Have the last 20 years been a waste?

[superduperman]

So the "Superman 2000" proposal got me thinking about something. For the last 20 years, DC has spent most of it's time trying to "fix" Superman instead of just telling stories. Whether or not it's hard reboots (Birthright, New 52, SO) or just changes to the status quo (Jon, Return to Krypton, Rebirth) so much of the last two decades have been about trying to find some sort of statue quo that fans like and will work. For half of the last two decades, most people didn't even know what his origin was. Even today we're not entirely sure. Most of the best Superman stories have been stuff outside continuity (Superman Smashes the Klan, All Star, Superman: Man and Superman). Or part of other media (Smallville: Season 11). But the mainstream books have been a mess whose history nobody knows. For most of that time DC has been run by a man who thinks all heroes should be under 25 and wanted to get rid of the first Robin and didn't believe anything should ever change. Including undoing all marriages.

DC revolves around Batman. This is a creative choice on their end but one could argue that it's also the "safe" choice. Batman has a much more stable history. Even before COIE. The Superman offices in particular had management problems including someone who was put there just to keep him from sexually harassing women. On another thread I jokingly/not jokingly suggested that DC go back to 1999 and just pretend that nothing ever happened after that. At least for Superman that doesn't sound like the worst idea. So have the last 20 years been a complete waste? And if so, what would you propose as the solution?

[Rod G]

After 2000, the Superman titles and the DCU in general were a mess.


2011 DC saw an opportunity to revive the DCU as something viable.

Trouble was, the fan base wasn’t willing to set aside previous continuity. The result?
Rebirth followed by Doomsday Clock which made things more of a mess than before.

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

I for one have learned to appreciate seeing different takes on the character. Though ideally I’d have Superman continuity be more stable like Batman and Green Lantern.

[JAK]

After 2000, the Superman titles and the DCU in general were a mess.


2011 DC saw an opportunity to revive the DCU as something viable.

Trouble was, the fan base wasn’t willing to set aside previous continuity. The result?
Rebirth followed by Doomsday Clock which made things more of a mess than before.

I think putting that on the fans is a mistake. DC botched the rollout, by and large, and severely botched the PR leading up to the rollout.

In 2011, I was actually thinking a reboot was a good idea. It's DC that pissed all over themselves and made me hate it before it even showed up.

Rebirth/Reborn at least set out to "try" to mend continuities together as had been done with Batman for a long time. SO might not be the favorite origin, but as a basic framework it's stable.


To the original post, I'd say (by and large) yes. But, moving forward, we have to solidly establish what the "new normal" is and then play from there - letting everyone know that it's the new normal so that when changes happen, they know that it's story. Because in stories, the "normal" status quo shifts for a time, then (usually) goes back. That's fine. But there's been so much shake-up, nobody knows what that is anymore.

You can't play from a baseline if said baseline hasn't been around long enough for people to know what it is.

[Jon Clark]

The "Superman 2000" proposal was itself an attempt to reset the character back closer to his 1985 status quo (albeit possibly including the marriage). So that makes it sound like closer to 35 years being wasted... everything since Crisis. And that seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Probably better to say that we had more misses than hits in the last 25 years. I think Death/Return was the last Super-event that really stuck. From that point forward they set up status quos and then backtracked. A drawn-out period of shifting powers leading to Millenium Giants. Let's make Metropolis futuristic ... nah forget that. Let's restore the Silver Age Krypton... just kidding. Infinite Crisis. Busiek redefines the character, but no one follows up on this. John's takes forever on a single story arc creating the illusion Chris Kent is a new Superboy. New Krypton. Walk Across America. Morrison hits it out of the park, but no one else is on the field. New-52. Old-52. Bendis.

Every one of the above could have been great. You can argue for your favorite or point to a spectacular story that rose up in the midst of surrounding dreck. The problem was a lack of leadership and direction. You either got a dozen scattershot ideas going in different directions with no followup and coordination or you got things like New Krypton where the story just kept going under its own momentum long after it should have been stopped.

[manwhohaseverything]

The "Superman 2000" proposal was itself an attempt to reset the character back closer to his 1985 status quo (albeit possibly including the marriage). So that makes it sound like closer to 35 years being wasted... everything since Crisis. And that seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Probably better to say that we had more misses than hits in the last 25 years. I think Death/Return was the last Super-event that really stuck. From that point forward they set up status quos and then backtracked. A drawn-out period of shifting powers leading to Millenium Giants. Let's make Metropolis futuristic ... nah forget that. Let's restore the Silver Age Krypton... just kidding. Infinite Crisis. Busiek redefines the character, but no one follows up on this. John's takes forever on a single story arc creating the illusion Chris Kent is a new Superboy. New Krypton. Walk Across America. Morrison hits it out of the park, but no one else is on the field. New-52. Old-52. Bendis.

