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

[Assam]

Would you guys mind telling me what your problem with Post-Crisis Superman is?

[SiegePerilous02]

Would you guys mind telling me what your problem with Post-Crisis Superman is?

For me at least, I've just come to realize that I vastly prefer the Pre-Crisis setup and mythos, and really dislike that DC thoughtlessly discarded it back in 1986. All the problems the character has experienced off and on since then I feel have their roots there (Wonder Woman has many of the same problems, though they are arguably worse). There are some good/great stories scattered here and there in the post-Crisis era, but I feel that what came afterward seems blander than what came before. Attempts to awkwardly re-insert pre-Crisis elements back into the mythos long after the fact didn't help.

I know Sacred Knight's scenario would never happen, but I personally would be overjoyed if it did, especially if they got Morrison or (when Hell freezes over and pigs fly) Moore to write it. And it wouldn't mean some things from the post-Crisis and other eras couldn't be worked in at some point, just with pre-Crisis as the foundation instead of Byrne's shoddy reboot.

[Sacred Knight]

Its a pretty widely held belief now, not only amongst fandom but also amongst those within DC themselves, that COIE was a mistake. The result, not the story itself (as an epic tale it was actually quite good). So hey, instead of trying for so long via other long-winded means to get back to some semblance of that just literally go back to it.

That said, the idea was totally tongue-in-cheek.

[SiegePerilous02]

Its a pretty widely held belief now, not only amongst fandom but also amongst those within DC themselves, that COIE was a mistake. The result, not the story itself (as an epic tale it was actually quite good). So hey, instead of trying for so long via other long-winded means to get back to some semblance of that just literally go back to it.

That said, the idea was totally tongue-in-cheek.

They kind of shot their whole "the Multiverse is too confusing a concept and is turning people away" thing in the foot by having George Perez draw it and show how awesome it could be.

I don't seriously expect it to ever happen either, but man, the fallout from fandom would be something to witness. Unfortunately, much like when they did it back then, by now a lot of great things would be thrown out.

[daBronzeBomma]

Would you guys mind telling me what your problem with Post-Crisis Superman is?

Grew up with the guy.

Then read ALL - STAR SUPERMAN. Which lead to reading some Bronze Age Superman.

To use a sports metaphor, it was like thinking Kobe Bryant was the greatest basketball player ever, and then learning about Michael Jordan.

My main issues (all IMHO, if course) with Post-Crisis Superman:

1. Making Superman born on Earth in America but conceived on Krypton, aka the marginalizing of his all-important immigrant status. Seriously, screw you John Byrne.

2. "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I do", aka Naive Farmboy Syndrome.

3. Exponentially Weaker, Slower, Dumber than Pre-COIE Superman, aka jobs to make others look better

That's mine. What's yours?

[Kuwagaton]

You know, I've been meaning to ask: where does he say "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I do" ? It definitely wasn't a catch phrase or anything he repeated. I think I remember it from MoS 1986, but where?

According to Google, it's a line from Lois and Clark, the tv show.

What does that mean to people, since I'm not all that sure how it's commonly interpreted?

[Assam]

I did not know this was doable...

[SiegePerilous02]

1. Making Superman born on Earth in America but conceived on Krypton, aka the marginalizing of his all-important immigrant status. Seriously, screw you John Byrne.

2. "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I do", aka Naive Farmboy Syndrome.

3. Exponentially Weaker, Slower, Dumber than Pre-COIE Superman, aka jobs to make others look better

These are the big ones for me.

I also just flat out don't like the changes and subtractions from the lore. Corrupt businessman Lex is the big one, as I find the larger than life mad scientist vastly more entertaining and interesting. And after a casual glance at things, I don't know what was going on with that Milton "I need brain fluid to live!" Fine Brainiac, but I know I want no part of it. The connection to the Legion of Superheroes was severed for a time and thus Superman's world became smaller. Kara Zor-El not being allowed to exist due to their BS editorial edicts until they changed their minds, by which time everyone else in her age group was much older than her. Seriously the YJ group were veterans compared to her. General Zod being a Russian human, etc etc. It just all seems like a bunch of nonsense that came about to solve imagined problems, and then created actual problems.

[Kuwagaton]

Milton Fine was introduced in 1988, and gave way to the real Brainiac for good in 1990. That Russian Zod, though, is probably my least favorite villain of all time. That was a whole pack of pet characters around the start of the millennium.

[Johnny Thunders!]

The Batman Superman dynamic reminded me of Wolverine and Cyclops. Superboy and the Legion of Superheroes was erased. The Death of Ferro Lad, the Wedding of Lighting Lad and Saturn Girl, The Time Master, Computo, these stories are not just great Legion Comics, they are great sic-fi milestones in DC Comics history that just got erased.

It led to more interesting versions of Superman in other titles. Supreme, Mr. Majestic, the Sentry, Hyperion, Tom Strong, Franklin Richards, there are so many other post crisis Superman analogues that I just find more interesting because they adopt whole cloth aspects of pre crisis Superman and put them squarely in the present and future. Grant Morrison seemed to be writing a different character in Justice League than in the main Superman titles.

