Where does Byrne's run rank on your llst of Fav Superman writer's runs?

[Myskin]

The problem is Superman is meant to be the Man of Tomorrow, and if the righteous force of good cannot take down the symbol of an evil status quo, what good is he?
it's a good challenge for a finite story or arc, and there will always be battles to fight, but stretching this one out so long isn't good for Superman.

Sorry, I don't agree. He may be the man of tomorrow, but what he fights is the never-ending battle after all.
I agree that Superman shouldn't be 100% defeated by Luthor every single time (has it ever happened anyway?) and he could also be victorious from time to time, but I will always be in favor of more ambiguous notes rather than flawless victories. A winning character will never be as interesting as a sympathetic one who never surrenders.
I wouldn't take the Golden/Silver Age so much into account, either. Superman's world in those stories was so naive and simplistic that IMHO it is not really comparable to DCU as we know it today. I am not saying that current DCU is the one which I'd personally hope for, just that it's a different type of storytelling from the one in the classic stories.

[kingaliencracker]

It's more that Batman is a more versatile archetype that can cater to the lowest common denominator at times, not necessarily more complex. And I think that attitude, that Superman cannot be cool or complex, creeping into the creative process is a defeatist attitude that does not help him. A self fulfilling prophecy. He needed a shake up in the 80s, but the one he got didn't help him in the long run, IMO, by stripping him of all the stuff that made him weird and cool. They made him more "normal" and thus more boring, and didn't really replace any of it with cool stuff. Batman overtaking him in popularity wouldn't sting as much if he hadn't been turned into something he isn't in the process, and been allowed to lose his title on his own terms.

To be fair, Superman had more or less been stripped of all the "weird and cool" stuff well before Byrne took over in 1986. I also don't have a problem with Superman being more "normal" but I understand this gets into the argument of preferences and thus not really relevant here.

Mark Waid is right in this instance (again, IMO). With supervillain Lex and Joker, their immediate schemes are at least thwarted by the heroes and they receive (at least temporary) punishment. By bringing Lex back to his roots as a corrupt businessman, the type of criminals Siegel and Shuster wanted Superman to take down, and then NOT effectively take him down makes him look ineffectual in a way that repeated jail breaks by Lex doesn't do. You think Golden Age Superman would have a story that ended with his ex girlfriend getting beaten without him giving the bad guys hell?

Superman did thwart Lex, several times. The appeal of the Byrne incarnation is that while Superman would stop Lex from whatever nefarious scheme he was trying to accomplish, Lex was smart enough or covered his tracks enough to prevent Superman from bringing him fully to justice. Conversely, Lex would become increasingly frustrated with his inability to scheme with Superman around as his inability to destroy Superman, to the point he became more sloppy in his actions (the Kryptonite ring being a prime example). This to me is much more interesting than a genius who wants to conquer the universe but Superman is always getting in his way. But again, I think this gets into the preferences argument which probably isn't relevant to this topic.

[Uncanny Mutie]

For me it is top 5. It was needed as much a the pre-Crisis Superman fans scream it wasn't. At the time Superman was such a stale dated property it needed a reboot to save it from itself. I had zero interest in Superman before Byrne rebooted because it was just so buried in bad silver age nonsense the character seemed hooky and dated.

Amen. I agree 100%, and have always said the same thing. I might even say it's top 3.

[Uncanny Mutie]

The other thing that bugged me was Lana Lang--who had been a great character just previous to this and had many of the aspects of Cat Grant, and of other women that have come along since the reboot--yet she was made to suffer for having been told Clark Kent's true identity. It's like she was punished not only for knowing the truth but for having loved Clark Kent. The Byrne comics made her seem weak and pathetic.

In the pre-Crisis comics, Lana Lang had been the co-producer/anchor of the WGBS newscast. She was admired by many suitors, including Vartox. She had had super-heroic adventures with the Legion of Super-Heroes. She had made archaeological discoveries with her father. She wasn't just Lois Lane's rival for Superman's affections, she was also one of Lois Lane's closest friends. All of that was gone and she was shoved in a corner.

