Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.03 AVERAGE
4.03 AVERAGE
I was hoping to really like this graphic novel as the concept sound great. Superman a communist, Russia becoming the great super power. What could go wrong?
In my opinion the writing is very sub-par. It was so distracting it took away for the story. I am not sure what it was about the writing style but it didn't work for me. The story was not nearly as good as I tought it was going to be. Superman becomes a politician and nearly creates Utopia. I guess I was hoping for Superman to be more of a bad guy.
I do like the art in the book and seeing superman in a different costume is a fresh take.
I would say this is a pass. I great thought but poorly executed.
In my opinion the writing is very sub-par. It was so distracting it took away for the story. I am not sure what it was about the writing style but it didn't work for me. The story was not nearly as good as I tought it was going to be. Superman becomes a politician and nearly creates Utopia. I guess I was hoping for Superman to be more of a bad guy.
I do like the art in the book and seeing superman in a different costume is a fresh take.
I would say this is a pass. I great thought but poorly executed.
The premise of this graphic novel was great and I liked the direction Millar went with it. The moral ambiguity of the story (is Superman the hero? Batman? Lex Luthor?) is one of its strongest points. Millar lets you decide for yourself what you think is right, what you think is wrong, and what falls somewhere in between. I particularly liked how Millar treated Batman in this story.
adventurous
dark
emotional
inspiring
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This, for me, was a similar experience to Spider-Man: Life Story. The huge time jumps (which I understand are part of the stunt of this whole concept) make this a whiplash-inducing record of a bunch of insane shit happening more than a story about people. I didn't really feel like I got to know this Superman as a character very much. A bunch of stuff just happens to him and with him and then it's over. There are definitely some interesting alternate-universe ideas here but I think I would've liked a few more issues to flesh everything out.
adventurous
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I heard of this in an HBO Max recommendation. The movie sucked ass and felt like it had a lot of things added to the script to try appealing to the modern audience, and lo and behold, I was right. This was an incredible read, honestly up there as maybe one of the greatest comics of all time. I feel like normally, someone would want to tell a story like this out of a glowing spark of inspiration and then unfortunately never get the rights to these original characters so they would have to make facsimiles of licensed characters to tell it. By getting the original DC characters the world has come to know and love, and then recontextualizing them into Communism, we realize this isn't just an alternate version of the heroes, but an alternate version of the world we live in.
The tone is incredibly serious all throughout which I admire. Comic book movies nowadays have a complete allergy to maintaining a serious tone, and though things are very kitsch in execution. A dust mite/tick attacks a metropolis at one point. A rioting America has a single panel that parodies the cover of the first-ever Superman comic. There's an almost forced, goofy motif of Lex Luthor and Superman playing chess completely separate from and yet against one another. Batman wears a Bat-Ushanka. Honestly, you could even say that the fact Superman replaces his logo with the hammer and sickle is silly. I don't want to be a comic book nerd about this, as I don't know this for sure: I thought it was established that the S on his uniform only coincidentally resembled the Roman alphabet "S", so in theory wouldn't the S be the same? The answer is, it doesn't matter because that's just less fun. And that's the point to an extent: These are all used in ways that elevate the characters and they take the death tolls and their negligence very seriously. It is to say that the petty flaws of the characters with powers of gods have consequences that wipe out countless lives of people who both depend on and fear them.
To go character by character:
Superman:
Between Injustice, Homelander, and so many other examples of "What if Superman was bad?", this Superman has to be my favorite because of how nuanced it is. Superman, at his core, is not spiteful, and we never really questioned how his values were influenced simply by having Ma and Pa Kent around. They were good parents, but he was inadvertently also raised to support American ideals that we don't really question. It stands to reason that if he had landed in Soviet territory, the parents there wouldn't have made him any more or any less bad, he would have just had a different set of values. What's interesting is that he ends up re-shaping the world. His influence upends our normal history because instead of the de facto general victory of capitalism during the Cold War, Communism begins to spread because he becomes an intimidating figure. What I love is how powerful he is, how dedicated he is to an ideal he sees as above even himself, and how powerless he is to stop dissidents and the world around him. He's not evil, and he's actually quite sad and human--while still expected to save absolutely everyone and everything. It makes his mistakes that much more frightening when they have lives on the line, and it makes his successes that much more confusing to root for, as even those have their own dissidents.
