Action Comics #3 Review
Grant Morrison and Rags Morales are joing by Gene Ha as things heat up in the third issue of Action Comics.
Action Comics #3
As a young Superman deals with negative public opinion thanks to his rash actions and rumors that he’s an alien, Clark Kent faces the fallout of his reporting against Metropolis’s most powerful and corrupt. Meanwhile, an alien intelligence takes control of Earth’s technology and demands a showdown with the Man of Steel for the fate our world.
A few months back, a lot of fans were crying foul over the choices Superman made in issue one. Namely, forcing a confession out of a man by violence and refusing to cooperate with the police. Many seemed to view it as a failing of Grant Morrison, claiming he wasn’t writing the “real” Superman. Others, myself included, tried to remind people that this is what you call “Character Development” and that a story about Superman’s early days on the job would most likely result in him learning that threatening to “kick ass and take names” wasn’t the best way to accomplish his goals.
And so here we deal with the fallout of Superman’s actions. It turns out that a man with god-like powers taking the law into his own hands is going to anger and scare quite a few people, to say nothing of his being perceived as an alien invader. And while I’m not a fan of the idea of Superman being “hated and feared by the people he’s trying to help” like the X-Men, it at least comes off less annoying here than it did in BIRTHRIGHT and SECRET ORGIN, where Superman did nothing to deserve that distrust.
Clark Kent comes off in a slightly better light. Far from being a Peter Parker-clone, this Clark is assertive and not afraid to mouth off to a police officer illegally searching his home. I like this Inspector Blake, and really hope he follows Clark’s advice in becoming the cop he wanted to be as a kid. Clark refusing to back down from the likes of Glenmorgan is inspiring, and again I hope this Clark sticks around for a while. But I wonder who he was talking to on the phone. Surely not the same person Lex was last issue, wasn’t that…
And also, mad props to Morrison and co. for actually having Clark sleep under his Superman cape, which was originally his childhood blanket. There have been tons of jokes over the years about Superman’s suit literally being his security blanket, and I’m glad that’s made its way into the main book.
Gene Ha’s Krypton art was beautiful to behold, and I almost don’t want anyone else to draw any Krypton scenes for Morrison now. I’m glad that, if different artists are going to be used to keep this book on schedule, each artist has his own “territory” to keep the art from changing mid-sentence. As always, Rags Morales’s classic pulp-style comic art is perfect for the story and adds to that neo-retro feel.
I’m now 100% sure that the alien ship from last issue was Brainiac. We see his classic assault on Krypton and now he’s heading for Earth. I’m amazed at Morrison’s willingness to utilize so many things in this one story-arc. John Corben turns into Metallo, wearing armor that looks suspiciously like Lex’s classic purple-and-green battle suit, and is instantly taken over by Brainiac. Wow, that’s lot of stuff crammed into one story.
And really, I see that as a good and bad thing about Morrison’s writing. The single page showing Superman saving the cat, being attacked by the public and then throwing away his super-suit would have been a whole issue for some writers. And while I appreciate Morrison’s willingness to fast forward over the filler, sometimes it feels just a little too rushed. The single PANEL showing the homeless person telling Clark about the ghost of the white dog watching over him was intriguing, but it really feels out of place with no set up or resolution. It’s just there and then gone, on to something else. It was disorienting.
I really wish the 8 pages they wasted on advertising the other Super-books had been spent on expanding a few of these more rushed scenes. I didn’t mind the extra dollar last issue when the back-up was interviews with the creators and production sketches of ACTION. Then it felt like DVD-extras. This time it was just the same interviews they’ve been doing for all the New 52.
Either lower the price and “Hold the Line” at $2.99, or use those extra pages for more story or interviews that pertain to THIS book. But don’t charge me a dollar for interviews about books I’m not reading, and which are really just advertisements to begin with.
But despite those few quibbles, I’m really loving Action Comics, and am breaking my neck to get to the comic store when it opens so that I can read this book as soon as possible.
A COMIC BOOK BLOG RATING
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Story and Art are top-notch | The EXTRAs are just fancy ads for other books |
| Rating |
More Superman @ acomicbookblog.com/tag/superman
21 Comments
Cool review. I agree that when more than 1 artist is used for a book, they should each be assigned their own scene or “territory” (as you said) because it helps keep the natural flow of the story. I’m glad this issue does just that.
Phillip Carson gives some of the best interviews! I agree all the way!
Appreciate the love, Gerald!
I don’t doubt character development is a valid point, and that a young Superman should come across as a “work in progress,” but I just couldn’t see how Ma and Pa Kent could raise someone who, with enhanced strength at his disposal, beats the living snot out of those weaker than himself, even if for altruistic reasons.
