Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by vimcenzo
Superman: Red Son (New Edition) by Dave Johnson, Kilian Plunkett, Mark Millar, Walden Wong, Ken Lopez, Andrew C. Robinson, Paul Mounts
5.0
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.