What do you think Superman's biggest problem is?

[Lexrules]

Exactly, Golden Age Superman was not a boy scout.

Superman using scare tactics like this I'm personally not a fan of.

[The Kid]

Exactly, Golden Age Superman was not a boy scout.

Whenever I see stuff like this, it makes me really want to read some Golden Age Superman lol

[exile001]

All of the above?

The fans are difficult if not impossible to please because they all have a different vision of what their Superman should be. Plus any change, even a simple change like him finally changing his clothes, is given the stink-eye. But in the end the fans don't create the stories, they just consume them.

The writers don't seem to have a consistent character model to work from. His behavior, reactions, attitudes, and outlook sometimes change depending on who's doing the writing. It's hard to enjoy a fictional character when I don't feel I know what's a foundational aspect of the character and what's something that can vary. I should be able to see him behave in a certain way, judge it to be out of character, and think "ah ha, that's a plot point" rather than "oh, different writer, different Kal." When I have to think about whether it's a writer's individual interpretation rather than just being immersed in the story being told I enjoy the story less. When it happens too often I lose the story and start nit-picking. I hate it when that happens, 'cause I turn into the stereotypical whiney fan. I can handle change, but the change needs to happen on a solid foundation.

The editors? I was always under the impression that editors were in charge of maintaining that consistent model across the line, but that may have changed. Either way, sometimes it doesn't seem like anyone's driving the bus. I can read the Lantern books, or the Batman line, and there seems to be a vision for all the books. The Superman family of books seems disorganized and scattered. I don't understand the editorial/writer model being used, but if writers get story assignments write their stories, submit them and have them approved, and then get asked to re-write everything afterwards there's a problem. And that problem isn't the writer.

TPTB? That's such an internal thing that it's only possible to judge by inference. But I can't imagine it's not an issue somehow, given all the creator complaints. Maybe they're interfering, sending change memos all the time, pushing their ideas and Mary-Sueing the books. Maybe they're not doing enough, and the lack of consistency is because there's no leadership. Maybe sweat breaks out on Dan Didio's forehead every time he sees a memo from corporate in his in box, wondering how he's going to break it to Berganza this time.

So yes, I think it's all of the above. All I can really judge is the final product. So it's my fault too. I'm the fan.

Pretty much this.

It's hard to express this exactly as I see it on a forum but here goes:

I think that in some regards the New 52 has the worst of all worlds, especially in the first year or so.

Now I like the New 52 Superman comics a lot (well, the first 12 issues of Superman were bad IMO), but to a degree he was a soulless composite of what various fans (and editorial) demand from "their" Superman at the start of the New 52. A hodge-podge of give and take between Silver Age and post COIE that hadn't meshed too well and in the end nobody has what they want, and too much of what they dislike about the other group's period. Superman comics feel like a fix attempting to satisfy everyone, but ultimately isn't anyone's ideal.

To some extent it boils down to logic over creativity.

In the Silver Age anything could happen in a Superman comic and it didn't need to make a lot of sense. Supergirl could have a super-horse that was actually an ancient greek man transformed by Circe (no, not the one from Wonder Woman, another Circe) and sometimes he'd become a man again and SG or Lois would fall in love and then he'd become the super-horse again and it wouldn't matter.

As sensibilities changed, more and more logic was added to the way stories were structured and an inevitable extension of that is a fixed universe and ultimately a fixed line of comics.

With the post-COIE reboot, we had one core writer planning the basis for the new continuity with some editorial edicts for guidelines. Over the following years, this was stuck to and the new continuity was built around it with older elements slowly showing up over a course of time.

Supergirl was reintroduced, no longer from Krypton and, for example, she could have a regular horse. She could meet the greek man, but only if he were sent forward through time, and then by the Circe of the Wonder Woman comics. It is unlikely he would become a horse, unless temporarily as a nod to the old continuity. If she absolutely had to have a ‘super-horse’ it would likely be a robot or a cute nickname for a motor-bike or something.

I liked the period of the late 90s early 00s best, where these two dogmas merged into an era where fantastical ideas met with modern storytelling structures. And long removed concepts were revisited and given a fresh lick of paint (Krypto, for example).

