Should The Pre Crisis Supergirl Becone Canon Again?

The Supergirl of 1959-1986 had a rich history in the comics that was wiped away after John Byrne's The Man of Steel hit the stands. Infinite Crisis could have been the perfect opportunity to make this iteration of the character canon again, but a few years prior Kara Zor El was rebooted in the pages of Superman/Batman, making it impossible for the Silver Age Supergirl to ever have existed in Post Crisis continuity.

Well, considering Kara's 21, I figure they can use her Pre-Crisis adventures to fill the void between the 16 year old we last saw and the 21 year old she is now.

Outright bringing back Pre-Crisis Supergirl would be like bringing back Pre-Crisis Superman: it wouldn't make much sense considering current continuity (insofar as that exists).

Not only should the pre-Crisis Supergirl become canon again, so should the pre-Crisis Super[B]MAN[/B]!

On Earth 0, as part of mainstream DC continuity...no.

But if they ever do something with Earth 1985, then IMO that's the best place to showcase this version again.

[QUOTE=superduperman;5644757]Not only should the pre-Crisis Supergirl become canon again, so should the pre-Crisis Super[B]MAN[/B]![/QUOTE]

I’m of the opinion that they should have done this in rebirth


Jordan Elliot, Jonathan elliot, Lois Elliot

All of them are the pre-crisis Superman family from whatever happened to the man of tomorrow

I thought that way long ago Waid and company established that all things are "canon" with the whole Hypertime thing. I am still puzzled by DiDio and Company's insistence on Infinite and Final Crises and the protracted and vacuously bombastic Death Metal when it doesn't accomplish anything that hadn't already been more than adequately and cleanly addresed by Hypertime.

[QUOTE=Stanlos;5644859]I thought that way long ago Waid and company established that all things are "canon" with the whole Hypertime thing. I am still puzzled by DiDio and Company's insistence on Infinite and Final Crises and the protracted and vacuously bombastic Death Metal when it doesn't accomplish anything that hadn't already been more than adequately and cleanly addresed by Hypertime.[/QUOTE]



And a short time later Mr. Majestic showed up in the super titles. He didn't know where in the multiverse he was, in relation to his own home universe. All he knew was that Earth-0 was in a completely different strand of the multiverse. Definetely implying an infinite multiverse. Sometime later Superman helped Mr. Majestic find his way home. If DC's objective was to tell new stories set in their many different continuities, then at this point their problem was already solved. An infinite multiverse with room for pretty much everything. Hypertime for the things that heed to be in their own multiverses. Of course, over the past 20 or so years, DC seemed to be addicted to massive crossover events where they reboot their universe. Iow i totally agree with you here.

[QUOTE=Stanlos;5644859]I thought that way long ago Waid and company established that all things are "canon" with the whole Hypertime thing. [B]I am still puzzled by DiDio and Company's insistence on Infinite and Final Crises and the protracted and vacuously bombastic Death Metal when it doesn't accomplish anything that hadn't already been more than adequately and cleanly addresed by Hypertime.[[/B]/QUOTE]

Superbaby. If you want to know the real reason for [I]COIE[/I] look at the things they HAVEN'T brought back. I am convinced to this day that the real reason for [I]COIE[/I] was to get rid of Superbaby. When Johns did his neo-silver age origin reboot for Superman in 2009 what was the one element from the pre-Crisis era he didn't incorporate into the character? Why create a whole new SA style origin with Krypto and Superboy and the Legion and all the other elements without actually bringing back the pre-Crisis version? Because there was something from that era you didn't want to keep. What was that one element? Superbaby. That, and keeping the Kents alive into his career as Superman.

They did bring her back in the Peter David SUPERGIRL, didn't they?

I like the pre-Crisis version best. But her origin story is a bit clumsy--seems like every origin story for a Supergirl ends up being overly complicated. In her case, they had to find a way of explaining how she could exist and be only fourteen years old, despite Krypton having exploded and Kal-El now being an adult. I would like to remove some of the twists and turns in that origin story--but I do prefer Kara Zor-El to be born after Kal-El.

