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

[Miles To Go]

For all of New 52 Superman’s flaws, he was a guy who 100% embraces being a hero and never wanted to be anything but. He was kind of an antidote to the hand-wringing, naval-gazing, out of touch person that Post-Crisis had become. He had actually tried to change the status quo even if he ended up accepting that he couldn’t change it as much as he liked. He didn’t just instantly fall for Lois because she was his “soul mate” or whatever lazy cop out people use so they don’t have to actually figure out why Clark likes Lois or vice versa

Actually, he did instantly fall for Lois, but she was involved with someone else at the time.

[Vordan]

Pretty sure he fell for Lois in the Golden Age too.

Golden Age Lois is amazing. She was so snarky and independent right from Action Comics 1, seeing what they did to her in the Silver Age makes me very unhappy. I can totally see him falling for her in the Golden Age.

[The World]

You can believe the character needed a refresh or a reboot in 2011, I had dropped the books by then, and still think the New 52 version wasn't the way to do it. Those aren't mutually exclusive positions.

In hindsight I don't really think the N52 was necessary either and actually wish they hadn't bothered with that. Rather go get Kal-L and let him be a brand of Superman who didn't have all the extra obligations that Post-Crisis Superman had (parents, wife, job) and let him be more in vain of a quasi Golden/ quasi Silver age Superman with more of a devotion to doing the Super things and left Post-Crisis Superman to be a family/salary-man.

You could have kept both the elements that both new and old fans could enjoy.

[Vordan]

Really either they should’ve made Earth One what the New 52 was, or launched a new line of books set on an alternate Earth. Have the New 52 exist alongside the Post-Crisis stuff for those who like that and I think a lot of the complaints would have been lessened.

[Kuwagaton]

No, I mean he'd only had a few small adventures by the end of Byrne's MoS. I started reading in 1991/92, and his world view had certainly shifted by the then-current comics (91/92), which made Byrne's MoS feel like a mental starting point for the character to me, instead of a constant worldview.

Oh, I read that wrong. It really should have been, the mandates described were a little weird. But while the idea of a few years passing make it less cut and dry, these reboots or retcon where they block out years is selling the point short. I'm sure many of us were convinced we'd see things like the Revenge Squad fleshed out.

Golden Age Lois is amazing. She was so snarky and independent right from Action Comics 1, seeing what they did to her in the Silver Age makes me very unhappy. I can totally see him falling for her in the Golden Age.

I think the same, although Clark still had a ways to go insofar as how he treated her. The New 52 may have been a return to golden age Superman action, but strangely it was kind of a flip there. Where the first issues have him both looking like Harry Potter and leaving her apartment bummed about her boyfriend.

[Yoda]

Golden Age Lois is amazing. She was so snarky and independent right from Action Comics 1, seeing what they did to her in the Silver Age makes me very unhappy. I can totally see him falling for her in the Golden Age.

No argument there. The 50’s version ruined the character to the point where you still have people who use it as an argument against including her in the books. Though I think it’s equally bad when writers and editors take the position that she can’t have any romantic relationship with Clark or Superman and still retain those same amazing Golden Age qualities.

I hope that’s the direction Bendis is taking their relationship. Giving Lois back all her best qualities while incorporating it into a strong relationship with Clark.

And Morrison’s run, while I don’t hold it in as high esteem as others, for me had so little to do with the New 52 version that carried forward it may have well had been an elseworld. So on the whole, while I liked Morrison’s run it doesn’t really factor into my opinion on the New 52 Superman.

In hindsight I don't really think the N52 was necessary either and actually wish they hadn't bothered with that. Rather go get Kal-L and let him be a brand of Superman who didn't have all the extra obligations that Post-Crisis Superman had (parents, wife, job) and let him be more in vain of a quasi Golden/ quasi Silver age Superman with more of a devotion to doing the Super things and left Post-Crisis Superman to be a family/salary-man.

You could have kept both the elements that both new and old fans could enjoy.

Really either they should’ve made Earth One what the New 52 was, or launched a new line of books set on an alternate Earth. Have the New 52 exist alongside the Post-Crisis stuff for those who like that and I think a lot of the complaints would have been lessened.

Both these ideas are closer to where I fall on this. Using a version of Earth One (because I didn’t really care for those either. Not a JMS fan really) But using that type of line to establish a Morrison like take on the character, along with a handful of other characters like Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, etc. in that universe before building it out would have allowed for a more organized and organic growth. Instead you got throw whatever sh*t we can think of at the wall and nothing really stuck.

[sunofdarkchild]

I think the most important part of a reboot is having a clear vision for what you want the character to be. The biggest problem with the Nu52 was the lack of that vision. Morrison knew what he wanted to do, but everyone else was basically expected to follow that without really knowing ahead of time, and once he left the line lost all sense of direction.

