Superman: The Man of Steel #17 & 18 (Doomsday) 3 3

[Gatsby77]

Hah -- he's been buying these on spec. over just the last 3 years.

 

As for me, I still have my original owner stash of 8 copies that I bought off the shelf.

 

While the Sept.1992 issue of Previews (Death of Superman cover & solicitation) was the first I picked up as an active comic collector, my LCS did a very good job of informing everyone of the whole storyline -- they posted a huge banner offering one-off pre-order subscriptions to all parts.

 

We all knew that MoS 18 would be big (first "full" Doomsday), as would JLA 69 (less popular than Superman titles, therefore fewer around). So my LCS ordered accordingly.

 

You all knew that, huh...?

 

 

Despite the fact that first "full" appearance wasn't really a hobby-wide concept until the advent of CGC...? "Cameo", "full", these were essentially embryonic concepts in the early 90's, and not consistently applied, especially to new characters. The Bronze age wasn't even called the Bronze age on a regular basis until the mid-90's, and the crash stalled these types of conversations for several years.

 

Serious question: how did your LCS order accordingly for MOS #18, when no one had any clue who or what Doomsday was at the time orders for MOS #18 was due (around the time MOS #16 was on the shelves)? After all...in the early 90's, speculation wasn't about new characters. In the early 90's, the conventional hobby speculation wisdom was still "hot artist", "hot character." People didn't focus just on first appearances, but on appearances, period, and it focused on established hits, like Punisher, Wolverine, even Batman appearances in other titles enjoyed a bit of speculation love.

 

There wasn't any way to know who or what Doomsday was, or why anyone would care about him/her/it.

 

Someday, someone will actually have some proof for all these fish tales and kid-colored-glasses memories...

 

 

To answer your "serious question," I'm not actually sure how my LCS knew or when. Perhaps they got a heads-up from someone at Diamond or DC.

 

And their ordering was not specific to Man of Steel 18; they ordered very heavily for the entire series, but with particularly high orders for MoS 18 (as part 1) and Justice League 69 (as a non-Supes book).

 

What I do know is they posted signs announcing one-off subscriptions to the entire "Death of Superman" (and later, "Funeral For a Friend") storyline before it started, aimed specifically at folks (like me) who would not normally think to subscribe to Superman titles. And it started with MoS 18, not with the cameos that began in 17.

 

Even cooler, by the time month two of the storyline was in full swing, my LCS put several stacks of Superman ('87) # 1 back on the shelf for cover price.

 

Also, we didn't necessarily think or know that MoS 18 was the "first appearance of Doomsday" then, either. Here, my memory's fuzzy but I thought at the time it was a toss-up between MoS 17 (first appearance of the fist) and Superman 66?

 

We bought as "part 1" -- similar to buying multiples of Batman 436 and 440 before then (or after, Batman 491).

 

You can distrust my memory or anecdotes as you wish, but I bought 8 copies of MoS 18 off the shelf upon release, and 0 copies since. And I still have them. My purchases were:

 

MoS 17 -- 0 copies

MoS 18 -- 8 copies

JL 69 -- 3 copies

Superman 75 -- 18 copies (sold all but 2 within a week to kids in my high school)

 

(with 1 copy each of the other parts)

 

Also -- it could well be that my LCS was particularly sophisticated with regard to the market. My evidence for this is simple -- it's still around today.

 

[valiantman]

Some of the newer (massive influx) comic collectors in 1992 were definitely focused on first appearances... because I was one.

I had come over from sportscards, and the rookie card was the top card for any player that mattered from 1948 to 1991 (every set listed in Beckett).

The first appearance in comics was just a rookie card in book form, so it made perfect sense immediately.

 

I was aware of the Doomsday fists in MOS #17 and the other 3 books, but that was ridiculous to me.

That wasn't the first appearance of Doomsday any more than just a glove could be seen as a rookie card.

 

Wizard (love it or hate it, it had a major impact) highlighted the Top 10 books each month and often included the "first appearance of..." in the reasoning. Comic Values Monthly (which my local grocery store sold near the comic books) was putting 1:Venom, 1:Cable, etc., on all the recent books to indicate why they mattered.

 

I didn't care about artists or writers... I didn't know who Todd McFarlane was, but I knew why ASM #300 mattered... so in my young collector head, Todd definitely wasn't part of the reason. It was all about first (and sometimes second) appearances.

[FutureFlash]

BTW, it was the Dude's B'day last week - he's 66.

 

not really getting the joke, my birthday is in January and I'm 47 years old.

 

Jeff Bridges. The Dude. Born December 4, 1949. 66 years ago.

 

Ah, THE dude. Got it.

 

 

“I’m the Dude, so that’s what you call me. That or, uh His Dudeness, or uh Duder, or El Duderino, if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.” — The Dude

 

One of my favorite movies of all time.

 

Edited December 9, 2015 by FutureFlash

[Dexter85]

PS. The whole Death of Superman storyline was pretty bad, from a literary standpoint.

 

We have an antagonist who just "shows up", with no back story whatsoever, and in the course of 6 issues, manages to take down the most powerful superhero in the DCU (yes, let's not talk about Spectre, et al.) without any explanation at all. There was no setup, there were no plot elements introduced earlier, there was nothing at all that made us care one whit about "Doomsday", or why he/she/it would or should have A. the motive, B. the opportunity, C. the ability to take down Supes.

