Why isn't Bendis' run doing better, both critically and commercially?

[kingaliencracker]

1. Bendis has not been the guy who wrote the acclaimed USM or Daredevil storyline sin a long time. His star power towards the end of his career was clearly on a downward trend, his books were solidly in the “mediocre” category, and even Miles fans have said the character needed fresh blood
2. While I never really loved Jurgens Action, and Tomasi shot himself in the foot with the summer of filler, people generally didn’t hate the Rebirth Superbooks, so there wasn’t a huge push to shake things up from readers
3. Aging up Jon was stupid and hasn’t really proven to be very interesting
4. Rogal is boring (although I love Red Cloud and the Invisible Mafia)
5. Bendis’ decompression coupled with the books no longer double shipping has a tendency to drag stuff out (this is mostly for Superman, Action has been fine imo)
6. Some of Bendis’ dialogue is bad and there have been a couple continuity errors editorial really should’ve caught
And like Sacred said, the Superman franchise has been rather weak for a while now. The post-Morrison New 52 Superbooks sucked and the Superbooks right before Morrison Action Comics generally sucked (except for Cornell Action) after New Krypton imploded.

Hulk was killed off, stayed dead for a couple years, and then his resurrection helped create interest. He came back in a relatively good Marvel event, Ewing shook up the book and character in a positive way, and Hulk was in a wildly successful movie that creates interest in him.

Superman was in the generally awful Snyder films which did nothing to endear him to the general public, Bendis is not as good a writer as Ewing and is far more controversial, and the reception to the Bendis shakeups has been mixed. I’d frankly let Bendis keep Action and put Loveness, Yang, Priest, or Seeley on the main Superman book. Someone DC wants to help push as their next big star like Ewing is right now for Marvel, because DC really needs to start cultivating some new star talent. Marvel has Cates, Ewing, Thompson, and Eve Ewing while DC has just ticked off their golden boy King, Snyder is planning on focusing more on creator work, Morrison and Johns are on the periphery, and they need to start building up their next gen.

The movies have absolutely nothing to do with interest in comics. If that were the case then Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor would be 1, 2, and 3 every month.

Hulk's death didn't cause his sales to sky rocket either. Immortal Hulk didn't start off beating Batman. It hasn't been out for just a couple of months. It took great writing and positive word of mouth for it to reach the level of success it has.

[Sacred Knight]

Again, I'm with Yoda. Superman has had great writing in the recent past. Not consistently, no, but he has had it. And he doesn't get over the hump. It sucks, I don't get it, but that's what I've observed for this current modern era of comics. I can go back further than that but just to stay in the now I won't. It takes gimmicks like relaunches to do it and that doesn't last.

There is an innate problem getting people invested in Superman today at least amongst comics fandom that goes beyond writing duties. I don't know why, and I hate admitting it as a Superman fan but again its what I've observed. Maybe it is just consistency, as I brought up earlier. I hope it is. And don't get me wrong, a lot of this is DC's own fault, I've always called them out on their mismanagement of Superman. But I've also been troubled by on a deeper level when it comes to how he's received.

[Yoda]

Again, I'm with Yoda. Superman has had great writing in the recent past. Not consistently, no, but he has had it. And he doesn't get over the hump. It sucks, I don't get it, but that's what I've observed for this current modern era of comics. I can go back further than that but just to stay in the now I won't. It takes gimmicks like relaunches to do it and that doesn't last.

There is an innate problem getting people invested in Superman today at least amongst comics fandom that goes beyond writing duties. I don't know why, and I hate admitting it as a Superman fan but again its what I've observed. Maybe it is just consistency, as I brought up earlier. I hope it is. And don't get me wrong, a lot of this is DC's own fault, I've always called them out on their mismanagement of Superman. But I've also been troubled by on a deeper level when it comes to how he's received.

Yeah, the issue isn't that they can't get it up to Batman numbers with something like a relaunch or a big creative team, its that they can't seem to reset the floor of the books to Batman levels. Batman regardless of team or content has a higher sales floor than Superman. There are more people who will just buy Batman regardless of the content each month than there are Superman. Barring some sort of creative disaster, Superman sells in that range and Batman sells in his.