All along, I’ve assumed that the only thing keeping Kal-El from abusing his strength was the Kent’s as a moral compass. So, since he has been shown recently as being willing to toss people around like ragdolls, I wonder what kind of upbringing exactly it is that instills a sense of “social justice” by combining it with “might makes right”?
Anyone who disagrees with people who have reservations with the new Superman needs to think about this one thing- when a character is almost totally redone, wouldn’t it be better to just create a new character? You could tell the same story, just change everyone’s names. Ah, but this wouldn’t sell, you say? Well, I guess that’s there is your answer.
Sometimes, though, names should be changed, to protect the innocent and the symbolic alike.
I would agree if Morrison was making Superman a blond samurai who’s sword carried the ghost of his dead father, or something.
But what Morrison has done has asked “If Superman was a real person, what could have happened to change him from the 1938 ball-buster to the modern super-savior we’re used to?”
This Superman is 19 and angry. He’s sick of guys like Glenmorgan getting a free pass to kill anyone he wants to make a buck. Yes, in #1 Superman jumps off a roof carrying Glenmorgan, giving him a scare. But he also has to save the lives of squatters and train passangers Glennmorgan endangered.
I’d say he still came out ahead. I figure that by the end of this story, Clark will realize the only way to deal with guys like Glennmorgan is as Clark Kent, exposing them to the people and the law in his stories.
When the “new is old again” Superman avanges people, he has a moral center, and that’s okay. It’s when he beats up people who are endowed with 1/10th of his strength that the character goes from being avenger to REvenger. Not a good way to exhibit a moral center. I think this was alluded to in the first issue regarding a spouse abuser with broken ribs that Superman had visited. To me, this behavior makes one neither super nor a man, but I’m old-fashioned.
I’ve read some of the older Superman stories, so I get what you are saying about the journey from that person to the one we’ve seen for the past few decades, but I think the older Superman was, in fact, a different character for different times. What the world needs now is positive role models with a strong moral compass. Even Batman, who could be called a bit of an “anti-hero” at times, doesn’t kill to revenge his parents death, but simply fight to avenge them.
Or, in other words, the present Superman takes that character back by a gaint leap of 1/8th of a mile.
Nice review, but you’re assuming a lot on Morrison’s part, and there’s still the glaring hole of what type of individual the Kents raised Clark to be. There’s been no backstory on the Kents, so we don’t know if he’s acting out because their gone, or if they’d be right along with him saying: “That’s our boy!” .
No Peter Parker clone? That scene with the binned costume is right out of Spider-Man! All it needed was to be done in an alley. If this Superman is 19 and angry, we still don’t know why, and for me, it’s really hurting the story. For Parker it was dropping ball on his Uncle Ben, but what reason does Superman have to be angry? These would have worked better as Superboy (the adventures of Superman when he was a boy) stories, then the development could be seen with or without the Kents.
The biggest problem I have is that it’s only issue #3 and he’s quit. He faces some adversity and he quits. Did the Kents raise him to be a quitter as well? That’s a Parker trait if there ever was one. It’s to much of a push to make him relatable, to show he’s just like all of us, instead of showing why he’s Superman.
I think he’s angry about the stuff he mentioned being angry about in issue 1. Corrupt businessmen taking advantage of people and cops too scared and/or crooked to stop them. He’s trying to change the world, but he’s going about it all wrong.
That’s why I think he’s quitting. He’s doing this all “for the people” and then they said they don’t want him. So he leaves. I’m sure we’ll see him make a comeback in the next issue or two. We know from JL and Perez’s Superman that he’s doesn’t quit forever. ;)
That’s the way a story works. Moment of doubt followed by triumphant return. Some people want Superman to be a statue, representing all that’s perfect and great. But writers want him to be someone who makes mistakes and learns from them, like a character in a story. I think that’s what causes so much friction between fans and writers.
And again, Morrison is writing a hyper-compressed story. We had only one panel of him “quitting” meaning they had to compress the whole idea down into one image. And what’s the universally understood image of a superhero quitting? Suit in the trashcan, from Spider-Man.
But I’m a Morrison fan, so I read a lot of interviews with him, and so I know a little about what he’s trying to do and where’s he’s trying to go. Which I guess means I’m more relaxed about the ups and downs in this story. Plus, being a Morrison fan, I just trust him. Not objective, but there it is.
Is it really about Superman being a statue, or Superman being the best that we as humans have to offer? What if Gandhi or MLK Jr., or Chavez, had just quit in the face of adversity? Superman is supposed to be the hero to inspire other heroes. At least, that’s what he was. Superman would keep trying until he got it right, not quit because people rejected him. Think about it, how many people who really need his help would suffer because of his selfish decision? Also, he’s a reporter, but he cannot suss out that public opinion has been turned against him? I think writers want him to make mistakes, because they cannot write a strong moral centre. Not a “perfect” morality, but one that is right and incorruptible. If he’s angry at corruption, show why, the same way you can give a panel of him quitting. What’s more, when he comes back, will it be a significant reason or a contrived one? Metallo rampaging (contrived) versus the “Man of the People” jargon that’s been bandied about?
