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

[superduperman]

I have mixed feelings about him, honestly. I think they did a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong. My biggest gripe is that it's too "anti-silver age". I think they took too many of the toys out of the sandbox to play with. I don't like the fact that he didn't grow up with powers as a kid. This bothers me a lot more than it should, honestly. Maybe it's because I grew up with the Ruby Spears Superman and that directly contradicts it, I don't know. It made it even harder to ignore because they went out of their way in the late nineties to remind you that he didn't develop powers until puberty every other issue. This was clearly done to remind you it's not the SA version. Almost out of spite. Especially when most of the time it didn't contribute anything of value to the plot. The one exception being Return of Superman where Lois used it to figure out that the cyborg was a fake. And that's not even canon anymore!

I like the "alien" nature of Krypton but it's story potential was clearly very limited. Byrne's Krypton was not a place anyone would want to remember, which was kind of the point but it also takes away from the mythos somewhat not having that well to tap into. I don't like the fact that he was on the football team. It just felt like cheating. Especially by then it was obvious he had powers. I don't like the fact that he was "born" on Earth. It was clearly another overreaction to the SA. We get it, you don't want him pining for Krypton. His antagonistic relationship with Batman got old quickly. Especially after it was obvious they knew each other for years. I didn't like the way they handled Supergirl. If you think Superman's history was a trainwreck, just take a look at hers. How hard would it be to do like the cartoon and just have her be from another planet with a red son passing herself off as his "cousin"? I also have issues with what removing the pre-Crisis version did to continuity. Everyone from Nightwing to the Legion was affected. Although I'm not a huge fan of the Legion, they still deserved to keep their history intact.

I like the fact that his parents were still alive. I like their Lex. I like the fact that he stayed on the farm instead of moving into town. Makes more sense for a kid growing up with powers to practice them in private. I like the fact that Clark was a more well-rounded person than before (although, to be fair, most of the cowardly nerd persona had mostly been dropped by the time COIE rolled around). I don't buy the "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I do" argument. I see them both as equals with different roles. Think George Reeves. I like the larger cast and story narratives. The original Cat Grant as someone who was in love with Clark Kent instead of Superman was a nice twist. Ron Troupe, Alice the office girl, Bibbo, etc. I also think their attempts to make him more "realistic" were somewhat selective. When half his rogues gallery is still aliens and magical beings, how "realistic" can he really be?

It was obvious by as early as the mid-nineties these limitations were putting a strain on story ideas. They were already trying to find ways to bring back some SA elements with Kandor and Krypto and the stuff they did for the sixtieth anniversary. I've said before you don't give him electrical powers and turn Metropolis into a futuristic wonderland because you have a ton of other ideas lined up. I think by about 1999 they started being a little more flexible about that sort of thing with stuff like Generations and Hypertime and Return to Krypton. But it's obvious that by 2000 they were looking for a way out and I think a lot of that had to do with the limitations that COIE put on him. This was also around the time Grant Morrison's Earth 2 came out which reintroduced the idea of the Crime Syndicate and the multiverse. Probably the nail in the post-Crisis coffin was Peter David's Many Happy Returns story with the pre-Crisis Supergirl. By then they were openly acknowledging the pre-Crisis universe existed. It even featured the pre-Crisis Superman! I don't think it's a coincidence Birthright came out around that time. It's obvious they were looking for a way out.

[Ascended]

Believing that Krypton deserved to die might be missing the point of any origin where it actually blows up. Krypton didn't deserve to die for being creepy, it just died because it reached its end. Like the dinosaurs.

What's your opinion on the versions of Krypton that were destroyed by outside forces? It doesn't happen often, but there's been a few stories where an evil force (neighboring aliens, Darkseid I think, Brainiac.....) is responsible.

Im not sure where I stand on it, myself. I can see the appeal and how it could add to the narrative, but Im not sure if its something that "should" be said, yknow what I mean?

Thanks for the explanation, Ascended. Although if he didn't say that, I personally don't get how the duality was lost. I think the duality starts with both sdes being real. If he gave the impression that Superman was just an act, then it's about the same as Clark being an act before that. The idea basically stemmed from George Reeves refusing to play Clark as a buffoon, Wolfman wanting to write a deeper character, some fan letters from the time, and whatever quirks Byrne had going on. I can only speak for myself, but Clark was kind of a waste of space in older comics. All he seemed to do was get slapped by whatever new trick Steve had until Lois said something or the real plot interrupted.