I get what you're saying about Byrne going too far with HOW he changed Lana Lang and the type of character he changed her into. But at the same time, just look at all the stuff you listed and the TYPE of stuff you listed as being ascribed to pre-Crisis Lana; that's A LOT of baggage, and if Clark/Superman himself was to be stripped down and reworked as a character, then members of his supporting cast---including Lana---needed to be, too.

[Myskin]

I wouldn't wear nostalgia glasses regarding pre-Crisis characters though, including Lana.
There is at least one story (the debut of Master Jailer if I remember it well) in which at the end she is depicted in a pretty bad light. The book ends with Superman openly accusing her of being an opportunist woman with the ambition of becoming Mrs Superman.

In general, I wouldn't be too nostalgic with anything from Golden or Silver Age. There are many good things in those books and I am not too surprised at so many writers trying to revamp them, but there's also a lot of excess baggage. Including the aesthetics. A reboot/revamp was due, even if personally speaking I would have gone with Gerber instead of Byrne.

Funny detail - we have had a lot of retelling of Batman and the Joker's first fight which are more or less adherent to the original story, but no one ever thought of revamping the first Superman vs Luthor fight, which contained a lot of pulpish elements including Luthor's sect/secret society and his airships in pure 1930s style.

[Vordan]

Oh I certainly am not. I have no desire to see the propaganda/racist/misogynistic aspects of the GA and SA return. But I do really enjoy that first Supes vs. Lex story, but it’s very much tied up in the super criminal incarnation of Lex. Pretty much every Lex vs. Supes story since Byrne has stuck to the Byrne mold.

[Jim Kelly]

I get what you're saying about Byrne going too far with HOW he changed Lana Lang and the type of character he changed her into. But at the same time, just look at all the stuff you listed and the TYPE of stuff you listed as being ascribed to pre-Crisis Lana; that's A LOT of baggage, and if Clark/Superman himself was to be stripped down and reworked as a character, then members of his supporting cast---including Lana---needed to be, too.

In the last 33 years, how much baggage has Lois Lane piled up, since all her previous baggage was stripped away in 1986?

By 1986, Lana had been around for 36 years, so it stands to reason that she had piled up a lot of history, sometimes contradictory. The pre-1986 comics ignored the stuff they didn't want to pay attention to and focused on the things that worked for the period. Every Superman character has reflected the period of the comics (that hasn't changed with the reboots).

Like I say, the LOIS LANE 1986 comic was great in ignoring those things that didn't fit the time and shifting the focus to those things that did--every bit as good as the current LOIS LANE series. Mindy Newell didn't need a reboot to do that.

John Byrne has always been known for his strong female characters, yet I don't think he made either Lois or Lana stronger than what they had been immediatly before the retcons in 1986.

And because Lana was taken out of the comics as a valid alternative to Lois Lane, we just got several other women to take her place. We had Cat Grant, Maxima and Wonder Woman, who each became rivals to Lois.

The funny thing is John Byrne made up for all this in SUPERMAN & BATMAN: GENERATIONS, where Lois is the all too human woman that dies, but Lana becomes the Superwoman and gets a long life that she shares with Superman. If I was put out by all that Byrne did to the Superman family in his short-lived 1980s run, I felt like he made it all up to me by doing GENERATIONS.

[Myskin]

Oh I certainly am not. I have no desire to see the propaganda/racist/misogynistic aspects of the GA and SA return.

Personally speaking I am not particularly fond of other elements a lot of fans seem to love. For example, I appreciate some vintage elements of the classic depiction of Krypton (the headbands, the clothing, the domestic appliances) as a symbol of old school stories, but I would never see them back in a modern story. No matter how many writers (including Morrison in his AC run) do their best to revamp them. Some elements of Byrne's Krypton may be dated these days, but they all belong to a unique, very consistent vision. It is absolutely clear how Byrne's Krypton works, its set of values etc. And Byrne's Kryptonian garments are beautiful.

SA Krypton was more generic - even if there were a lot of elements in it, too, it was basically retrofuturism. But it wasn't much more evolved than Alex Raymond's Flash Gordon (and probably sillier). In general, I am not really nostalgic regarding Silver Age because every time I think about it it reminds me of vintage sitcoms like Bewitched or I Dream of Jeannie - bizarre, lighthearted objects from the past. I would really appreciate a modern writer who revamped Krypton with tones similar to Moebius' or Juan Gimenez's stories (just to name two of my favourite artists) and a unique, consistent vision, but I really doubt it will happen anytime sooner though.