The 1986 reboot had a clear sense of direction and was kept editorially consistent for about 15 years. The continuity, characterization, and worldbuilding were first-rate. While some may bemoan the things that were lost with the reboot, even today I can fully understand the editorial and creative thinking behind nearly all of those decisions. It was the eventual dropping of that tightly run ship in the early 2000s that I think led to the need for a Nu52 in the first place.

Basically, I think the Nu52 Superman could have lasted far longer if there was better planning before the reboot and better communication during the Nu52.

[rpmaluki]

No argument there. The 50’s version ruined the character to the point where you still have people who use it as an argument against including her in the books. Though I think it’s equally bad when writers and editors take the position that she can’t have any romantic relationship with Clark or Superman and still retain those same amazing Golden Age qualities.

I hope that’s the direction Bendis is taking their relationship. Giving Lois back all her best qualities while incorporating it into a strong relationship with Clark.

And Morrison’s run, while I don’t hold it in as high esteem as others, for me had so little to do with the New 52 version that carried forward it may have well had been an elseworld. So on the whole, while I liked Morrison’s run it doesn’t really factor into my opinion on the New 52 Superman.





Both these ideas are closer to where I fall on this. Using a version of Earth One (because I didn’t really care for those either. Not a JMS fan really) But using that type of line to establish a Morrison like take on the character, along with a handful of other characters like Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, etc. in that universe before building it out would have allowed for a more organized and organic growth. Instead you got throw whatever sh*t we can think of at the wall and nothing really stuck.

I want the same. I already know Bendis has a very good handle on Superman, I'm hoping it will be the same for Lois barring that #1004 misstep.

I think the most important part of a reboot is having a clear vision for what you want the character to be. The biggest problem with the Nu52 was the lack of that vision. Morrison knew what he wanted to do, but everyone else was basically expected to follow that without really knowing ahead of time, and once he left the line lost all sense of direction.

The 1986 reboot had a clear sense of direction and was kept editorially consistent for about 15 years. The continuity, characterization, and worldbuilding were first-rate. While some may bemoan the things that were lost with the reboot, even today I can fully understand the editorial and creative thinking behind nearly all of those decisions. It was the eventual dropping of that tightly run ship in the early 2000s that I think led to the need for a Nu52 in the first place.

Basically, I think the Nu52 Superman could have lasted far longer if there was better planning before the reboot and better communication during the Nu52.

Yeah, without a clear vision, N52 quickly turned into a dumpster fire. They could have salvaged it imo but instead they let it burn until there was nothing worth saving left. I don't have any hangups on whether Pre or Post or everything else, I started reading with N52 and honestly would have kept reading if DC cared enough to fix what was wrong with it. If Truth was a precursor to what would have followed then I'm glad they nixed it when they did, there's only so much I am willing to accept with Superman.

[Yoda]

I want the same. I already know Bendis has a very good handle on Superman, I'm hoping it will be the same for Lois barring that #1004 misstep.

Yes, Action Comics 1004 was very poorly executed and gives an impression that appears to be completely opposite of what Bendis thought he was conveying. So I'm hoping that the execution of the stories going forward improve dramatically now that he's set up the dynamic he wants to work with.

Sad Clark is apparently done, given Action 1005, so hopefully we can dispense with these ridiculous teases with Luthor and Trish Q that Lois's absence is due to some failure of their marriage.

[HeroVladimir93]

I really don’t care how they justify it to be perfectly blunt. It’s a crap characterization that Timm and Dini (who have admitted to not really liking the character) pushed in the DCAU. Zack Snyder was going to use it too before his plans were mercifully cut short. Given how many heroes have dead parents, or spouses, or whatever Clark going so far off the deep end every time Lois dies makes him look terrible. Also NRS doesn’t like the character and have admitted that, so I don’t give a damn what justification people come up with. He’s evil so they can wank off Batgod, simple as that.

Also Joker is supposed to be wrong about one bad day. He’s wrong in The Killing Joke as proved by Gordon. He’s wrong in the Dark Knight as the boat scene shows. Batman literally calls him out on being wrong in both stories. Making him right, and making him right with ******* SUPERMAN is adding insult to injury and is pure edgelord stuff.

I had no idea that Timm and Dini and even NRS disliked the character. If that's the case, it doesn't show on the DCAU or the first Injustice game, which I consider some of the best Superman-related media in recent memory. Apparently, the creators were to transcend their limitations (in the case, their dislike of Superman) and delivered good stories, at least in my opinion.

On a somewhat related note, I think some fans react negatively to the concept of an evil Superman because of Superman's controversial portrayal in the DCEU and DC's constant push of the Injustice into the mainstream. Watching Superman turn evil, Darth Vader-style, was fun at first, if only to increase storytelling possibilities but apparently, the novelty of that concept wore off and now, people accuse DC and NRS of not understanding Superman at all.