Batman:
What's completely strange is that I do not think there has ever been a version of Batman I ever vibed with. He's a little too aloof, almost a force of nature who seeks to eliminate any humanity in himself as he dedicates himself to a higher ideal. It's not to say he isn't fun or compelling, but just that he's not the kind of guy that ever felt real to me. That was completely changed in this version. I like that they don't have him stay American, which they do to Lex Luthor, and he's actually quite compelling as a result now that he's the good guy by default representing "the American Way". But Batman represents a different section of the left-wing spectrum: namely, anarchy, and it strangely makes him similar to the Joker. He is more bitter and even cracks a smile a few times, and Superman describes him and other dissidents as people "fighting for the right to live in hell", who reject a Communist utopia because there is no freedom of thought, that freedom has been traded for security. Some of the best drawings in this whole book are of Batman and he was my favorite character by the end, and he was a worthy adversary and a great reinterpretation.
Wonder Woman:
I think this may frustrate a feminist reader, although I didn't pay it much mind. Wonder Woman is infatuated with Superman, who is completely oblivious to her advances and interests. She adopts Communism as a means to become closer to him, but completely drops him and any interest in him as a result of a battle in which he forces her into defeating Batman, an experience which traumatizes her and leaves her bedridden, and ultimately vengeful. I think that a clumsy interpretation of this would be that Wonder Woman is a person of no agency; that she exists merely as a romantic interest that Superman abjures and she keeps coming back to. The right way to look at this, I think, is to realize she was robbed of her agency through a strange compulsion Superman seemed to activate in her brain, and to show just how inhuman he is to someone who could otherwise be a partner to him. He even describes Lois at one point almost like an animal. I don't think any characters are sexualized--you even see them age and dress fairly conservatively, although there is a very charming early sketch of Wonder Woman as a pinup in the appendix! Wonder Woman is a secondary character, sure, but she does have some scathing comments about the avarice of men by the end and realizes for herself that no matter what their ideals, men chasing their dreams will hurt anyone just to achieve them, and in the end it is always because of their vanity that they represent something greater.
Green Lantern:
Sucks and I do not know why he's here other than some internal obligation. Even Bizarro has a logical point. Very tellingly, most characters seem to have a slight blurb about them in the appendix that talks about all the thoughts they have about their development lovingly, with even in-jokes about their appearance (like the aforementioned Bat-Ushanka) while Green Lantern just has no confidence. It has question marks, an unenthused "kind of" description of their 1950s bomber jacket, and a wholly uninspired "the ring is pretty much the same." His influence is minimal and it was the dumbest part of the whole book which was otherwise incredible.
The Art:
I wanted this to be more of a character. There are some great full-page spreads, like Superman holding up the globe or soaring over a banner of Joseph Stalin, and you do see some propaganda posters, but for better or worse the art style is something I would describe as "stereotypical comic book". That isn't to say it's bad, and I'm able to follow everything. It's just that I think there is a missed opportunity to have EVERYTHING look like that art deco propaganda poster style, or at least really focus the moments we are in the USSR to drive that point home.
All in all, this is one of the best comics I've read and I'm pretty picky about them. I only wish it was longer, but it does begin and end its narrative with no loose ends. If you are embittered with Superman as a concept and don't think he can be compelling, but you aren't into the edgelord interpretations where he's out-and-out evil, this is a perfect thing to pick up. Amazing premise, great story, great characters.