 

It was a stunt, a gimmick, and boy did it sell books.

 

But as a literary work, it is awful.

 

It really makes you appreciate the pacing and plotting of storylines like Dark Phoenix, which groundwork was laid beginning in 1976...and didn't culminate until 1980.

 

I imagine, to young teens, it was the thrill of a lifetime.

 

But, just like watching The Poseidon Adventure (1972) as an adult, it wasn't ever very good to begin with.

 

 

Oh yeah! Removing the goggles of childhood nostalgia and replacing them with viewers of an adult who's innocence is long gone, this statement rings true.

 

The Poseidon Adventure...

 

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with both of these points. As far as from a "literary point of view" I don't think the writers were going for anything as deep as, say, Alan Moore's Swamp Thing. I think they wanted to do something BIG with Superman, and the idea snowballed organically into The Death of Superman.

 

There is, of course, a spectrum, from great literary works (Watchmen) to pablum that's barely readable (say, Superboy comics from the late 50's.)

 

You don't necessarily need to be going for anything deep...but they weren't even going for logical, reasonable, or rational, either. Why Louise Simonson was involved, other than the paycheck, I don't know. But the story isn't just not good...it's terrible. It makes no sense, it isn't logically consistent, there's no continuity, there's no motive for any of the events that unfolded...it's not much better than a college freshman English Lit creative writing project.

 

You don't need to be Alan Moore's Swamp Thing...but Rob Liefeld's Youngblood isn't a goal to shoot for, either.

 

If you watch the documentary on the making of DOS, the writers were stone-walled by ABC's Lois & Clark, as they had next planned for the marriage of Lois & Clark to be the next big thing in the comics. However, they were told that because the TV show was going to cover this, they were not allowed to beat them to the punch. So, out their sheer frustration, one of them half-jokingly suggested "Let's just kill him." And to everyone's surprise, everyone kind of agreed that this might be an interesting approach. From there, they hammered out the details that turned into the entire Doomsday saga.

 

As far as being a "gimmick" to sell comics goes, if they wanted to simply move books, they could've just done a one off comic where Luthor, or whoever, shoots Superman with a Kryptonite bullet and slapped "The Death of Superman" on the cover, and in late 1992 that likely would have moved the book just as well. Instead, they spent the better part of a year telling the story with the 7 part Doomsday series kicking it off.

 

That doesn't make much sense. They started the story in MOS #18, with one-page teasers in the previous 4 weeks' books. Then, 5-6 weeks later, it was over. I was referring only to DOS, not anything else, especially not his "return" three months after FFAF. I don't know where the "better part of a year" factors into it, could you clarify?

 

I'm not sure how doing a "one off comic" shoots Superman with a Kryptonite bullet would have "simply moved books", or anywhere near as well. The stunt was extremely successful, no doubt about it, and there had to be *some* level of buildup.

 

Sure, they knew it was going to be huge. But, it didn't do as well as it did start to finish because it was a bad story. Not to mention, be as revered and collected over 20 years after the fact. It's easy to pick DOS because it did as well as it did.

 

Oh, no, that would be a grave, grave mistake to assume that something that does well must therefore not be bad. It is, in fact, a bad story, badly plotted, badly paced, badly written, and badly executed. It succeeded in spite of it's poor execution, not because of it.

 

There are endless examples of creative efforts that did well, despite the fact that they are terrible. After all, Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith (I had to look that one up, had no idea what it was called, that's how little of an impact it made on me) stand as prime examples of that.

 

There's nothing wrong with having enjoyed it as a kid/young teen. My review wasn't meant to be a condemnation of those who enjoyed it at a young age. However, there does come a time when we should recognize that bad art is bad art, no matter how great we thought it was at the time.

 

I don't know that you'll find many that will hold up DOS as an example of the best the artform had to offer at the time (Sandman, Sin City, Bone), or even good (Hellblazer, Unity), or even mediocre. But, you WILL find people who have reverence for the nostalgia of the event, and there's nothing wrong with that. It was certainly the biggest event to ever happen in comics, certainly before, and probably since.

 

If you disagree, by all means, please discuss specific plot points/elements, examples of quality plotting/pacing, or other elements of the DOS story that you believe make it "not drekky." I'm certainly, as always, willing to hear well-reasoned opposing arguments.

 

Don't get me wrong, there have certainly been (before and since) smarter Superman stories than DOS. Speaking solely about the 7 part Doomsday books, I look at it as an intentionally action packed & fast paced story ala Fury Road (though I'm sure there will be those who disagree) which climaxed with Superman going toe to toe with this mysterious, savage, monster until they fell, both seemingly dead. I look at it as a great snap-shot of Superman comics of that time, 1992. Hell, there are at least two Axl Rose references in the books.

 

I don't know if I'm able to dissect it to the point where I'd be able to champion the story itself as a literary success. But as an exciting Superman read, I think it succeeded with flying colors. Sure, as a 30 year old reader now, there are lines of dialogue that make me wince a bit, but like I said, I chalk that up to being 'of the era'. Same thing happens when I watch the older Superman & Batman flicks now.