I think at the time of the Joep Loeb solo run, I just had had enough of reading about Superman learning to be Superman. He apprenticed to son of Mogul/(Mongul)? I am soon going to soon (and gladly) read about him apprenticing to Batman.

I just missed the whole Man of Tomorrow aspect. Silver Age, Bronze Age Superman, I felt the human connection to Lois, Lana, the Kents, but Superman still seemed at the forefront of "Superhumanity". Actually I feel the human aspect of Superman much more in Bronze and Silver Age Superman. Golden Age Superman is on the move so much and crusading for justice, he seems less attached to human relationships than Silver and Bronze Age Supes. Anyway Post crisis, he seemed to have one note, Mr. Midwest traditional values Superman. The update for the character tied him squarely to a nostalgic view of a generic, ideal American.

Superman can't and shouldn't be too skilled, too strong, too fast, too smart, too cosmic, too campy, too,,, there were too man cant's from a character I always read as always reaching that next level first. Pre-crisis Superman has a Wizard or Oz and Lord of the Rings size universe. I liked the sprawling messiness of it all. Jeweled mountains, volcanoes erupting in gold magma, scarlet forests, even Krypton seemed more interesting.

[Carabas]

Would you guys mind telling me what your problem with Post-Crisis Superman is?

He got a kid and replaced the superior New 52 Superman.

[Ascended]

You know, I've been meaning to ask: where does he say "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I do" ? It definitely wasn't a catch phrase or anything he repeated. I think I remember it from MoS 1986, but where?

According to Google, it's a line from Lois and Clark, the tv show.

What does that mean to people, since I'm not all that sure how it's commonly interpreted?

Far as I know, it's just a line from the tv show.

But it's become a short-hand for the early post-Crisis approach to the character: the idea that Superman was just a job and Clark; farmboy and All-American Son, was the entirety of who Kal *really* was.

It's taking the duality of the character and dumping it for something simple and easily digestible (ie., boring and predictable). Its making Superman closer to Peter Parker; the skinny nerd who gained powers is who he really is, and the mask and powers just let him be a little more extroverted and say the things he'd normally be too shy to say. It's discounting the impact of Clark's immigrant status (quite literally), its discounting the value of his Kryptonian heritage (formerly a major interest and hobby), its discounting the way his senses and biology would separate him from the normal human experience......it makes him less unique, and more like virtually every other hero to ever see print. This might not have been so bad if Byrne had introduced other elements to balance out the loss, but he didnt, so Superman ended up being the most vanilla, bland character out there, without the quirks and weird traits that set other characters apart from the masses. Thank god the quality of the Triangle era stories made up for it.

Would you guys mind telling me what your problem with Post-Crisis Superman is?

Too many things were removed from the mythos and backstory. Clark's teenaged adventures with the Legion, his career as Superboy, the Kents running the local store in Smallville, Clark knowing Lex as kids, several supporting cast members.....there are things that should have been put on a shelf (like the Super Pets), but all the fantastical and whimsical ideas and concepts were ripped out of Superman's history in order to....I dunno, make him be taken more seriously? I dont know why these things had to be actively removed when they could've just not referenced them again and left them in limbo. In any case, it made Superman's world a lot more generic and a lot less exciting. It was highly limiting, as so many strange and wonderful places that Clark used to go (or beings he'd hang out with) were suddenly no longer there, not even in the characters' memories.

Clark's de-powering. Not as strong, intelligent, fast, or overall capable. On one hand that makes him easier to write as the challenges don't have to be so extreme, but for a character built on the crazy adventures of pure adrenaline soaked wish fulfillment? It was a terrible idea. If a writer lacks the imagination to throw Clark against crazy stuff they should write Batman instead. There should never have been any of this "Well, arguably J'onn and Billy Batson are stronger than Clark!" No. No, the only character who should be "arguably" as strong as Clark (not even stronger, just equally strong) is Diana. Like the Hulk, Superman is the Strongest There Is. Post-Crisis did a great job making him "Strong But Not Noticeably Stronger Than All These Other Guys."

The focus on Clark as the "real" and only side of who he was. I already spoke about this.

There's a few other smaller issues I have, like Clark not getting to tweak and adjust his costume in small ways like Flash and Batman and Wonder Woman did, which probably added to the "he's outdated" complaint, but the stuff I listed above are my main gripes.

[TheCape]

*Its making Superman closer to Peter Parker; the skinny nerd who gained powers is who he really is, and the mask and powers just let him be a little more extroverted and say the things he'd normally be too shy to say.

If wouldn't even call that an accurate definition of Spider-Man true self.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

While I think Byrne did some really solid work with the character, the biggest mistake he made was to remove all tragedy from the character, which was essential for the character.

I think Kal-El needs to be an immigrant (being born on Earth and only being conceived on Krypton, which now deserved to die, strikes me as missing the entire point), young Clark need to grow up feeling like an outsider (rather than a popular football jock), and at least one of his parents need to die to show him the limits of his powers.

[Kuwagaton]

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.

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.

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.