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

[JAK]

Yeah - with Didio gone, the next few years will be telling. As far as I'm concerned, most of Superman's problems were either started or were exacerbated into real issues after Didio got in, so we'll see what happens now.

[superduperman]

Yeah - with Didio gone, the next few years will be telling. As far as I'm concerned, most of Superman's problems were either started or were exacerbated into real issues after Didio got in, so we'll see what happens now.

Everything I've seen suggests the Leviathan sequel has been cancelled. And no sign of anything Generations related. Looks like anything Didio related might be out the door. Bendis seems to have at least lost his influence.

[Rod G]

The problems with Superman began in 2000 prior to Didio .

[sunofdarkchild]

The way they would have gotten rid of the marriage reminds me too much of the One More Day disaster.

[manwhohaseverything]

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.

to fix superman. You will need to fix the general perception of the character and perception with which writers write him as. Also, the defender of the status quo mindset does have a correlation with Clark's denial of his vigilante existence. The no kill code and the mindset both were created after comics code came to be. Beyond that, i was referring superman tendencies to resort to violence, Vigilantism, bullying tactics... Etc. Those things can't be justified unless his world is that corrupt or effed up. I also am talking about superman's general attitude of fighting fire with fire in 30s and 40s .Superman can't function as the absolute decent guy with all these things. Generally, they just sweep it under the rug. Superman actively denies he is a vigilante. That's not much of "fix". The guy feels like naive at best and a hypocrite at worst. I hate the notion that ma and pa would want their kid to be that. It not only robs the choice from clark and it just prints a bad picture of them. Generally, precrisis comics atleast addressed Clark's tendencies to use violence in some of the stories. Ma and pa didn't have much to do with clark being superman before the superboy stories were added. Moreover, i doubt siegel and shuster's superboy would have been silverage version.

I agree with the notion that jon not fixing superman. But, he did make superman atleast appealing to me. I started being more entertained with jon than Superman himself. Superman just didn't have any personality quirks i would find appealing. He is just too well rounded as person currently . I don't think the kid would work within the confines of metropolis. Sure, he can have couple of good stories. But, the kid is designed as more of an mischievous adventurer. I think the only character in Metropolis jon might work with as a story is jimmy. Even with conner and kara, i don't think the kid could have a good dynamic unless jon is actively treated as the younger one. Ofcourse, jon does make superman and lois's goals/stakes a bit more personal. I mean, that devastator story in darkknights metal only works because their is a kid involved.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

The problems with Superman began in 2000 prior to Didio .

I think the problems started once Mike Carlin's tenure as the main editor was winding down. Everything following the Death and Return of Superman was diminishing returns. The whole arc of the Post-Crisis Superman was great, if unnecessarily convoluted in regards to Pre-Crisis elements, but it didn't seem like they had any idea what to do with the character once he'd gotten married. It was kind of the logical end point for that incarnation of Superman.

Had Morrison, Waid, & Millar taken over the reigns of the character and spun him off into a new creative direction, it might have been another story, but DC's editorial indecision of what to do with him is the defining failing of Eddie Beganza's overly long stewardship of the character.

Most of the problems with the Superman books can be directly traced back to editorial simply not knowing what to do. However, I suspect that the legal wrangling going on between the Seigel family and Warner Bros. also had a negative impact on many of the creative decisions being made.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think the problems started once Mike Carlin's tenure as the main editor was winding down. Everything following the Death and Return of Superman was diminishing returns. The whole arc of the Post-Crisis Superman was great, if unnecessarily convoluted in regards to Pre-Crisis elements, but it didn't seem like they had any idea what to do with the character once he'd gotten married. It was kind of the logical end point for that incarnation of Superman.

Funny, landis actually blamed death of superman comic for superman's troubles.Also,he threw shades at dc for not having any idea to promote or market the character since 1980's, in an appealing way.

[Myskin]

Most of the problems with the Superman books can be directly traced back to editorial simply not knowing what to do. However, I suspect that the legal wrangling going on between the Seigel family and Warner Bros. also had a negative impact on many of the creative decisions being made.

This.
I'd say that the current situation with Superman has been caused by several different factors, including legal struggles, editorial problems and also jinx (would the planned Superstorm operation have helped the character if Micah Wright hadn't been outed as a fake ex-soldier, thus making the entire operation derail?). Sometimes these factors are strictly interconnected. If they hadn't rushed Superman Returns (I vaguely remember that even then legal problems were at play) maybe we wouldn't have had so many Donnerisms in the books (seriously, was there someone asking for so many Donner references almost 30 years after Superman the Movie?). If SR hadn't sucked we wouldn't have had the grim visuals of Snyder's Man of Steel. If Man of Steel hadn't been so divisive we wouldn't have had BvS and so many exhaustingly boring discussions about Superman killing. And so on. Again, also fans have a responsibility. Especially in the latest years fanboyism has reached alarming levels, with many factions almost at war with each other as if important ethical issues were at stake every time a Superman story is released, and what's worse - sometimes editors or DC executives listen to them, thus causing change after change in direction. Sometimes I think that DC is just trying to make everyone happy, but what they get is just making the character insignificant by not giving him any clear direction at all. Rather than constantly course-correcting comics or movies, a better option would be just starting over from scratch, but this time with a real, detailed plan.

Also, to put it simply, most of the material we got from Superman (in comics and other media) in the latest 30 years, or even before, is simply of very bad quality. The best I could say about it is that there are some very good ideas here and there, but most of of the time they never come to fruition or are simply badly executed.

[Kuwagaton]

Quality isn't a real measure though, it just exists in our heads and looks different across-the-board. Quality as a measure overlooks decades of creatively exhausted decisions for a Spider-Man or Wolverine in considering sustained popularity over Superman (conduit vs clone saga, electric Superman vs noseless Wolverine, STAS vs Spider-Man Unlimited, Adventures vs Chapter One, President Lex vs Sins Past, etc). Quality arguments ignore Batman & Robin or Iron Man 3 to talk about how Superman movies have been failing.