 

To elaborate a bit, Sylvester Stallone recently stated in an interview that Rocky IV was different from the other films because it focused solely on the fight between Rocky & Drago, whereas the earlier films were more "story" driven. Film critics pretty much all skewered it. But fans loved it, making it the most financially successful film in the series, and the second most successful movie of 1985, behind only Back To The Future. Today, it's still a fan favorite and captures the spirit of Reagan's America perfectly, however flawed. The Death of Superman is essentially the Rocky IV of Superman comics. It just depends on whether you fall in with the critics or the fans. And you know what? Neither are "wrong" per say.

 

Hope that helps!

Edited December 9, 2015 by Dexter85

[RockMyAmadeus]

Some of the newer (massive influx) comic collectors in 1992 were definitely focused on first appearances... because I was one.

I had come over from sportscards, and the rookie card was the top card for any player that mattered from 1948 to 1991 (every set listed in Beckett).

The first appearance in comics was just a rookie card in book form, so it made perfect sense immediately.

 

I was aware of the Doomsday fists in MOS #17 and the other 3 books, but that was ridiculous to me.

That wasn't the first appearance of Doomsday any more than just a glove could be seen as a rookie card.

 

Wizard (love it or hate it, it had a major impact) highlighted the Top 10 books each month and often included the "first appearance of..." in the reasoning. Comic Values Monthly (which my local grocery store sold near the comic books) was putting 1:Venom, 1:Cable, etc., on all the recent books to indicate why they mattered.

 

I didn't care about artists or writers... I didn't know who Todd McFarlane was, but I knew why ASM #300 mattered... so in my young collector head, Todd definitely wasn't part of the reason. It was all about first (and sometimes second) appearances.

 

The distinction has been a little lost.

 

There's a difference between a focus on first appearances of existing characters (Punisher, Wolverine, and more recently,at the time, Cable and Venom), and first appearances of brand new characters that nobody had ever seen before.

 

No one should misunderstand: I am absolutely, under no circumstances, suggesting that people weren't after first appearances. They were. It was a frenzy. But they were after first appearances of already established characters, not new characters that no one had ever heard of before.

 

A perfect example of that would be New Mutants #87. Nobody "speculated" on it, very few bought multiple copies of it, and it took roughly 5-6 months for the character to really start to catch on. For reference, I bought five copies at $1.25 from my LCS about the time that New Mutants #94 was out, and as we have seen, ads from the period didn't really make note of it.

 

So, "this is the first (full) appearance of Doomsday!!!" would have been met with "um...who?" at the time that MOS #18 came out.

 

And if the conversation went further, like "this is the character who might kill Superman!" the response might have been "um...they're going to kill Superman? Right. It's a total stunt, there's no way they're killing Superman."

 

And the focus was on the Death of Superman, rather than the first appearance of Doomsday. As far as Doomsday, or ANY new character was concerned, there was a decidedly more "let's wait and see what they do with this one" attitude then.

 

Not that there wasn't *some* focus paid...but there wasn't much, and it certainly wasn't anything like it is today.

 

That's why I challenge those who say "oh, yeah, we totally knew about the first (full) appearance of Doomsday, that was what everyone wanted!"

 

As part of the DOS story? Absolutely. As "the first appearance of Doomsday (full or not)"...? Not quite so much.

[RockMyAmadeus]

PS. The whole Death of Superman storyline was pretty bad, from a literary standpoint.

 

We have an antagonist who just "shows up", with no back story whatsoever, and in the course of 6 issues, manages to take down the most powerful superhero in the DCU (yes, let's not talk about Spectre, et al.) without any explanation at all. There was no setup, there were no plot elements introduced earlier, there was nothing at all that made us care one whit about "Doomsday", or why he/she/it would or should have A. the motive, B. the opportunity, C. the ability to take down Supes.

 

It was a stunt, a gimmick, and boy did it sell books.

 

But as a literary work, it is awful.

 

It really makes you appreciate the pacing and plotting of storylines like Dark Phoenix, which groundwork was laid beginning in 1976...and didn't culminate until 1980.

 

I imagine, to young teens, it was the thrill of a lifetime.

 

But, just like watching The Poseidon Adventure (1972) as an adult, it wasn't ever very good to begin with.

 

 

 

You could say the same thing about Star Wars: A New Hope. we knew NOTHING and had no back story of the characters or the world they lived in, George just dropped us right in the middle of the action and counted on the audience to fill in the blanks or figure it out, which is what I loved about it. wasn't that the appeal for a long time as well with Wolverine and his unknown Origins, until, that is, Marvel made his origins known. I don't mind not having every thing set up or explained to me before hand. I really enjoyed the Death of Supes storyline and the Funeral for a friend follow up. it's what got me back into comics as a young adult. I did NOT like the Four Supermen storyline that followed, (Cyborg, Superboy, Eradicator, and Steel),

 

I think you're cherry picking some phrases in the criticism. The bottom line is that there's nothing established within the story either. You can pass on "setup" if your story reveals what the reader needs to know. The Death of Superman storyline didn't do that, from what I remember.

 

not necessarily talking about just the setup, but the entire world of Star Wars was foreign to us without much explanation, my point was/is does everything need to be known to enjoy the story? we didn't know much of what "the force" was until of course Midiclorians, (ugh), some of my favorite movies/TV shows/stories are those that don't lay everything out for you. 2001 space odyssey, 12 Monkeys, just to name a few.

