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

[Rincewind]

As someone who only became interested in Superman during the post Crisis era, my main complaint is a little different.

First of all, I liked probably 99% of the changes Byrne made to the status quo. I liked that the Kents were still alive. I liked that the Kansas raised Clark is the main personality rather than a facade Superman put on. I liked clearing all the Superman mythos that had been built up, leaving the bare bones to build the series on. I liked that he was the sole survivor instead of the first of many Kryptonians that popped up. But despite all that, there were mistakes and weaknesses made.

1. Too many continuity issues popped up because the Superman office didn't communicate with the other offices like Legion of Superheroes. All the fixes and patches the writers used to reconcile the Byrne version with the LoSH history could have been avoided with better planning.
2. The emphasis that Superman is a relatively new character was unnecessary and caused issues with Justice League, Batman, Wonder Woman and others. The Man of Steel series was even set up in the past to show him learning to be a hero but allowed him to have a history. I still don't know why DC felt the need to remove him as a founder of the JLA.
3. When bringing in the Silver Age elements, they still tried to keep the post Crisis status quo. So when Supergirl appeared, she wan't his cousin but a proto-blob that shape changed into the Supergirl appearance. Zod was no longer an exiled Kryptonian general, but an alternate universe criminal or Russian agent.

[Soubhagya]

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.



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.

Thank you for taking time to reply to me. I appreciate this. I agree it comes down to personal preferences.

I am not like a lot of fans here. I never grew up with Superman. From my teens to adulthood my favorite heroes were Batman, Spider-man and Wolverine. Thus, i became his fan just about now, though i had respect for him due to some exposure to DCAU and a few movies.

I have been put off by tragic origins to a certain degree. These characters were pretty much defined by it. It is natural that i would prefer Superman because this aspect feels fresh. It is not that it is a phase. By reading his books i am seeing what a compelling character he is. But i am open to all viewpoints. If the books are good i can enjoy both kinds of approaches. But a Rockwell origin is something which i would prefer.

After reading your post i think lonely outsider would require more understanding. I was reading some work of Geoff Johns and it felt ham-fisted. But then he doesn't get Superman, isn't it? To understand this i would have to go back to the Bronze Age. Without understanding both viewpoints how can i say what i prefer more? But yes, i really love how he is written in whatever i have read in Post-Crisis. I have zero complaints because i never grew up with any versions.

Anyway i am happy to hear from you. There is a lot to read indeed.

[Kuwagaton]

But a Rockwell origin is something which i would prefer.

After reading your post i think lonely outsider would require more understanding. I was reading some work of Geoff Johns and it felt ham-fisted. But then he doesn't get Superman, isn't it? To understand this i would have to go back to the Bronze Age. Without understanding both viewpoints how can i say what i prefer more? But yes, i really love how he is written in whatever i have read in Post-Crisis. I have zero complaints because i never grew up with any versions.

Anyway i am happy to hear from you. There is a lot to read indeed.

Cool to have a different perspective on coming to read the character. Because you've mentioned Rockwell, I wonder if you'd gotten a chance to read For All Seasons? I think you'd like it.

For whether or not Johns "gets" Superman, that's tough to determine isn't it? That's another matter of perspective, although there's no objective measurement of how much someone else enjoys or understands a character. And from where we sit of having never written actual Superman comics like he has, it's tough to say how easy it really is to come up with what he had finalized in print.

Not that I liked Secret Origin that much. I felt a lot of the approach to the character by then just wasn't working. It was already 20 years after crisis, comic status quo doesn't last that long anymore for any character.

There was a different comic called Secret Origins by Ron Marz where Superman goes on a For the Man who has everything styled adventure that culminates in doing the fusion dance from DBZ with Martian Manhunter. That was neat.

[bat39]

Like it or hate it, an entire generation's perspective of Superman was shaped by the Post-COIE reboot. The TAS, Lois & Clark, Smallville, the DCEU...the list of Superman adaptations that were partially or substantially shaped by Byrne's reboot just goes on. Hell, the fact that the return to a 'classic' Superman in Rebirth meant a return to a Superman modeled after the Post-COIE version says it all.

I think, broadly speaking, there are a lot of things the Post-COIE Superman era did which improved the mythos and shaped them for the better. The idea of Clark Kent being the real person and not just a 'secret identity'. The Kents being alive into Clark's adulthood. Lex Luthor as a corporate mogul. Putting limits to Superman's powers. All ideas that, IMO, have stood the test of time to varying degrees.