Mind you, I enjoy Morrison’s writing as well. I’ve read probably the same interviews, because I don’t like making uninformed comments, but I do feel that you’re giving him a pass and soft criticism. He’s capable of better than what’s he’s doing, and he’s shown it with his previous Superman work. Superman is a character that requires some thought and more than average creativity. Morrison has the goods, but he’s playing footsie thus far. Nonetheless, looking forward to the next issue.
I’m not a scholar, but I have to figure that even those guys had their moments of doubt. And for me, a hero isn’t a hero because he has no doubt, but because he can overcome it. Like we both know he will. And that’s all I think it was, a moment of doubt. After all, we know he’ll be back.
And it’s not like we saw him flat out refusing to help people after quitting, like Peter does in Spider-Man 2.
The thing is, Issue 1, everyone said Superman made a mistake about how he handled Glenmorgan. Then in issue 3, the plot revolves around the fact that he DID make a mistake, even quoting those fans “I would have confessed to anything!” So in issue 3, he makes a mistake and “quits”. And I’m sure in issue 4 or 5, he’ll realize again that he made a mistake. That’s not Morrison’s mistake, it’s format of the story.
I can’t criticize something I just don’t think is wrong.
It’s not Morrison’s mistake, but it’s Morrison telling the story? He is the one setting Superman up for these mistakes, right? Nonetheless, though I still think you’re a gentle critic of Morrison, I do respect your position of letting things play out. I look forward to the next issue and your review.
Well, I just feel like Morrison isconsciously having Superman make these mistakes on purpose, so that he can learn from them within the story. So again, Morrison isn’t making these mistakes as a writer, he’s writing a story about a guy who is making mistakes and learning from them, i.e. “growing up”.
But you are right, I did admit (about 13 comments up?) that I am a Morrison fan and I trust him. So I’m sure I’m a little easier on him. I just feel with his All-Star and JLA work, he’s earned the right to tell the Superman story he wants to tell, and I still trust that’ll all make sense in the end.
But we’ll see next month, right?
That’s exactly my point, and it makes for a poorer story. Do we really need to see Superman quit, so he can learn from it? Superman? Not that he can’t save everyone, not to lead by example, but quitting? It’s a poor choice, for the hero who is supposed to inspire others. But, we will see, eh?
I don’t know. The quitting just doesn’t bother me.
In SUPERMAN II, he quit. He went so far as to sacrifice his powers all for Lois, and he was a mature Superman who spent 12 years training with Jor-El. I think he comes off much worse there and that’s still considered a classic.
Mate, he “quit” for love. What did he quit for in Action #3? He quit because the going got tough. I can respect a man making a decision because he loves someone (wife, father, friend, etc.), but because the going got tough? Not so much. I don’t thunk it bothers you because you know that he’ll put the cape back on eventually, just as the costume change doesn’t annoy me greatly, because I know the classic suit will return shortly. Still, why not show Superman a “the tough get going”? For someone with all his ability to quit in the face of public opinion is pathetic. There are regular men and women, teens and children, who hump it every day for years, decades, in the face of much worse than what he’s faced in Action #3 and they don’t quit. They don’t take time to feel sorry for themselves. Yeah, sure, he’ll put the cape back on, he should never have taken it off in the first place.
Okay. So he can quit if he wants to get laid. But not if he’s afraid he’s doing more harm than good. Cool.
Come on, mate. That’s not what happened for either situation and you know it. He got “laid” in Superman 3, and didn’t have to quit, remember? He’s not quitting in Action because he sees more harm being done than good, either. We’re Factboys, not Fanboys, right?
He IS upset that he’s done more harm than good. When he’s having lunch with Jimmy he admits he could have taken Glennmorgan down legally with all the witnesses and evidence “Clark Kent” had, but Superman’s assault has given Glennmorgan something to hide behind and skirt the issue of his own wrong-doing. If he hadn’t shown off, Glennmorgan might already be behind bars.
We’re not even sure to what degree he has “quit.” Sure he throws his suit away, but he still goes to investigate the Factory of Tomorrow right after that. So it’s possible he’s given up on the costumed muscleman idea, but he IS still clearly tracking down the bad guys and trying to make the world better, just as plain Clark this time. We’ll just have to wait and see.
All three issues so far were garbage. Going no where and just about the stupidest Superman stories I have seen in decades. This love fest for this bald idiot is silly.
You people need to take your lips off the anus of Grant and start reading some REAL Superman stories.
Well…? Put up or shut up. In your expert opinion, what are some “real” Superman stories?