 

The point, as Geeks pointed out, isn't that Doomsday was "mysterious." Mystery has its place, and is a long established literary device. Using your examples, we DID find out quite a few things about the characters in Star Wars, as the story unfolded. That is the essence of exposition: it exposes the motives, justifications, and reasons behind what the characters are doing, as the story progresses.

 

We know, for example, that Luke Skywalker had a humdrum existence, and was looking for a way out of his humdrum existence, so when a faulty droid shows up, that serves as the catalyst for why Luke then did what he did. His motive is established.

 

If his Uncle Owen had discovered the droid, especially knowing what he knew, he would doubtless have wiped it clean (as C3PO was about to do), and that would have been the end of that, and would have made for a rather short film.

 

You'll notice, however, that Luke didn't simply jump on screen, light saber blasting, with no explanation as to who this character was, what he was doing, or why, and with no such explanation forthcoming.

 

That is precisely what Doomsday did. Who was he? No clue. Why was he attacking Superman? No clue. Where was he from? No clue. Was he even a "he"? No clue. Why on earth was he doing what he was doing?

 

No clue, and here's the sticking point: it was never revealed in the context of that story.

 

Nothing. We knew no more about Doomsday, outside of his visual appearance, from Superman #75 and the entire DOS story than we did in MOS #17.

 

THAT is bad writing. These are the basics of storytelling, and the writers of DOS didn't follow them.

[RockMyAmadeus]

PS. The whole Death of Superman storyline was pretty bad, from a literary standpoint.

 

We have an antagonist who just "shows up", with no back story whatsoever, and in the course of 6 issues, manages to take down the most powerful superhero in the DCU (yes, let's not talk about Spectre, et al.) without any explanation at all. There was no setup, there were no plot elements introduced earlier, there was nothing at all that made us care one whit about "Doomsday", or why he/she/it would or should have A. the motive, B. the opportunity, C. the ability to take down Supes.

 

It was a stunt, a gimmick, and boy did it sell books.

 

But as a literary work, it is awful.

 

It really makes you appreciate the pacing and plotting of storylines like Dark Phoenix, which groundwork was laid beginning in 1976...and didn't culminate until 1980.

 

I imagine, to young teens, it was the thrill of a lifetime.

 

But, just like watching The Poseidon Adventure (1972) as an adult, it wasn't ever very good to begin with.

 

 

Oh yeah! Removing the goggles of childhood nostalgia and replacing them with viewers of an adult who's innocence is long gone, this statement rings true.

 

The Poseidon Adventure...

 

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with both of these points. As far as from a "literary point of view" I don't think the writers were going for anything as deep as, say, Alan Moore's Swamp Thing. I think they wanted to do something BIG with Superman, and the idea snowballed organically into The Death of Superman.

 

There is, of course, a spectrum, from great literary works (Watchmen) to pablum that's barely readable (say, Superboy comics from the late 50's.)

 

You don't necessarily need to be going for anything deep...but they weren't even going for logical, reasonable, or rational, either. Why Louise Simonson was involved, other than the paycheck, I don't know. But the story isn't just not good...it's terrible. It makes no sense, it isn't logically consistent, there's no continuity, there's no motive for any of the events that unfolded...it's not much better than a college freshman English Lit creative writing project.

 

You don't need to be Alan Moore's Swamp Thing...but Rob Liefeld's Youngblood isn't a goal to shoot for, either.

 

If you watch the documentary on the making of DOS, the writers were stone-walled by ABC's Lois & Clark, as they had next planned for the marriage of Lois & Clark to be the next big thing in the comics. However, they were told that because the TV show was going to cover this, they were not allowed to beat them to the punch. So, out their sheer frustration, one of them half-jokingly suggested "Let's just kill him." And to everyone's surprise, everyone kind of agreed that this might be an interesting approach. From there, they hammered out the details that turned into the entire Doomsday saga.

 

As far as being a "gimmick" to sell comics goes, if they wanted to simply move books, they could've just done a one off comic where Luthor, or whoever, shoots Superman with a Kryptonite bullet and slapped "The Death of Superman" on the cover, and in late 1992 that likely would have moved the book just as well. Instead, they spent the better part of a year telling the story with the 7 part Doomsday series kicking it off.

 

That doesn't make much sense. They started the story in MOS #18, with one-page teasers in the previous 4 weeks' books. Then, 5-6 weeks later, it was over. I was referring only to DOS, not anything else, especially not his "return" three months after FFAF. I don't know where the "better part of a year" factors into it, could you clarify?

 

I'm not sure how doing a "one off comic" shoots Superman with a Kryptonite bullet would have "simply moved books", or anywhere near as well. The stunt was extremely successful, no doubt about it, and there had to be *some* level of buildup.

 

Sure, they knew it was going to be huge. But, it didn't do as well as it did start to finish because it was a bad story. Not to mention, be as revered and collected over 20 years after the fact. It's easy to pick DOS because it did as well as it did.

 

Oh, no, that would be a grave, grave mistake to assume that something that does well must therefore not be bad. It is, in fact, a bad story, badly plotted, badly paced, badly written, and badly executed. It succeeded in spite of it's poor execution, not because of it.

 

There are endless examples of creative efforts that did well, despite the fact that they are terrible. After all, Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith (I had to look that one up, had no idea what it was called, that's how little of an impact it made on me) stand as prime examples of that.