I have a soft spot for airships and pulp-ish cities, à la Fritz Lang's Metropolis though. I would really like a retelling of that first adventure - in general, I can't remember a single revamp of Superman/Luthor's first encounter which was really memorable (including Marv Wolfman's recent Man and Superman).

[SiegePerilous02]

Personally speaking I am not particularly fond of other elements a lot of fans seem to love. For example, I appreciate some vintage elements of the classic depiction of Krypton (the headbands, the clothing, the domestic appliances) as a symbol of old school stories, but I would never see them back in a modern story. No matter how many writers (including Morrison in his AC run) do their best to revamp them. Some elements of Byrne's Krypton may be dated these days, but they all belong to a unique, very consistent vision. It is absolutely clear how Byrne's Krypton works, its set of values etc. And Byrne's Kryptonian garments are beautiful.

SA Krypton was more generic - even if there were a lot of elements in it, too, it was basically retrofuturism. But it wasn't much more evolved than Alex Raymond's Flash Gordon (and probably sillier). In general, I am not really nostalgic regarding Silver Age because every time I think about it it reminds me of vintage sitcoms like Bewitched or I Dream of Jeannie - bizarre, lighthearted objects from the past. I would really appreciate a modern writer who revamped Krypton with tones similar to Moebius' or Juan Gimenez's stories (just to name two of my favourite artists) and a unique, consistent vision, but I really doubt it will happen anytime sooner though.

I have a soft spot for airships and pulp-ish cities, à la Fritz Lang's Metropolis though. I would really like a retelling of that first adventure - in general, I can't remember a single revamp of Superman/Luthor's first encounter which was really memorable (including Marv Wolfman's recent Man and Superman).

The problem with Byrne's Krypton, at least the impression I got from it from the trades I read, is that it was a cold, dreary place and a thinly veiled Russia stand in, which dates it pretty firmly in the 80s. And we're not meant to feel sorry that it's gone aside from maybe Jor-El and Lara. This wasn't helped by Clark growing up to not care about his birth place and embracing the "I'm a proud flag waving American" mentality, which I know he gradually discarded under later writers. But I'm not sure it belongs in the foundations of any version of Superman, no matter how consistent it may be. The older Krypton may have been goofier and accumulated baggage, but it seems more alive to me and leads to Superman being less generic, at least among the major American comic book properties.

The post-Crisis Krypton, and the liminations editorial imposed on it initially (no Phantom Zone, no Kandor, no Argo and no Supergirl) lead to excess baggage of its own with stuff like Russian General Zod and Matrix/Angel Supergirl, all of which can be convoluted when looking at Superman's publication history as a whole.

[Vordan]

One thing I did like about Johns & Frank Krypton was that they incorporated all of the previous Kryptonian designs which I loved. We don’t all dress the same on Earth, why should Krypton be different. And as for the “retrofuture” look being dated... I gotta disagree. You look back on 90s fashion it looks bizarre and cringeworthy now, but at the time it was very cool. Why should Krypton line up exactly with our modern fashion tastes? There should be some retro future stuff in Krypton although I don’t think it has to be the dominant theme. That’s why I liked Johns and Frank using all the designs, it shows that Krypton wasn’t uniform, but it also didn’t act ashamed of the past by pretending the retro future looks never existed.

[Jim Kelly]

I have my own hack for why Krypton often looks different and even the fashions change (with beards and head-bands going in and out of style), which is that Krypton is larger than Earth and its orbit around Rao takes a lot longer time, with it sometimes being much closer to and sometimes much farther from its sun. It has a longer year (already established by Bridwell) and it has six seasons. For each season, the city-states adopt different fashions and even different infrastrutures. During the coldest seasons, most of the city-states are isolated from each other, protected from the elements by their bio-domes--which accounts for why customs vary in each city-state. Even communications are difficult with the weird weather patterns, active solar flares, and much greater distances between the city-states. While they do travel by air, getting from one place to another requires a lot more energy than on Earth, because of the heavier gravity--so only the privileged class are able to make these journeys. And because the landscape is so inhospitable at times, ground travel is slow and difficult.

