At what point do you think writers were trying to "fix" Superman

[phantom1592]

DKR's has outsold Man of Steel likely 5 fold by this time. People who don't read comics regularly, have read DKR's and couldn't pick Bryne's Superman out from Bendis'.

The obvious points of influence that Miller cemented into the consciousness of Superman fans and comic fans in general are that Batman is smarter, better, and more ruthless and can steal Superman's lunch any day of the week. That Superman is some government lackey that will follow a flag to his and the public's detriment. That Superman is an enforcer of the status quo no matter how corrupt it becomes. All that is cemented and highlighted into DKR's. Miller drove that into the character like a stake and nothing anyone has done in the last three decades can undo that.

Now I'm sure someone can pull some citation out of some 1970's Superman book that no one except 4 people on this forum have read in 30 years and say "No, Superman was a lackey for years before DKR's" but the point is that that doesn't matter compared to DKR's portrayal cementing those ideas into the consciousness of even casual fans to this day.

I'd say it was just as much Donner's Superman flying with an american flag to the white house and apologizing to the president that he 'let him down' in Superman II... .or the intro to George Reeves' series showing Superman standing stoically with the flag waving in the background that cemented him as an agent of America.

DKR shouldn't be taken seriously. I often wonder how many people who idolize that portrayal of Superman have ever actually READ that book. Batman punching and kicking superman while Clark is asking him to cut it out because he can see Bruce is dying is hardly making Batman 'awesome'. Superman could have won at any time, and Batman knew it. He hurt him. He stunned him... but he never actually beat him... and it was done by a Superman who still had compassion for the guy trying to fight him.

For my part, I really enjoyed DKR book 1&2. Bruce coming out of retirement and facing down two-face and the cops while trying to cope with being old... was really awesome. Books 3&4 were just garbage. I hated everything in them. Ruined Batman's personality. didn't make any sense. just character assassination all around. I never read a book with that drastic of a swing in it.

Well, what miller found wasn't exactly wrong. Any guy that reads superman #53, will say wth is this nonsense. The mentality of superman has been that of a guy who takes and follows orders to t has been building since then. A father on his death bed is advising his kid to be a vigilante. And the contradiction is this, he wants him to fight in cooperation with the law(i can see why this was necessary. I mean, for kids) . So, i won't blame miller for calling a spade a spade. The character had started falling into a routine of this.The issue was written by bill finger, i believe .

Awesome find. i remember having this story on a record way back when i was just a young-un and could never find a copy of this page. For a while i was thinking i imagined it. Personally, this has always been my preferred origin. Dead parents, a conscious decison to be 'Superman' before he met Lois. The S literally MEANING 'Superman' from the beginning.

I also have no issue with him fighing 'in cooperation with the law'. One of the biggest issues facing a vigilante... is how to keep the law from attacking you. It's annoying and a distraction. There are so many crimes going unpunished because the government is afraid of you... and Superman wouldn't want that. Make sure everyone knows right from the start that A) You're all on the same side... and B) You're not a God come to rule the world... you're just a guy who can do things above and beyond mortal men... but not in an 'overthrow the governement kind of way.
Works for me

[Kuwagaton]

On cooperation with the law and

I can't see much of Miller's influence on Superman that isn't Batman-related. Like BM can beat SM with prep time, they are day/night with opposite views... stuff like that.

I agree.

DKR's has outsold Man of Steel likely 5 fold by this time. People who don't read comics regularly, have read DKR's and couldn't pick Bryne's Superman out from Bendis'.

Probably, but one's a Superman comic and the other isn't, so I think it's hard to argue as a case of influence for Superman. I haven't seen anyone on record seeing the DKR portrayal and going, "yeah, I want to write THAT guy." We're talking about fixing the character and that was never an intentional revision or intentionally "fair" assessment. The DKR Superman is based on the character of Superman or else they'd be calling him some other name, but I'd definitely give people who have actually read DKR the credit of knowing the difference and it should be obvious that people reading and enjoying the character after that story also would pick up the difference.

The obvious points of influence that Miller cemented into the consciousness of Superman fans and comic fans in general are that Batman is smarter, better, and more ruthless and can steal Superman's lunch any day of the week. That Superman is some government lackey that will follow a flag to his and the public's detriment. That Superman is an enforcer of the status quo no matter how corrupt it becomes. All that is cemented and highlighted into DKR's. Miller drove that into the character like a stake and nothing anyone has done in the last three decades can undo that.

As it looks like others have said, those were already knocks on the character even if DKR was a massive story. The people who want to see that as Superman are basically the ones who lead DC to try fixing him over a decade prior. Did Miller help them? Not purposefully, and his story didn't go on to stop Superman's successes that followed.

