returns, and it sucks, just like I expected it would. Though, to be fair, I expect most things to suck, so this indicates no special prediction on my part. However, most of my pre-viewing complaints were proven completely accurate.

Sure, Routh does a fine job of impersonating Christopher Reeve, and Spacey makes a passable Gene Hackman. Too bad they were playing Superman and Lex Luthor instead. The rest of the cast seemed almost carelessly chosen. Bosworth's Lois is way too young and entirely too emotional. (Note to all future actresses who want to portray Lois: see Jennifer Jason Leigh in The Hudsucker Proxy and emulate that. THAT's Lois Lane.) Langella's Perry White and Marsden's Richard White both lacked substance, but it could have just been poor scripting. Everything else was. And that's what tanked this baby.

The producers of the movie would have done well to follow the old entertainment maxim, "give 'em what they want." Superman is nearly 70 years old and has profitably appeared on popular radio, television, and movie programs for decades. Why now did they decide to modify the costume and give him a child? They didn't update Jimmy (other than giving him a digital camera) or Perry, Smallville or Ma Kent. No, the one thing that they shouldn't have changed is the one thing that they messed up. Here's a hint for the next film, Singer: if it ain't broke, keep your damn hands off it.

Stop reading now if you don't want spoilers to the movie.

The universal gripe with the movie is Lois' child. Just as every real human being can tell that Clark Kent and Superman are the same person, every real audience goer can tell that the child is Clark's long before the "big reveal" when the child KILLS SOMEONE. The mere presence of this child completely ruins the story of the film, presenting an insurmountable obstacle to the necessary suspension of disbelief required to enjoy any fictional film, especially one with flying men.

First of all, I refuse to believe that Clark Kent would leave the planet Earth after having unprotected sex with Lois Lane before confirming that she was not pregnant. I don't know one American male who has had unprotected sex who hasn't at least briefly worried about the possibility of unwanted pregnancy. (It's the American Protestant upbringing, I suspect.) Even though he's an alien, I don't think Superman is that different from other Americans in that respect. I know that church-going Pa Kent gave young Clark the Birds-and-the-Bees story at least once, so I'm pretty sure that Clark knew the consequences of a wild night out with Little Superman in the driver's seat.

Since this film is built on the stories of Superman and Superman II, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that Superman could have knocked up Lois during the hours when he was powerless during Superman II. And under post-Crisis on Infinite Earths continuity, Superman didn't gain his powers until adolescence, saving Lois from any mortal wounds while carrying the super-sired child. This certainly bypasses the potential difficulty of super-sperm as related in Larry Niven's infamous essay. But I still say the Superman that I was weaned on would have checked in on the action in Lois' womb once his powers returned before departing for the remains of Krypton. It would have been the right thing to do. He would simultaneously be easing his own guilty mind while confirming his beloved Lois' state of health before abandoning her on his search for his roots. Anything else would have been cowardly, an adjective that should never be applied to Superman.

Secondly, during the course of the story, Superboy reveals that he has super-powers by killing a man with a piano. Though this action is in defense of his mother, the child should never have had to perform this action. One of the moral tenets that has served Superman well over the years has been the belief in the sacred right to life. Though Superman has had to deal with many crooks, thugs, miscreants, gangsters, criminals, and murderers, he has never killed any of them, thanks to the rigid moral upbringing that he received from his parents. He would be horrified if his progeny used his powers in such a way as to result in someone's death. The manslaughter of the criminal cannot be justified as self-defense for the child or the mother because if the child does have super-human power such as Superman, he had the means to prevent the death though other applications of super-strength. The child's choice to use strength kill was inevitably a failure by the parents, since the child could never be expected to make such a rational use of his power with his limited understanding of the world. He is, after all, a child. Lois' refusal to admit that the child was Superman's and Superman's refusal to live up to his responsibility resulted in the child receiving poor moral guidance for such inevitable situations. (Any child of Lois Lane is going to end up in life-threatening danger. It's in the genes.)

Worse yet, during the movie, Clark Kent is shown in a bar drinking a Budweiser with Jimmy Olsen. Ignoring the question of whether bow-tied Jimmy Olsen is old enough to drink beer, what is this scene supposed to show other than a promotion of an Anheuser-Busch product? Superman doesn't drink beer! Though he's presumably immune to the effects of alcohol (as well as any additional poisons), Clark would never drink booze, especially in front of his impressionable pal, Jimmy.

Superman is paranoid that he might lose control of his powers and harm someone. The theme of irresponsible use of power has been part of Superman's mythos since his radio days. There's a television episode ("Superman in Exile") where he chastises scientists for not knowing what powers they are unleashing from the atom. The Superman I grew up with wouldn't even risk imbibing and damaging his own judgment. He also wouldn't encourage Jimmy to drink by setting a bad example himself. Though it may be acceptable for Jimmy to kick one back and relax after work, Clark shouldn't and wouldn't encourage him. However, if Jimmy wanted to drink chocolate milk, that's a Quik Bunny of a different color. Superman has pitched everything from Kellogg's Frosted Flakes to Radio Shack Computers to American Express Credit Cards. But so far as I'm aware, he's never pitched for anything quite so dangerous or controversial as alcohol before. What's next? Superman handguns? After this movie, it ought to be condoms. Tsk, tsk, Warner Brothers, for handling a product placement in such an irresponsible manner.

It's clear that Singer and company simply don't understand what makes Superman super. More accurately, they probably don't care, preferring to make their fame and fortune by putting their stamp on an American icon. Singer and pals decided to simply tweak a formula established by a previous director in order to jumpstart a cash cow franchise. Nevermind that the 70s movies have a few plot problems and Christopher Reeve is dead. Nevermind that Superman is among the most well-known and cherished of American icons. They figured that they would just push on, changing all of the wrong things, and audiences would love it. It's exactly that sort of arrogance that caused the film to lose $70 million on its domestic release. According to Box Office Mojo, the film cost an estimated $270 million to make. If accurate, that makes it among the most expensive movies in history. But a flop by any other name....

America knows what it likes, and it doesn't much like Superman Returns. And I agree with them.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Tags: movies superman superman returns totally sucks