[Myskin]

The problem with Byrne's Krypton, at least the impression I got from it from the trades I read, is that it was a cold, dreary place and a thinly veiled Russia stand in, which dates it pretty firmly in the 80s. And we're not meant to feel sorry that it's gone aside from maybe Jor-El and Lara.

It's more complex than this. There is one brief reference to Soviet Union at the end of Man of Steel, but in general I think that Byrne got some elements from the movie and built upon that. His Krypton is basically a decadent, frail world, with a complex past golden age (which Byrne describes in his World of Krypton mini) and a strong focus on clones and eugenetics. Basically the entirety of Post-Crisis Krypton is built on this - Eradicator, Doomsday. It's extremely solid and consistent and it has more in common with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World than 1980s politics. It doesn't resemble pre-Crisis Krypton, but it wasn't supposed to be. It wasn't part of the foundations of the character before the 1980s, but it is now. It has its limits (I have several problems with Byrne's run in general) and a lot of classic Super elements were discarded because of it, but it is still the least generic version of Krypton ever. Some psychological traits of Byrne's Kryptonians - their disgust at physical contact and body features (hair, sweat) - are still very strong and recognizable elements of their culture.

Pre-Crisis Krypton had some elements which are interesting and important when taken singularly - the Phantom Zone, Nightwing and Flambird - but overall it was a typical retrofuturistic world of the 1950s, as generic as Disneyland's Tomorrowland. It's really hard to understand what the Kryptonians' mindset was and in a lot of stories they are basically depicted as stereotypical US citizens from 1950s, just living in a world with robots and flying cars. They're basically the Jetsons. At the end of the 1970s some writers tried to explore the most disturbing, hidden elements of Krypton (Gerber, Moore), but they are the exception to the rule.

Personally speaking, I didn't like what they did with New Krypton and their mixing of all the previous Kryptonian looks because it's just a generic visual homage. There is no meaning behind it. On the other hand, Byrne's Kryptonian clothing was the way it was for a reason. It was meaningful. A mixed up Krypton with headbands, white Marlon Brando robes and Byrne headgears don't mean much. There is no real vision behind it.

[Kuwagaton]

while the ring biting him in the ass is good, it's not really something of a victory for Superman himself. And the first use of it is in a story after his ex-girlfriend was beaten by this dude's thugs and he's sent off with his tail between his legs.

If the intent of the reboot was to bring the hero back to his roots, he'd probably put the fear of God into Lex, come away with a clean victory and not be deputized. Meanwhile, Batman has the awesome scene in Year One where he crashes that gangster dinner and does his "you have feasted well..." bit. Which one is cooler and more iconic?

I actually felt ripped off with the trade where the very first issue had Superman get his ass kicked lol.

The elephant in the room for Superman in many cases is how you write someone like him without just having him muscle his way to the story's resolution. Byrne's take was that he didn't care about "winning" as very strange as that can seem. He just never cared about beating people or really avenging in general as long as things worked out. I don't really know why Lana just got beaten up and that was it though... kind of a weird Byrne type of thing. Like Lois getting spanked. Even in comics I like it sometimes got weird.

As far as Batman goes though, like it's been said, he really just flattened the scrubs in that story. According to Kevin Smith's story he even peed his pants there haha. But in a few years when Joker would kill Jason, Batman would just lash out on everyone else and bury it.

For Kuwagaton:
https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-legends-revealed-254/

Thanks, my Google searches don't last long.

It's probably not a coincidence that Batman had Miller and overtook Superman as DC's most popular character when the latter had Byrne putting out more dated comics and establishing iffy trends on the character that haven't stood the test of time. it was a deadly combination of TDKR, lack of any good Superman movies compared to Burton's Batman at the time, and Byrne's reboot compared to Miller's that did it.

Him being ineffective against his arch nemesis is pretty bad.

The limited data we have from John Jackson Miller, Amazing Heroes, and maybe a few other spots show it was already underway. With the marketing phenoms we saw in Batman and TMNT it was pretty inevitable no matter what they did in comics. Like I'm pretty sure MoS outsold YO if only by being longer. Superman sales into 1993 were respectable.