Also, I would say the point of the DKR fight, the reason it's so memorable, is because it shows you that Batman CAN'T beat him "any day of the week." It's an incredible effort.

Now I'm sure someone can pull some citation out of some 1970's Superman book that no one except 4 people on this forum have read in 30 years and say "No, Superman was a lackey for years before DKR's" but the point is that that doesn't matter compared to DKR's portrayal cementing those ideas into the consciousness of even casual fans to this day.

If that were the case then I guess the point would be that those four people are telling you that the school of thought isn't wrong. If a popular story enforces very obscure ideas that are apparently supported by the dedicated, doesn't that mean there isn't much to refute?

[manwhohaseverything]

Awesome find. i remember having this story on a record way back when i was just a young-un and could never find a copy of this page. For a while i was thinking i imagined it. Personally, this has always been my preferred origin. Dead parents, a conscious decison to be 'Superman' before he met Lois. The S literally MEANING 'Superman' from the beginning.

I also have no issue with him fighing 'in cooperation with the law'. One of the biggest issues facing a vigilante... is how to keep the law from attacking you. It's annoying and a distraction. There are so many crimes going unpunished because the government is afraid of you... and Superman wouldn't want that. Make sure everyone knows right from the start that A) You're all on the same side... and B) You're not a God come to rule the world... you're just a guy who can do things above and beyond mortal men... but not in an 'overthrow the governement kind of way.
Works for me

I had been collecting all the origin parts of superman making a list of major transformations that happened to the character. I hated this origin, this was stupid and unnecessary. I much prefer original by jerry seigel and joe shuster or even donner origin where clark finds his destiny on his own. Life as a fugitive or vigilante was always Clark's choice. Making it pa kents choice destroyed Clark's autonomy after his genuine act of altruism in saving lois. It also raises questions on there parenting. Furthermore, superman calling himself superman is narcissistic. It isn't in the character to do that. He isn't iron man or mr. Fantastic.I would like to Think clark meant strongman,than superman. Clark considered himself very much a strongman. He prided himself for being that and his muscles as well. It wasn't like in current day, where Clark's muscles were made of hot air(the sun) . Clark used to do all the strongman training.




Superman had all the makings of a true action hero. It was the people that gave him the epithet of "Superman".

That's the thing, superman was'nt there to fight for the law. He was fighting for truth and justice. He himself was an outlaw. Why? Because the law and justice system couldn't bring to light many of the injustices. Superman fought where the law failed and to overcome the short comings or faults of the system. He was like luffy or captain america . A guy with that much power with that much freedom. Clark was always dangerous. That's scary, but that's the point.His mentality wasn't that of a guy being comfortable in chains. He was a chain breaker. He valued freedom for everyone and himself more. He however had no problem with justice system or police itself . He just realised they were insufficient many a times.Police was in the right.So, Superman never attacked a police man, who is good. He ran from them. But, neither the government nor the police will ever control him.

You said, having police know that Superman and them are on the same side, will help him keep law from attacking him.Well, that's the point. This decision removed a vital tension . Superman being attacked by the law and some media was part of the tension. He had to save the day and safely get away without hurting any good people or himself in the process. His only allies were the common folk, clark saved. You are also removing the complexity of Clark's situation. Also, if superman isn't a vigilante.The need for a secret id is that much less.

This is superman.
"you need'nt be afraid of me, i won't harm you"

Furthermore, It is highly condemnable for a father or mother to ask their child to be a vigilante. Here, in "cooperation with law" mean he works with police.It's basically trying to downplay clark as vigilante and saying he is something else altogether. This stuck, this was the first step in superman-the superhero being born and this is further cemented with superman going public now. Basically, bendis finished what bill finger started. The end of the vigilante superman. It was always on clark that he became a vigilante. Neither his birth parents nor adopted parents would ever have wanted clark to go out in public in a strongman suit and beat up bad guys

[phantom1592]

Superman had all the makings of a true action hero. It was the people that gave him the epithet of "Superman".

Then you either have 2 choices. 1) He doesn't design the costume until after the people start calling him superman... and even then it's narcisstic to embrace that.... or 2) You are stuck with a weird coincident that krypton symbol for his family or hope or whatever else they want to shoehorn in there just happens to look like an S. I haven't seen a version of that, that i could stomach either. I prefer my Superman a bit more self-made. He made the costume, he picked the name, He's doing what he wants.

His dad saying on his death bed "Your meant for something greater... use your powers to help people" doesn't take away his autonomy any more than Ben parker's "Power and Responsibility" speech.