The aspects of the Byrne reboot that proved divisive or at any rate, less popular, have not endured. The birthing matrix and Kal-El's 'birth' on earth, and Superman rejecting his Kryptonian heritage being a case in point. While elements which have been judged to be an integral part of the mythos have been restored - namely the Fortress of Solitude, LOSH, Supergirl, Kandor etc.

So ultimately, like any good re-imagining of a long-running character or franchise, there are things that have stuck and things that haven't. The important thing is that its a reboot that made its mark on the character and his world, in a way that I really don't think the New 52 version did (despite, on the surface, being a more radical reboot).

[Sacred Knight]

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.

Eh. Superboy I'll give--as even though Clark being Superboy didn't outright negate the possibility, the idea probably came about because of a specific lack of any Superboy-- but there was nothing about Steel that couldn't have happened without his full mythos in place. And neither Matrix nor Linda were even close to as good as the original Kara Zor-El ever was, not by a country mile in my opinion. The vast majority of the workarounds to replace classic concepts were poor man's versions. Again with the exception of Kon-El.

The triangle era was easily the best time in the post-Crisis history though, that I absolutely agree with. I just can only imagine how much better it could have been if the restrictions weren't place. Those times flourished in spite of said restrictions, not because of them. The decline in quality was not because of pre-Crisis ideas coming back, it was because of the talent on the books implementing said ideas. After they decided to move on from Jurgens' reign and end the triangle model, they were ill-prepared to deliver consistency across the titles on the more standard stand-alone monthly model. That's what hurt the quality. So yes, it was largely coincidence that the quality sagged after pre-Crisis ideas started coming back.

And its largely subjective that the last year's worth of stories are anywhere close to the 90s level of storytelling. To me, its not even close. Back in the 90s, all four (at one time five!) titles were great. Rebirth Superman is in the same spot as New 52 Superman and pre-FP Superman though. Only one title at a time is really good, and there's only two. He's not in a bad spot right now, but he's still in that "could be better" range that he can't quite wiggle out of because DC doesn't care enough to put forth the effort.

[Soubhagya]

Cool to have a different perspective on coming to read the character. Because you've mentioned Rockwell, I wonder if you'd gotten a chance to read For All Seasons? I think you'd like it.

For whether or not Johns "gets" Superman, that's tough to determine isn't it? That's another matter of perspective, although there's no objective measurement of how much someone else enjoys or understands a character. And from where we sit of having never written actual Superman comics like he has, it's tough to say how easy it really is to come up with what he had finalized in print.

Not that I liked Secret Origin that much. I felt a lot of the approach to the character by then just wasn't working. It was already 20 years after crisis, comic status quo doesn't last that long anymore for any character.

There was a different comic called Secret Origins by Ron Marz where Superman goes on a For the Man who has everything styled adventure that culminates in doing the fusion dance from DBZ with Martian Manhunter. That was neat.

I have read For All Seasons. I love it! Secret Origins by Ron Marz sounds really cool. There are two things which attract my attention. For the man who has everything styled adventure and the fusion dance. As Steve Rogers said in The Winter Soldier 'I will add it to my list'.

I am among those who like Secret Origins. In fact i like it a lot. I enjoyed its Metropolis section but felt his Smallville section was average. Then again i actually like Clark more as a football player rather then Clark who does not play to stop hurting others. Both are good but i prefer the first. It means he has found home away from home.

Johns writes him as if he was sad as soon as he learnt he was different. I am not a fan of this writing. Pre-Crisis Superbaby actually remembered his past life on Krypton. The alienation feels more natural then. Again who would not like to have super powers? Kids actually want to be Superman. But Superman does not want to be so.





Thank you for your recommendations. Secret Origins sounds really cool and i already love For All Seasons.

[Ascended]

Thank you for taking time to reply to me. I appreciate this. I agree it comes down to personal preferences.

Anytime.

After reading your post i think lonely outsider would require more understanding. I was reading some work of Geoff Johns and it felt ham-fisted. But then he doesn't get Superman, isn't it? To understand this i would have to go back to the Bronze Age. Without understanding both viewpoints how can i say what i prefer more? But yes, i really love how he is written in whatever i have read in Post-Crisis. I have zero complaints because i never grew up with any versions.

I actually grew up with post-Crisis as well. I was, I dunno, eleven when he died, and that got me into his comics. And for the longest time I was a hardcore supporter of the changes post-Crisis made. Then, when the books started to be less entertaining (late 90's, early 00's or so) I had to start digging into older material to get my "Super fix" and that's when I really discovered the character's history (until then it was just this vague outline of things I'd heard about but didn't really know) and that changed my opinions on the mythos.

