Thread Drift: What is your problem with Post-Crisis Superman?

[Spiderboy12]

... The solo Superboy book had already been cancelled and when was the last time Krypto had made an appearance? He didn't even show up in COIE.

It wasn't quite that simple. At the time (in 1984) they were planning an anthology comic that would have starred both Superboy and Supergirl. Those plans were cancelled once they learned what was planned for Crisis on Infinite Earths.

[JAK]

Byrne's even said he wishes he hadn't taken the job to write/reboot Superman. He claims that it became "not fun" very quickly because matters of pertaining to the DC higher-ups (Dick Giordano, Jeanette Kahn).

BTW, I think Byrne's The World of Krypton is a great story, even if one doesn't like it as Krypton per se.

Oh, definitely - I've heard that, too. And I agree, WoK was great.

I honestly think they should have put Alan Moore on the books and just let him do whatever he wanted. Supreme proved he's got a lot of good silver-age Superman material in him that needed a good outlet. Have Byrne draw the thing and you'd have a winner. I know a lot of people wanted rid of the SA stuff but, honestly, by COIE most of that stuff was largely being ignored anyway. The solo Superboy book had already been cancelled and when was the last time Krypto had made an appearance? He didn't even show up in COIE.

That's a good idea. I just brought up Byrne in the framework of "how little would have to change from history beyond nixing the reboot to produce a popular result" as that's my default in questions like that, generally.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

I just brought up that comic for my point because I thought it was clear. And I respect that it's not absolute, and I'm not in Jurgens' head so I can't say what he really meant, but I think you have to struggle harder than there's any reason to in order to see this differently.





People talk about how straightforward and basic, how non-whimsical the post crisis era seemed. I think it's a far more versatile era than people seem to realize, but agree in the sense that I don't think there's some ultra deep layer of subtext giving me a much different takeaway of what has to be the most basic (and as it happens, least cynical) interpretation.

I don't think it was intentional on Jurgens on part, but the way it plays out is that Superman is keen on visiting Krypton because of the new things he learns about it. He hadn't shown this level of interest in experiencing Kryptonian culture before, and the fact that he shows this interest can't be separated from him having learned how different Krypton has become.

When Superman says he's always dreamed of visiting Krypton, we can look back at past comics and see that wasn't really the case. Not in the way it's presented here anyway. Other instances were more about as sense of curiosity.

Paul Kupperberg in the trade foreword says, "it is ultimately an act of love and personal sacrifice that saves the life of Kal-el, destined to be Krypton's greatest legacy." Kupperberg of course was a contributor at length to pre crisis Superman and writer of the original World of Krypton mini series (the first mini in the industry in his own words). He's another who apparently goes for the obvious in summarizing those works, because no matter how different it was than what came before, it was made with no less love.

It was an act of love, but that doesn't mean everything surrounding it was good. Jor-El still chose Earth so that Superman would be its supreme being, Lara hoped he would take over the planet. Krypton is not portrayed positively.

As I said in my previous post, I don't think Byrne created this Krypton out of spite. It's not like he didn't want to include Krypton but he was told he had to, so he made it as bad as he could be. It comes across as the most thought out version of Krypton we've seen, not just in comics but in any Superman media.

We go the Post-Crisis Krypton we did because it served the story they were telling, and the character they were defining. It's a lot easier for Superman to not care about as much as Krypton, to not occasionally mourn its passing, to think of himself as human, etc, if Krypton wasn't that great when it blew up.

Superman says it himself at the end of WOK. The gift Jor-El (unintentionally) gave him by sending him to Earth and away from Krypton was humanity. He was frustrated for them, because there was a whole world of human feeling they never knew, i.e. it sucks they weren't more like us here on Earth.

And that makes sense within the story, because Krypton was not portrayed in a positive light.

And it doesn't seem that David Goyer, Cameron Welsh, or anyone else bringing a more modern version of Krypton to a screen has said much if anything about seeing it another, more xenophobic way.

That they don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

In Goyer's case, I'm not at all surprised since his Krypton work was also xenophobic, but we don't really need another discussion about MOS do we?

[superduperman]

It wasn't quite that simple. At the time (in 1984) they were planning an anthology comic that would have starred both Superboy and Supergirl. Those plans were cancelled once they learned what was planned for Crisis on Infinite Earths.

Didn't know that. I know they did Superman: The Secret Years which was basically about his transition from Superboy to Superman in college in the first part of 1985 which I thought was odd given that by then they knew they were just going to get rid of it in a year anyway. But a mini is a lot different than an ongoing.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

I honestly think they should have put Alan Moore on the books and just let him do whatever he wanted. Supreme proved he's got a lot of good silver-age Superman material in him that needed a good outlet. Have Byrne draw the thing and you'd have a winner. I know a lot of people wanted rid of the SA stuff but, honestly, by COIE most of that stuff was largely being ignored anyway. The solo Superboy book had already been cancelled and when was the last time Krypto had made an appearance? He didn't even show up in COIE.