With story elements, I agree the character works best as a balance. One side being the "true self" and the other being a complete disguise is a disservice to both. But I took "Clark is who I am" differently - as more of a statement that Superman would be the same person even without powers, and that his convictions are not defined by his abilities. I think writers who followed Byrne did a much better job of refining that concept and more clearly portraying it.

The first Superman: Earth One volume and the Man of Steel movie, some of my favorite Superman stories out there, depict both Superman and Clark as the "true self", not one pretending to be the other, and the issue of a secret identity is not addressed till the end of the story. I too agree that Superman works best as a balance because it provides a good way for exciting superhero action and nuanced character development.

[DochaDocha]

I don't doubt that NRS doesn't like Superman, but I would like to see something indicative stating such.

Timm and Dini claim they don't dislike Superman, but if you watch the commentary track of All-Star Superman, you kind of get a glimpse of various aspects of the character Timm didn't quite grasp at his time as the animated show's showrunner. You can also read various quotes about how he doesn't necessarily find Superman interesting. And this is part of the reason that Superman suffers in other media: guys who are trying to make Superman fit to their narrow view or uninteresting take on the character.

[Sacred Knight]

It also doesn't help the mad on that Timm has for Batman. Not that a writer/showrunner shouldn't be allowed to be a fan at heart and have their own favorites, there's just an added responsibility to temper it in the work. Timm never did. His favoritism showed across the entire DCAU, and Superman was just one of the characters it hurt. That I consider to have been the biggest problem, even over Timm's general lack of understanding of the character. If all that general apathy ever gave us was Superman: TAS, it wouldn't have been that bad. As that show offered some good things for the overally mythos even if Superman himself was bland as hell. It was the greater DCAU branching, JL/U, that hurt Superman the most, imo. Either way he's one of the last guys I ever want to see working with Superman.

[Ascended]

That's interesting - I didn't read it that way, but then by that point we were heavily into having the Fortress, etc (1991/92). At this point in the history, I saw it as a Superman who's barely had 3 or 4 adventures (even though it's supposed to take place over a longer period, it doesn't fully read that way to me), so his worldview is still pretty small. Kinda like a 20 year old making declarative statements about their life - in a few years, that's not likely how they'll feel if they've gotten around enough.

Sounds like we got into comics (or at least Superman's) around the same time. So I missed MoS-86 too.

It still rubs me wrong, because Clark is supposed to be so much bigger than "real" life.....like Morrison said; Superman's is a normal (sorta) life explored through a superhuman lens....and Bynre just made the guy 100% boringly mundane. But looking at it like a young idiot who hasn't really learned anything yet does make it slightly more palpable.

Having said that, for readers who were looking at these as they came out, I can certainly see the frustration. Byrne himself may not even have intended for that to be a starting point (he likely didn't), but in practice that's what it became.

From what I understand, Byrne didn't actually want to reboot Clark at all. He wanted to work with the mythos as it was, and just trim it and point it in the right direction. He obviously didn't get his way, but I would've loved to see what he would've done if DC had allowed him to keep all the toys.

I haven't, actually! I've been so busy these past few months, I've barely had time to get on and play. Sucks, too, since I want to buy about 1,000 ice walls for my Fortress, LOL!

A lot of the Atlantean silent school stuff is perfect for my Dr. Fate, and the rest goes great with my Manta/Aqualad. I haven't played a lot (school) but this Atlantis DLC is frigging amazing!

That's my feeling, too - but I also put that in the "starting point" column; since he'd soon be having wider-scale adventures and even leave his Metropolis Clark identity behind for awhile in "Exile"... he'd still call himself Clark largely, but that idea of what that meant to him (and what all it encompassed) would shift. If that makes any sense?

No, i get what you mean.

And yeah, I think he calls himself "Clark" in his own head. It was the first name he remembers (in most continuities) and its the name he's built a life around. He's also Kal-El and Superman, and I think he can switch between those roles and "personalities" with ease, but in his head, he's Clark. Just not the Clark most people actually know; that guy is so embellished he's only partially real.

[SiegePerilous02]

It also doesn't help the mad on that Timm has for Batman. Not that a writer/showrunner shouldn't be allowed to be a fan at heart and have their own favorites, there's just an added responsibility to temper it in the work. Timm never did. His favoritism showed across the entire DCAU, and Superman was just one of the characters it hurt. That I consider to have been the biggest problem, even over Timm's general lack of understanding of the character. If all that general apathy ever gave us was Superman: TAS, it wouldn't have been that bad. As that show offered some good things for the overally mythos even if Superman himself was bland as hell. It was the greater DCAU branching, JL/U, that hurt Superman the most, imo. Either way he's one of the last guys I ever want to see working with Superman.