Then, after Infinite Crisis, the power went too far in the direction of the Silver Age fans and old concepts were crammed in with no time to gain traction and little thought as to whether they’d resonate with a modern audience. That and Johns’ love of Superman: The Movie was way too much for some.

DC was already in crisis re-tooling mode for Superman before the New 52 reboot came alone, with Superman sales much lower than they should have been. The prevailing panic and editorial mismanagement lead to something of a fluster-cuck for a while with one hand not knowing what the other was doing. Finally, we’re getting on the same page with two of the three books aligning nicely and Johns trying to drag Superman back into the top 10.

Superman is evolving again, and I hope it’s in the right direction this time as he desperately needs new readers by the thousands. But does DC have it’ss eye on these new readers or are they just trying to appease those they have and steal existing fans from Marvel?

Another part of DCs problem is that they will give, say, Grant Morisson a lot of creative freedom but not others. Morisson's name is a guarantee of sales so he gets to flex his creative muscles (though still nowhere near as wide as he'd like). Same with Geoff Johns. However, if more freedom was given to other creators who knows what we could have? It's a double edged sword, though, as creativity does not equal quality or sales. That backfired badly with the plummeting sales during the New Krypton saga (intially planned by Johns or never would have happened).

If you have someone with the talent of Grant Morisson I firmly believe he should be allowed to write whatever he wants as it can be argued that he is the perfect fusion between these two camps. He loves the 'everything happened' approach, but always has logic threaded through every issue he writes.

I guess my point is there has to be a balance. Superman has two titles (three if we include SMWW), so why not have one be Silver Age-y and the other more modern? The world can handle two takes on the character and if one doesn’t sell maybe it needs retooling or restructuring again.

I'd also like to add the Reeve Superman movies are a problem. WHAT?!?! You say?

Look, I love two of those movies as much as anyone, but the fact is they haven't aged well with modern sensibilities. Everything about them feels dated.

And this is the first Superman a lot of young people are exposed to. Superman has a reputation among comic and non-comic fans alike as a dull goody-goody and these movies reinforce that perception. If they see Superman: The Movie, there is a good chance they’re not going to bother with the comics if that doesn’t appeal and, I fear, the number of people that will appeal to on first watch is decreasing.

Then, right at the time WB was putting out Smallville and the Justice League cartoon, when maybe the modern market is gaining some new interest in him... *BAM* Superman Returns! The same outdated values and character, but now in an age where people expect special effects, super-powered fighting, city wide/global threat what do we get? After two excruciatingly slow hours he eventually picks up a big rock... Um, what? His great enemy is a pantomime villain. What kid is going to be wowed by that and want to pick up a comic?

As much as I enjoyed Man of Steel, I'm not sure this is the answer but at least it's exciting. He throws some punches and saves the world. I’m hoping paring him with Batman in the next film will be the shot in the arm Superman needs and hopefully, by that point, the comics can be equally exciting.

I look forward to it, as I love Superman and want him to thrive again!

That's my tuppence worth, anyway.

[Minerboh]

Have you read the original Golden Age Superman stories? He was arrogant as all hell.

And again, he used to do that a lot too.

It strikes me all the same you're citing where his weaker writing was and not Morrison's Action. Why, can't use a good example cos that would mean ceding your point?



Yeah exactly.

I do not care about the Golden Age. It's like suggesting me to build a time machine and go back to the stone ages.

[Auguste Dupin]

I do not care about the Golden Age. It's like suggesting me to build a time machine and go back to the stone ages.

Still, judging Johns' take on the first arc of JL, a take that is considered to be a jerk even by those who like the New 52 Sup (and where pretty much the entire Leagueis out fo character), is not the best way to judge the take on the character. Even he didn't sticked with it.
I mean, no offense, but if you're judging the character based on this arc alone, that's like me judging Pre 52 Superman using Chuck Austen's run, or JMS's Grounded "brilliance". That's just not fair.

[Sacred Knight]

Its not suggesting anything of the sort. With that line of logic, its cool to not care about history of any sort because hey, don't ask me to jump in a time machine. I mean if you don't care, you don't care, no one can force you to read materials you don't want to, it just seems like a pretty weird reason to not want to.

