The Superman Family Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
omike015

In Reply To
darth-sinister

Subj: Re: Chuck Austen's run on Action
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:14:34 pm EST
Reply Subj: Re: Chuck Austen's run on Action
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 01:52:44 pm EST (Viewed 1 times)

Previous Post

> I have heard a lot of REALLY bad things about this run mostly associated with a lot of dislike for Ausen's writing. I have read some of his stuff in other titles and other companies and didn't really care for most of it myself but it wasn't awful. I also heard that he wasn't even allowed to finish his own story or that he finished the story under a pseudonym. Can someone explain to me exactly what this was all about and what was wrong with these books or this story. I notice that they are reprinted in trade and that the individual issues themselves seem to be somewhat hard to find in my area so I was just kind of curious what the grumblings were all about.
>
> The Rev


The chief complaints that I've read here and in the reviews on the Superman Homepage reviews.

-Gog as the villian. While there wasn't much of a complaint, it mainly stemmed from the fact that we were told this is the first time Superman ever dealt with him. Which flew in the face of "The Kingdom" from a few years earlier.

-Doomsday's role. Doomsday was brought into the arc as having escaped from Darksied's clutches and was slowly but surely making his way to Metropolis.

-A new villian called the Repo Man, which made no sense when he first appeared. Had a lousy name and seemed to be filler.

-Superman making wisecracks. Some didn't mind, but others did take Austen to task for this since the character hadn't done that in a long time. Some felt that he was trying to write him as Spider-Man.

-A chunk of Kryptonite apppears during the Repo Man arc. It affects Superboy, but not Superman. Later it's buried on the Kent farm, with neither being affected. Superboy being affected made sense as it had been revealed that he was indeed part Kryptonian.

-The return of Lana Lang. Austen made it clear that he disliked Lois Lane (in story and interviews) and was using Lana to cause rifts in the marriage of Lois & Clark. The way Lois and Lana were being portrayed, went against their characters as it had been since the 86 reboot. And especially since Lana married Pete Ross.

-There were those who cited inconsistancies throughout the storyline. Sales were affected and so at some point, DC apparently let Chuck go before his run was completed. J.D. Finn came in and while the first issue he/she wrote was better recieved, the second part wasn't. Research amongest the fanbase revealed that there was no J.D. Finn working for DC or Marvel. And apparently, any other company. This led many to suspect it was either Austen trying to prove a point that the dislike of his run was because of him. Or that it was someone else. Some suspect it was then editor Eddie Bergenza using a pseudonym. Austen did go on record as saying those final two issues were not how he would resolve the story.

For an in-depth review, you should probably visit the Superman Homepage and read their review sections for 2004 and 2005.

> The chief complaints that I've read here and in the reviews on the Superman Homepage reviews.
>
> -Gog as the villian. While there wasn't much of a complaint, it mainly stemmed from the fact that we were told this is the first time Superman ever dealt with him. Which flew in the face of "The Kingdom" from a few years earlier.
>
> -Doomsday's role. Doomsday was brought into the arc as having escaped from Darksied's clutches and was slowly but surely making his way to Metropolis.

How are thse complaints?

> -A new villian called the Repo Man, which made no sense when he first appeared. Had a lousy name and seemed to be filler.

Lousy name, sure. But that issue provided for one of Neil Bailey’s funniest reviews.

> -Superman making wisecracks. Some didn't mind, but others did take Austen to task for this since the character hadn't done that in a long time. Some felt that he was trying to write him as Spider-Man.

Ah, yes. The “Superman shouldn’t be funny” argument. Still doesn’t hold up for me.

> -There were those who cited inconsistancies throughout the storyline. Sales were affected and so at some point, DC apparently let Chuck go before his run was completed. J.D. Finn came in and while the first issue he/she wrote was better recieved, the second part wasn't.

But you notice, pre-sales on both issues went up. There’s really no explanation for that other than people were avoiding the book -- not because it was bad -- but because of who was writing it.

>Research amongest the fanbase revealed that there was no J.D. Finn working for DC or Marvel. And apparently, any other company. This led many to suspect it was either Austen trying to prove a point that the dislike of his run was because of him. Or that it was someone else. Some suspect it was then editor Eddie Bergenza using a pseudonym. Austen did go on record as saying those final two issues were not how he would resolve the story.

I still believe it was Austen. People seem to forget that, at the same time, he was “replaced” by “Sam Clemens” on his creator-owned title WORLDWATCH.

omike015
:-|



kandor.monkeylord.net (10.0.1.245)
using Fortress Kryptonian Browsing Matrix v1.9.38 (0.09 points)
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software