 

There's nothing wrong with having enjoyed it as a kid/young teen. My review wasn't meant to be a condemnation of those who enjoyed it at a young age. However, there does come a time when we should recognize that bad art is bad art, no matter how great we thought it was at the time.

 

I don't know that you'll find many that will hold up DOS as an example of the best the artform had to offer at the time (Sandman, Sin City, Bone), or even good (Hellblazer, Unity), or even mediocre. But, you WILL find people who have reverence for the nostalgia of the event, and there's nothing wrong with that. It was certainly the biggest event to ever happen in comics, certainly before, and probably since.

 

If you disagree, by all means, please discuss specific plot points/elements, examples of quality plotting/pacing, or other elements of the DOS story that you believe make it "not drekky." I'm certainly, as always, willing to hear well-reasoned opposing arguments.

 

Don't get me wrong, there have certainly been (before and since) smarter Superman stories than DOS. Speaking solely about the 7 part Doomsday books, I look at it as an intentionally action packed & fast paced story ala Fury Road (though I'm sure there will be those who disagree) which climaxed with Superman going toe to toe with this mysterious, savage, monster until they fell, both seemingly dead. I look at it as a great snap-shot of Superman comics of that time, 1992. Hell, there are at least two Axl Rose references in the books.

 

I don't know if I'm able to dissect it to the point where I'd be able to champion the story itself as a literary success. But as an exciting Superman read, I think it succeeded with flying colors. Sure, as a 30 year old reader now, there are lines of dialogue that make me wince a bit, but like I said, I chalk that up to being 'of the era'. Same thing happens when I watch the older Superman & Batman flicks now.

 

To elaborate a bit, Sylvester Stallone recently stated in an interview that Rocky IV was different from the other films because it focused solely on the fight between Rocky & Drago, whereas the earlier films were more "story" driven. Film critics pretty much all skewered it. But fans loved it, making it the most financially successful film in the series, and the second most successful movie of 1985, behind only Back To The Future. Today, it's still a fan favorite and captures the spirit of Reagan's America perfectly, however flawed. The Death of Superman is essentially the Rocky IV of Superman comics. It just depends on whether you fall in with the critics or the fans. And you know what? Neither are "wrong" per say.

 

Hope that helps!

 

Not a problem, but...your initial response was to challenge my contention that the work was a poorly conceived, poorly executed story, right?

 

You get no disagreement with me on your statements here. As I said, there's no problem with that. Personal taste is unassailable. If you liked it, you liked it, and it doesn't matter why. See my The Poseidon Adventure example.

 

There's a difference, substantially so, between saying "This work is not of any literary quality", and "you're a morone for liking it." If we learn to look at impersonal, legitimate critique dispassionately, we can have fantastic discussions on a broad range of topics, without anyone becoming upset in the process.

 

I think Star Blazers is one of the greatest pieces of Anime ever created. It doesn't bother me one bit if someone takes it apart critically, because there are legitimate critiques of it. And, if I'm a rational, reasonable adult, I will acknowledge and agree with legitimate critique, while allowing any sort of emotional response to cloud my judgment or cause me to internalize (that is, "take personally") any comments about it.

 

I'm not a bad person, or a stupid person, or an ignorant (uneducated) person, or a lame person, just because I happen to like something that might be poorly conceived and executed, and neither is anyone else.

 

And, if legitimate critique causes me to not have as much appreciation for a work that I previously loved, then that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. TPA is terrible. Just awful. But...no one can take away the awesome experience I had as an 8-9 year old, watching it in that perspective. I'll always have that, as long as I remember it. And the terribleness of TPA, or others agreeing with its terribleness, will never take that away.

 

By the way...if anyone is looking for superb Superman stories, there are three that I would recommend off the top of my head.

 

"Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow", originally in Action #583 and Superman #423

 

Action Comics Annual #1

 

Superman Annual #11

[Dexter85]

 

Not a problem, but...your initial response was to challenge my contention that the work was a poorly conceived, poorly executed story, right?

 

You get no disagreement with me on your statements here. As I said, there's no problem with that. Personal taste is unassailable. If you liked it, you liked it, and it doesn't matter why. See my The Poseidon Adventure example.

 

There's a difference, substantially so, between saying "This work is not of any literary quality", and "you're a morone for liking it." If we learn to look at impersonal, legitimate critique dispassionately, we can have fantastic discussions on a broad range of topics, without anyone becoming upset in the process.

 

I think Star Blazers is one of the greatest pieces of Anime ever created. It doesn't bother me one bit if someone takes it apart critically, because there are legitimate critiques of it. And, if I'm a rational, reasonable adult, I will acknowledge and agree with legitimate critique, while allowing any sort of emotional response to cloud my judgment or cause me to internalize (that is, "take personally") any comments about it.

 

I'm not a bad person, or a stupid person, or an ignorant (uneducated) person, or a lame person, just because I happen to like something that might be poorly conceived and executed, and neither is anyone else.

 

And, if legitimate critique causes me to not have as much appreciation for a work that I previously loved, then that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. TPA is terrible. Just awful. But...no one can take away the awesome experience I had as an 8-9 year old, watching it in that perspective. I'll always have that, as long as I remember it. And the terribleness of TPA, or others agreeing with its terribleness, will never take that away.

 

By the way...if anyone is looking for superb Superman stories, there are three that I would recommend off the top of my head.