Every one of the above could have been great. You can argue for your favorite or point to a spectacular story that rose up in the midst of surrounding dreck. The problem was a lack of leadership and direction. You either got a dozen scattershot ideas going in different directions with no followup and coordination or you got things like New Krypton where the story just kept going under its own momentum long after it should have been stopped.

Sheesh! The change of directions is whiplash inducing. They are constantly throwing darts at the wall. What a nonsensical way of storytelling.

[manwhohaseverything]

Not really, i love jon and i loved new52 superman for the most part.
tshirt superman
jon kent breaking rules

Rebirth/Reborn at least set out to "try" to mend continuities together as had been done with Batman for a long time. SO might not be the favorite origin, but as a basic framework it's stable.

Not really, it rewrote/erased new52. It made superman go back to having the saviour "dad" of metropolis interpretation,with the kid they tried to justify that. But, as soon as the kid left superman became unappealing for me.And as for so, its the worst origin story. Even american alien does do a better job with anything postcrisis-ish.
There is a fair amount of difference between superman the vigilante fighting a corrupt system and superman taking selfies with it.


Bridging this gap would be hard. There is a huge tonal difference.
"one of us"
"you are friends with the police. I can't tell you. "

[JAK]

Not really, it rewrote/erased new52. It made superman go back to having the saviour "dad" of metropolis interpretation,with the kid they tried to justify that. But, as soon as the kid left superman became unappealing for me.And as for so, its the worst origin story. Even american alien does do a better job with anything postcrisis-ish.
There is a fair amount of difference between superman the vigilante fighting a corrupt system and superman taking selfies with it.

Bridging this gap would be hard. There is a huge tonal difference.
"one of us"
"you are friends with the police. I can't tell you. "

When you're talking about condensing 80 years of a character into several years of fuzzy continuity, a version that lasted 5-ish of those isn't going to have all the sway. It shouldn't. Pre-Crisis/Bronze Age got a decent due, Post-Crisis got a chunk (partly because it had been the most stable) and then Superman is in his New52 costume when he sees the note from Lois about Jon.

But it kept his parents dying in the crash, the costume being in-continuity, and several of the villains (at least before Doomsday Clock, I'm just talking about Reborn here). Expecting more than that would be unrealistic in the best of circumstances.

SO isn't the most fun origin, but it does a half-way decent job of squishing all the various versions of continuity (Pre/Post-Crisis) together to make one as-cohesive-as-could-be-expected whole. American Alien absolutely does not do that in any way, shape, or form.

Of course bridging that gap is hard - no one with any sense would say it could ever blend perfectly. But Batman's doesn't really fit when you examine it closely, either - it's the idea that it almost could that gives it a more solid footing that all the reboots Superman got.

[Myskin]

Isn't this the same thread as the one about the Superman 2000 proposal?

Anyway, I'd go with a yes and I'd say that the Death of Superman was probably the beginning of the decline. I am not a fan of the Jurgens era (especially in terms of characterization), but it is impossible to deny that in that period the character had a specific, recognizable identity which had organically grown from what Byrne had planted 6-7 years before. On the one hand, I consider that period so deeply rooted in the 90s (in terms of visuals, villains, etc.: it's basically TMNT Superman) that today I find it irreparably dated. On the other hand, the approach to sci-fi that characterized the Jurgens era (clones, cold Krypton, Metallo and Cyborg Superman merging with machines in pure T-1000 style) is bizarrely more modern than almost everything which came later, including New52.

The point is not that everything after the 90s was trash. Some standalone works are excellent (All-Star obviously, but also For All Seasons etc.) and there isn't a single era which didn't introduce at least one good idea. Cyberpunk Metropolis could be one of my favorite concepts ever, but also Busiek and Pacheco's first issues are interesting, as well as New52 Superman (even if I consider it a very minor work in Morrison's career), Pak and Kuder etc. The problem is none of those works really "counts" or was properly developed. There are seeds of good ideas, but not a single storyline which wasn't disappointing or completely discarded after some months, or course-corrected. After a while it became so frustrating that you felt you were wasting your time.