Im not saying the same thing will happen with you or anything, but it is nice to see a new reader being so open to different versions. I think there's great stuff to pull from every era; I have yet to read a Super-story I couldn't take something positive away from.

As for Johns...he's a great writer but he doesn't have the nuance Clark requires. Johns writes in big, bold, neon-bright metaphor and allegory, which works great for a lot of characters....but Superman isn't among them.

[The World]

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.

Bruce isn't an outsider, he's the American equivalent of royalty. A corporate insider drowning in inherited money and surrounded by sycophants, waited on by a manservant/father figure, with one of the biggest families in all of comic and legions of women that want him.

[Soubhagya]

Bruce isn't an outsider, he's the American equivalent of royalty. A corporate insider drowning in inherited money and surrounded by sycophants, waited on by a manservant/father figure, with one of the biggest families in all of comic and legions of women that want him.

That's a flattering picture of Bruce Wayne. I stand corrected. I was mixing outsider and loneliness. Both are different now that you have pointed this out very clearly.

[Kuwagaton]

I am among those who like Secret Origins. In fact i like it a lot. I enjoyed its Metropolis section but felt his Smallville section was average. Then again i actually like Clark more as a football player rather then Clark who does not play to stop hurting others. Both are good but i prefer the first. It means he has found home away from home.

Johns writes him as if he was sad as soon as he learnt he was different. I am not a fan of this writing. Pre-Crisis Superbaby actually remembered his past life on Krypton. The alienation feels more natural then. Again who would not like to have super powers? Kids actually want to be Superman. But Superman does not want to be so.

Thank you for your recommendations. Secret Origins sounds really cool and i already love For All Seasons.

Thank you, no problem, and you're welcome. That's Superman vol 2 #147, Adventures of Superman 570, Action #757 , and Man of steel #92. Maybe in a different order.

Clark freaking out in SO by Johns, well, it reminds me of Lion King. Young simba just didn't know any better. But then clark's confronted by xenophobia later on and comes to terms with his otherness. That wasn't bad to me. I just don't think the story took risks so there weren't many rewards, proportionately.

I like him being a football player because that puts him back in the park with his old peer in fiction, flash gordon. Clark is a mentally and physically strapping teen, why wouldn't he play some ball?

[Soubhagya]

Thank you, no problem, and you're welcome. That's Superman vol 2 #147, Adventures of Superman 570, Action #757 , and Man of steel #92. Maybe in a different order.

Clark freaking out in SO by Johns, well, it reminds me of Lion King. Young simba just didn't know any better. But then clark's confronted by xenophobia later on and comes to terms with his otherness. That wasn't bad to me. I just don't think the story took risks so there weren't many rewards, proportionately.

I like him being a football player because that puts him back in the park with his old peer in fiction, flash gordon. Clark is a mentally and physically strapping teen, why wouldn't he play some ball?

Clark freaking out is not bad. No it is not. It makes sense. SO could have done it better though. I liked the Max Landis one. Clark felt that too in issue one. But i loved what they did with it. At the same time i am somewhat tired with these sad childhoods. I have had more of my share in fiction. So, i prefer the likes of 'Man of Steel' over SO.

And you went ahead and informed about Secret Origins in more detail. That's nice!

[SiegePerilous02]

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.

None of those comics are recent though, and they were kind of rarity in the era they appeared in compared to the pre-Crisis era. How often do we get that lately? And the pre-Crisis moments generally seem better executed, there were no somewhat mean spirited deconstructions of other heroes in the process. Superman was the best, everyone loved him and he loved everybody else, and they all got to be the stars of their own stories.

Superman is sci-fi American Hercules. Being the mightiest is one of the main points of his whole character, getting rid of it to make him like almost everyone else defeats the whole point and appeal of the character. And it hasn't actually worked, because while his iconography and devoted fanbase will always assure he will be doing better than many other characters, he's not where he once was, which is not good for the character who built the damn company. And to reinforce the Hercules comparison: Hercules being the mightiest didn't make the classic tales of Perseus, Odysseus and others less classic, because they were all telling different tales with different points. If the ancient Greeks had this crap figured out, I don't see why we can't. If you don't want to read about the mightiest hero, read something else. The DCU is a big place and he can't be everywhere, so the other heroes aren't lesser and their stories don't lose meaning. Just don't change him into something he's not.