I'd say that progress was being made towards "Clark" becoming more important and central to the character. The whole news anchor thing, deeper work being done with the supporting cast.....the character was already headed in this direction, Byrne seriously over-corrected here, by miles. Two wrongs dont make a right, yknow?

The power thing is a big problem for people it seems. It definitely did change the story focus. At the very least though, he was still the most powerful hero, as everyone else got nerfed.

Wally West says hi.

No, generally you're right, but Clark got nerfed a lot more than most. Instead of being the uncontested number 1, he was just one guy in a running that included Clark himself, Diana, J'onn, Billy, Captain Atom, Orion, Barda, and if you allow for energy-enhanced strength, Hal and a few others. He had feats over the others, yes, but he also had five books.

The power level itself doesnt really irk me; its not the powers that makes a Superman. But I do dislike how close other characters were to Clark's strength and power level. This is just Clark's niche; the role he's made to fill. It's like saying Batman's a great detective, but all these other guys are basically just as good. Or that Flash is the fastest man alive......but really, so are all these other people. Somewhere along the line, DC forgot that its okay for Superman to be special.

[Ascended]

I have mixed feelings about him, honestly. I think they did a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong. My biggest gripe is that it's too "anti-silver age". I think they took too many of the toys out of the sandbox to play with. I don't like the fact that he didn't grow up with powers as a kid. This bothers me a lot more than it should, honestly. Maybe it's because I grew up with the Ruby Spears Superman and that directly contradicts it, I don't know. It made it even harder to ignore because they went out of their way in the late nineties to remind you that he didn't develop powers until puberty every other issue. This was clearly done to remind you it's not the SA version. Almost out of spite. Especially when most of the time it didn't contribute anything of value to the plot. The one exception being Return of Superman where Lois used it to figure out that the cyborg was a fake. And that's not even canon anymore!.

Cut the rest of the quote just to save space, but I had to say, this was a great post. Wonderfully said, good sir, I couldn't say it better myself (obviously, I've tried for two pages already!)

[KurtW95]

I have more of a problem with Post-Crisis/New 52 Supergirl than Post-Crisis Superman. Byrne's Superman was pretty fantastic IMO. But with Supergirl, I'd much rather have her be younger than Clark and be adopted by the Danvers and go by the name Linda as a civilian. Also, Brainiac should be an android.

[Kuwagaton]

What's your opinion on the versions of Krypton that were destroyed by outside forces? It doesn't happen often, but there's been a few stories where an evil force (neighboring aliens, Darkseid I think, Brainiac.....) is responsible.

Personally, I like the weird cults and all that stuff that makes it seems like the end was close enough or that the people kinda reached their end. It's a natural part of any civilization, and they handled it with relative dignity. Everyone ends and no one really deserves it more than another. Like if we find a way to completely destroy earth in one shot, well, it wouldn't mean that we didn't have awesome people like Malala. In general, I have a hard time accepting that the end of any Krypton was "for the best" as opposed to the birth of a Superman being lemonade from some terrible lemons.

Outsiders not so much. I feel like it's too "Joker killed the Waynes."

I'd say that progress was being made towards "Clark" becoming more important and central to the character. The whole news anchor thing, deeper work being done with the supporting cast.....the character was already headed in this direction, Byrne seriously over-corrected here, by miles. Two wrongs dont make a right, yknow?

The weird thing is that while I think the reasonable thing was to try something extremely new, I don't think that means pre crisis wasn't manageable. The simplest way I can see it is how we were spared more of that weird drama about Lois finding a way to love Clark and then realizing that she totally couldn't, and that Superman won't commit to her so the whole thing is a melodramatic bust. And probably more death of Supergirl angst. That took a lot out of the magic, like Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man. Post Crisis took the simplest path through problematic storytelling: straight. It sure isn't pleasant to see the writers twist and turn through those things...

I brought up Wolfman as an architect of the "new" Clark who got a shot to cut loose in a new continuity. And I think he wrote better post crisis. Just because someone can't really do the kinda Superman who scoops everyone off of earth at the same time doesn't mean they can't write Superman. I came to accept and really enjoy Wolfman even though I hate that massive L Superman took in COIE.

