Was the New 52 an objective mistake in regards to Superman?

[Sacred Knight]

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, so maybe it's better characterized as an over reliance on stunts or purported status quo changes. At least from my point of view the fact that it was part of a storyline doesn't alter the fact that the driving force behind the change was to drastically alter something in an attempt to drive controversy and drum up interest and sales.

How integral to the direction of the character was quitting the Daily Planet for a blog? I could be remembering it wrong but it was used like once or twice afterwards mainly to drive the public reveal of the Superman Wonder Woman romance and then was ignored and undone. The new powers, losing his powers, becoming kryptonite powered, the secret identity reveal, Wonder Woman interrogating all his friends, etc. That was like within the space of 12 issues. Yes they were all part of a story, but they were drastic actions or changes that relied on the "shock" to drive the story (often right into the ground). These were all status quo changes and the primary purpose was to drum up controversy (and hopefully sales).

So in that sense I do think Aquaman is analogous. They were constantly looking for drastic, "shocking," new directions to take the character in. Relying on a drastic status quo altering element to change the direction of the story instead of just telling a good Superman story. Like Pak's initial Action run were just good Superman stories that stood on their own merits. They didn't require a drastic change to drive them.

I don't think you're being antagonistic, if anything I apologize if my language seemed to aggressive. That wasn't the intent. To the points brought up though, while you're right these things were done to drum up interest and sales, that can be a good aim. For example, Superman wasn't doing well at all before the New 52, so obviously he needed drummed up interest and sales. That being the driving force is not necessarily a bad thing at all. It can be when things are working relatively well and its done just because "its that time again", but the very idea itself of just trying to renew interest isn't necessarily a negative.

Clark quitting the Planet was supposed to be very integral. It lasted up until Johns came on, and because as Johns is wont to do, he reverts anything and everything he doesn't like, and what he doesn't like. So Clark and Cat's blog endeavor died. And really it was the one aspect of Lobdell's run that was actually generally liked, ironically enough. I never liked the new power, but at least at first it served a story. It did become rather pointless quickly though, absolutely, so that is probably a good example of a stunt that ended up going nowhere. The secret identity reveal, that was very much integral to the character and the journey he was intended in going on. In the end it just plain ended up not working, but again, I don't find that at all analogous to labeling it just cheap shock value. Yeah, it was a status quo shake up, but if its intended to and does go somewhere, then its more than just that. The story told just ended up happening to not be very good.

But I do agree, when all is said and done these all have stunt-based elements at their core that jump start things. But today, everything does. Rebirth Superman was stunt based as well, I mean, bringing in the kid was the definition of a stunt. There is little escaping that these days. The only runs that don't create a stunt these days are the ones that are just coming off the heels of already established stunts. IOW, new runs in an existing era. But each era begins with them all the time. But if said stunts go somewhere, I think there's more to it in the history books than just pointless shock. The New 52 stunts went somewhere. The Rebirth stunts went somewhere. Quality, reception, all that stuff YMMV of course.

[Yoda]

I don't think you're being antagonistic, if anything I apologize if my language seemed to aggressive. That wasn't the intent. To the points brought up though, while you're right these things were done to drum up interest and sales, that can be a good aim. For example, Superman wasn't doing well at all before the New 52, so obviously he needed drummed up interest and sales. That being the driving force is not necessarily a bad thing at all. It can be when things are working relatively well and its done just because "its that time again", but the very idea itself of just trying to renew interest isn't necessarily a negative.

Clark quitting the Planet was supposed to be very integral. It lasted up until Johns came on, and because as Johns is wont to do, he reverts anything and everything he doesn't like, and what he doesn't like. So Clark and Cat's blog endeavor died. And really it was the one aspect of Lobdell's run that was actually generally liked, ironically enough. I never liked the new power, but at least at first it served a story. It did become rather pointless quickly though, absolutely, so that is probably a good example of a stunt that ended up going nowhere. The secret identity reveal, that was very much integral to the character and the journey he was intended in going on. In the end it just plain ended up not working, but again, I don't find that at all analogous to labeling it just cheap shock value. Yeah, it was a status quo shake up, but if its intended to and does go somewhere, then its more than just that. The story told just ended up happening to not be very good.

But I do agree, when all is said and done these all have stunt-based elements at their core that jump start things. But today, everything does. Rebirth Superman was stunt based as well, I mean, bringing in the kid was the definition of a stunt. There is little escaping that these days. The only runs that don't create a stunt these days are the ones that are just coming off the heels of already established stunts. IOW, new runs in an existing era. But each era begins with them all the time. But if said stunts go somewhere, I think there's more to it in the history books than just pointless shock. The New 52 stunts went somewhere. The Rebirth stunts went somewhere. Quality, reception, all that stuff YMMV of course.