There isn't a single culprit for this situation. Editors have a responsibility, obviously, but also writers and - to a degree - the fandom. However, if I had to find a common denominator for what's wrong with Superman in the latest decades I'd say that at one point (probably in the final years of the Jurgens era, with Dominus effect or even earlier, Red/Blue Superman) they simply stopped writing Superman stories and started bizarre, invisible dialogues with the readers ABOUT Superman which were thinly disguised as Superman stories. In some cases they started asking questions about Superman and the sense of his mission in contemporary times and in comparison to the general superhero trends (the Elite story - which is mostly excellent, don't get me wrong - or Grounded). In other cases, they spent most of their time "discussing" what the best Superman era was (Dominus effect, Infinite crisis, Convergence etc.) or wondering what a past era of Superman would look like if he was created today. Or what a classic imaginary stories idea (which sounds bizarrely fanfiction-ish) like Superman and Wonder Woman as a couple or - to a degree - the Son of Superman concept would be like in regular continuity.

Say what you will about Byrne and his era is not without problems, but when you read his run you never get the overwhelming impression that he's writing an essay about Superman. Byrne told stories. His era is completely different from what had come before, but he's never openly saying "See? SEE? This is not your Dad's Superman! Do you remember when there were like 1000000 Kryptonians? Well, no more - today Superman REALLY is the last son of Krypton!". His Superman stories are very organically grown from the seeds he planted. Even the issues which most closely remind you of the past (the Pocket universe, for example) are not just metafictional homages.

As far as I am concerned one of the worst consequences of this very long and problematic debate is the "merging" trend (and the recurring use of the multiverse as a plot device). At one point - I think that it started during the Loeb/Kelly era with Return to Krypton - they started suggesting that instead of choosing between classic Superman and modern Superman you could get a combination of the two. This approach is very fan-appeasing because every reader could get at least one fragment of something they had liked in the past, and to a degree I found it an acceptable compromise; however, as years went by I came to hate it.

In the New Krypton saga Kandor is crowded with Kryptonians from all different eras. You get Kryptonians in Byrne-like robes, Kryptonians wearing Silver Age headbands, etc. So, is everybody happy? Well... Not really. The Kryptonian robes in Byrne had a very specific function, which was intrinsically tied to that distinctive version of Krypton and what characterized it: sterility, solemnity, inhumanity etc. In New Krypton, though, that robe is just an aesthetic detail with no real meaning. And the same could be said with most of those references in New Kandor or - more recently - the postRebirth era. Or Clark Kent's 1970s style in Secret Origins, etc.... By reprising classic elements, as a matter of fact they emptied them.

There is another consequence: most of what you read in Superman stories today sounds and looks old even when it has been written by modern writers. I find it incredible that we still deal with armors in pure 1990s style, Jor-El's Saturn symbol and miniaturizing rays when out there you have writers like Greg Egan and Ted Chiang with a completely different and way more modern vision of sci-fi. Blade Runner was made in 1982 and it is more modern than contemporary Superman stories. Heck, Frank Herbert's Dune is more modern and it was written in 1965! And many comic books - I am thinking of Jonathan Hickman's Image works or even some classic Métal Hurlant comics - sound and look more modern than Superman.

By the way, if they had wanted to create a pulp-ish book with a modern sensibilities they could have done it without being so old-style. Sometimes I think that best Superman compromise we could have gotten out of the Jurgens era would be very similar to Larsen's Savage Dragon, which is shamelessly 90s in style but still very thought-provoking and self-deprecating, with a very modern sensibility and a blue-collar (kind of) hero. Or - even better - they could revamp it without trying for the umpteenth time to revive its glorious past. But I don't see any modern revamp coming and the rumors about Waid re-reading every single past Superman issues (maybe for a future reboot?) are not reassuring. And the "everything counts" thing they have been talking about so much in the latest times is not as promising as it appears.

[JAK]

Say what you will about Byrne and his era is not without problems, but when you read his run you never get the overwhelming impression that he's writing an essay about Superman. Byrne told stories. His era is completely different from what had come before, but he's never openly saying "See? SEE? This is not your Dad's Superman! Do you remember when there were like 1000000 Kryptonians? Well, no more - today Superman REALLY is the last son of Krypton!". His Superman stories are very organically grown from the seeds he planted. Even the issues which most closely remind you of the past (the Pocket universe, for example) are not just metafictional homages.

