You might think that a winged, fire-breathing dragon from the planet Krypton would give even Superman pause.
But you’d be wrong.
The last surviving snagriff arrived to menace Metropolis in Superman 78 (Sept.-Oct. 1952), having been injected with what amounted to an experimental immortality serum by Superman’s father, Jor-El.
Although more powerful than Superman, the super-beast posed no direct threat to him because it was distracted by its insatiable appetite for metal, a side effect of the serum.
That appetite proved fatal when the creature swallowed six atomic bombs and was vaporized.
Or was it?
In Superman 142 (Jan. 1961), an identical Kryptonian monster — now called a flame dragon, not a snagriff — attacks Earth, but is disempowered by red kryptonite, frozen by his super-breath and hurled into eternal orbit somewhere beyond Pluto.
Also spotlighted in the house ad above are Superman’s Girl Friend Lois Lane 22 (in which the girl reporter acquires real “x-ray glasses) and Action Comics 271 (featuring an “electrical alien” hoax meant to trap Superman).
Enter the son of the flame dragon.
When an egg left by the frozen creature hatched in Superman 151 (Feb. 1962), the Man of Steel was able to carry the young beast into the prehistoric past, where it would be at home and couldn’t menace humanity. In the process, its fangs, stronger than steel, injured his hand.
And there’s a good illustration of how frustrating Superman stories sometimes were for readers in the 1960s.
Instead of a battle between Superman and a truly formidable monster (which is what we wanted to see), this story turned out to be yet another secret identity puzzle, with Lois Lane determined to prove that Clark Kent’s hand was visibly injured, just like Superman’s.
Meh.
As for the flame dragon, he ended up starring with Titano the Super-Ape in a knock-off of King Kong Vs. Godzilla in Jimmy Olsen’s Monster Movie (Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen 84, April 1965)
How the mighty were fallen.
Charles W. Fouquette wrote:
ReplyDeleteIt looks so silly now.
Bob Doncaster wrote:
ReplyDeleteSuperman didn't think about how he was disrupting the ecology of the prehistoric past by dropping a dragon in it. Look what pythons have done to the Everglades.
Bob Hughes wrote:
ReplyDeleteBob Doncaster There was only one dragon. It shouldn't have been able to do much damage. Wayne Boring drew the best dragons.
Richard Imundo wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhat is so wrong with the idea that Superman is essentially a fun character?
Why should he embody adolescent rage or twentysomething idealism?
Personally (as you may have noticed) I don't think it's possible for the character to represent/convey mature themes.
Why limit his fantasy potential? A character that can do anything can break continuity with his bare hands.
Richard Imundo Nothing is wrong with Superman being a fun character. But even a fun character can convey themes about power and responsibility, among other things. Remember, be began as a 1930s social crusader, and the character who inspired him — Wylie's Hugo Danner — was tragic.
ReplyDeleteCheryl Spoehr wrot:
ReplyDeleteOnce again you got it right. I recall reading this one and thinking, Super monster vs. Superman, this is going to be good! Only it wasn't...hardly any problem with the Flame Dragon at all.
I think the problem was the same as with Fawcett's Captain Marvel. All of these characters were invulnerable... so a battle is absolutely useless.
By definition,battles between Kryptonians, Shazam-powered characters, etc. begin and end in stalemate. If you can't hurt nor even hold back others, then this is hardly a practical battle.
Ironically, battles for J'onn J'onzz the Martian Manhunter and Green Lantern were much more fun, because bad guys could hold their own with these heroes. And if the story needs to knock the hero out, there is yellow for G.L. and fire for M.M.
Vincent Mariani wrote:
ReplyDeleteRichard Imundo, Even accepting your premise, it has to be reconciled with a heallthy number of classic Silver Age Superman stories that were fairly profound and displayed sensitivity, sacrifice and nobility. Also, the popularity of the TV series, which Silver Age fans were exposed to in syndication, featured episodes that were of a more serious nature. AND the stories were acted by real-life individuals, which negated an overreliance on fantasy. So the image of Superman was far more complex. "Truth, justice, and the American way." meant a lot in those days, even when we didn't always live up to the standards of a Superman.
Ultimately, when things would verge on silliness, the character would be stretched beyond recognition into Herbie territory. Batman, in the same period, had “jumped the shark” in similar fashion, with the diminution of DC's second most iconic hero being the inevitable result. Superman was rooted in science fiction, and Batman in pulp vigilantism. Getting too far from those foundations often didn't work out too well, even given the fantasy elements necessary for superhero comics.
Another thing; before the early '60s, comics readership had a quick turnover rate. Goofy stories that were novelties for young readers up to that point could become rapidly tedious to a growing fan base that was demanding a bit more from the publishers.