Your response wasn't aggressive and likely I dialed it up in my initial response based on the comments I was responding to.

I think what I'm trying to get at is yes, Rebirth relied on some stunt casting with Jon. Adding a kid is a trope for a reason, but they didn't constantly go back to that well. The editorial driven New 52, in the Suoerman books and all the others, relied on stunts far to often to drive sales and stories. You have Jon versus all the elements I listed initially. They didn't develop the elemts they added and just moved onto another one to get the next round of press or outrage sales.

[JAK]

This is what I'm trying to get at. There was no concrete plan. They were piling shocking status quo changes on top of shocking status quo changes without any long term goals and seemingly changing directions within the space of like 6 issues. More often it seemed to drum up some mainstream press based on how these elements went against the general understanding of Superman versus any actual story driven motivation. No more Lois, Wonder Woman, Quitting the Daily Planet, Lois outing Superman - all were stories that got them press attention. They were designed to shock the readers, create controversy not out of any coherent development or plan. They all reaked of editorially driven story mandates.

Yeah - and a large part of it was PR stunting that was counter to the actual story. Remember the "article" where Lois outed Clark as Superman, and one writer or somebody saying she did it because she has a journalistic obligation or something like that? The response was a solid "Lois is a (fill in choice word here" and that reasoning had zilch to do with why she did it. But that'd Didio. I pile on him a lot for this, but that just feels like his "thing".

But I do agree, when all is said and done these all have stunt-based elements at their core that jump start things. But today, everything does. Rebirth Superman was stunt based as well, I mean, bringing in the kid was the definition of a stunt. There is little escaping that these days. The only runs that don't create a stunt these days are the ones that are just coming off the heels of already established stunts. IOW, new runs in an existing era. But each era begins with them all the time. But if said stunts go somewhere, I think there's more to it in the history books than just pointless shock. The New 52 stunts went somewhere. The Rebirth stunts went somewhere. Quality, reception, all that stuff YMMV of course.

I think what I'm trying to get at is yes, Rebirth relied on some stunt casting with Jon. Adding a kid is a trope for a reason, but they didn't constantly go back to that well. The editorial driven New 52, in the Suoerman books and all the others, relied on stunts far to often to drive sales and stories. You have Jon versus all the elements I listed initially. They didn't develop the elemts they added and just moved onto another one to get the next round of press or outrage sales.

I guess I have a different metric for "stunt." I don't see Jon as a stunt because it wasn't pushed in the same way iirc (maybe I've forgotten?), and the story felt a lot more organic (such as it was). I do know I'm biased on the topic, though, so take that for what it's worth. But "stunts" for me also tend to be things that don't last. Clark not being Superman's other identity, for instance - that wasn't going to last. And I see Jon sticking around for quite some time.

[Yoda]

Yeah - and a large part of it was PR stunting that was counter to the actual story. Remember the "article" where Lois outed Clark as Superman, and one writer or somebody saying she did it because she has a journalistic obligation or something like that? The response was a solid "Lois is a (fill in choice word here" and that reasoning had zilch to do with why she did it. But that'd Didio. I pile on him a lot for this, but that just feels like his "thing".

I know he hated the marriage, but he hates all marriages for characters. It's interesting that Bendis has essentially the exact opposite opinion. I think Didio likes sales, fan engagement, and success and would personally officiate the wedding of every DCU couple if he thought it would lead to steady sales increases.

Something about Lois just brings out the worst in a lot of creators and editors though. They just can't help but stick their foot in their mouth talking about her. I really don't get it, she's been a central part of every successful mass media interpretation of the character (i.e. made them more money than DC's comic division could hope to) and yet they can't seem recognize this and treat her as disposable.

I guess I have a different metric for "stunt." I don't see Jon as a stunt because it wasn't pushed in the same way iirc (maybe I've forgotten?), and the story felt a lot more organic (such as it was). I do know I'm biased on the topic, though, so take that for what it's worth. But "stunts" for me also tend to be things that don't last. Clark not being Superman's other identity, for instance - that wasn't going to last. And I see Jon sticking around for quite some time.

Adding Jon is more of a sitcom trope I guess than a stunt, but adding a kid out of nowhere is a trope for a reason. But you are right that the way he was introduced and handled over the course of the Lois & Clark series and the Rebirth books is diametrically opposed to the way almost all of the stunts they pulled in the New 52 run were handled. They introduced him, incorporated him into the stories, and built from there. In a sense I actually would compare Jon with the Superman/Wonder Woman pairing. Both were introduced in an relatively organic fashion and built on over the course of the subsequent runs if you're looking at the SM/WW book. However, even there Jon was handled better as he was incorporated across the board, the SM/WW romance was all but ignored by the main books and they also seemed to lose interest in it and in relatively short order started dismantling it.

