DC should draw new readers with historic title

DC's decision to relaunch its classic "Adventure Comics" title is the latest attempt by the publisher to mine its long history and deep roster of iconic characters and classic titles, put a modern spin on them and draw in new fans.

While most of their recent attempts to do this have been disappointing, "Adventure Comics" No. 1 gives every indication that the title will be a resounding success.

First, some backstory for the uninitiated. The original "Adventure Comics" title debuted the same year Superman did, in 1938. For the next 45 years, it was "The Ed Sullivan Show" of comics, introducing many heroes who became household names. Sandman, Krypto and the Legion of Superheroes first appeared in its pages - where the death of the original Batman also took place.

To bring back the title after a 26-year absence and craft a story that would appeal to today's sophisticated fanboys while being worthy of the history and tradition of "Adventure Comics" is a herculean task not everyone could pull off.

Enter Geoff Johns, who has crafted a first issue that borders on magical.

Johns was the perfect choice for this book given his knowledge of the DC Universe, respect for its history and ability to get readers to revere the icons of the DCU while also relating to them.

In a brilliant move, Johns has the star of the book be Superboy, who is not only extremely interesting as written by Johns - but is a character who is analagous to the title in many ways: He has reappeared on the scene after being thought dead and though he has a familiar name he is not the character many think of when they hear it.

This Superboy is not a young Clark Kent. Rather, he is a being who was cloned using both the Kryptonian DNA of Superman and the human DNA of Lex Luthor.

Having the building blocks of both the greatest, most noble hero who ever lived and arguably the most evil man ever to walk the Earth within him sets up potentially enormous conflicts for Superboy.

Johns portrays Superboy, who's assumed the name Conner Kent, as a hip, T-shirt-and-jeans- wearing version of Superman. From playing catch with Krypto to the reverence he shows his "mother" Ma Kent; to enjoying the simple life of a tiny town, all Conner would have to do is change his name to Clark and he would easily pass for him. Indeed, he would fit right in as the lead on TV's "Smallville."

Johns makes it clear during the course of the story that at heart, Conner is more like Superman than Luthor. Yet Conner knows that Luthor did not set out to be evil and definitely doesn't see himself as such. He wonders aloud what role their respective environments played in each of his two "fathers" turning out the way they did.

Convinced that nurture outweighed nature, we see him trying to follow the same path Superman did - living with the Kents, going to Smallville High; joining a team of superheroes and helping anyone who needs it.

We get one humorous - though potentially dark - sign that Superboy may not be the clean-cut Boy Scout Superman is when he notices an attractive woman stuck on a bridge in imminent danger of collapse.

"Even Superman gets cats out of trees," says Superboy. "And that is one CUTE cat."

Then, after Krypto upstages him by saving the woman from drowning, Superboy says, "She might need mouth-to-mouth or a quick scan with our X-ray vision."

While that may be relatively harmless, let's just say that what is revealed about Conner at the end of the issue is certainly not.

In short, Johns leaves the reader wondering whether Conner simply wants to understand his "evil father" or emulate him. This mystery and Conner's internal struggle by themselves should provide months' worth of excellent stories.

Toss in Johns' penchant for making the simple seem epic and the epic seem extraordinary - and a backup feature starring the Legion of Superheroes - and this is a title that anyone who loves superb superhero storytelling should pick up.

As an ardent defender of comic creators' rights, Vanguard publisher J. David Spurlock was shocked to find himself embroiled this past year in a legal suit brought by Philadelphia resident Jim Warren, the founding publisher of "Creepy," "Eerie," "Vampirella" and "Famous Monsters."

Warren brought the suit as a result of Vanguard's artist biography, "Famous Monster Movie Art of Basil Gogos." Warren contended that the acclaimed book, which Spurlock produced with the famous monster artist along with noted monster historian Kerry Gammill, infringed on copyrights Warren claims in issues of "Famous Monsters of Filmland," "Creepy" and "Eerie" magazines from the 1960s and 70s.

"I believe every artist has a legal right to have an illustrated book covering their career." said Spurlock.

Federal Judge Michael M. Baylson agreed, as he ruled on Aug. 4 in favor of Spurlock/Vanguard on all counts.

Vanguard had argued that the reproductions were fair use as defined by copyright law. "I've loved Jim like an uncle for years," said Spurlock. "The work he produced in the '60s and '70s is an inspiration. I once had plans to help him resurrect many of his slumbering properties with deluxe hardcover collections but Jim got hung up with the Fair Use issue of Basil's book. Despite all of our attempts to educate him, he insisted on this monstrous copyright suit."

Warren originally sought close to $4 million from Spurlock and Vanguard.

"Had he won, it would have put us out of business, which means many, many great comic-book artists and illustrators would never get a book on their careers. That would have been a devastating blow to the artistic community."

Vanguard attorney M. Kelly Tillery of Pepper Hamilton, said, "The Supreme Court and academics have long observed that the Fair Use Doctrine is equally as important as copyright protection itself in serving the noble constitutional purpose 'to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.'"

About the decision, Spurlock said, "Litigation is so expensive that even the threat - however baseless - of a lawsuit can seriously inhibit authors, artists and publishers in their daily creative decisions, much to the detriment of culture. This decision will help free the creative community of the shackles of those meritless, but inhibiting, threats. I know it will help Vanguard get back to our business of honoring the popular arts and their creators."

E-mail comicsguy@phillynews.com