 

"Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow", originally in Action #583 and Superman #423

 

Action Comics Annual #1

 

Superman Annual #11

 

Great post, and really articulates well the idea that, although a body of work might not be up to snuff on an artistic level, it can still be appreciated for it's cultural impact, not to mention your own personal enjoyment.

 

Speaking for myself, I'm a complete sucker for Dan Jurgens' and Brett Breeding's Superman art. To me, that 1991-1993 duo run will always been "my Superman". Bummer they went the way of the dinosaur on the art, though Dan kept writing through 1998.

 

Love "Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow"... I would also add Kingdom Come & All Star Superman to that list.

 

I'm still not sure whether or not I'm just not smart enough to get what the eff is going on in "For Tomorrow" but boy is it pretty to look at.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Despite the fact that first "full" appearance wasn't really a hobby-wide concept until the advent of CGC...? "Cameo", "full", these were essentially embryonic concepts in the early 90's, and not consistently applied, especially to new characters. The Bronze age wasn't even called the Bronze age on a regular basis until the mid-90's, and the crash stalled these types of conversations for several years.

 

Serious question: how did your LCS order accordingly for MOS #18, when no one had any clue who or what Doomsday was at the time orders for MOS #18 was due (around the time MOS #16 was on the shelves)? After all...in the early 90's, speculation wasn't about new characters. In the early 90's, the conventional hobby speculation wisdom was still "hot artist", "hot character." People didn't focus just on first appearances, but on appearances, period, and it focused on established hits, like Punisher, Wolverine, even Batman appearances in other titles enjoyed a bit of speculation love.

 

There wasn't any way to know who or what Doomsday was, or why anyone would care about him/her/it.

 

Someday, someone will actually have some proof for all these fish tales and kid-colored-glasses memories...

 

 

To answer your "serious question," I'm not actually sure how my LCS knew or when. Perhaps they got a heads-up from someone at Diamond or DC.

 

My question was serious, no quotes. Were they with Diamond? There were several distribution companies at the time; Cap City and Diamond were the two biggest.

 

And their ordering was not specific to Man of Steel 18; they ordered very heavily for the entire series, but with particularly high orders for MoS 18 (as part 1) and Justice League 69 (as a non-Supes book).

 

I suppose. We do see, from the numbers, that retailers didn't really jump on the bandwagon until events started unfolding. After all, Cap City only shows a 30% increase in order numbers from #17 to #18, and #17 even went DOWN from #16.

 

What I do know is they posted signs announcing one-off subscriptions to the entire "Death of Superman" (and later, "Funeral For a Friend") storyline before it started, aimed specifically at folks (like me) who would not normally think to subscribe to Superman titles. And it started with MoS 18, not with the cameos that began in 17.

 

 

I'd like to see more advertising material from the time period, but I am nearly positive that there was no such thing as "Death of Superman" as a reference for the entire storyline until the TPB was printed. There's not any reference to it that I can see from the books themselves (outside of Superman #75 directly, that is.)

 

For MOS #18 - Superman #74 - Adventures of Superman #497 - Action #684 - MOS #19 the story was called "Doomsday" on the cover.

 

This was in contrast to the "Funeral for a Friend" storyline, which had a headline banner at the top of all the books.

 

So, I'm not sure how anybody would have referred to the storyline as "the Death of Superman" before Superman #75 came out, looking at it forensically.

 

Even cooler, by the time month two of the storyline was in full swing, my LCS put several stacks of Superman ('87) # 1 back on the shelf for cover price.

 

Also, we didn't necessarily think or know that MoS 18 was the "first appearance of Doomsday" then, either. Here, my memory's fuzzy but I thought at the time it was a toss-up between MoS 17 (first appearance of the fist) and Superman 66?

 

Superman #66 was just a "rumor" that never panned out.

 

We bought as "part 1" -- similar to buying multiples of Batman 436 and 440 before then (or after, Batman 491).

 

You can distrust my memory or anecdotes as you wish,

 

I distrust MY memory and anecdotes, as we should everyone's. That's why documentation is vital, especially when documentation contradicts our memories.

 

 

[valiantman]

Not that there wasn't *some* focus paid...but there wasn't much, and it certainly wasn't anything like it is today.

 

That's why I challenge those who say "oh, yeah, we totally knew about the first (full) appearance of Doomsday, that was what everyone wanted!"

 

As part of the DOS story? Absolutely. As "the first appearance of Doomsday (full or not)"...? Not quite so much.

Fair enough...

I remember speculating on MOS #18 at the newsstand, so enough was known about the DOS story at the time it was out to know it was the "first Doomsday".

 

When did we (active collectors and retailers) learn that Superman #75 would be his death?

Was there any "leak" that told us "Doomsday is coming" meant that Superman would die?

What books were on newsstands when we found out?

 

Given the (unprecedented) jump in print run from MOS #18 to MOS #19, it seems easy to guess that everyone knew what was going on after the orders for MOS #18 were due and before the orders for MOS #19.

[Dexter85]

Not that there wasn't *some* focus paid...but there wasn't much, and it certainly wasn't anything like it is today.

 

That's why I challenge those who say "oh, yeah, we totally knew about the first (full) appearance of Doomsday, that was what everyone wanted!"

 

As part of the DOS story? Absolutely. As "the first appearance of Doomsday (full or not)"...? Not quite so much.

Fair enough...