The tone is incredibly serious all throughout which I admire. Comic book movies nowadays have a complete allergy to maintaining a serious tone, and though things are very kitsch in execution. A dust mite/tick attacks a metropolis at one point. A rioting America has a single panel that parodies the cover of the first-ever Superman comic. There's an almost forced, goofy motif of Lex Luthor and Superman playing chess completely separate from and yet against one another. Batman wears a Bat-Ushanka. Honestly, you could even say that the fact Superman replaces his logo with the hammer and sickle is silly. I don't want to be a comic book nerd about this, as I don't know this for sure: I thought it was established that the S on his uniform only coincidentally resembled the Roman alphabet "S", so in theory wouldn't the S be the same? The answer is, it doesn't matter because that's just less fun. And that's the point to an extent: These are all used in ways that elevate the characters and they take the death tolls and their negligence very seriously. It is to say that the petty flaws of the characters with powers of gods have consequences that wipe out countless lives of people who both depend on and fear them.
To go character by character:
Superman:
Between Injustice, Homelander, and so many other examples of "What if Superman was bad?", this Superman has to be my favorite because of how nuanced it is. Superman, at his core, is not spiteful, and we never really questioned how his values were influenced simply by having Ma and Pa Kent around. They were good parents, but he was inadvertently also raised to support American ideals that we don't really question. It stands to reason that if he had landed in Soviet territory, the parents there wouldn't have made him any more or any less bad, he would have just had a different set of values. What's interesting is that he ends up re-shaping the world. His influence upends our normal history because instead of the de facto general victory of capitalism during the Cold War, Communism begins to spread because he becomes an intimidating figure. What I love is how powerful he is, how dedicated he is to an ideal he sees as above even himself, and how powerless he is to stop dissidents and the world around him. He's not evil, and he's actually quite sad and human--while still expected to save absolutely everyone and everything. It makes his mistakes that much more frightening when they have lives on the line, and it makes his successes that much more confusing to root for, as even those have their own dissidents.
Batman:
What's completely strange is that I do not think there has ever been a version of Batman I ever vibed with. He's a little too aloof, almost a force of nature who seeks to eliminate any humanity in himself as he dedicates himself to a higher ideal. It's not to say he isn't fun or compelling, but just that he's not the kind of guy that ever felt real to me. That was completely changed in this version. I like that they don't have him stay American, which they do to Lex Luthor, and he's actually quite compelling as a result now that he's the good guy by default representing "the American Way". But Batman represents a different section of the left-wing spectrum: namely, anarchy, and it strangely makes him similar to the Joker. He is more bitter and even cracks a smile a few times, and Superman describes him and other dissidents as people "fighting for the right to live in hell", who reject a Communist utopia because there is no freedom of thought, that freedom has been traded for security. Some of the best drawings in this whole book are of Batman and he was my favorite character by the end, and he was a worthy adversary and a great reinterpretation.
Wonder Woman:
I think this may frustrate a feminist reader, although I didn't pay it much mind. Wonder Woman is infatuated with Superman, who is completely oblivious to her advances and interests. She adopts Communism as a means to become closer to him, but completely drops him and any interest in him as a result of a battle in which he forces her into defeating Batman, an experience which traumatizes her and leaves her bedridden, and ultimately vengeful. I think that a clumsy interpretation of this would be that Wonder Woman is a person of no agency; that she exists merely as a romantic interest that Superman abjures and she keeps coming back to. The right way to look at this, I think, is to realize she was robbed of her agency through a strange compulsion Superman seemed to activate in her brain, and to show just how inhuman he is to someone who could otherwise be a partner to him. He even describes Lois at one point almost like an animal. I don't think any characters are sexualized--you even see them age and dress fairly conservatively, although there is a very charming early sketch of Wonder Woman as a pinup in the appendix! Wonder Woman is a secondary character, sure, but she does have some scathing comments about the avarice of men by the end and realizes for herself that no matter what their ideals, men chasing their dreams will hurt anyone just to achieve them, and in the end it is always because of their vanity that they represent something greater.