It seems to me that Otto Binder wrote Supergirl to satisfy little girl fantasies. Whereas, other versions of Supergirl were created to satisfy adult male fantasies.

[QUOTE=superduperman;5645533][QUOTE=Stanlos;5644859]I thought that way long ago Waid and company established that all things are "canon" with the whole Hypertime thing. [B]I am still puzzled by DiDio and Company's insistence on Infinite and Final Crises and the protracted and vacuously bombastic Death Metal when it doesn't accomplish anything that hadn't already been more than adequately and cleanly addresed by Hypertime.[[/B]/QUOTE]

Superbaby. If you want to know the real reason for [I]COIE[/I] look at the things they HAVEN'T brought back. I am convinced to this day that the real reason for [I]COIE[/I] was to get rid of Superbaby. When Johns did his neo-silver age origin reboot for Superman in 2009 what was the one element from the pre-Crisis era he didn't incorporate into the character? Why create a whole new SA style origin with Krypto and Superboy and the Legion and all the other elements without actually bringing back the pre-Crisis version? Because there was something from that era you didn't want to keep. What was that one element? Superbaby. That, and keeping the Kents alive into his career as Superman.[/QUOTE]

Missed opportunity


Superbaby works really well because Superman remembering krypton vividly allowed for a sense of isolation and loss that simply is too abstract for post-crisis Superman

[QUOTE=superduperman;5645533]
Superbaby. If you want to know the real reason for [I]COIE[/I] look at the things they HAVEN'T brought back. I am convinced to this day that the real reason for [I]COIE[/I] was to get rid of Superbaby. When Johns did his neo-silver age origin reboot for Superman in 2009 what was the one element from the pre-Crisis era he didn't incorporate into the character? Why create a whole new SA style origin with Krypto and Superboy and the Legion and all the other elements without actually bringing back the pre-Crisis version? Because there was something from that era you didn't want to keep. What was that one element? Superbaby. That, and keeping the Kents alive into his career as Superman.[/QUOTE]

Personally, I really like Superbaby. But even I don't take him seriously. In Christianity, there are apocryphal stories about Jesus as a little boy doing miraculous things--but to me those are just tall tales that no serious Christian is expected to have faith in. That's how I look at Superbaby. You don't have to believe those stories are factually true--there's almost no continuity in those tales that is referenced in other stories of Superboy and Superman. But I think that Superbaby is closer to what Siegel and Shuster had imagined for Superboy, if they had been given the chance to do their version--which was a mischievous character, less a hero and more a prankster. So Superbaby stories are just a chance to tell really tall tales that are full of fun and whimsy--like "Letitia Lerner, Superman's Babysitter."

So I don't think there is so much to Superbaby that would require a complete reboot just to get rid of him. In the 1970s, whenever they wanted to ignore some bits of continuity from the Weisinger era--they just did that. And if they wanted to bring back that continuity--they did that, too. Nothing from the 1960s was so firmly established that it couldn't be ignored or tweaked.

Maybe the hard problem for the current writers is when Kal-El gets his powers and how much power he gets. The Weisinger mythology requires that a super sort of baby must exist--because all Kryptonians immediately get their powers under a yellow sun and immediately lose their powers under a red sun. There's no middle ground. So Kal-El must be super the second he arrives on Earth. While that might seem too difficult to write (although I can think of ways around it), it has the advantage of allowing other Kryptonians to arrive on Earth and get their powers at once, too. To be consistent--if Kal-El has to wait for all his powers to build up, then the other Kryptonians should have to wait just as long, meaning they all should be less powerful than Superman, who has been under a yellow sun the longest.

[QUOTE=Jim Kelly;5645539]They did bring her back in the Peter David SUPERGIRL, didn't they?