Wally West says hi.

No, generally you're right, but Clark got nerfed a lot more than most. Instead of being the uncontested number 1, he was just one guy in a running that included Clark himself, Diana, J'onn, Billy, Captain Atom, Orion, Barda, and if you allow for energy-enhanced strength, Hal and a few others. He had feats over the others, yes, but he also had five books.

The power level itself doesnt really irk me; its not the powers that makes a Superman. But I do dislike how close other characters were to Clark's strength and power level. This is just Clark's niche; the role he's made to fill. It's like saying Batman's a great detective, but all these other guys are basically just as good. Or that Flash is the fastest man alive......but really, so are all these other people. Somewhere along the line, DC forgot that its okay for Superman to be special.

Funny enough, much of that was exclusive to Superman books. Like wally just barely won, and bragged about it until the other heroes scolded him. He tangled with Barda and Orion but they never really had him. Diana got a big shot at him years later in For Tomorrow, and looked pretty good. But she still fell with the rest of the league against the Brainiac Doomsday, and failed to provide an upper hand when the JLA fought Superman. Martian Manhunter seems to go either way.

Outside of Superman books, eh. Waid had Wally totally embarrass Mongul. Morrison had Wally whip Superman in an unofficial race to kick off JLA.

[Soubhagya]

I am agreeing with Superduperman. No era which is anti something can be sustainable over a long time. One can get around the ideas in creative ways. Whatever i have heard about Kandor seems to me to be an improvement. In contrast, Supergirl seems to be a good character but a convoluted backstory never helps. They could have moved like this but we forget that the writers are themselves fans. Thus, return of elements like Kara was inevitable.

I feel one shall move forward trying to be inclusive. I think Rebirth is better approach. One can find Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis and New 52 in it. Such an approach is more sustainable in my opinion.

I am trying to understand things. So, i have questions. Is it necessary that he shall be a lonely outsider? Pretty much every hero in comics is one. I don't find it unique or appealing. He can't be an outsider like Batman or X-Men whose appeal lie on being lonely and being outsiders. I don't think Superman is more appealing as an outsider.

Second is it necessary that Kents shall die to make him understand his limits? How different is it from Spider-Man who learnt about responsibilty after losing his parent? Pretty much every superhero story is a tragedy. It is no more unique and may not be appealing to everyone. It is more appealing to me when they are alive. When alive they can play useful roles in stories. And to kill them simply to make him understand that he has limits is an overkill. That can be done by just about any character. Killing off Kents has been a mistake for Rebirth. Why take away tools is a common complaint in this thread. Kents bring a sense of humanity and are parental figures. Superman of all characters needs reflection and advice. That is the whole point of the character. Usage of power with wisdom. There already is enough tragedy in his story from Krypton.

If i would have my way i would have removed the return to the silver age which happened during later phase of Post Crisis. I am enjoying the earlier stories a lot. But the most important thing is to have good and enjoyable stories over long periods. So i am okay with it.

[Agniwolf]

I am agreeing with Superduperman. No era which is anti something can be sustainable over a long time. One can get around the ideas in creative ways. Whatever i have heard about Kandor seems to me to be an improvement. In contrast, Supergirl seems to be a good character but a convoluted backstory never helps. They could have moved like this but we forget that the writers are themselves fans. Thus, return of elements like Kara was inevitable.

I feel one shall move forward trying to be inclusive. I think Rebirth is better approach. One can find Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis and New 52 in it. Such an approach is more sustainable in my opinion.

I am trying to understand things. So, i have questions. Is it necessary that he shall be a lonely outsider? Pretty much every hero in comics is one. I don't find it unique or appealing. He can't be an outsider like Batman or X-Men whose appeal lie on being lonely and being outsiders. I don't think Superman is more appealing as an outsider.

Second is it necessary that Kents shall die to make him understand his limits? How different is it from Spider-Man who learnt about responsibilty after losing his parent? Pretty much every superhero story is a tragedy. It is no more unique and may not be appealing to everyone. It is more appealing to me when they are alive. When alive they can play useful roles in stories. And to kill them simply to make him understand that he has limits is an overkill. That can be done by just about any character. Killing off Kents has been a mistake for Rebirth. Why take away tools is a common complaint in this thread. Kents bring a sense of humanity and are parental figures. Superman of all characters needs reflection and advice. That is the whole point of the character. Usage of power with wisdom. There already is enough tragedy in his story from Krypton.