That's the thing, superman wasn't there to fight for the law. He was fighting for truth and justice. He himself was an outlaw. Why? Because the law and justice system couldn't bring to light many of the injustices. Superman fought where the law failed and to overcome the short comings or faults of the system. He was like luffy or captain america . A guy with that much power with that much freedom. Clark was always dangerous. That's scary, but that's the point.His mentality wasn't that of a guy being comfortable in chains. He was a chain breaker. He valued freedom for everyone and himself more. He however had no problem with justice system or police itself . He just realised they were insufficient many a times.Police was in the right.So, Superman never attacked a police man, who is good. He ran from them. But, neither the government nor the police will ever control him.

I see it as a more optimistic world where the justice system is ALSO interested in truth and justice. It's not like Gotham full of corruption and evil... or Zorro where the evil is built into the government... Superman isn't controlled by the police. he doesn't come when he's summoned, but if they need him... He's the first to volunteer. He catches the bad guys, wraps them in a steel girder... than hands them to the cops to process. He's more than willing to take the bullets meant for the police, because he can take it better. In an idealistic world... there's no conflict there.

[manwhohaseverything]

Then you either have 2 choices. 1) He doesn't design the costume until after the people start calling him superman... and even then it's narcisstic to embrace that.... or 2) You are stuck with a weird coincident that krypton symbol for his family or hope or whatever else they want to shoehorn in there just happens to look like an S. I haven't seen a version of that, that i could stomach either. I prefer my Superman a bit more self-made. He made the costume, he picked the name, He's doing what he wants.

His dad saying on his death bed "Your meant for something greater... use your powers to help people" doesn't take away his autonomy any more than Ben parker's "Power and Responsibility" speech. .

No, need clark is a strongman. Had a grandfather who was a strongman whom clark admired. Cement that part of his legacy. Its his uniform. He isn't being narcissistic, for going out in the strongman suit. It's embracing himself . The s meant Strong-man, not superman, not kryptonian symbol of hope nonsense . People misunderstood and his amazing feats drove them to call him superman.

It is. Peter was resistant on being spiderman. He wanted all the power and none of the responsibilities. Peter chose right, after doing wrong. He realises the right after that. Superman isn't like that, here it's basically clark being robot. He is being programmed. That's bad. This removes Clark's moral struggle. Superman sees injustices and he reacted. It wasn't something conscious on his part the first time. His body moves on his own. Then he realised that's what he should do. Strongman suit is clark embracing Clark's trueself. The strongman from space or the vigilante strongman. It's kinda amazing how great siegel and shuster superman was and how complicated the narrative was. Yet, they made it look very simple so that anyone can understand it. That was the strength of superman. The strength of complexity in simplicity.

I see it as a more optimistic world where the justice system is ALSO interested in truth and justice. It's not like Gotham full of corruption and evil... or Zorro where the evil is built into the government... Superman isn't controlled by the police. he doesn't come when he's summoned, but if they need him... He's the first to volunteer. He catches the bad guys, wraps them in a steel girder... than hands them to the cops to process. He's more than willing to take the bullets meant for the police, because he can take it better. In an idealistic world... there's no conflict there.

Justice system Being interested in truth and justice, doesn't mean the system doesn't have flaw and is able to deliver on it. No matter how much interested it may be in fullfilling the duty or searching truth and delivering justice. It has flaws. Every system does. Metropolis was more corrupt than gotham, before gotham existed. Superman wasn't a torch in a sunny day. He was the light in darkness. He was the champion of the oppressed and the downtrodden, whomever they may be. He became very much controlled by the law, police and system with this stupid interpretation . He talked for them, not the people . Which ultimately lead to dark knight returns. Superman became the antithesis of himself. I have to believe, miller knew that. Fair enough what if police is the bad guy? What if people escape using loopholes and clark can't deliver justice with out breaking the law? Clark wore the strongman suit because he saw injustice, Not because metropolis was relatively a city of tomorrow. Superman had to build that city and it wasn't possible alone. He would take a bullet for police, as vigilante. The difference is clark would have to run right afterwards . And that's the thing, World isn't idealistic. We and him don't live in a utopian society. That's why superman exists .and that's why Superman is idealistic . Superman fights for truth and justice, always. Removing every complexity of the character and his world, has ruined him. Which basically sucks now.
There is a reason captain america has become the new superman. Even the joker has become more of a symbol than superman. And That sucks.

[The World]

I kind of feel like I need to better phrase that original post. I think a better way to say what I meant was that I often see the phrase "Stop trying to change Superman" yet I often see people vying for iterations of the character that had already suffered massive amounts of changes from DC. The idea that secretly most people are sitting around believe we should be living by a Jerry Siegel/ Joe Shuster bible seems divorced from reality despite the "Stop trying to change Superman" phase implying it.