All I can imagine is that Waid himself was on the money in pointing to the marketing. Not that there is something "good or bad" but that there's real confusion in selling it. Like it's bizarre and unfortunate that for whatever reason they had no clue how to pull off the two books set in different times, but DC had set some pretty weird expectations of the reboot before the New 52 Superman was actually in print.

[Myskin]

Quality isn't a real measure though, it just exists in our heads and looks different across-the-board. .

Replace bad quality with uninteresting or unappealing. Even for longtime readers. I have been reading plans about Superman from different timelines merging into one since 2003 (but probably they started way earlier). What's the point of presenting AGAIN the same trite storyline? And - on a different note - why should I commit to a new storyline if I already know that at one point they will simply course-correct it, no matter how well they promote it?

As far as I am concerned, though, bad quality IS an important parameter to decide what I should read. And, personally speaking, I consider most of DC or Marvel comics simply negligible. There's simply too much better stuff out there to really care about Superman the way I did when I was 18.

[Kuwagaton]

I'm not sure there's ever any real answer to, "make me care the way I did when I was younger."

Caring about the course correction ... eh I assumed the frustration of seeing something like Superman 2000 dashed is in believing that the course correction was interesting even if it couldn't last forever.

That or the backstage drama, which is always interesting. I thought the line about barring popular creators while allegedly also implying that Morrison wasn't good enough (the "family car" thing) was weird, and maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places but the closest I've seen it looks like a "juicy" distortion of what Mark Waid said in Voices from Krypton.

[Flash Gordon]

I mean, nothing lasts forever but quality stories are quality stories. Better to have a few GREAT stories, over 100s of lesser.

[Myskin]

I mean, nothing lasts forever but quality stories are quality stories. Better to have a few GREAT stories, over 100s of lesser.

I agree. And I'd like to add something more, even if it may concern only my personal experience. I read more or less everything I can afford or come into my hands and IMHO once you have enough experience you come to enjoy good stuff - that is, quality stuff - no matter when, where or for what target it was created. Even when you understand that something is clearly not aimed at you, if you keep an open mind there are always things you can enjoy, or even just recognize that quality is there even if it isn't for your personal tastes. Even when some details are dated. And - on a scale of 1 to 100 - superhero comic books in the latest 30 years are in a very low position. Not all of them and personally speaking I still find many of the classics which came before noteworthy (it's hard not to be amazed at Kirby's works). But if I had to find the best comparison for Superman comics, well, let's say that if they were a meal they would be some greasy, moldy, tasteless and partially chewed hamburgers from a very cheap and not particularly clean fast food which advertised them as the tastiest and most yummylicious snack ever. If you are really, really hungry and you don't know that there are other types of food you can eat them and even enjoy them. But it's hard to get back to shitty hamburgers after having eaten them for many years, especially when you know that there are different meals out there.

[Flash Gordon]

I agree. And I'd like to add something more, even if it may concern only my personal experience. I read more or less everything I can afford or come into my hands and IMHO once you have enough experience you come to enjoy good stuff - that is, quality stuff - no matter when, where or for what target it was created. Even when you understand that something is clearly not aimed at you, if you keep an open mind there are always things you can enjoy, or even just recognize that quality is there even if it isn't for your personal tastes. Even when some details are dated. And - on a scale of 1 to 100 - superhero comic books in the latest 30 years are in a very low position. Not all of them and personally speaking I still find many of the classics which came before noteworthy (it's hard not to be amazed at Kirby's works). But if I had to find the best comparison for Superman comics, well, let's say that if they were a meal they would be some greasy, moldy, tasteless and partially chewed hamburgers from a very cheap and not particularly clean fast food which advertised them as the tastiest and most yummylicious snack ever. If you are really, really hungry and you don't know that there are other types of food you can eat them and even enjoy them. But it's hard to get back to shitty hamburgers after having eaten them for many years, especially when you know that there are different meals out there.

Well said, man!

I don't read much a whole lot of superhero stuff, but I have read a lot of material. I'm a fan of comic books as an art form, so anything within that jurisdiction and superheroes are a large part. Quality is 100% determinable, even if it's a piece you're not turned on by. You can recognize that something is well crafted and finely tuned without it being to your personal tastes. We also live in a time where there's SO MUCH quality on the shelves, from dozens of publishers with dozens of perspectives and aesthetics. You can find anything you're looking for, so honestly the game needs to be stepped up.

It's hard to not notice that the fandom is holding Superman back. He's a character that is very specific and yet there's fans divided on almost every issue related to him. A lot of this comes down to being a fan, I think. Being just happy to get anything, which that's fine if you're actually enjoying it- but I don't see people actually enjoying it. I see a character with no real footing in a modern world, yet so many rich fantasy ideas bubbling beneath his surface waiting to be mined.

Matt Fraction's SUPERMAN'S PAL, JIMMY OLSEN was pretty classic and yet really made Superman's world pop and feel modern and exciting. It had Fraction's indie sensibilities and great art. Strong authorial voice and a wicked aesthetic. Sure, not every book can be that but we should have more than 1 every other decade right?

[manwhohaseverything]

Since, we are talking about abandoned ideas and overhauled ideas with superman. How come no one wants to see this story being retold?i mean, people like nietzschean leanings of batman. So, this guy would seem interesting in a modern setting. Don't you think?

See, maybe nietzsche does rub off on me. That's why i find current superman particularly complacent and has a lack of ambition. Even then, i don't particularly get attracted towards batman. Yet, guts from berserk is one of my favourite "heroes".