If i would have my way i would have removed the return to the silver age which happened during later phase of Post Crisis. I am enjoying the earlier stories a lot. But the most important thing is to have good and enjoyable stories over long periods. So i am okay with it.

that is because tragedy is an essential part of the journey of the hero, without it there is a great risk of the protagonist (and in addition the readers) not knowing the weight of his hurdles

[Agent Z]

What's your opinion on the versions of Krypton that were destroyed by outside forces? It doesn't happen often, but there's been a few stories where an evil force (neighboring aliens, Darkseid I think, Brainiac.....) is responsible.

Im not sure where I stand on it, myself. I can see the appeal and how it could add to the narrative, but Im not sure if its something that "should" be said, yknow what I mean?



I'd say that progress was being made towards "Clark" becoming more important and central to the character. The whole news anchor thing, deeper work being done with the supporting cast.....the character was already headed in this direction, Byrne seriously over-corrected here, by miles. Two wrongs dont make a right, yknow?



Wally West says hi.

No, generally you're right, but Clark got nerfed a lot more than most. Instead of being the uncontested number 1, he was just one guy in a running that included Clark himself, Diana, J'onn, Billy, Captain Atom, Orion, Barda, and if you allow for energy-enhanced strength, Hal and a few others. He had feats over the others, yes, but he also had five books.

The power level itself doesnt really irk me; its not the powers that makes a Superman. But I do dislike how close other characters were to Clark's strength and power level. This is just Clark's niche; the role he's made to fill. It's like saying Batman's a great detective, but all these other guys are basically just as good. Or that Flash is the fastest man alive......but really, so are all these other people. Somewhere along the line, DC forgot that its okay for Superman to be special.

Tim Drake was flat out stated to be a potentially better detective than Bruce. Ted Kord and Michael Holt have been argued to be just as smart or smarter than Bruce.

DC's never forgotten that Superman can be special (they did after all make Kingdom Come, Death of Superman and Action Comics 775). If anything there issue is thinking only Batman and Superman are special.

[Adekis]

When Byrne made him vaguely republican is disappointing.

I think most of the complaints either stem from or lead to this problem, honestly.

Most of the things everyone has said in this thread are true for me too. Making a Krypton that "deserved to die" and a Superman who was "born on Earth" is xenophobic crap, the weird result of making Clark both "the real guy" and an archetypal high-school football quarterback and an archetypal yuppie is that in essence we lost both Clark Kent and Kal-El, eternal outsiders that they were (though not, I stress, in a socially inept or mopey way, as both Kal and Clark had many friends).

I think Byrne took too many cues from Miller in Dark Knight and too many cues from the Donner movies, which even ignoring their unintended awful aspects still basically portrayed Superman as an old fashioned man in a modern cynical world, winning over the cynical '70s, embodied by Lois, with pure charm. That sense of "old-fashionedness" hurt the character, and though the post-Crisis Superman didn't necessarily always lean into that, it leaned into enough things tied to it that it tied the character's reputation to that sense more than he should be.

There's a lot to love about the post-Crisis Superman, and I think that both Lois & Clark and Superman: The Animated Series basically go to town on improving the post-Crisis framework. Still, there's just enough wrong-headed things about post-Crisis Superman that it'll probably always bug me, even if I'm more than happy to reread Time and Time Again for the fifth time.

And ultimately yeah, there is a sense that he's no longer the best and coolest super-hero in the world after the Crisis. He's still got the reputation in universe, but I think it's mostly just because he still had it out-of-universe. Also, Superman's powers and more importantly skill and track record no longer back that rep up as cleanly. It's just less cool overall.

[Jon Clark]

I actually liked a few things about the Byrne reboot.

I personally found the "born on Earth" bit an improvement in that they set up a scenario where Clark isn't seen as adopted. The classic origin has the Kents finding this child and somehow adopting him. Many times they play up the silliness of Clark in the orphanage terrifying the staff which is hilarious but sort of hangs a lampshade on the problems with involving any authority figures in that adoption.