Yes, the Timmverse has generally not aged well as a representation of the DCU's heroes, IMO. JLU was a very well written cartoon for what it was and it deserves mad props for giving the spotlight to some obscure characters. But while it boosted the profiles of some characters like Wally, John, MM and Hawkgirl, I don't think it's the best versions of the former two. Especially Wally, who is more of a distilled joke character than a good representation of the actual Wally West, or any of the Flashes. Everything Wonder Woman related was abysmal, and while characters like Lex, Lois, Brainiac, Toyman and Mxy were great, Clark himself ranged from pretty good at best to terrible, and they only scratched the surface of the Superman mythos and spent more time shoehorning Kirby's stuff into Superman's cartoon. Which made for some great television, but Darkseid and co appearing way more than the goddamn Legion in a Superman cartoon seems dreadfully wrong to me.

The Batman corner is the only part they got close to right, and even that has stuff like the Bruce/Barbara pairing and Bruce and Dick being complete bitches to each other and never getting the hell over it.

From what I understand, Byrne didn't actually want to reboot Clark at all. He wanted to work with the mythos as it was, and just trim it and point it in the right direction. He obviously didn't get his way, but I would've loved to see what he would've done if DC had allowed him to keep all the toys.

I wish he got his way. I'm not sure the comics would be much better, as I don't think Byrne's storytelling has aged particularly well. But a lot of the changes he made could have happened with ridiculous ease. The other Kryptonians were already dead or gone, Lex could fake reforming and become a corrupt businessman, the Legion could make less appearances ,etc. And I never understood why he changed Brainiac. What was the point of that? Wolfman's pre-Crisis upgrade for him was perfection, why was that thrown out for the stupid Milton Fine stuff? Brainiac doesn't really upset any editorial edicts that I know of at that time, he wasn't another Kryptonian like Supergirl, for example.

[DochaDocha]

Yes, the Timmverse has generally not aged well as a representation of the DCU's heroes, IMO. JLU was a very well written cartoon for what it was and it deserves mad props for giving the spotlight to some obscure characters. But while it boosted the profiles of some characters like Wally, John, MM and Hawkgirl, I don't think it's the best versions of the former two. Especially Wally, who is more of a distilled joke character than a good representation of the actual Wally West, or any of the Flashes. Everything Wonder Woman related was abysmal, and while characters like Lex, Lois, Brainiac, Toyman and Mxy were great, Clark himself ranged from pretty good at best to terrible, and they only scratched the surface of the Superman mythos and spent more time shoehorning Kirby's stuff into Superman's cartoon. Which made for some great television, but Darkseid and co appearing way more than the goddamn Legion in a Superman cartoon seems dreadfully wrong to me.

The Batman corner is the only part they got close to right, and even that has stuff like the Bruce/Barbara pairing and Bruce and Dick being complete bitches to each other and never getting the hell over it.



I wish he got his way. I'm not sure the comics would be much better, as I don't think Byrne's storytelling has aged particularly well. But a lot of the changes he made could have happened with ridiculous ease. The other Kryptonians were already dead or gone, Lex could fake reforming and become a corrupt businessman, the Legion could make less appearances ,etc. And I never understood why he changed Brainiac. What was the point of that? Wolfman's pre-Crisis upgrade for him was perfection, why was that thrown out for the stupid Milton Fine stuff? Brainiac doesn't really upset any editorial edicts that I know of at that time, he wasn't another Kryptonian like Supergirl, for example.

I think the cartoon's John Stewart is in a lot of ways THE John Stewart. I'm not a big follower of the character, but didn't they pretty much change his comic book backstory to match the cartoon's? I think that, and making John the JL GL for a stint, is about as much of a nod or an endorsement to the cartoon you could make.

I'm pretty hard on Timm and the cartoon, but I really was a huge fan of the show. There are few TV shows that I can cite off the top of my head, episode for episode, as this JL cartoon. I thought the first season was awful, but other than that it was good TV, as you say. I think the Kirby "shoehorning," as you put it, was a brilliant move. And there is enough great Superman moments that, if you're a Superman fan, you can really enjoy the show. But also as you say, there's enough terrible Superman moments that can really put you off to it if you're otherwise agnostic on the show.

EDIT: I would also add that the cartoon also contributed to my growing bias of caring more about Superman within the context of all of the heroes compared to his own section of the DCU. WB and DC, particularly in other media, have gradually either pulling Superman out of Metropolis, or pulling the other heroes into Superman's home town, in movies, TV shows, video games, etc., not to mention the goings-on in his own books.

As for Byrne, I would say that there are times you want spacefaring Superman, and times you want down-to-Earth Superman. When you wanted the D2E Superman, Byrne I thought was fantastic. I think certain bad trends concerning D2E Superman can be traced to Byrne, but he himself wasn't necessarily guilty of perpetuating those things other than perhaps making Clark a bit of a yuppie.