Which Superman writer was handed the biggest opportunity?

Who was given the keys to the car with the highest stakes? Its not really about how they did with the opportunity, but who was given the biggest opportunity?

Hey John Byrne, reinvent Superman after Crisis!

Hey Dan Jurgens, kill Superman!

Hey Grant Morrison, we're rebooting it all, reboot Superman!

Who else?

Byrne and Morrison were the two who got to essentially start the mainline Superman from scratch so I’d say them.

Byrne and Morrisson are the two that came to mind, because they reinvent Superman for the next decade to come which every writers after that largely ignored.

Byrne even moreso than Morrison since the latter only stay long enough to make his mini series while ignoring other writers

(The first inconsistency I noticed in New 52 was Johns established that the League besides Batman didn't know that Clark's a reporter even 5 years since their origin while in Morrison wrote that the League knows since the beginning. Morrison's version makes more sense but New 52 is built with Justice League as the main book.)

I'd say Byrne and Morrison, but both were derailed by choices made on the editorial level that prevented both from being as successful as they could have been.

Had Byrne been able do more of a soft reboot as he was initially intending, it wouldn't have caused the headaches that unmoored Supergirl & Superboy, and torpedoed Legion of the Super-Heroes for decades.

Had Morrison been allowed to make his neo-Seigel & Shuster Superman reboot a more self-contained book that could be a complete restart existing on a new Earth that didn't replace the Pre-Flashpoint Superman incarnation, and been given the lead time to give Rags time to do all the art, the relaunch would have certainly been more successful.

Dan jurgens with death of superman. The other two were pretty big when they got the gig of re-adapting superman for modern audiences.
[QUOTE=Bored at 3:00AM;5149009]I'd say Byrne and Morrison, but both were derailed by choices made on the editorial level that prevented both from being as successful as they could have been.

Had Byrne been able do more of a soft reboot as he was initially intending, it wouldn't have caused the headaches that unmoored Supergirl & Superboy, and torpedoed Legion of the Super-Heroes for decades.

Had Morrison been allowed to make his neo-Seigel & Shuster Superman reboot a more self-contained book that could be a complete restart existing on a new Earth that didn't replace the Pre-Flashpoint Superman incarnation, and been given the lead time to give Rags time to do all the art, the relaunch would have certainly been more successful.[/QUOTE]

Heck Yeah! Jesus superman could have had main line(anything after donner movies is jesus superman ) . Moses superman could have returned in another book.

“Hey John Byrne, reinvent Superman after Crisis!”

Byrne had just shy of 40 years of established lore to overcome/retool/homage/streamline. Nothing like it had ever been done.
The closest thing to it was the retroactive earth 1/earth 2 division of the Superman books. That was a lot easier for fans to swallow, as his books were never cancelled, he was never killed off or replaced in any official manner.
Byrne was breaking new ground.

Not that he was alone. The same thing was happening across the board at DC. But Byrne had the spotlight on him because he had the flagship character. Everyone was waiting to see if he’d screw it up, sink or swim.
No pressure.

[QUOTE=Riv86672;5149032]“Hey John Byrne, reinvent Superman after Crisis!”

Byrne had just shy of 40 years of established lore to overcome/retool/homage/streamline. Nothing like it had ever been done.
The closest thing to it was the retroactive earth 1/earth 2 division of the Superman books. That was a lot easier for fans to swallow, as his books were never cancelled, he was never killed off or replaced in any official manner.
Byrne was breaking new ground.

Not that he was alone. The same thing was happening across the board at DC. But Byrne had the spotlight on him because he had the flagship character. Everyone was waiting to see if he’d screw it up, sink or swim.
No pressure.[/QUOTE]

Regardless what i might think of donner and byrne. They did define superman for a generation. More in a jesus kind of way. But, i would say they were pretty successful in what they created.

Anyone given the opportunity to ignore continuity and make an Elseworld or another origin or other such take. These are the stories most likely to stand out an make an impact. Birthright, Red Son, Smashes the Klan, All Star. There are in continuity non-origin story well, stories, that make an impact too. But so far, it's a bit easier to leave a huge mark story-wise outside of the ongoing.

I thought that Mark Waid--as a Superman historian--having the chance to write the definitive Superman in BIRTHRIGHT was a huge deal. Unfortunately, his work didn't stand the test. But it could have been really something.

Depends on how you look at it, but it's between Byrne and Morrison. Dan wasn't the one to suggest killing Superman, he just thought up the monster, so I see that as more of a team thing.

Here's my take: Byrne had the most sizable opportunity since it had never been done before. Other than editorial, the sky was the limit.