I thought the downplaying of Krypton made sense, at least early on. All his emotional connections were to the Kents and Earth. I loved Pre-Crisis Krypton but it did get a little claustrophobic when a guy who spent 90% of his youth on Earth being raised by and around Earthlings felt more at home living in his infant memories of a dead world.

But the new Clark Kent never felt right to me. While we had gotten a bit characturish with Clark the sickly, clutzy buffoon I think making him the high-school football star who attracted women like Cat Grant was the pendulum swinging too far the other way. One of the first things that attracted me to Superman was the idea of unassertive Clark and brash Superman being two sides of one guy. The Clark we got after Crisis was with the exception of openly using his powers the same guy in or out of costume. And thanks to the living Kents and the in-the-know Lana he also had less reason to even hide the powers in his downtime since he had a supporting cast that knew his secret.

And I could have lived with the lesser power levels if it hadn't also resulted in a loss of the scope of the stories and the character. Pre-Crisis this was a guy whose name was known across the universe. He was some one that was as respected as any Green Lantern by galactic law enforcement. Post-Crisis he needed a breathing mask to go to the moon and special gadgets to leave the solar system. Those gadgets also were made by others whereas before he was self-sufficient when it came to any tech he needed.

Business mogul Lex was interesting at first but as time went on I grew to hate his appearances more and more. He was Superman's foe not his co-star, so why was he appearing almost every issue? Just how impressive was Superman if the best he could do was slow Lex up but never actually put the guy behind bars? I could have enjoyed this change more if it had simply been Lex's starting point and at some point he was exposed as the crook he was. The character could have spent years financing things with secreted funds from before he left the company and making use of hidden caches of equipment diverted from Lexcorp inventory. But by the time of Death of Superman I was sick of seeing Lex treated as an admired man in the DCU.

And lastly my general Crisis complaint was the incomplete reboot for everyone. The classic examples were things like Hawkman or Donna Troy, but Superman wound up with many glitches as well. Byrne had expected Man of Steel to be more like Year One with his Superman being new on the job. As a result we wound up with a Superman who was supposed to be already established as a major hero but who lacked any historic foes. We knew stuff had happened in his past that paralleled some published stories but obviously none with Metallo, Brainiac, Mxyzptlk or Toyman as they first met Superman Post-Crisis in the first two years of Byrne/Wolfman. Bizarro seemed to be a one-and-done opponent. There had been no Phantom Zone. So other than Luthor just who had Superman been fighting befoe Superman #1 in 1986?

Was Superman a member of the JLA or not? The final answer seemed to be He had been there for major stories like the JLA/JSA/New Gods but had never been an official member. And Hal Jordan knew who Clark was do to their long friendship ... until he didn't. The legion had Superboy as a member- but this wasn't the same person we were reading about. And this Superboy died before reaching adulthood which raised the question of who the adult Superman was in the JSA/JLA/Legion crossover or just where Mon-El was between Superboy's death and the Legion's time since he obviously remembered an adult Superman who knew him.

Look none of these are crucial questions- but it irked me that as a reader I kept running into them. As others have said this was a Superman who had been cleaned up and had much of his interesting history (Kandor, Supergirl, Krypto, the LSH,) erased. But instead of a clean slate, we got a character who still carried 50 years of baggage but now we had to guess what those stories were because even the editors didn't seem clear on just what was in and what was out.

[sunofdarkchild]

Only that the quality was a little inconsistent at the beginning. But by the time of the Triangle era they were turning out some of DC's best work ever on a consistent basis - and 4 times a month.

As much as people complain about the restrictions on elements like Krypton, Supergirl, or Superman 'only' being able to move mountains, those restrictions led to an outburst of creativity, and are how we got Conner Kent, Steel, and PAD's Supergirl (who is a thousand times better than any version of Kara). It's how we got such a focus on the larger supporting cast which really allowed them to show how Superman impacts the world. I don't see it as a coincidence that the last year Superman's stories were consistently great the entire year through was 1999, right before they started to walk back the post-crisis mandates and bring back many of the pre-crisis concepts in earnest.

