AiPT "Revisiting what never was with the “Superman 2000” proposal", good read

[Myskin]

Obviously the solution is another origin reboot!

Actually it kind of is. It wouldn't be the solution, but it would actually be part of the solution. Or - to better say it - a real relaunch, Superman 2000 style, would involve the origin as well. I am pretty sure about it.
I actually think that the long, never-ending series of origin reboots we have seen in the latest 20 years is not entirely without reason. In Superman's cases, some MAJOR details about the character are so strictly linked to his origin, Smallville and his first days in Metropolis that it is basically unavoidable to relaunch everything without touching the origin. The idea that everything can be summarized in one page (doomed planet, desperate scientists etc) is just an urban legend for fans. Even Morrison created a completely different origin which lasted for about 9 issues during his Action Comics run.
It is nonetheless true that they obviously dropped the ball every single time and we have had so many origins that the whole concept has become paper thin.
But people tend to forget that the one, coherent Superman relaunch with a rebooted origin we have had, that is the Byrne one, included so many concepts which are still a major part of Superman comic books exactly because everything was coherent with the new origin.

[superduperman]

Actually it kind of is. It wouldn't be the solution, but it would actually be part of the solution. Or - to better say it - a real relaunch, Superman 2000 style, would involve the origin as well. I am pretty sure about it.
I actually think that the long, never-ending series of origin reboots we have seen in the latest 20 years is not entirely without reason. In Superman's cases, some MAJOR details about the character are so strictly linked to his origin, Smallville and his first days in Metropolis that it is basically unavoidable to relaunch everything without touching the origin. The idea that everything can be summarized in one page (doomed planet, desperate scientists etc) is just an urban legend for fans. Even Morrison created a completely different origin which lasted for about 9 issues during his Action Comics run.
It is nonetheless true that they obviously dropped the ball every single time and we have had so many origins that the whole concept has become paper thin.
But people tend to forget that the one, coherent Superman relaunch with a rebooted origin we have had, that is the Byrne one, included so many concepts which are still a major part of Superman comic books exactly because everything was coherent with the new origin.

I think the only way to save DC in general is a hard, New 52 style, reboot that doesn't carve out any exemptions for anyone. Not even if they have bat ears. This is why I think DC should have set up their own Ultimate style universe. And if the "new" universe just happens to have better stories than the old one, well, they may have to phase the old one out for the one that sells better.

[Frontier]

I think that these ideas appeared in in-continuity stories mostly because of All-Star and its popularity.
But I also think that many ideas from the proposal were used in All-Star and - to a lesser degree - Birthright and Red Son.
Morrison and Waid were probably the real creative forces behind the proposal. Millar was Morrison's protégé by then and many of his concepts in those days were more or less in line with Morrison's. Peyer was barely involved.

I don't know if we can really work out the timeframe. Luthor going from businessman to Silver Age mad scientist seems like the natural character development most continuities come up with, so I'm not sure if that's a particular All-Star thing. I'd be curious if it was something Johns and Busiek were aware of for their runs.

[JAK]

I think the only way to save DC in general is a hard, New 52 style, reboot that doesn't carve out any exemptions for anyone. Not even if they have bat ears. This is why I think DC should have set up their own Ultimate style universe. And if the "new" universe just happens to have better stories than the old one, well, they may have to phase the old one out for the one that sells better.

Yeah, I think an "ultimate" line is the way to go. Whichever one doesn't sell enough, make it digital-only or something.

But none of it is going to work unless there's a major change in mentality with the company. Until that's fixed, we're just going to keep doing this dance over and over and over, Groundhog Day style.

[manwhohaseverything]

Yeah! If they relauch superman again. I would probably be done. It's a frustrating reading experience with all these changes in directions. I am not used this kind of thing and might not ever will. I have been part of atleast three of these thing.One second he is walking on the ground. The next he is a in tshirt and jeans fighting for the oppressed. Finally, the guy gets his marriage back and a kid to boot. Just when the kid was over with the fans with supersons. They even took that away to sent him of to space and future aging him up. Its bogus.As a manga reader primarily , its frustrating to read something that's just changing tone but saying absolutely nothing with a character that doesn't feel like it.