Green Lantern:
Sucks and I do not know why he's here other than some internal obligation. Even Bizarro has a logical point. Very tellingly, most characters seem to have a slight blurb about them in the appendix that talks about all the thoughts they have about their development lovingly, with even in-jokes about their appearance (like the aforementioned Bat-Ushanka) while Green Lantern just has no confidence. It has question marks, an unenthused "kind of" description of their 1950s bomber jacket, and a wholly uninspired "the ring is pretty much the same." His influence is minimal and it was the dumbest part of the whole book which was otherwise incredible.
The Art:
I wanted this to be more of a character. There are some great full-page spreads, like Superman holding up the globe or soaring over a banner of Joseph Stalin, and you do see some propaganda posters, but for better or worse the art style is something I would describe as "stereotypical comic book". That isn't to say it's bad, and I'm able to follow everything. It's just that I think there is a missed opportunity to have EVERYTHING look like that art deco propaganda poster style, or at least really focus the moments we are in the USSR to drive that point home.
All in all, this is one of the best comics I've read and I'm pretty picky about them. I only wish it was longer, but it does begin and end its narrative with no loose ends. If you are embittered with Superman as a concept and don't think he can be compelling, but you aren't into the edgelord interpretations where he's out-and-out evil, this is a perfect thing to pick up. Amazing premise, great story, great characters.
Muy buen libro, sin textos faciles, y con personajes complejos aunque breves. Me gusto bastante
I recommend this book even if you don't like comics. This is alternate history at its finest! All characters here make sense in this new context and don't betray their motivations, how real life history was affected is just well written, and I love that we get to see the characters age from 1938-2004. A must read!
What a crying shame. What a waste of time and a perfectly good idea. A Soviet Superman. It's almost criminal how lame this ended up being.
I think the writer is punching above his weight class. He teases themes like the Arms race, mutual destruction, Capitalism vs. Communism, and all other 50's things. Lex Luthor making a Bizarro Superman to compete with Superman is FUN! But anything interesting or worthwhile is dropped on the floor so another What If? can happen. Millar basically gives Superman the Forrest Gump treatment, shoehorning some AU big names like Stalin, Marilyn Monroe, Kennedy, et al, just so you know that HE knows about the Cold War.
At the end of the day...it says nothing and does nothing with its premise. It's a cockeyed shallow view of Soviet Russia or post-WWII America. And none of the characters are that interesting. It relies too heavily on the reader being pleased enough to see Superman, Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, Hal Jordan and gang in different scenarios. I'm not sure why I give a rat's tail about Lois Lane here, whose personality is she works at an American newspaper, married to Lex Luthor, and is lonely.
[[The one very pleasing exception is Batman is a Russian anti-establishment terrorist.]]
I probably would've liked it a lot when I was 12. It isn't awful. Just a missed opportunity that whiffed and whiffed hard.
I think the writer is punching above his weight class. He teases themes like the Arms race, mutual destruction, Capitalism vs. Communism, and all other 50's things. Lex Luthor making a Bizarro Superman to compete with Superman is FUN! But anything interesting or worthwhile is dropped on the floor so another What If? can happen. Millar basically gives Superman the Forrest Gump treatment, shoehorning some AU big names like Stalin, Marilyn Monroe, Kennedy, et al, just so you know that HE knows about the Cold War.
At the end of the day...it says nothing and does nothing with its premise. It's a cockeyed shallow view of Soviet Russia or post-WWII America. And none of the characters are that interesting. It relies too heavily on the reader being pleased enough to see Superman, Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, Hal Jordan and gang in different scenarios. I'm not sure why I give a rat's tail about Lois Lane here, whose personality is she works at an American newspaper, married to Lex Luthor, and is lonely.
[[The one very pleasing exception is Batman is a Russian anti-establishment terrorist.]]
I probably would've liked it a lot when I was 12. It isn't awful. Just a missed opportunity that whiffed and whiffed hard.