So Immortal Hulk isn't a really analogous example because you can get Superman's numbers up over a certain point with the same type of thing. Arguably, the initial bump for a Superman relaunch would be higher than Immortal Hulk. I'm really talking about the floor for sales that once those event shockwaves disapite, it settles back into the regular sales numbers. If Bendis is now at that floor and settles where he's at now, I think DC is probably going to be ok with keeping him on the books until he decides otherwise.

And again, the Immortal Hulk bump in the last few months was in large part driven by speculators and some tiered variants. It's a great book. My favorite Hulk run since Planet Hulk actually, but it's not a Batman beating book in the long term.

[Zero Hunter]

Honest answer? I don't read Bendis. I just cant stand the guys writing style and stopped reading anything with his name on it. If I see his name on the cover I just ignore it. I was reading both Superman and Action before he came on and dropped both books the issue he took over. I gave the guy so many chances and really outside of Ultimate Spider-Man I have not liked his stuff. His big event books and team books were especially bad at least to me.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Superman books have been high mid-tier sellers for awhile, and as noted, while he's thankfully still notably bigger than Tomasi or Jurgens, he doesn't have the sort of star power he once carried. So sales aren't surprising. Critically, his Marvel stuff was flat-out bad for a good long while, and he's made big and teased controversial moves on Superman from word go with one of the most paranoid, gunshy audiences in the industry paired with an existing and intense hatedom, and some of his tics and problems are still cropping up. So that this is in fact in practice the first consistently good Superman material since 2014 is almost entirely irrelevant - the cards were stacked against him from the moment of announcement.

[Vordan]

Again, I'm with Yoda. Superman has had great writing in the recent past. Not consistently, no, but he has had it. And he doesn't get over the hump. It sucks, I don't get it, but that's what I've observed for this current modern era of comics. I can go back further than that but just to stay in the now I won't. It takes gimmicks like relaunches to do it and that doesn't last.

There is an innate problem getting people invested in Superman today at least amongst comics fandom that goes beyond writing duties. I don't know why, and I hate admitting it as a Superman fan but again its what I've observed. Maybe it is just consistency, as I brought up earlier. I hope it is. And don't get me wrong, a lot of this is DC's own fault, I've always called them out on their mismanagement of Superman. But I've also been troubled by on a deeper level when it comes to how he's received.

I think a large portion of the blame falls on Superman editorial. Going all the way back to denying the Superman 2000 pitch, editorial has absolutely sucked. DC has used the Superman editorial office as a quarentine zone for Berengaza, so female writers and artists couldn’t even get placed on a Superbook usually. Then you have Super-Editorial doing crap like cutting runs short as they did with Busiek, and screwing over plans like what happened with New Krypton. Add on to the fact that Superman has lacked a long-running creative team during the final Pre-Flashpoint years, and then after Morrison left getting stuck with company yes-men like Lobdell who just did what the editors wanted even when what they wanted sucked. It’s just been one nonstop mess only recently broken up by Rebirth.

[Jackalope89]

Never read Bendis before he signed on with DC. Heard both sides to his writing, and I gave it a chance. I now really wish he hadn't suddenly been given such control over the Super books. As, like others, I now can't bring myself to read anything he writes. The decompression (just another word for "pages with words, but nothing of substance actually said or done"), the dialogue, the unnecessary changes, and really bad OOC moments from characters, just fully turned off my interest in anything but the Super Sons mini that's going to end soon now anyway (and one of those changes included basically killing that series too).

[MajorHoy]

. . . So putting aside the "because he sucks, that's why!" business that I'm sure this thread will attract, since regardless of how you feel personally about Bendis the fact remains he has been critically and commercially one of the best writer's in the industry, what exactly has gone wrong with his Superman run?

Well, I've only read bits and pieces of Bendis here and there, but I don't like his "writing" style.
Then again, I'm not fond of many of the more "popular" writers like Tom King and company. It's not what I want, which is why I don't buy many new comic books these days . . .

[Vampire Savior]

This. This is just the reality. I don't know what or whom it would take at this point to make the character and his books break that ceiling in the longterm. Quite possibly nothing.

I don't want to sound like I'm oversimplifying things and not realistically taking a plethora of factors into consideration, but for a character like Superman, who everyone already knows and so many comics fans are at least willing to take a look at, it really is simple. You just need better comics. Superman did it before in the 90s when he had talent like Jurgens in his prime, Stern, Simonson, Grummett, Bogdanove, and Carlin working on him and telling captivating stories. There was a creative energy, drive, and collective mission there that was palpable. Reading Superman comics was fun, exciting, and gripping, and the stories were strong enough to remain that way every single week.