Whichever direction they take,If the writers approach the character with same mindset. I don't think the overhaul will be of help. It would only be skin deep. As if it matters, whether he wears a trunks or not. Why he wears the suit itself is a mystery in story. Oh riiiight, "kryptonIan fashion and mom's redesign".what's the s for? Krypotonians coat of arm and symbol of hope. Really? How about the obvious explanation? S is just an s and he wears the suit cause he is a strongman. If dick grayson's parents can be circus people. So can superman . Superman books would rather have convulted contrived explanation on everything. Ofcourse they need to explain everything . It's like explaining a joke only to ruin it. Considering the treatment of the secret id. I would say its true.why doesn't superman wink at the camera's anymore? Talk about taking it too seriously.

I would say superman books are treated as moraltiy guide(not that good one). So the character is restricted by it. Why can't superman be a dick? Because that's not appropriate. Why can't superman bully his bullys? Because that ain't appropriate. Who gives a damn. What is this ?superbooks or the bible.The guy is a vigilante outlaw alien who used to give wedgies to sexual predators by hanging them on a pole. Make a story that's Entertaining with the character. His powers are also another thing that's seemingly gets presented in an uninspiring manner. Batman moves like a shadow ninja. Spidey moves like agile acrobatic creepy crawler. Superman moves like a flying brick. Yeah! Great way to get kids to find superman cool. I mean, don't these guy themselves want to draw some cool ****.

[Vordan]

Clark should be an act when it comes to his public appearances. He's not that goofy, he's not that meek, etc. I think that generally needs to be emphasized because when you say Clark is a mask, it gives the impression that Clark wholesale doesn't matter. I don't think that's what any of these guys were going for. But the marriage definitely should have been dropped then and still does. The fact there's been little organic growth in their relationship since 1996 is a testament that it has generally gone nowhere. It was stale when the pitch was made, and still is today two decades later. The only thing it produced was the kid a few years ago in the most laughably inorganic way possible even by comic standards, and he's been every bit the requisite disaster. Hell he's the reason it needs to be dropped now more than ever, as he's actively ruining most everything in the mythos he touches. Erasing him and the marriage would actually put the dynamic to actually being about them again. It can grow all over again in whatever ways they want it to, which is more than can be said for the absolute stasis of going on 25 years now. I know they botched that in the New 52, but there's no reason you can't try again.

You don’t think that’s a teeny bit of an exaggeration? I know you’re no fan of Jon, and I myself have some very big gripes with how they’ve used him, but I can’t really see how he’s ruined the mythos. Jon in and of himself isn’t a bad idea, it’s just the execution that’s been lacking. That said if they got rid of Jon they need to get rid of the marriage too, because married Lois and Clark with no Jon was the status quo for like 20 years and it got really boring by the end.

I agree, I think an updated 2020-y pitch like this could work big time. There's been 20 years to see how things work and iron out the kinks.

It's just...Superman has been swirling around the drain for a while now and I'm not sure there's any real interest in cleaning him off. DC will do what is successful...and the fanbase largely seems just happy to have whatever media they can get- ya know? Not really clamoring for quality. (I mean "if you build it, they will come" 'n all- but it'd be hard).

A strong United Front of a vision could really put Superman back on track but it'd need, like, authorial presence and a fully formed aesthetic.

Hah, I can’t deny that I’ve often been happy with the scraps DC tosses to us, but what choice do I have? Would I love a groundbreaking run like Ewing in Hulk? **** yeah I would. Would I like a critically acclaimed movie trilogy like Nolan Batman? **** yeah. A video game trilogy like Batman Arkham? A cartoon series? Yes of course, but we get so ******* little from DC, that I have to be happy with what we get. Look at Black Label, their “prestige” books. We got one crap Frank Miller Superman origin and that’s it. They might as well relabel it’s “Batman Label” because that’s what they’re putting out. Superman just doesn’t get enough where I can afford to be picky, and DC is all too willing to take Superman media’s failure to perform not as an indictment on their garbage handling of him, but a sign that people just don’t care about him.

Don’t get me wrong I 100% am fed up with the mediocrity DC puts out in regards to Superman media, when they’re not actively dumping on him.

Actually it kind of is. It wouldn't be the solution, but it would actually be part of the solution. Or - to better say it - a real relaunch, Superman 2000 style, would involve the origin as well. I am pretty sure about it.
I actually think that the long, never-ending series of origin reboots we have seen in the latest 20 years is not entirely without reason. In Superman's cases, some MAJOR details about the character are so strictly linked to his origin, Smallville and his first days in Metropolis that it is basically unavoidable to relaunch everything without touching the origin. The idea that everything can be summarized in one page (doomed planet, desperate scientists etc) is just an urban legend for fans. Even Morrison created a completely different origin which lasted for about 9 issues during his Action Comics run.
It is nonetheless true that they obviously dropped the ball every single time and we have had so many origins that the whole concept has become paper thin.
But people tend to forget that the one, coherent Superman relaunch with a rebooted origin we have had, that is the Byrne one, included so many concepts which are still a major part of Superman comic books exactly because everything was coherent with the new origin.