You think Golden Age Superman would have a story that ended with his ex girlfriend getting beaten without him giving the bad guys hell?

It's hard for me to think of something deeper in relationships for the GA Superman until we get to the Earth Two idea. But he did offer Butch to Lois right away.

[Ascended]

The problem is Superman is meant to be the Man of Tomorrow, and if the righteous force of good cannot take down the symbol of an evil status quo, what good is he?
it's a good challenge for a finite story or arc, and there will always be battles to fight, but stretching this one out so long isn't good for Superman.

I think it works because Lex represents everything the Never Ending Battle is trying to change. He's all the stuff about humanity that'll prevent us from reaching that bright future Clark wants us to get to. So Lex can't be truly defeated until the people change their ways. It's the legal loopholes, the laws that protect the unjust, etc., that protect Lex. Clark can't do anything about that. Humanity, not Clark, has to beat Lex and in that way defeat the worst aspect of themselves.

I mean, we all know that Clark could toss Lex into the sun or the Phantom Zone or whatever at pretty much any time. He can stop Lex. That's easy. Stopping what Lex represents is the challenge, and changing the protections that enable Lex to escape justice isn't a power Superman has (though if he does become President of Earth......)

You're right in that, looking at these two characters as just characters, the prolonged rivalry doesn't fly. But these aren't characters; they're archetype embodiments of opposing philosophical ideologies trapped in combat while humanity itself wrestles with which dogma they want to believe in and follow.

Snyder's whole "Justice-Doom" thing is really, really on the nose about it all.

[SiegePerilous02]

Sorry, I don't agree. He may be the man of tomorrow, but what he fights is the never-ending battle after all.
I agree that Superman shouldn't be 100% defeated by Luthor every single time (has it ever happened anyway?) and he could also be victorious from time to time, but I will always be in favor of more ambiguous notes rather than flawless victories. A winning character will never be as interesting as a sympathetic one who never surrenders.
I wouldn't take the Golden/Silver Age so much into account, either. Superman's world in those stories was so naive and simplistic that IMHO it is not really comparable to DCU as we know it today. I am not saying that current DCU is the one which I'd personally hope for, just that it's a different type of storytelling from the one in the classic stories.

Well yeah, his general mission is a never ending one, no one is disputing that. But this is an escapist fantasy character, he needs to have some unambigious cathartic victories. You can have a sympathetic character who never surrenders, but this genre (particularly at DC) needs to have its heroes get clear wins as well. I think a balance needs to be struck, but Byrne's run didn't really do it in an interesting way for me. Like I said, doing such an arc with Lex is interesting, but I question having it going on as long as it did.

They were naive and simplistic. But honestly, I'm not sure modern superhero comics are any less naive and simplistic in their own ways.

To be fair, Superman had more or less been stripped of all the "weird and cool" stuff well before Byrne took over in 1986. I also don't have a problem with Superman being more "normal" but I understand this gets into the argument of preferences and thus not really relevant here.

But there is a difference between that stuff taking an (possibly indefinite) back seat during a needed shake up/overhaul (which, yes, basically the property needed) and never having existed at all. The latter is a problem born from Byrne's reboot, even though the decision to reboot entirely came from higher up and he would have been fine working within the confines of continuity. Because eventually edicts change and old school stuff comes back in vogue, it was just now much harder to utilize any of that stuff.

But yes, it is down to preferences. I like my Superman weird and crazy, and this just didn't connect with me at all, but with a character as long lived as this one there are bound to be different preferences among fans.

Superman did thwart Lex, several times. The appeal of the Byrne incarnation is that while Superman would stop Lex from whatever nefarious scheme he was trying to accomplish, Lex was smart enough or covered his tracks enough to prevent Superman from bringing him fully to justice. Conversely, Lex would become increasingly frustrated with his inability to scheme with Superman around as his inability to destroy Superman, to the point he became more sloppy in his actions (the Kryptonite ring being a prime example). This to me is much more interesting than a genius who wants to conquer the universe but Superman is always getting in his way. But again, I think this gets into the preferences argument which probably isn't relevant to this topic.