That's not to suggest there's anything wrong with having one favorite incarnation and not really caring about any of the others. There's no wrong or right way to be a Superman fan. With that said however, when it comes to these types of discussions, in which the character's overall history is incredibly relevant, you kinda have to accept having a certain level of ignorance if you willfully choose to ignore large parts of the character's history. Its not like I've read every Golden, Silver, and Bronze Age Superman story. But even the equivalent of cliffs notes in the form of summarizations online can go a long way into learning about how the character was portrayed in the past and how those portrayals changed through the years.

[Lexrules]

I do not care about the Golden Age. It's like suggesting me to build a time machine and go back to the stone ages.

But the truth be told if you do enjoy the character you should go back and read as much as possible about the character. The more you know the more you appreciate where he came from and where he is going.

[Blacksun]

Superman using scare tactics like this I'm personally not a fan of.

and is not how Superman is most known. modern batman is not like his golden age, so is Superman or should be

[Nostradamus]

I think blaming the fan base for the Superman lines problems is ridiculous. There are so many different people who are fans of the character but at the end of the day, if DC can come out with a consistent, cool new take on Superman that has good characterisation and good stories about him while keeping the roots of the character intact, pretty sure most of them would be satisfied.

[Auguste Dupin]

and is not how Superman is most known. modern batman is not like his golden age, so is Superman or should be

He kinda is, actually.
Ho, sure, he was a bit more hardcore, and he as using guns, but for the most part, you look at the two Batman's behaviour, and you see the ressemblance. Out of the Trinity, Batman is definitely the closest to how he was at first.

[Blacksun]

The funny thing about Superman is that the pre Crisis version is still more relevant to the modern world than the Bryne one. Maggin's work still holds up and his ideas of Superman are timeless, whilst Bryne's book is dated and old fashion by now.



The Wake's strength was horror and I dropped Lazarus because the main character was like every other female character Rucka had ever written.

Wake has horror elements but also is a sci-fi just like Alien. I think the main character is pretty different from what he ever wrote.

He kinda is, actually.
Ho, sure, he was a bit more hardcore, and he as using guns, but for the most part, you look at the two Batman's behaviour, and you see the ressemblance. Out of the Trinity, Batman is definitely the closest to how he was at first.

I don't think so, batman killed on golden age. what defined batman was the 70/80s.

[Cypher]

Exactly, Golden Age Superman was not a boy scout.

You act like he did this all the time. You probably never even read any Golden Age stories.

That symbol by then indicates that he was pretty much fleshed out as the Superman we know, meaning roughly around Superman 20 or so, indicating years of already being in publication.


1) He was not a thug that got his kicks out of messing with others
2) He was already a sci-fi and fantasy character by then had villains pop up
3) While he might have been more upfront, hes not one bit what youre trying to imply

[Cypher]

I don't think good old fashioned fun adventures can ever go out of style.

My, my, fun and adventure being relatable? And even enjoyable!?



Gosh no, everything must be miserable! Pure blasphemy.

[Johnny Thunders!]

Golden Age Superman could be goofy just like Silver Age Stuff. Siegel and Shuster stories included.

[Iopy]

You act like he did this all the time. You probably never even read any Golden Age stories.

I've been buying comics, and Superman, since the fifties. I have a large collection of early Action (rather poor condition unfortunately - water damage on some, folded covers, etc.) Most of the rest of what I own is in Omnibus collections like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Superman-The-G...01BARJE7BDV129
Anybody who'd like to read some Golden Age Superman should pick this omnibus up, it's a great read.

That symbol by then indicates that he was pretty much fleshed out as the Superman we know, meaning roughly around Superman 20 or so, indicating years of already being in publication.

No problem, here's Superman throwing an enemy soldier to his death and destroying a plane in flight and letting it crash with all on board. It's from Superman #1 in 1939.

1) He was not a thug that got his kicks out of messing with others
2) He was already a sci-fi and fantasy character by then had villains pop up
3) While he might have been more upfront, hes not one bit what youre trying to imply

Superman at his creation was not a thug, nor did he get his kicks out of messing with others. But he wasn't a paragon of virtue or pacifist either. The first few years of his exploits included situations where it's clearly implied he either killed people or let them die due to their own acts. He was a character of his time, and a very interesting one. We would be doing a disservice to Siegel & Shuster's creation by white washing him into something he wasn't because we'd prefer a less rough and tumble version.