Morrison may have had the highest stakes, though: he was doing what Byrne had done decades earlier, and 2011 was an infinitely more connected world and a much smaller comics-buying crowd. So the greatest chance of failure (and thus the highest stakes) was with Morrison.

[QUOTE=manwhohaseverything;5149044]Regardless what i might think of donner and byrne. They did define superman for a generation. More in a jesus kind of way. But, i would say they were pretty successful in what they created.[/QUOTE]

You could make somewhat a case for Donner's being this, but not Byrne's Superman.

[QUOTE=JAK;5150175]You could make somewhat a case for Donner's being this, but not Byrne's Superman.[/QUOTE]yeah, if anything Byrnecwent out of his way to make Clark very human. Growing up he used his powers to make himself a football star in HS and was popular. Even when he got to Metropolis he acted like a normal guy, not the nebbish PC Clark used to portray. One of the reasons Byrne’s Krypton stood out was in its complete contrast to what Earth was, and how Clark was very much an earthling.

[QUOTE=JAK;5150175]You could make somewhat a case for Donner's being this, but not Byrne's Superman.[/QUOTE]

There is clear influence of both goldenage and donner superman in byrne run. Moreover,being human doesn't negate jesus iconography. Every origin story after donner movies except American alien and to a certain extent morrison's action had it to some extent . Many would say jesus is the most human savior figures. On the other hand, people rarely understand that moses is a prophet who lead his people to freedom and never a savior who lead people by example.It's because he was flawed. He had blood on his hands. He created a base code with very basic morality that humanity [B]should try to atleast keep[/B](with some nonsensical once) . Keyword try. He made it in stone because that's really most basic morality and changing or removing any of the codes would be counter productive. He created a standard. Because he knew he himself wouldn't cut it to say the least. Even exile is a reconfirmation of superman as an example figure like in Christianity, christ is that. He killed, he realised the sin and he vowed against it.it's ain't about killing either. Its like this christ needed to know sin to rescue humanity from it that's the template . Unlike moses, He didn't make peace with it. Moses could only make peace with the bloodshed that happened to free his people. There is a stark contrast. Moses wouldn't be the standard himself. Superman is about sacrificing yourself for humanities sins. He does it time and time again.It's like this, in the old days superman was moses and christ was billy batson. Even waid understood that.

[QUOTE=manwhohaseverything;5150478]There is clear influence of both goldenage and donner superman in byrne run. Moreover,being human doesn't negate jesus iconography. Every origin story after donner movies except American alien and to a certain extent morrison's action had it to some extent . Many would say jesus is the most human savior figures. On the other hand, people rarely understand that moses is a prophet who lead his people to freedom and never a savior who lead people by example.It's because he was flawed. He had blood on his hands. He created a base code with very basic morality that humanity [B]should try to atleast keep[/B](with some nonsensical once) . Keyword try. He made it in stone because that's really most basic morality and changing or removing any of the codes would be counter productive. He created a standard. Because he knew he himself wouldn't cut it to say the least. Even exile is a reconfirmation of superman as an example figure like in Christianity, christ is that. He killed, he realised the sin and he vowed against it.it's not about killing either. Its like this christ needed to know sin to rescue humanity from it that's the template . Unlike moses, He didn't make peace with it. Moses could only make peace with the bloodshed that happened to free his people. There is a stark contrast. Moses wouldn't be the standard himself. Superman is about sacrificing yourself for humanities sins. He does it time and time again.It's like this, in the old days superman was moses and christ was billy batson. Even waid understood that.[/QUOTE]

There is Donner influence in the Byrne reboot, but not in the areas you're talking about. So, not really. You've taken things that came later and ascribed them to Byrne's Superman, and it doesn't work (frankly, they didn't even work at the time, when the people who wrote those stories tried to say it fit with the same Superman). Exile is not a reconfirmation of Clark-as-Christ, even in the most basic reading of it; what you're experiencing is confirmation bias. Reading the comics at the time (or at least not long after, in my case), Christ allegory was absolutely the last thing (afaik) all of us took from it.

Byrne's Superman was very human, even to the point of (initially) rejecting the Kryptonian part of himself. It just doesn't work, it's a square peg and a round hole.

[QUOTE=JAK;5150609]Exile is not a reconfirmation of Clark-as-Christ, even in the most basic reading of it; what you're experiencing is confirmation bias. Reading the comics at the time (or at least not long after, in my case), Christ allegory was absolutely the last thing (afaik) all of us took from it.
[/QUOTE]
This was not Christ imagery they were trying to evoke...:
[center][img]https://i.ibb.co/RgbFRXQ/565-C8-AA4-E9-E4-48-F8-AEAF-07-D32-FE7703-E.jpg[/img][/center]