I remember speculating on MOS #18 at the newsstand, so enough was known about the DOS story at the time it was out to know it was the "first Doomsday".

 

When did we (active collectors and retailers) learn that Superman #75 would be his death?

Was there any "leak" that told us "Doomsday is coming" meant that Superman would die?

What books were on newsstands when we found out?

 

Given the (unprecedented) jump in print run from MOS #18 to MOS #19, it seems easy to guess that everyone knew what was going on after the orders for MOS #18 were due and before the orders for MOS #19.

 

These adds were placed in various DC books leading up to the event, and I'm pretty sure this is about as specific as they got...

 

 

Edited to add: "This time the never-ending battle ends." I guess could be construed as meaning Superman's death.

 

Edited December 9, 2015 by Dexter85

[valiantman]

Not that there wasn't *some* focus paid...but there wasn't much, and it certainly wasn't anything like it is today.

 

That's why I challenge those who say "oh, yeah, we totally knew about the first (full) appearance of Doomsday, that was what everyone wanted!"

 

As part of the DOS story? Absolutely. As "the first appearance of Doomsday (full or not)"...? Not quite so much.

Fair enough...

I remember speculating on MOS #18 at the newsstand, so enough was known about the DOS story at the time it was out to know it was the "first Doomsday".

 

When did we (active collectors and retailers) learn that Superman #75 would be his death?

Was there any "leak" that told us "Doomsday is coming" meant that Superman would die?

What books were on newsstands when we found out?

 

Given the (unprecedented) jump in print run from MOS #18 to MOS #19, it seems easy to guess that everyone knew what was going on after the orders for MOS #18 were due and before the orders for MOS #19.

 

These adds were placed in various DC books leading up to the event, and I'm pretty sure this is about as specific as they got...

 

 

Edited to add: "This time the never-ending battle ends." I guess could be construed as meaning Superman's death.

So, the bottom of that advertisement says "Man of Steel #18 through Superman #75"?

That would explain why those two books could have been "predictable keys".

[Lazyboy]

Not that there wasn't *some* focus paid...but there wasn't much, and it certainly wasn't anything like it is today.

 

That's why I challenge those who say "oh, yeah, we totally knew about the first (full) appearance of Doomsday, that was what everyone wanted!"

 

As part of the DOS story? Absolutely. As "the first appearance of Doomsday (full or not)"...? Not quite so much.

Fair enough...

I remember speculating on MOS #18 at the newsstand, so enough was known about the DOS story at the time it was out to know it was the "first Doomsday".

 

When did we (active collectors and retailers) learn that Superman #75 would be his death?

Was there any "leak" that told us "Doomsday is coming" meant that Superman would die?

What books were on newsstands when we found out?

 

Given the (unprecedented) jump in print run from MOS #18 to MOS #19, it seems easy to guess that everyone knew what was going on after the orders for MOS #18 were due and before the orders for MOS #19.

 

These adds were placed in various DC books leading up to the event, and I'm pretty sure this is about as specific as they got...

 

 

Edited to add: "This time the never-ending battle ends." I guess could be construed as meaning Superman's death.

So, the bottom of that advertisement says "Man of Steel #18 through Superman #75"?

That would explain why those two books could have been "predictable keys".

 

The only issue people couldn't have seen coming from that ad is JLA 69.

 

Also, the AC&E ad in MoS 18 featured the "Death of Superman Saga" with JLA 69 being the only issue not listed.

 

[Gatsby77]

Some random thoughts / observations.

 

- My LCS at the time used Diamond, hence ordering through Previews. Not sure if they also used other distributors (like Cap City, or another for random foreign or indie books) at the time as well, but it was suburban Philly. Diamond's the only one I heard about locally.

 

- Yes -- I recall that the Superman 66 1st appearance rumor was later debunked, as was the other random Superman one shot rumored to involve Doomsday. But we didn't know that at the time.

 

- That MoS 18 ad clearly shows use of "Death of Superman" prior to its publication, albeit (as already noted) omitting JLA 69.

 

- It also shows that MoS 17 was considered Doomsday's 1st appearance.

 

- Darkhawk 1 for $20 (limit 1). Seriously?

 

- Going back a few pages, I can't believe that Sword of Azrael 3 outsold the mainline Batman book in October. Yeah -- Sword of Azrael was hot because Quesada was a hot artist, coming off The Ray, but for a random Batman mini to outsell the main title? Wow...

 

- Also from October, Ren & Stimpy # 1 (at # 60) was the far hotter short-term book than MoS 18 in my area. It sold out instantly, and went to $12 within a few weeks, whereas MoS 18 peaked at about $8.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

There's a difference between a focus on first appearances of existing characters (Punisher, Wolverine, and more recently,at the time, Cable and Venom), and first appearances of brand new characters that nobody had ever seen before.

 

No one should misunderstand: I am absolutely, under no circumstances, suggesting that people weren't after first appearances. They were. It was a frenzy. But they were after first appearances of already established characters, not new characters that no one had ever heard of before.

 

A perfect example of that would be New Mutants #87. Nobody "speculated" on it, very few bought multiple copies of it, and it took roughly 5-6 months for the character to really start to catch on. For reference, I bought five copies at $1.25 from my LCS about the time that New Mutants #94 was out, and as we have seen, ads from the period didn't really make note of it.