I like the pre-Crisis version best. But her origin story is a bit clumsy--seems like every origin story for a Supergirl ends up being overly complicated. In her case, they had to find a way of explaining how she could exist and be only fourteen years old, despite Krypton having exploded and Kal-El now being an adult. I would like to remove some of the twists and turns in that origin story--but I do prefer Kara Zor-El to be born after Kal-El.

It seems to me that Otto Binder wrote Supergirl to satisfy little girl fantasies. Whereas, other versions of Supergirl were created to satisfy adult male fantasies.[/QUOTE]

Kara Zor-El was brought into PAD's Supergirl comic near the end. The last issue of the series had Linda Danvers going to Earth 1 in her place in an attempt to save Kara from dying.

I'm against it. There's no way you can re-capture pre-crisis Supergirl in current DC Comics. Can elements of pre-crisis Kara Zor El be returned to canon? I'm for this instead of bringing back a past character and forcing them into a continuity that just won't mesh with them.

I'm pretty sure she already is, but they're just not drawing attention to it. Bendis even referenced an old Pre-Crisis Supergirl story last year. Now, obviously only the broad strokes are there, and the details will remain vague as hell, but I think the idea is that Kara has been around for years now, died during the Crisis on Infinite Earths, and was resurrected, like her cousin, years later and is only recently regaining her memories of her past lives.

[QUOTE=Jim Kelly;5645587]Personally, I really like Superbaby. But even I don't take him seriously. In Christianity, there are apocryphal stories about Jesus as a little boy doing miraculous things--but to me those are just tall tales that no serious Christian is expected to have faith in. That's how I look at Superbaby. You don't have to believe those stories are factually true--there's almost no continuity in those tales that is referenced in other stories of Superboy and Superman. But I think that Superbaby is closer to what Siegel and Shuster had imagined for Superboy, if they had been given the chance to do their version--which was a mischievous character, less a hero and more a prankster. So Superbaby stories are just a chance to tell really tall tales that are full of fun and whimsy--like "Letitia Lerner, Superman's Babysitter."

So I don't think there is so much to Superbaby that would require a complete reboot just to get rid of him. In the 1970s, whenever they wanted to ignore some bits of continuity from the Weisinger era--they just did that. And if they wanted to bring back that continuity--they did that, too. Nothing from the 1960s was so firmly established that it couldn't be ignored or tweaked.

Maybe the hard problem for the current writers is when Kal-El gets his powers and how much power he gets. The Weisinger mythology requires that a super sort of baby must exist--because all Kryptonians immediately get their powers under a yellow sun and immediately lose their powers under a red sun. There's no middle ground. So Kal-El must be super the second he arrives on Earth. While that might seem too difficult to write (although I can think of ways around it), it has the advantage of allowing other Kryptonians to arrive on Earth and get their powers at once, too. To be consistent--if Kal-El has to wait for all his powers to build up, then the other Kryptonians should have to wait just as long, meaning they all should be less powerful than Superman, who has been under a yellow sun the longest.[/QUOTE]

I'm not super familiar with post-Crisis canon but my understanding was that, early on, the Legion had "legends" about Superman as a boy and baby with stories about him using his powers growing up. Obviously in the post-Crisis reality these stories never happened but it's sort like you said about Jesus. Apocryphal stories about him that nobody can confirm. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the rebooted Superman would have done as well circa 1986 if they'd just thrown out Superbaby and kept everything else. Obviously a cold restart without all the SA elements was clearly the way to go there. But I do think they could have done a sort of GA type Superbaby who was strong but not flying around and crushing coal into diamonds and it would have done just fine. Have a two year old Clark lifting the couch over his head and people would be okay with it. This is just my personal conspiracy theory. Obviously no one at DC will confirm this but, like I said, if you want to understand why someone does something, look at what they DON'T do.

I think the healthy middle ground is something like [I]Smallville[/I]. And [I]S&L[/I] is kind of going the same route. Where he has some strength from day one and everything else just comes along later. Funny how the TV shows all seem to be able to get his origin right in a way the comics can't.