Alan Moore had it wrong (Whatever Happened spoilers)

[Lokimaru]

At the end of Whatever happened to the man of Tomorrow it shows that Superman under the name of Jordan Ellis has married Lois Lane. This IMO was an error. Clark should have been shown Married to Sally Selwyn under the name Jim White. I think that would have truly brought Silverage Superman's story to a satisfying conclusion based on my research into who Sally Selwyn was. Her story basically mirrors Golden age Lois' in that she fell for a amnesiac Clark Kent who was powerless at the time. Kinda sucks cause of all the characters in Superman she deserved a happy ending.

[DochaDocha]

At the end of Whatever happened to the man of Tomorrow it shows that Superman under the name of Jordan Ellis has married Lois Lane. This IMO was an error. Clark should have been shown Married to Sally Selwyn under the name Jim White. I think that would have truly brought Silverage Superman's story to a satisfying conclusion based on my research into who Sally Selwyn was. Her story basically mirrors Golden age Lois' in that she fell for a amnesiac Clark Kent who was powerless at the time. Kinda sucks cause of all the characters in Superman she deserved a happy ending.

I don't think this would've been a satisfying conclusion for many Supes fans back in the mid-1980's.

[Adekis]

I don't think this would've been a satisfying conclusion for many Supes fans back in the mid-1980's.

I agree unequivocally.

For all the various ways I could have imagined somebody positing that "Alan Moore screwed up" while writing Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, I absolutely never would have imagined that the position was "because Sally Selwyn wasn't in it". Maybe "don't kill Luthor at the very start of the story," "don't completely betray the premise of Mxyzptlk," maybe even "don't kill off Jimmy and Lana," but "Sally Selwyn must be included"?

Huh. I don't, er, I don't think that's gonna make the story that much better, somehow.

[Jim Kelly]

I don't think it was the pay-off that regular readers deserved at the time. Julie's original idea was to get Jerry Siegel to write the final story, but that didn't pan out. I don't think Siegel would have been the right candidate either, since he hadn't been a regular Superman writer since 1966.

The regular writers who could have best paid off the current Superman of the time would have been: Cary Bates, Elliot Maggin, Martin Pasko, Len Wein, E. Nelson Bridwell, Paul Kupperberg or Craig Boldman.

I'd also have been interested if either Steve Gerber or Keith Giffen & Robert Loren Fleming had got the chance--based on their few but exceptional Superman experiments at the time.

Alan Moore had only written two Superman stories up to that point and there's no proof in those stories that he was well-versed in the Superman continuity of the day. It's just that when Schwartz told him about the last Superman story, Moore was so insistent that he should write it that Julie gave in. And probably wisely, knowing that Alan Moore would be an irresistable draw for comic book fans.

But the Moore story throws back to the Weisinger era and doesn't really have a lot to do with the current Superman. Which maybe was the point--because I don't think Schwartz wanted a story to finish his iteration of Superman--he wanted a story to finish all of Superman, which is why Jerry Siegel seemed like the best choice. One can only imagine how Jerry Siegel might have decided to bring down the curtain.

Another writer that would have probably provided a satisfying ending is Alvin Schwartz.

[superduperman]

I didn't like the ending either. Something about him losing his powers and not caring knowing the world still needs saving doesn't strike me as something in line with his values. I'd actually kind of like to see a follow up where he gets his powers back and stops a menace no other hero can stop. Alongside his son, of course.

[Yoda]

After reading Rikdad's analysis of Final Crisis as Morrison's response and refutation of Moore's destruction of the Silver Age Superman in Whatever Happened, I say Moore got a lot more wrong than just not including some one off love interest.

[Adekis]

Yeah, I mean I have problems with Moore's story for sure. Like I said, it always bothered me that Moore killed off Luthor basically before he could even do anything, for one thing, and also like Jim Kelly said, it was really more of a Silver Age story. I've always rejected Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow as the end of the Pre-Crisis Superman, just because, well, it doesn't really say anything substantial about what had been going on in the comics for the previous ten or fifteen years!