I wouldn’t mind a new Superman on a new Earth, hell rumors are that DC is planning to do exactly that, although Ellis’ misconduct might throw a wrench in that. Rumors from BC said DC is planning an all new digital exclusive Batman and Superman that was planned to be crafted by Ellis, Fraction, and Zdarsky. Fraction and Zdarsky crafting a new Superman gets me excited as all hell, way more than Jurgens tired old Byrne rehash.

[Myskin]

Yeah! If they relauch superman again. I would probably be done. It's a frustrating reading experience with all these changes in directions. I am not used this kind of thing and might not ever will. I have been part of atleast three of these thing.One second he is walking on the ground. The next he is a in tshirt and jeans fighting for the oppressed. Finally, the guy gets his marriage back and a kid to boot. Just when the kid was over with the fans with supersons. They even took that away to sent him of to space and future aging him up. Its bogus.As a manga reader primarily , its frustrating to read something that's just changing tone but saying absolutely nothing with a character that doesn't feel like it.

Whichever direction they take,If the writers approach the character with same mindset. I don't think the overhaul will be of help. It would only be skin deep. As if it matters, whether he wears a trunks or not. Why he wears the suit itself is a mystery in story. Oh riiiight, "kryptonIan fashion and mom's redesign".what's the s for? Krypotonians coat of arm and symbol of hope. Really? How about the obvious explanation? S is just an s and he wears the suit cause he is a strongman. If dick grayson's parents can be circus people. So can superman . Superman books would rather have convulted contrived explanation on everything. Ofcourse they need to explain everything . It's like explaining a joke only to ruin it. Considering the treatment of the secret id. I would say its true.why doesn't superman wink at the camera's anymore? Talk about taking it too seriously.

I would say superman books are treated as moraltiy guide(not that good one). So the character is restricted by it. Why can't superman be a dick? Because that's not appropriate. Why can't superman bully his bullys? Because that ain't appropriate. Who gives a damn. What is this ?superbooks or the bible.The guy is a vigilante outlaw alien who used to give wedgies to sexual predators by hanging them on a pole. Make a story that's Entertaining with the character. His powers are also another thing that's seemingly gets presented in an uninspiring manner. Batman moves like a shadow ninja. Spidey moves like agile acrobatic creepy crawler. Superman moves like a flying brick. Yeah! Great way to get kids to find superman cool. I mean, don't these guy themselves want to draw some cool ****.

A "Superman as a strongman" explanation isn't easier to accept than an alien costume or a "my momma made it for me" costume. It could work, but again - writers and editors should really think it through and plan a coherent way to make it acceptable and useful character-wise. They basically should treat Superman as a creator-owned character with a full, relatable personality.

What they have been doing so far is basically the opposite. They have some elements which HAVE to be included in Superman stories and origins and they keep presenting them in ways which don't really make sense or are not carefully planned. They know the destination, but don't really know how to get there. For example, they know that Superman must get his costume somehow and he must have been Superboy at one point, so they desperately try to insert these elements even if they haven't really found a way to make them work. Sometimes they try the "all included" approach, which is sometimes worse. After the "momma's costume" approach (Byrne) and the "alien S" costume (Waid) they go with "momma's costume with an alien S to keep under everyday clothes" approach (Johns). Which is an even dumber solution.

Also fans are somehow responsible for it. We are talking about superhero fans - who, in my opinion, are one of the most toxic fandoms out there - and sometimes they clamor loudly for elements which they absolutely want to see reinserted just because they are favorite of theirs. As far as I am concerned, if there isn't an acceptable way to make some details work (I am thinking about Superboy now) they should just discard them. Even if it means losing some readers (but maybe they would gain new ones).

The morality thing is another problematic aspect. Maybe the most problematic one. People keep forgetting that Superman's moral positions were conceived (from 1930s to 1960s) for comics which were way more simplistic and conservative than they are now. They cannot simply reinstate those exact same positions today, but - again - they haven't found a way to replace them with something more complex, relatable or up-to-date. So what we have today is a character who is the most morally irreproachable one in the DCU just because the other characters (that is, the writers) tell us that he is so. Not because of what he does and we, the readers, find it morally elevated.