As far as I am concerned one of the worst consequences of this very long and problematic debate is the "merging" trend (and the recurring use of the multiverse as a plot device). At one point - I think that it started during the Loeb/Kelly era with Return to Krypton - they started suggesting that instead of choosing between classic Superman and modern Superman you could get a combination of the two. This approach is very fan-appeasing because every reader could get at least one fragment of something they had liked in the past, and to a degree I found it an acceptable compromise; however, as years went by I came to hate it.

In the New Krypton saga Kandor is crowded with Kryptonians from all different eras. You get Kryptonians in Byrne-like robes, Kryptonians wearing Silver Age headbands, etc. So, is everybody happy? Well... Not really. The Kryptonian robes in Byrne had a very specific function, which was intrinsically tied to that distinctive version of Krypton and what characterized it: sterility, solemnity, inhumanity etc. In New Krypton, though, that robe is just an aesthetic detail with no real meaning. And the same could be said with most of those references in New Kandor or - more recently - the postRebirth era. Or Clark Kent's 1970s style in Secret Origins, etc.... By reprising classic elements, as a matter of fact they emptied them.

Wow... this idea of "essays on Superman posing as stories" really hits the nail on the head in many respects, and is a perspective I've known intrinsically but never fully put together mentally. You're exactly right!

I still think that merging, to a degree, isn't a bad thing - in and of itself. But if it's not done with care and meaning, you get exactly the kinds of things you're mentioning - all form and no substance.

Parents are back. They were always meant to be. There is that. But, i don't see a shred of new52 superman in the current one with or without bendis. I don't have a problem with it.Saying those two are the same is watering down both.Regardless, i refuse to acknowledge that ma and pa would be a ok with vigilante superman of the goldenage. There should be fair bit of tension in that relationship as soon as clark decides on being an outlaw.

It was there, just not what you're specifically after. Reborn has been overridden at this point (Doomsday Clock, etc), but what was there at the time was, imo, a workable way forward. But if you weren't there/here/etc when the main Pre-Crisis vs Post-Crisis flame wars were strong (decades ago, now - back when I was a moderator here, briefly), you wouldn't have the full context needed to understand why some kind of attempt at a solution would seem preferable to no solution at all. As patchwork as it would have to be in any scenario, it's better than them throwing everything out every few years - if it can be stabilized, maybe Superman can get through the next big "Crisis" more as Batman has.

[superduperman]

Isn't this the same thread as the one about the Superman 2000 proposal?

Anyway, I'd go with a yes and I'd say that the Death of Superman was probably the beginning of the decline. I am not a fan of the Jurgens era (especially in terms of characterization), but it is impossible to deny that in that period the character had a specific, recognizable identity which had organically grown from what Byrne had planted 6-7 years before. On the one hand, I consider that period so deeply rooted in the 90s (in terms of visuals, villains, etc.: it's basically TMNT Superman) that today I find it irreparably dated. On the other hand, the approach to sci-fi that characterized the Jurgens era (clones, cold Krypton, Metallo and Cyborg Superman merging with machines in pure T-1000 style) is bizarrely more modern than almost everything which came later, including New52.

The point is not that everything after the 90s was trash. Some standalone works are excellent (All-Star obviously, but also For All Seasons etc.) and there isn't a single era which didn't introduce at least one good idea. Cyberpunk Metropolis could be one of my favorite concepts ever, but also Busiek and Pacheco's first issues are interesting, as well as New52 Superman (even if I consider it a very minor work in Morrison's career), Pak and Kuder etc. The problem is none of those works really "counts" or was properly developed. There are seeds of good ideas, but not a single storyline which wasn't disappointing or completely discarded after some months, or course-corrected. After a while it became so frustrating that you felt you were wasting your time.

There isn't a single culprit for this situation. Editors have a responsibility, obviously, but also writers and - to a degree - the fandom. However, if I had to find a common denominator for what's wrong with Superman in the latest decades I'd say that at one point (probably in the final years of the Jurgens era, with Dominus effect or even earlier, Red/Blue Superman) they simply stopped writing Superman stories and started bizarre, invisible dialogues with the readers ABOUT Superman which were thinly disguised as Superman stories. In some cases they started asking questions about Superman and the sense of his mission in contemporary times and in comparison to the general superhero trends (the Elite story - which is mostly excellent, don't get me wrong - or Grounded). In other cases, they spent most of their time "discussing" what the best Superman era was (Dominus effect, Infinite crisis, Convergence etc.) or wondering what a past era of Superman would look like if he was created today. Or what a classic imaginary stories idea (which sounds bizarrely fanfiction-ish) like Superman and Wonder Woman as a couple or - to a degree - the Son of Superman concept would be like in regular continuity.