I believe it's simply a matter of getting people with strong talent and a strong vision that is appropriate for Superman who are on the same page working on the character. Superman won't break that middling threshold with bad to mediocre tepid comics, and storylines and concepts that are more controversial than they are interesting.

[superduperman]

I don't want to sound like I'm oversimplifying things and not realistically taking a plethora of factors into consideration, but for a character like Superman, who everyone already knows and so many comics fans are at least willing to take a look at, it really is simple. You just need better comics. Superman did it before in the 90s when he had talent like Jurgens in his prime, Stern, Simonson, Grummett, Bogdanove, and Carlin working on him and telling captivating stories. There was a creative energy, drive, and collective mission there that was palpable. Reading Superman comics was fun, exciting, and gripping, and the stories were strong enough to remain that way every single week.

I believe it's simply a matter of getting people with strong talent and a strong vision that is appropriate for Superman who are on the same page working on the character. Superman won't break that middling threshold with bad to mediocre tepid comics, and storylines and concepts that are more controversial than they are interesting.

This. I have my issues with the post-Crisis Superman but the one thing I can say positively about it was that there was at least a consistent vision. Today it just looks like management is fighting over what Superman should look like. And they've been at it for nearly 20 years now! I was one of the few people who liked New 52 and one of the reasons for that was that at least it was a clean break. Which Superman desperately needed. Either let one creator take over and rebuild the character from the ground up and STICK WITH THAT VISION or get a new management team in there who isn't just trying to turn Superman into their own personal fan fiction. Of which I believe both Johns and Didio are competing against each other to do. The most popular Superman book right now is the Wal-Mart book and that's not even canon! I don't think that's a coincidence. I think letting Bendis do whatever he wanted was a Hail-Mary play. They don't know what else to do so they pass it off to someone else and hope they can clean up the mess. So far, it's a mixed bag.

Now I feel I should throw in some quantifiers here. I didn't agree with getting rid of the New 52. And this is still a sore spot for me. I haven't quite forgiven DC over this yet. Though I understand why they did it. Even if I think the way they went about it sucked. So this is most likely affecting my judgement. And I don't necessarily agree with the idea of him being a dad. Though on the whole it's not a deal breaker for me depending on how it's handled. I prefer the Chris Kent method where if he's going to exist, he should more or less stay out of Superman's way most of the time. ALL THAT HAVING BEEN SAID: Rogol Zaar is a dull villain. He's an Image character from the 1990s dropped into the Superbooks. He's not intimidating. He's not interesting personality wise. And his story arc, in as much as there is one, isn't going anywhere. Bringing back Jor-El was just stupid. Especially since we don't even know which version of Jor-El this is. We don't even know what Superman's current origin is. So it's not like there is any kind of emotional attachment here anyway. We're supposed to be shocked that a version of Jor-El we've never seen before has come back from the dead? Um...okay.

Bendis speak IS annoying. Sorry but it is. It was annoying at Marvel, it's annoying here. DC invested a lot in this guy and it doesn't look like they're getting a return on that investment. Jon was at least a halfway interesting character when he was ten. Aging him up served no purpose. Especially now that Conner is back. DC doesn't need yet another teen hero. I have a feeling this will eventually get reversed. If not by Bendis then by whoever comes after him. On the whole I think this was a bad investment. I think they should have tried to get someone who would clean things up and give them free reign to do whatever they wanted. But I also don't trust current management to know how to make a good call in that regard either. If said creator made a bad decision, would the current management know it? I was seriously looking at getting the upcoming Lois book but not if it's just gonna be a crossover book with every other book out there.

[Vampire Savior]

Yes, the vision isn't consistent or on the same page and hasn't been way back since...oh...a long time. You can see it with such things as Secret Origin vs. Birthright, vs. Zack Snyder vs. Nuperman vs. Superdad, and so on. Inconsistent, conflicting images of Superman. Was Byrne inconsistent and conflicting? Nope. It was his image of Superman, and the people who came after him honored that and built upon it with their own additions.