[Sacred Knight]

I think Jon and the New 52 are what is similar. His introduction couldn't get any less organic in my eyes. I mean, his first creation, Convergence, was fairly organic. What came after very much was not once it was merged into the old canon. It was literally a flipping-of-the-switch change, creating and inserting something into an established history that never existed before. To me that's a consequential asspull just like erasing a history entirely. New 52 did their asspull by erasing history and starting over. The story then grew from there. Rebirth did its ass-pull by inserting a ten year old character into an old continuity that never existed before as if he'd always been there. The story grew from there. I find it both scenarios fairly close to identical in concept, and even in scope because although the latter was just one change, it was substantial enough a change that it has a major chain reaction effect that affects and changes a whole lot of history. That's not that dissimilar from a history just rebooting altogether.

. However, even there Jon was handled better as he was incorporated across the board, the SM/WW romance was all but ignored by the main books and they also seemed to lose interest in it and in relatively short order started dismantling it.

That's not really accurate. In point of fact the only place SM/WW was really ignored was her own title. Azzarello didn't want to mess with his established and greenlit pitch to fit it in and he was not forced to. In the Superman titles and the rest of the verse at large, it was very much referenced and incorporated for the entirety of its existence. It wasn't at all a fringe thing largely ignored. Just in one title, oddly enough which happened to be one of the characters' solos, but all the same that's pretty much the only place it wasn't acknowledged. Interest also wasn't lost in short order. It in fact grew to the point it received its very own title which lasted until the initiative ended. 4 years is not really something I'd categorize as short order. Initiatives these days only last about five at best so it basically lasted an entire modern era.

[Vordan]

Jon was a stunt but people liked him so he’s remembered more fondly. No Man’s Land was a stunt but people liked it so it’s viewed as a classic. Dick Grayson becoming Batman was a stunt but again people liked it. Death of Superman and Reign of the Supermen were stunts by the authors own admissions but they worked out. You need to shake things up occasionally to keep people invested and I understand that. But sometimes stunts DON’T work out and then you need to freaking STOP and figure out why. The constant crossovers between Supertitles wasn’t working but they just kept doing more of them. The Truth arc wasn’t working but they strung it out until sales tanked.

However the Morrison Action Comics run was also a stunt that worked imo. Sales were great, there was a lot of people complaining but I saw a lot of positivity too. That could’ve been a run viewed more widely as the classic it is (imo) if editorial had been in a better shape to build on it.

[Sacred Knight]

Honestly, I wonder if Truth wouldn't have been killed earlier, had it not already been decided behind the scenes elsewhere that they were going in the Rebirth direction. I tend to believe that had reverting things back to the old continuity not happened, they would have killed Truth earlier and got back to it instead of dragging out a story not working. They've never been above hitting the kill switch in those situations in the past (see New Krypton). But the way it turned out, there really was no reason at that point to not finish things out since they were making major changes and killing off that Superman anyway. By about halfway through Truth at best, they were just killing time even though we didn't know it at the time.

The crossovers, that's another story. The crossover problem is something they've proven very reluctant to learn a lesson on. I'm still not convinced that model wont eventually return in the near future. Its a well they just go back to time and again.

[Lokimaru]

Jon was a stunt but people liked him so he’s remembered more fondly. No Man’s Land was a stunt but people liked it so it’s viewed as a classic. Dick Grayson becoming Batman was a stunt but again people liked it. Death of Superman and Reign of the Supermen were stunts by the authors own admissions but they worked out. You need to shake things up occasionally to keep people invested and I understand that. But sometimes stunts DON’T work out and then you need to freaking STOP and figure out why. The constant crossovers between Supertitles wasn’t working but they just kept doing more of them. The Truth arc wasn’t working but they strung it out until sales tanked.

However the Morrison Action Comics run was also a stunt that worked imo. Sales were great, there was a lot of people complaining but I saw a lot of positivity too. That could’ve been a run viewed more widely as the classic it is (imo) if editorial had been in a better shape to build on it.

Purists were against Truth from the Start after it was Leaked that Lois was the cause of Clark SI being exposed. They weren't even curious on how something like that could happen, they were just flat against it on general principle.

[Vordan]

Purists were against Truth from the Start after it was Leaked that Lois was the cause of Clark SI being exposed. They weren't even curious on how something like that could happen, they were just flat against it on general principle.

I thought the reasoning for why she did it was dumb, but I didn’t really have a problem with her exposing Clark. Fact is, Clark has basically lied to everyone at the DP for years. Them being mad at him for deceiving them and choosing not to cover for him isn’t something I object to.

[Yoda]

Didn't she do it because he was letting a villian blackmail him? Lois actually looked.good in that and Clark looked terrible. But the marketing and creator interviews played Lois as the badguy if I recall correctly.