[Soubhagya]

that is because tragedy is an essential part of the journey of the hero, without it there is a great risk of the protagonist (and in addition the readers) not knowing the weight of his hurdles

I agree about tragedy being important in a hero's journey. It is fine if fans love it. I don't like too much emphasis on tragedy. But that's my preference. Thank you for replying.

I would get around this by letting him know of Krypton after sometime. Let him begin his Superman career without knowledge of that, simply out of his own will. His decision to do the right thing is really unique and sets him apart by emphasisizing his thoughtful nature and empathy. Later on he would know about his true origins. Knowing of Krypton won't affect him much at first. Or so would he think. He will never ever let his adopted home go the way of Krypton. Earlier, he would never have left being Superman but after this he can't knowing clearly what would have happen if good people stood aside and did nothing. But that's just me.

[durabill]

Only that the quality was a little inconsistent at the beginning. But by the time of the Triangle era they were turning out some of DC's best work ever on a consistent basis - and 4 times a month.

As much as people complain about the restrictions on elements like Krypton, Supergirl, or Superman 'only' being able to move mountains, those restrictions led to an outburst of creativity, and are how we got Conner Kent, Steel, and PAD's Supergirl (who is a thousand times better than any version of Kara). It's how we got such a focus on the larger supporting cast which really allowed them to show how Superman impacts the world. I don't see it as a coincidence that the last year Superman's stories were consistently great the entire year through was 1999, right before they started to walk back the post-crisis mandates and bring back many of the pre-crisis concepts in earnest.

I agree 110%

There is nothing wrong with Post Crises Superman.

I also agree that his stories started to go down hill with Loeb writing the main title and him trying to bring back aspects of Pre-Crises continuity!.

[Kuwagaton]

And I could have lived with the lesser power levels if it hadn't also resulted in a loss of the scope of the stories and the character. Pre-Crisis this was a guy whose name was known across the universe. He was some one that was as respected as any Green Lantern by galactic law enforcement. Post-Crisis he needed a breathing mask to go to the moon and special gadgets to leave the solar system. Those gadgets also were made by others whereas before he was self-sufficient when it came to any tech he needed.

What about the time he found himself stranded four thousand light years from Earth with no protection, but still ended up helping four Green Lanterns summon enough power ring force to drive off a mystical, genocidal planet? Or how he went viral for his gladiator battles from Exile fifty thousand light years from Earth, where Draaga lived? Not bad for a guy who probably did his furthest journey without a breathing apparatus from about Pluto. He was also able to survive time travel speeds without aid or shelter, even if he didn't initiate the speed under his own power.

But by the time of Death of Superman I was sick of seeing Lex treated as an admired man in the DCU.

They admired him because he was dead and they were starting to feel the effects of not having a strong driving force behind their economy. It was literally a comic book extension of Mussolini getting the trains to run on time.

[Ascended]

I am trying to understand things. So, i have questions. Is it necessary that he shall be a lonely outsider? Pretty much every hero in comics is one. I don't find it unique or appealing. He can't be an outsider like Batman or X-Men whose appeal lie on being lonely and being outsiders. I don't think Superman is more appealing as an outsider.

Necessary? No. But its something with a long history and was the original approach. And keep in mind, there's a difference between being a "loner" and being "mopey." Batman is mopey, but he's not a loner; just look at how many sidekicks, partners, friends, and peers he interacts with on a daily basis. He pretends to be a gruff, lone-wolf but his actions show that he's built a family around himself and even though he might be an emotionally abusive ass to them on occasion, he keeps them close. Superman by contrast, is friendly and approachable, not mopey at all, but has a very small circle of friends; most of whom don't know his secrets or, if they do, have little interaction with his "other" side.

But no, its not necessary that Superman be a loner, and there have been some successful versions who were decidedly not.

Second is it necessary that Kents shall die to make him understand his limits? How different is it from Spider-Man who learnt about responsibilty after losing his parent? Pretty much every superhero story is a tragedy.

Again, not necessary, but built into the original history with decades behind it. It just comes down to personal preference, really.

And tragedy is a part of Heroic Journey and has been since the Greeks at the earliest. Just because bad things happened in Clark's life doesn't mean his story is just tragedy; its about not letting those bad days define who you are. It's the exact opposite of "tragedy" because even though Clark has suffered, he rises above it. Personally, I find that infinitely more inspiring than a Superman who has never *really* had anything bad happen to him.