The New 52 was a good opportunity for Superman, but was sabotaged by terrible editorial. I've learned from listening to numerous Jim Shooter interviews that the key to making good comics is assembling strong talent, then having the sense to put them in places where they will excel, and then keeping good enough editorial control over everything to make sure it's all consistent and lines up in easily comprehensible ways. For instance, Shooter was smart enough to put Walt Simonson on Thor because he had the sense to know Simonson would excel on that particular title. Just because Bendis is Bendis, or Johns is Johns, or whoever is whoever doesn't mean they will excel on Superman. Look at Scott Snyder and Jim Lee's throwaway story Superman Unchained. Throwing random superstars at Superman (like Bendis) just for the sake of it isn't necessarily the answer. It would also help if they were suited for the character and had a strong vision for him that wouldn't compromise him in all kinds of ways, all while being able to tell entertaining stories with him.

I believe Superman's biggest enemy is probably Dan DiDio. I don't think DiDio dislikes Superman the way he does a character like Wally West, but DiDio apparently lacks the editorial sense to handle this character so he will excel.

[H-E-D]

I haven't been reading Bendis' run, but, it seems to me that the runs on comics generally that usually get the most attention are the ones that have their own distinct spin. For example, over at Marvel, Immortal Hulk isn't just getting buzz because of the just quality of the book – but the fact that it's a quality run with a concept that is a distinct shift. For Bendis, Ultimate Spider-Man wasn't just good, but it had a distinctiveness to it.

Bendis' run... outside of quality, which again I cannot speak to, just doesn't give the impression of having a distinct identity. Getting the trunks back and aging up his son, that doesn't really seem enough to be it's own "era".

[kingaliencracker]

Yeah, the issue isn't that they can't get it up to Batman numbers with something like a relaunch or a big creative team, its that they can't seem to reset the floor of the books to Batman levels. Batman regardless of team or content has a higher sales floor than Superman. There are more people who will just buy Batman regardless of the content each month than there are Superman. Barring some sort of creative disaster, Superman sells in that range and Batman sells in his.

So Immortal Hulk isn't a really analogous example because you can get Superman's numbers up over a certain point with the same type of thing. Arguably, the initial bump for a Superman relaunch would be higher than Immortal Hulk. I'm really talking about the floor for sales that once those event shockwaves disapite, it settles back into the regular sales numbers. If Bendis is now at that floor and settles where he's at now, I think DC is probably going to be ok with keeping him on the books until he decides otherwise.

And again, the Immortal Hulk bump in the last few months was in large part driven by speculators and some tiered variants. It's a great book. My favorite Hulk run since Planet Hulk actually, but it's not a Batman beating book in the long term.

I didn't bring up Immortal Hulk as proof that it could or would consistently defeat Batman.

I brought it up as an example of a (more or less) middling character in Hulk getting a good writer, and after a period of quality story telling and good word-of-mouth, it actually being a top-5 book able to defeat DC's flagship character.

To act like the same can't happen for Superman is, IMO, a defeatist attitude. Superman would only need a good writer and a clear direction.

[Celgress]

OP - Because, IMO, a lot of his run hasn't been that good. Aging up Jon and Rogol Zarr are prime examples of Bendis' lackluster storytelling on Superman. He hasn't done a damn thing of note with Zarr and everything he has done with Jon could have been done with a kid (or near teen) rather than a teen.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

There's a few factors here, most of which others have already covered here, but I might as well give my take.

First off, Bendis hadn't been Marvel's biggest writer for a while. He'd turned off a lot of readers with his decompressed, talky style, and other writers had adopted many of Bendis's strengths that proved popular. While I think Bendis has rebounded creatively since coming to DC thanks to his health scare, his writing is still fundamentally the same, and there are enough readers who are just not into that style.

Second, Rogal Zharr has not proven to be a particularly compelling bad guy for most readers. I use comics quite a bit with my students and I'm always curious which comics catch on and which ones don't with them. Sometimes, their choices surprise me. Heroes in Crisis, which I initially didn't have much interest in, has proven to be particularly popular amongst teenagers. Bendis's Action Comics was also a big hit with everyone, but Superman, despite Ivan Reis's utterly breathtaking art, just hasn't been something that has captured as much interest yet, mostly due to the disinterest most have with Rogal Zarr as a baddie.

Lastly, Bendis, like Morrison, tends to do better in TPBs because their stuff has a larger audience outside of the more hardcore Wednesday Warrior audience. In the long-run, guys like Morrison & Bendis almost always end up selling more copies than whatever the flavor of the month is on the monthly Diamond charts.