[Bored at 3:00AM]

After reading Rikdad's analysis of Final Crisis as Morrison's response and refutation of Moore's destruction of the Silver Age Superman in Whatever Happened, I say Moore got a lot more wrong than just not including some one off love interest.

Exactly. Final Crisis was the bomb.

[manwhohaseverything]

I didn't like the ending either. Something about him losing his powers and not caring knowing the world still needs saving doesn't strike me as something in line with his values. I'd actually kind of like to see a follow up where he gets his powers back and stops a menace no other hero can stop. Alongside his son, of course.

The point was a bit cynical. It was that world doesn't care if superman existed or not. If Superman existed and did good things that is great, but ultimately it doesn't matter. If superman isn't there, there would be an other guy in his place. Trying to do the right thing. So, "Man of Tomorrow"'s time was done. World would go on fine without him, hence the title.
So, he decided to pursue something he really wanted. But was holding back because of many things like the lana-lois-clark triangle, his responsibility and him unable to let go. Clark finally let it go and decided to be selfish. It is sort of like megamind's metroman saying "if there is evil, good will rise up to" regardless of whether superman or metroman existed or not.
Ofcourse, we don't how long that will last. Since, baby Jon seems to take after Clark with powers.

[Agent Z]

The point was a bit cynical. It was that world doesn't care if superman existed or not. If Superman existed and did good things that is great, but ultimately it doesn't matter. If superman isn't there, there would be an other guy in his place. Trying to do the right thing. So, "Man of Tomorrow"'s time was done. World would go on fine without him, hence the title.
So, he decided to pursue something he really wanted. But was holding back because of many things like the lana-lois-clark triangle, his responsibility and him unable to let go. Clark finally let it go and decided to be selfish. It is sort of like megamind's metroman saying "if there is evil, good will rise up to" regardless of whether superman or metroman existed or not.
Ofcourse, we don't how long that will last. Since, baby Jon seems to take after Clark with powers.

I don't think the idea that there will be people to help the world if Superman isn't around is cynical.

[Jon Clark]

I don't think the idea that there will be people to help the world if Superman isn't around is cynical.

I think the cynicism is the idea that Clark never needed to be Superman, because someone else would have dealt with Brainiac or Titano or that asteroid that would obliterate all life on Earth. It's not cynical to assume there would be other heroes, but it is cynical to believe your own actions are unnecessary, that you don't need to help because there is someone else to pick up the slack.

[Agent Z]

I think the cynicism is the idea that Clark never needed to be Superman, because someone else would have dealt with Brainiac or Titano or that asteroid that would obliterate all life on Earth. It's not cynical to assume there would be other heroes, but it is cynical to believe your own actions are unnecessary, that you don't need to help because there is someone else to pick up the slack.

That's not cynicism, that's just life. The world doesn't (and shouldn't) stop turning for just one person. The idea that it should is cynicism.

I mean, how did Earth survive as long as it did before Superman showed up?

[Jon Clark]

That's not cynicism, that's just life. The world doesn't (and shouldn't) stop turning for just one person. The idea that it should is cynicism.

I mean, how did Earth survive as long as it did before Superman showed up?

Because by sheer luck and coincidence nothing requiring a Superman occurred before Kal was 8 years old.

And it may be life, but like I said there is a difference between assuming the world can't get by without you and assuming that anything you do has no impact on the world.

[Agent Z]

Because by sheer luck and coincidence nothing requiring a Superman occurred before Kal was 8 years old.

And it may be life, but like I said there is a difference between assuming the world can't get by without you and assuming that anything you do has no impact on the world.

Just because someone else could do what you do doesn't mean it has no impact. It just means that you made the impact instead of someone else.

Besides, I thought Superman does what he does because it's the right thing to do not because of the glory of his actions.

[manwhohaseverything]

Because by sheer luck and coincidence nothing requiring a Superman occurred before Kal was 8 years old.

And it may be life, but like I said there is a difference between assuming the world can't get by without you and assuming that anything you do has no impact on the world.

If that is the case. Moore also tied up most of those ends as well with his villains going down, so no need for superman . But i do think it is a bit cynical.