It's been said that Moore wasn't interested in writing Superman after the reboot, but wasn't it also the case that he couldn't commit to writing the main Superman book he was writing Swamp Thing at the same time?

[Spiderboy12]

Didn't know that. I know they did Superman: The Secret Years which was basically about his transition from Superboy to Superman in college in the first part of 1985 which I thought was odd given that by then they knew they were just going to get rid of it in a year anyway. But a mini is a lot different than an ongoing.

I suspect the anthology title's cancellation had more to do with their plans for Supergirl (killing her off) than with the revamp of Superman, which wasn't a firm plan at that point. They were going to combine the series into one comic because neither was selling all that well, so they weren't like to restart the Superboy title again. Superman: The Secret Years is probably good evidence that their plans weren't firm (though even if they were, that wouldn't have necessarily stopped the mini-series).

[Thor2014]

It wasn't quite that simple. At the time (in 1984) they were planning an anthology comic that would have starred both Superboy and Supergirl. Those plans were cancelled once they learned what was planned for Crisis on Infinite Earths.

It would've been called 'Double Comics.' It was planned in case editorial had second thoughts about eliminating the two characters from canon.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I love Superman just like all you smart people! I just prefer the 3 M version. Maggin, Moore, and Morrison. Superman works as a character just as big as Gaiman’s Sandman.

When Byrne came to Superman, he brought his A game. I respect post crisis Supes. My Superman’s kid is an allegory. Those 70s tales are brutal. Post crisis supes, his kids feel real. People love Lois and Clark in a way I admire.

For me though, the rules are...You are fast, smart, and strong enough to do anything. BUT you must always do the right thing.


That’s the challenge.

[Stardust]

The representation of Krypton in the Eradicator story is part of a pattern in post-crisis continuity where Krypton was represented in poor light. Whether those representations were artificial or not, they were in-line with what had been established for Krypton and there weren't as many positive depictions from the same era to balance things out, or to act as counterpoints.

Or we could say, that if one is determined to look for a pattern they will find it whether it was meant to be there or not.
Take your words:

What we saw in FTMWHE was not part of pattern, and in the same story we have Superman saying the Krypton he was living through was not how Krypton should have ended up. Superman was denying the artificial corrupt Krypton because he knew that wasn't what the actual Krypton was like, the Krypton he had known.

In Ftmwhe it was actually said word by word that the black mercy is creating a logical extrapolation of a persons deepest wishes. That Superman was denying that Krypton, because he knew it was wrong is something you are interpreting into the story because you like it better that way

It was also a critical look at what was presented as a utopia despite its troubling elements (Phantom Zone, Vathlo Island, etc). That Krypton was more like our world than we thought.

Not really the same thing.

And I don't think Superman actually said Krypton would have been better off dead, he was telling Jor-El that he probably wished his predictions of Krypton exploding had turned out to be true.

He was saying at the end to Batman that perhaps it is better that Krypton is dead

[The World]

I can buy legacy when said legacy isn't taking a totally new concept and giving it an old name. I can accept Jay, Barry and Wally as "fastest man alive", but not a character who has light powers being introduced in the DCU as Flash. And I'm not too keen on the Al Pratt and Ray Palmer both being the Atom, but have no issue with both Ray and Ryan Choi being the Atom.

I'd actually have preferred Bruce Wayne to have passed on the Batman name to Grayson by the 1960's/70's and some new person to have gotten it before Crisis.

And PAD's character was too much of a departure from Kara Zor-El in powers and background for me to ever accept her as Supergirl. I think PAD's stories were good, but just not anything that should have been connected to Superman even tangentially. The same way that having PAD tell the same stories but naming the character Batgirl and making her secret ID Betty Kane wouldn't make them less entertaining, but they also wouldn't make the character a good fir for the Batfamily either.

It may be a bias, but I learned a long time ago that having preferences isn't automatically a bad thing.

Yep this. All of this.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Or we could say, that if one is determined to look for a pattern they will find it whether it was meant to be there or not.

I've pointed out several instances of Krypton coming off badly, whether it was Lara hoping Kal-El would take over the Earth, to Clark learning about Krypton through a psionic attack.

There are numerous negative depictions of Krypton from that era. What are the positive representations and roles of Krypton from that era that break the pattern and balance things out?

Take your words:

In Ftmwhe it was actually said word by word that the black mercy is creating a logical extrapolation of a persons deepest wishes. That Superman was denying that Krypton, because he knew it was wrong is something you are interpreting into the story because you like it better that way

His wish was to live on Krypton. Not for Jor-El to be a bad guy, for Kara to be attacked, etc.

The Krypton in that story went to crap because Superman was resisting it, and got worse as Wonder Woman/Batman/Robin were trying to get it off him.

As Kal-El tells his son of that story, Krypton shouldn't have ended up that way.

He was saying at the end to Batman that perhaps it is better that Krypton is dead

He said that in response to the flower Batman had brought, named The Krypton. He was also referring to the traumatic Krypton he had just experienced. The fact is Pre-Crisis Superman had never experienced something like FTMWHE Krypton prior to that story. Previous representations of Krypton tended to be positive.