 

So, "this is the first (full) appearance of Doomsday!!!" would have been met with "um...who?" at the time that MOS #18 came out.

 

And if the conversation went further, like "this is the character who might kill Superman!" the response might have been "um...they're going to kill Superman? Right. It's a total stunt, there's no way they're killing Superman."

 

And the focus was on the Death of Superman, rather than the first appearance of Doomsday. As far as Doomsday, or ANY new character was concerned, there was a decidedly more "let's wait and see what they do with this one" attitude then.

I think the shift to speculating on first appearances occurred long before CGC. A few observations; granted this is just limited to what I saw as a comic collector, but I don't think it's outside of common experience

 

• Any time a new Valiant character popped up, there was a rush to get the first appearance. I don't remember this happening pre-Unity (as the books hit the shelves), but it certainly happened post-Unity in my area, with Bloodhot, Ninjak, Dr. Mirage, and perhaps some other characters.

 

• First appearances of established characters that no one really cared about had a bit of an upswing in case they became characters people cared about. Marvel reprinting the first appearances of Morbius and Silver Sable seems to be an indication of this.

 

• Both Marvel and DC devoted their annuals to the introduction to new characters one year (maybe not the same year; I forget, but certainly in a close time frame). This would seem to suggest that there was some recognition from a sales perspective that the introduction of new characters were selling.

 

• Looking at my personal collection, I only have one of the books that preceded the Death of Superman storyline in any of the titles (most titles there is at least three issues between the previous issue owned), but I own all of the cameo issues, including 7 copies of MoS 17, and all of the books that I own are from when they came out (i.e. I didn't pick up any after the fact).

 

I think Wizard was a big influence in changing the mindset of the average collector. Not sure exactly where the shift happened on the first appearance thing, but at the latest it was somewhere in the early-mid '90s.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Not that there wasn't *some* focus paid...but there wasn't much, and it certainly wasn't anything like it is today.

 

That's why I challenge those who say "oh, yeah, we totally knew about the first (full) appearance of Doomsday, that was what everyone wanted!"

 

As part of the DOS story? Absolutely. As "the first appearance of Doomsday (full or not)"...? Not quite so much.

Fair enough...

I remember speculating on MOS #18 at the newsstand, so enough was known about the DOS story at the time it was out to know it was the "first Doomsday".

 

When did we (active collectors and retailers) learn that Superman #75 would be his death?

Was there any "leak" that told us "Doomsday is coming" meant that Superman would die?

What books were on newsstands when we found out?

 

Given the (unprecedented) jump in print run from MOS #18 to MOS #19, it seems easy to guess that everyone knew what was going on after the orders for MOS #18 were due and before the orders for MOS #19.

 

These adds were placed in various DC books leading up to the event, and I'm pretty sure this is about as specific as they got...

 

 

Edited to add: "This time the never-ending battle ends." I guess could be construed as meaning Superman's death.

So, the bottom of that advertisement says "Man of Steel #18 through Superman #75"?

That would explain why those two books could have been "predictable keys".

 

The only issue people couldn't have seen coming from that ad is JLA 69.

 

Also, the AC&E ad in MoS 18 featured the "Death of Superman Saga" with JLA 69 being the only issue not listed.

 

 

Those ads really annoyed me. They were advertising books that hadn't even come out yet for more than cover price.

 

 

MOS #18, for example, was $1.25...and in that very same issue, it was advertised for "$2"...in the exact same issue you just bought for $1.25.

 

 

Also: I believe, but would have to find it, that the cover art for Superman #75 was on the cover of the issue of Previews it was in...which would have put it out somewhere around 2-4 weeks before MOS #18 hit the stands.

 

The whole thing was very fast, as these things go. It was a bit like Death in the Family: new books every 2 weeks, and then Robin's dead the third issue. Sorry if that spoiled it for any of you, but...it was 1988, after all.

 

Good points, all. I've got some observations to make, but right now, my net connectivity is limited. Lucky you!

 

[Gatsby77]

Also: I believe, but would have to find it, that the cover art for Superman #75 was on the cover of the issue of Previews it was in...which would have put it out somewhere around 2-4 weeks before MOS #18 hit the stands.

 

Yup. The first issue of Previews I paid attention to as a collector, Sept. 1992. Which means we had at least a few weeks notice before MoS 18 (part 1) hit the stands.

 

 

And at least some big dealers (like American Entertainment) had enough advance notice to run the copy for that ad in MoS 18 itself.

 

[Chillax23]

Has anyone seen an uptick in actual selling prices of MOS18 in CGC 9.8 or just listings with inflated asking prices?

Edited December 14, 2015 by Chillax23

[valiantman]

Has anyone seen an uptick in actual selling prices of MOS18 in CGC 9.8 or just listings with inflated asking prices?

2015

December average $143, with 51 sales

November average $95, with 9 sales

October average $99, with 12 sales

September average $94, with 11 sales

August average $97, with 16 sales

 

 

 

[LOC Collectibles]

Has anyone seen an uptick in actual selling prices of MOS18 in CGC 9.8 or just listings with inflated asking prices?

2015

December average $143, with 51 sales

November average $95, with 9 sales

October average $99, with 12 sales

September average $94, with 11 sales

August average $97, with 16 sales

 

 

 

I sold 2 copies. 1 @ 149.99 and 1 @ 159.99. Each book sold within a half hour of listing them.