Eh, again I think preventing Superman from being able to fully bring Lex to justice (as in, make everyone aware that he is a criminal and the full extent of what he's done) for too long isn't a good look for the champion of the down trodden. And YMMV, but i actually found Maggin and Hamilton's Lex more interesting. I like the mad scientist who idolizes Eienstein and has some good in him, and would actually be a powerful force for good if his own pettiness didn't trip him up. Post-Crisis Lex is sleazy and one note to me, and his niche I feel is better filled by the likes of Morgan Edge or even Veronica Cale.

@Myskin

IDK, there is that moment when Martha and Jonathan find the baby at the beginning and speculate that the Russians put him in space. And also, when Lois asks his nationally he says American and she responds that there are worse options. I don't think it was the only thing Byrne was pulling from, but I find it hard to believe it was coincidence.

Since you bring up Moore and Gerber, I think was actually clicks with me with their takes is BECAUSE the retro futuristic/Disneyland take on Krypton was in place and is having less ideal, hidden elements explored. Moore especially was always good about telling very human, sometimes very dark, stories within the confines of DC continuity and all the fantastical craziness that was within it. It's one of the things I love so much about his Swamp Thing run. But maybe Byrne went on to explore his Krypton in more interesting ways the World of Krypton, but I'm not inclined to read more of his material because I already gave it three trades worth and it didn't click.

I actually felt ripped off with the trade where the very first issue had Superman get his ass kicked lol.

Was it the Man of Steel trade after the MOS mini proper, where it started the ongoing series?

Because first issue he couldn't even beat goddamn Metallo, and needed Lex to save him lol. And I think that was immediately followed up by the secret identity issue.

The elephant in the room for Superman in many cases is how you write someone like him without just having him muscle his way to the story's resolution. Byrne's take was that he didn't care about "winning" as very strange as that can seem. He just never cared about beating people or really avenging in general as long as things worked out. I don't really know why Lana just got beaten up and that was it though... kind of a weird Byrne type of thing. Like Lois getting spanked. Even in comics I like it sometimes got weird.

I agree that they need more creative options than just having him use strength to strong arm his way to the end, but not caring about winning just makes him seem to passive. It was reflected in Perez's Wonder Woman too, where she realizes she doesn't have romantic feelings for him because him being the guardian of the status quo is a turn off.

As far as Batman goes though, like it's been said, he really just flattened the scrubs in that story. According to Kevin Smith's story he even peed his pants there haha. But in a few years when Joker would kill Jason, Batman would just lash out on everyone else and bury it.

Even so, that scene is heralded as a badass classic. I don't think MOS has a comparable scene. And Kevin Smith's legacy is to be derided for his little addition.
I'm not too thrilled with the later trends of Batman either, but those tend to unfortunately appeal to the lowest common denominator. Batman being ultra grim and badass, wearing black with all his money and gadgets, getting all the women and being able to beat everybody has unfortunately at times overtaken a lot of the more nuanced, human sides of the character. I But it seems to sell.

The limited data we have from John Jackson Miller, Amazing Heroes, and maybe a few other spots show it was already underway. With the marketing phenoms we saw in Batman and TMNT it was pretty inevitable no matter what they did in comics. Like I'm pretty sure MoS outsold YO if only by being longer. Superman sales into 1993 were respectable.

It definitely does seem inevitable and with a lot of factors, and I can't dispute that DC was in a position at the time where they felt they had to do a shake up. And it objectively worked for a bit. But with hindsight, I feel some problems emerged as a result of this particular shake up. I think TDKR and the lack of any good other media appearances at the time, along with the popular trend shifting to grim badass anti-heroes (Wolverine, Punisher, what Miller turned Batman into), were bigger factors. But I think another reboot of besides Byrne's, which IMO made him more in line with the boring vanilla flying brick who grew into Miller's TDKR version, would have yielded slightly better long term results. With the anti-hero trend, and Superman supposedly being shifted back to his roots, I don't think the character benefited from losing the edge he had.

We'll never know though, so this is just bitching on a comic book forum haha.

It's hard for me to think of something deeper in relationships for the GA Superman until we get to the Earth Two idea. But he did offer Butch to Lois right away.

Wasn't that as cowardly Clark though? Didn't he run after them as Superman, rescue Lois and wreck their car, while hanging Butch from a telephone poll? In the same issue where he threw that wife beater into a river?