[manwhohaseverything]

A "Superman as a strongman" explanation isn't easier to accept than an alien costume or a "my momma made it for me" costume. It could work, but again - writers and editors should really think it through and plan a coherent way to make it acceptable and useful character-wise. They basically should treat Superman as a creator-owned character with a full, relatable personality.

What they have been doing so far is basically the opposite. They have some elements which HAVE to be included in Superman stories and origins and they keep presenting them in ways which don't really make sense or are not carefully planned. They know the destination, but don't really know how to get there. For example, they know that Superman must get his costume somehow and he must have been Superboy at one point, so they desperately try to insert these elements even if they haven't really found a way to make them work. Sometimes they try the "all included" approach, which is sometimes worse. After the "momma's costume" approach (Byrne) and the "alien S" costume (Waid) they go with "momma's costume with an alien S to keep under everyday clothes" approach (Johns). Which is an even dumber solution.

Also fans are somehow responsible for it. We are talking about superhero fans - which, in my opinion, is one of the most toxic fandoms out there - and sometimes they clamor loudly for elements which they absolutely want to see reinserted just because they are favorite of theirs. As far as I am concerned, if there isn't an acceptable way to make some details work (I am thinking about Superboy now) they should just discard them. Even if it means losing some readers (but maybe they would gain new ones).

The morality thing is another problematic aspect. Maybe the most problematic one. People keep forgetting that Superman's moral positions were conceived (from 1930s to 1960s) for comics which were way more simplistic and conservative than they are now. They cannot simply reinstate those exact same positions today, but - again - they haven't found a way to replace them with something more complex, relatable or up-to-date. So what we have today is a character who is the most morally irreproachable one in the DCU just because the other characters (that is, the writers) tell us that he is so. Not because of what he does and we, the readers, find it morally elevated.

Frankly, No mother would make a costume like that for her grown son. It's a way of making the character lame.Morever, the costume is too familiar to be alien. It's just tights. Superman being from a circus would atleast actually make sense be consistent . He could easily hide himself with them.

Yeah! That's what i am talking about. They keep treating a story like some jigsaw puzzle. It is not about telling stories but completing the puzzle. This goes here and that goes there. Then they give nonsensical explanation why that piece exists here when the rest of the bigger picture has been changed.If they are going to overhaul the character they need to do it bottom up. Just take the base concept a really strong alien with steel like skin living on earth in hiding and do whatever with it. None of the things like the costume, kents,..etc are absolutely a must when it comes to an overhaul. The original story of superman was of an orphan who was brought up in an orphanage after being found by motorcyclist. They have changed his powerset and explanation multiple time. So an overhaul is'nt exactly out of the norm. The problem has always been reception. Another is there commitment towards it. You can't keep trying to explain something from the past after adding it. That shouldn't be how storytelling is done.

As for morality, i don't think that's an issue.Batman's morality is still beating up criminals as it was in 1940's.They ofcourse have made bruce messed up to explain that. And i haven't see superman taking moral positions similar to 1940s to 60s other than maybe in morrison's run. Ofcourse, the no kill code was the only one i have seen.Even that is comics code cemented thing. The problem is if superman takes those old positions. He wouldn't be seen as an absolute good guy(boyscout) . So, writers get stuck. So superman doesn't take any moral positions at all. They go for the safe stories.

[Myskin]

As for morality, i don't think that's an issue.Batman's morality is still beating up criminals as it was in 1940's.They ofcourse have made bruce messed up to explain that. And i haven't see superman taking moral positions similar to 1940s to 60s other than maybe in morrison's run. Ofcourse, the no kill code was the only one i have seen.Even that is comics code cemented thing. The problem is if superman takes those old positions. He wouldn't be seen as an absolute good guy(boyscout) . So, writers get stuck. So superman doesn't take any moral positions at all. They go for the safe stories.

I was not referring to the kill code (in my opinion the problem of superheroes killing is way easier to bypass than we have been led to think in recent times) nor to the defender of the oppressed thing (which was the norm for a relatively short period, just some years at the very beginning, even if I'd quite be interested in if it was revamped in the correct way) but to the defender of the status quo mindset, which has been more or less the norm for decades by now.