I think most are fine with changing Superman as long as the fanfiction he adds up to is what they want him to be.

[lotchj]

Again Superman doesn't need fixing!! Dc needs to find a good writer to write him!! And stop trying to make Superman into something he's not!!

[Vic Vega]

Define "fix".

Others have noted that Supes' origin has been tweaked repeatedly over the decades. Superman was the sole survivor of Krypton till
the '50 and Supergirl, Krypto and Kandor (not in that order,,,I think).

The first time they tried empowering Superman in the Bronze Age it didn't take.

DC has tried to fix every one of it's most popular characters at least once.

Hell they rebooted the Morrison Batman. At this point it's not even about the character working or not.

[The World]

I mean deliberately messing with the character because you feel the certain things don't work. I mean it was such a constant battlecry during the N52 from Post-Crisis fans but you have Byrne openly calling much of the Pre-Crisis "barnacles". That sort of thing.

There's a difference between delving into what Superman's backstory was as they did in the Pre-Crisis era and completely rewriting as they did with MOS. Adding stuff where there previously was nothing imo isn't fixing something.

[Kuwagaton]

I'm kinda confused, as I was thinking about "fixing" as in changing the character more than continuity.

For comparison, there's the Spectre rip off Punisher with special avenging powers and then there's Punisher MAX with a new, stripped down continuity. I was thinking we were talking about something more like the former.

[The World]

Isn't it all kind of the same thing? Trying to rework stuff with the hope of improving the original concept?

[Kuwagaton]

Not really to me at least. Reboots especially aren't so much about fixing the original concept as fixing what they'd become. A lot of times they're actually trying to regress in some ways, like Byrne starting over. Meanwhile O'Neil with Diana and Superman tried tinkering in ways that didn't have too many effects on the actual DC around them (which bugs me with Superman because all other kryptonians would have been at full power).

They try to revamp characters all the time within one continuity, and sometimes they'll have what's really an identical version in a different continuity. Superman Adventures pretty much did to post crisis continuity what post crisis did to pre crisis, and used essentially the same character sometimes even written by the same people. Reborn Superman for Jurgens was a continuation of an old version in a very different continuity.

And now we have Bendis, who doesn't tweak continuity or character so much as he just goes in a very different direction.

[The World]

I guess I just don't get it. The Bronze age recalculations pretty much pale in comparison to the outright bulldozing that went on in '87. Krypton, the Kents, Lana, real Clark Kent, the entire explanation of his powers. As far as I can see Byrne didn't just restart but went in a totally different direction from where they had been before. His metallo, Brainiac, Bizarro are all vastly different than what came before. IDK if you take something off the board and then reintroduce it as something else I take that as an attempt to fix it.

And I don't really find Byrne's Superman all that similar to the Supermen/Superman that came before him. If you put him next to any decade he doesn't really have any significant similarities outside of what he wears and doing good things.

[Kuwagaton]

I guess I just don't get it. The Bronze age recalculations pretty much pale in comparison to the outright bulldozing that went on in '87.

Yeah, what I'm saying is that there isn't just one kind of "fix." Byrne made changes to everything where O'Neil wasn't going to, but I figured we were talking about the main character they had in common. If we're talking about just fixes in general, I'd say the permanent fixture of Superboy/baby, which changed the character history to give him a different avenue of appeal to the point of giving him Baby's Day Out adventures on Brainiac's ship. I'd also say the star of Superman's Girlfriend was written as a different character from the old Lois shorts. The changes around Superman from the forties to fifties affected his character


Keeping in mind that most people making changes aren't of the mind that they're improving something so much as just trying to make it work going forward.

And I don't really find Byrne's Superman all that similar to the Supermen/Superman that came before him. If you put him next to any decade he doesn't really have any significant similarities outside of what he wears and doing good things.

You have the ability to find him very different or just the same no matter which writer we're talking about, it's an extremely subjective thing. Though I think in most ways it ends up hard to say that there's not a precedent, the character has given all sorts of looks (although it was harder to tell writers apart before the late 60s IMO) over a very long time.A

[manwhohaseverything]

All or Most changes are done in an attempt to help superman franchise to thrive in a particular era. Even the one i mentioned in #53 is done with the same intention. Bill finger wasn't trying to fix superman. It was done so that the character can thrive in the comics code era. Currently though, they are having more difficulties thinking of what to do, that is all. So there is more failures therefore people actually sense it . I don't believe that there is absolutely no parts of the prior incarnations in byrne superman or any other versions.Superman is at the end of the day superman. So what is this "fixing" business anyway? Kryptonite being turned to rocks because in a particular era it became overused. Is that wrong. Is that fixing things? Or is it just acting accordingly to the situation present? Can the character survive if writers don't take these decisions?