Now, I think Billy Batson SHOULD be Superman's equal....but he should also be on his own Earth. He gets the shaft by being on the main Earth, and there is no reason Captain Marvel should equal or overshadow Superman in the main continuity. So as he is the embodiment of the Superman archetype on his own Earth, he should be there. They can still crossover, and they did it all the time in the pre-Crisis canon, so why not let Billy be the top tier hero of his canon and let them still team up? Same with Michael Holt and the JSA- I instantly lost interest in New 52 Earth-2 when Batman showed up, because that Earth doesn't need a Trinity. Holt will never surpass Batman's reputation as the World's Greatest Detective while they are on the same Earth, no matter how many writers try to say in a comic to deaf ears.

[TruthAndJustice]

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.

I generally agree with this, especially the persistent wondering of who exactly Superman had been fighting (other than Luthor) in the years before CRISIS (since everyone remembered some big cosmic thing that happened which led to Barry Allen dying).

Byrne has repeatedly said he was willing to work within the established Silver/Bronze Age continuity but the DC brass wanted a reboot. He was told "don't worry about the Legion or any of that, we've got it covered." But they didn't. Hence "pocket universe Superboy.' And then Mike Carlin said that LOSH could "never mention Superboy again." Onward to Valor (Lar Gand, ex-Mon-El) and the post-ZERO HOUR reboot...

I liked some aspects of THE MAN OF STEEL and disliked others. What I disliked:

The whole college football hero thing. The 1978 movie handled this much better -- Clark WANTS to be a "super-jock" but Pa Kent won't let him.

By extension, no Superboy, not even in secret, so that screwed up the Legion very badly. (What Geoff Johns established in SUPERMAN: SECRET ORIGIN is exactly what I would've done -- just 20+ years too late.)

Supergirl wasn't just dead, she never existed, which I thought was totally pointless. Why not change a few minor details of Kara's backstory, then explain that Clark created the Fortress for her, since she remembered Krypton and he didn't, and since she was dead, he decided to "turn the lights out" in the Fortress? Very minor retcons. And then Byrne wouldn't have been "required" to use the Fortress. And it would've added a bit of tragedy to Superman's life (which was pretty lacking in MOS).

The Phantom Zone villains never existed. Why not have a big story where they all get killed -- not by Superman, but...by Luthor? Which makes a him a big hero in the eyes of the public, thereby making Superman's fight against him that much harder. And then Clark remains the only living Kryptonian. Easy.

BTW, I didn't mind Luthor being an Evil Capitalist. But he was no longer the greatest scientific mind on the face of the Earth. Not until much later, anyway. That's essential to Luthor's character, I think. Otherwise he's too close to being Wilson Fisk. (I don't especially care whether or not he grew up in Smallville. I can live with either "yes" or "no," personally.)

I didn't much like "Milton Fine Brainiac" either. Byrne was trying to come up with a way to explain the character's "silly name." Well, that wasn't the way to do it. Would've been better to establish "Brainiac" as an acronym (which someone did later -- "Brain Interactive Construct").

[SiegePerilous02]

The Phantom Zone villains never existed. Why not have a big story where they all get killed -- not by Superman, but...by Luthor? Which makes a him a big hero in the eyes of the public, thereby making Superman's fight against him that much harder. And then Clark remains the only living Kryptonian. Easy.

I think Gerber had Mxy wipe out the Phantom Zone towards the end of pre-Crisis.

So yeah, there was no reason to reboot them or the concept away from the canon entirely. They were already gone, it was very disrespectful to wipe all trace of them from existence as well. Same with Kara. It was pointless to have this big, awesome heroic sacrifice for her. Clark even says he will never forget her, and then he (and everyone else) promptly does and she's replaced by shape shifting slime.

She's doing awesome now, but I think there was a period where Kara got shafted more than anyone else in the DCU. At least everyone remembered Barry and his sacrifice, Barbara got to stick around and be salvaged as Oracle post-Killing Joke, etc.

[The World]

I don't hate Post-Crisis Superman. He's paper an ink, plus he's Superman and he's got stories and moments I like. He's just overrated by his fanblock and for anyone to call a Superman created in 1986 the real or classic Superman is laughable.

His fanbase just irks the hell out of me more than anything. I hate some of the reputations he's permeated around the character (pushover, naive, bland, undedicated) and he's not my favorite (19-38-mid 1950's or the 70's) but I don't hate him.

Also Linda Danvers is fine but she isn't Supergirl. She's a character DC trotted out and called Supergirl because of a pre established rule.