With some few notable exceptions, Superman's role in his world has always been a conservative and generally a very passive one. We have been told that he is an inspirational figure and that he fundamentally changed everything for the better, but again - it is something that we are told, not something which we see happen in stories. One of the many problems I have with Doomsday Clock is that Johns created an entirely new set of cosmic rules (the metaverse or whatever it was called) which won't probably be used anymore just to justify the importance of Superman. But on a human level, character-wise, even the whole metaverse thing doesn't tell us anything about Superman. Johns also had to dumb down the complexity of Watchmen (basically forcing the story into a specific direction) to make Superman inspirational for Doctor Manhattan too.

Maybe it wasn't exactly what they had in mind when they introduced Jon Kent (who I don't particularly like even if I am not inherently against the idea of a son of Superman), but the character basically served as a plot device to make Superman look inspirational or morally elevated even if he didn't say anything particularly deep or - as far as I am concerned - interesting. They justified Superman's paternalistic attitude by giving him an interlocutor who looks for paternalistic advice. That is a kid, and more specifically a wide-eyed kid who idolizes his father. If - instead of Jon - they had introduced a slightly less naive interlocutor, the stories wouldn't have worked.

That's the interesting thing about Jon Kent. He didn't solve any of the "Superman problems" we have been talking about in this thread (maybe he just gave an additional motivation for Lois and Clark to stay married, but the marriage would be reintroduced anyway), but he diverted the readers' attention from those problems by focusing on what was basically a new continuity (even if in several cases he would steal the scene from the main character). It is not a case that almost, or all of Jon's stories take place outside of Superman's most recognizable environments. They haven't found a way yet to make the character work in Superman's "real" environment, that is Metropolis - with the Planet, Superman, the double identity, Lexcorp etc.

[HsssH]

A "Superman as a strongman" explanation isn't easier to accept than an alien costume or a "my momma made it for me" costume.

But isn't that a direct result of "we are ashamed of Superman" phenomenon? Writers/editors thought that obvious explanation is stupid/lame so they created convoluted mess instead. Lore nerds like us might find it interesting that S stands for hope, but usually when regular people are exposed to it they just roll their eyes.

And linking back to what you said in other posts, maybe if things like S stands for hope were not "baked in" writers wouldn't be forced to write about what an inspirational figure Superman is, while having no idea how to show it. Generally speaking, most of the time writers/editors try to "solve" some old "problem" they end up creating multiple new problems down the road.

[Myskin]

But isn't that a direct result of "we are ashamed of Superman" phenomenon?

I'd say that it depends on the execution, mostly. In Tom de Haven's "It's Superman" he works as a stuntman, he finds a costume from an old sci-fi movie and it becomes his uniform. I have foggy memories about it, but I remember that it kind of worked. But yes, it wasn't a "let's put a costume on, now I'm a hero" thing as in the 1930s.

I agree that trying to justify some details leads to new difficulties (personally speaking I have always found the "S stands for hope" explanation unsatisfactory and cringeworthy), but - as I said earlier - that's a major problem with Superman: the character was conceived for way more simplistic comic books and a different vision of sci-fi. For modern sensibilities some explanations aren't that easy to accept. Which means that there are many different levels writers and editors have to work on before making the character click again. For example, if they want to justify the costume and the S they have to rediscuss the aesthetics of Superman's world. So in the first place you have to decide what kind of world the character has to live in. For example, you can make him live in an almost fable-like universe à la McCay (which is more or less what Morrison did with All-Star Superman, mostly because Quitely's exaggerated art made everything more plausible); you can make him live in an over-the-top, unrealistic version of the real world (as in some works by Jack Kirby or - to a lesser degree - what Loeb and Kelly did with Cyberpunk Metropolis); or you can make him live in what basically is the real world (and this is the direction they take most of the time, even if IMHO it is the one which creates most troubles). All of these creative choices (I guess that there could be many other different ones) solve some of the problems (the "S" and the trunks are definitely acceptable in All-Star, for example; and there are some in-jokes about it, too) and lead to other problems. But I'd say that having a starting point, something recognizable, definitive and clear at least in terms of aesthetics would be something more than what we have now.

[Sacred Knight]

You don’t think that’s a teeny bit of an exaggeration? I know you’re no fan of Jon, and I myself have some very big gripes with how they’ve used him, but I can’t really see how he’s ruined the mythos. Jon in and of himself isn’t a bad idea, it’s just the execution that’s been lacking. That said if they got rid of Jon they need to get rid of the marriage too, because married Lois and Clark with no Jon was the status quo for like 20 years and it got really boring by the end.