I talked to Aaron Kruder at a con a few years back and they apparently had a longer plan in place to build Truth out into re-establishing the New 52 Superman. So at least per Kruder it was actually cut short and they were forced into Savage Dawn and then the death crossover.

Jon was woven into the existing contuity sure, but they built him out through the Lois & Clark series, and then Rebirth. They stuck with it and built it out over something like 100 issues between L&C and the Rebirth titles. Even Bendis for all his changes is building it out into something different but it's still there as far as we can see now. They didn't introduce him, ride the story for 6 issues and the dump him into another dimension or just ignore him until people forget about him. Initial.concept maybe there's a similarity but in actual execution there's no comparison. Jon's introduction and establisment was far smoother and consistent than anything done in the New 52.

As to SM/WW, I wasn't reading New 52 as it came out past the first 6 months except for Morrison's run and Batman. Didn't do much more than skim through Lobdell's stuff or the Action issues before Pak once I went to catch up but I don't recall much of anything in Johns run or Pak's. Superman Unchained ignored it completely. Was there stuff in Doomed outside of SM/WW? I honestly don't recall it.

[Lokimaru]

Honestly, I wonder if Truth wouldn't have been killed earlier, had it not already been decided behind the scenes elsewhere that they were going in the Rebirth direction. I tend to believe that had reverting things back to the old continuity not happened, they would have killed Truth earlier and got back to it instead of dragging out a story not working. They've never been above hitting the kill switch in those situations in the past (see New Krypton). But the way it turned out, there really was no reason at that point to not finish things out since they were making major changes and killing off that Superman anyway. By about halfway through Truth at best, they were just killing time even though we didn't know it at the time.

The crossovers, that's another story. The crossover problem is something they've proven very reluctant to learn a lesson on. I'm still not convinced that model wont eventually return in the near future. Its a well they just go back to time and again.

I actually liked Truth. Sometimes you have to take a character out of his comfort zone to see what he's made of. I saw it as like when Death takes away all of Alucard's stuff at the start of Symphony of the Night. Hell they should have had him get his powers back one by one and have it ultimately be Jor-El as cause because it's a test to see if Kal-El is ready to go forward. Maybe I just think of things in terms of Video games too much but it helps me just go with things unless it's so out of left field that my brain get whiplash (Cough Rebirth cough). New52 was Explained, Rebirth was not. I'll take valid explanations over Hand wavy bullshit any day.

[Lokimaru]

Didn't she do it because he was letting a villian blackmail him? Lois actually looked.good in that and Clark looked terrible. But the marketing and creator interviews played Lois as the badguy if I recall correctly.

I talked to Aaron Kruder at a con a few years back and they apparently had a longer plan in place to build Truth out into re-establishing the New 52 Superman. So at least per Kruder it was actually cut short and they were forced into Savage Dawn and then the death crossover.

Jon was woven into the existing contuity sure, but they built him out through the Lois & Clark series, and then Rebirth. They stuck with it and built it out over something like 100 issues between L&C and the Rebirth titles. Even Bendis for all his changes is building it out into something different but it's still there as far as we can see now. They didn't introduce him, ride the story for 6 issues and the dump him into another dimension or just ignore him until people forget about him. Initial.concept maybe there's a similarity but in actual execution there's no comparison. Jon's introduction and establisment was far smoother and consistent than anything done in the New 52.

As to SM/WW, I wasn't reading New 52 as it came out past the first 6 months except for Morrison's run and Batman. Didn't do much more than skim through Lobdell's stuff or the Action issues before Pak once I went to catch up but I don't recall much of anything in Johns run or Pak's. Superman Unchained ignored it completely. Was there stuff in Doomed outside of SM/WW? I honestly don't recall it.

Unchained was a Prequel set a year before Superman #1 that's why it seems to ignores stuff. They haven't happened yet.

[Yoda]

The first issue of Superman Unchained references Clark leaving the Daily Planet. So no, Unchained definitely is not a prequel.

[Yoda]

I actually liked Truth. Sometimes you have to take a character out of his comfort zone to see what he's made of. I saw it as like when Death takes away all of Alucard's stuff at the start of Symphony of the Night. Hell they should have had him get his powers back one by one and have it ultimately be Jor-El as cause because it's a test to see if Kal-El is ready to go forward. Maybe I just think of things in terms of Video games too much but it helps me just go with things unless it's so out of left field that my brain get whiplash (Cough Rebirth cough). New52 was Explained, Rebirth was not. I'll take valid explanations over Hand wavy bullshit any day.

Rebirth was explained just as well as the New 52. They are both hand wavey timey wimey.

[rpmaluki]

Rebirth was explained just as well as the New 52. They are both hand wavey timey wimey.

Yeah, it just depends on readers' acceptance of those "hand waves".