I really don't. I've said it before but I think he's an absolute cancer on Superman. Him specifically, not the general idea of a biological child. I don't think Superman should have kids in a canon setting period but I'm certainly not arguing the idea is inherently unworkable. Hell as far as I know watch the new show actually do it well, who knows. Its Jon specifically that I think is horrendous based on how he's been crafted to this point. I've given it time, to at least get used to it even though I was never going to outright like it, but the usage hasn't changed with him, its just gotten worse and worse. He does nothing but leech off Superman's history. Nothing is his own growth, its all cribbed and to Superman's own detriment. It drives me nuts. So I don't think its an exaggeration, but at the same time I understand very few see it the way I do. But its the way I see it and I believe it 100%.

[Ra-El]

I really don't. I've said it before but I think he's an absolute cancer on Superman. Him specifically, not the general idea of a biological child. I don't think Superman should have kids in a canon setting period but I'm certainly not arguing the idea is inherently unworkable. Hell as far as I know watch the new show actually do it well, who knows. Its Jon specifically that I think is horrendous based on how he's been crafted to this point. I've given it time, to at least get used to it even though I was never going to outright like it, but the usage hasn't changed with him, its just gotten worse and worse. He does nothing but leech off Superman's history. Nothing is his own growth, its all cribbed and to Superman's own detriment. It drives me nuts. So I don't think its an exaggeration, but at the same time I understand very few see it the way I do. But its the way I see it and I believe it 100%.

I believe 10 years old Jon being frenemy with Damin on a Super Sons book with a manga feel works perfectly, but a teen Jon on the future with the Legion brings more trouble than solutions.

[Knightsilver]

Clark should be an act when it comes to his public appearances. He's not that goofy, he's not that meek, etc. I think that generally needs to be emphasized because when you say Clark is a mask, it gives the impression that Clark wholesale doesn't matter. I don't think that's what any of these guys were going for. But the marriage definitely should have been dropped then and still does. The fact there's been little organic growth in their relationship since 1996 is a testament that it has generally gone nowhere. It was stale when the pitch was made, and still is today two decades later. The only thing it produced was the kid a few years ago in the most laughably inorganic way possible even by comic standards, and he's been every bit the requisite disaster. Hell he's the reason it needs to be dropped now more than ever, as he's actively ruining most everything in the mythos he touches. Erasing him and the marriage would actually put the dynamic to actually being about them again. It can grow all over again in whatever ways they want it to, which is more than can be said for the absolute stasis of going on 25 years now. I know they botched that in the New 52, but there's no reason you can't try again.

Even Morrison believed the marriage could work,and Jon was working just fine,and was popular,until Bendis pointlessly aged him into a teenager. DC themselves are the real problem...since even in the New 52 with no marriage or kids,the stories were largely terrible outside of Morrison's run. Another reboot would be the kryptonite bullet to Superman,as readers overall are tired of constant continuity shifting and a new origin every couple of years. What's needed is strong and creative direction that works within the continuity that already exists...not more resetting to a young single status quo.

[Sacred Knight]

I'm fine with Morrison believing the marriage could work. Hell I'm not even saying it can't. I'm just saying I believe it works better without it. So I just happen to disagree with him a bit on this one. I love his work, he's my favorite Superman writer, but I don't know if I've ever agreed with every single thing one writer believed. Also as I've stated I don't believe Jon ever worked fine, personally. There were major problems before Bendis. I don't subscribe that he, nor Rebirth as a whole, was as monumentally successful as its made out to be. It didn't tank, I'm certainly not trying to make that kind of silly argument but it was hardly a renaissance. It did what any other major relaunch did: skyrocketed interest for a while, then things thudded back to norm. Norm being nowhere near as good as Superman should be. But I digress, what Bendis did was double down on already existing bad habits and made it all even worse, he didn't create the bad habits.

But as far as undoing things, reverting things, etc, no those things don't automatically make the line better. To me erasing Jon and the marriage would make the status quo better and remove some bad and confusing continuity. It would make the foundation better. That's just my opinion. But its the same with anyone's ideal status quo; its pleasing to the individual but that's just the start, that doesn't automatically make stories and runs good. Obviously the quality and direction need to be there too, this is a given. And I understand the reluctance to entertain any such thing again because their track record in said quality and direction has been ridiculously bad for a decade and a half now. The hierarchy has somewhat changed, but I don't know to what degree in the end where much of a difference would be made yet.