Say what you will about Byrne and his era is not without problems, but when you read his run you never get the overwhelming impression that he's writing an essay about Superman. Byrne told stories. His era is completely different from what had come before, but he's never openly saying "See? SEE? This is not your Dad's Superman! Do you remember when there were like 1000000 Kryptonians? Well, no more - today Superman REALLY is the last son of Krypton!". His Superman stories are very organically grown from the seeds he planted. Even the issues which most closely remind you of the past (the Pocket universe, for example) are not just metafictional homages.

As far as I am concerned one of the worst consequences of this very long and problematic debate is the "merging" trend (and the recurring use of the multiverse as a plot device). At one point - I think that it started during the Loeb/Kelly era with Return to Krypton - they started suggesting that instead of choosing between classic Superman and modern Superman you could get a combination of the two. This approach is very fan-appeasing because every reader could get at least one fragment of something they had liked in the past, and to a degree I found it an acceptable compromise; however, as years went by I came to hate it.

In the New Krypton saga Kandor is crowded with Kryptonians from all different eras. You get Kryptonians in Byrne-like robes, Kryptonians wearing Silver Age headbands, etc. So, is everybody happy? Well... Not really. The Kryptonian robes in Byrne had a very specific function, which was intrinsically tied to that distinctive version of Krypton and what characterized it: sterility, solemnity, inhumanity etc. In New Krypton, though, that robe is just an aesthetic detail with no real meaning. And the same could be said with most of those references in New Kandor or - more recently - the postRebirth era. Or Clark Kent's 1970s style in Secret Origins, etc.... By reprising classic elements, as a matter of fact they emptied them.

There is another consequence: most of what you read in Superman stories today sounds and looks old even when it has been written by modern writers. I find it incredible that we still deal with armors in pure 1990s style, Jor-El's Saturn symbol and miniaturizing rays when out there you have writers like Greg Egan and Ted Chiang with a completely different and way more modern vision of sci-fi. Blade Runner was made in 1982 and it is more modern than contemporary Superman stories. Heck, Frank Herbert's Dune is more modern and it was written in 1965! And many comic books - I am thinking of Jonathan Hickman's Image works or even some classic Métal Hurlant comics - sound and look more modern than Superman.

By the way, if they had wanted to create a pulp-ish book with a modern sensibilities they could have done it without being so old-style. Sometimes I think that best Superman compromise we could have gotten out of the Jurgens era would be very similar to Larsen's Savage Dragon, which is shamelessly 90s in style but still very thought-provoking and self-deprecating, with a very modern sensibility and a blue-collar (kind of) hero. Or - even better - they could revamp it without trying for the umpteenth time to revive its glorious past. But I don't see any modern revamp coming and the rumors about Waid re-reading every single past Superman issues (maybe for a future reboot?) are not reassuring. And the "everything counts" thing they have been talking about so much in the latest times is not as promising as it appears.

This is the essence of what I was trying to get at. You did a better job than I did, thank you! And I created this thread so as not to derail the other one. I find that the most "pure" version of Superman being published today are the Wal-Mart books. Ironically precisely because they don't go into a lot of detail about his history in those. They are a continuity only in the same sense that Archies is. Lois & Clark are married, the Kents are still alive, Luthor is the same evil billionaire he's been for the last 35 years. Jon is nowhere to be seen. Which is also ironic given they just got cancelled. I grew up on the Donner movies and various Superman cartoons of the eighties. For me, Superman was defined by other media outside of comics. So those shaped my perceptions more than the comics did. Perhaps that's why this "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" model is so frustrating. The only version I believe ever got the whole "combine the pre-and post-Crisis versions together" right was Smallville. It took the best elements of both and made them work. It would also be virtually impossible to do that in the comics. I agree with the whole "stories as more essays on Superman" thing. I would also note that a good chunk of the stories prior to COIE did the same thing. That's usually a sign a status quo change is in the air.

I do wonder if a hard reboot is on the horizon. But even if it is, I fear what that will look like. Will they just try the "try to make everyone happy by having a little bit of everything" again? Pre-and post-Crisis fans want opposite things. For most post-fans, a costumed Superboy is a deal breaker. For pre-Crisis fans, he's a must. I hate to say this, but DC may have to take sides on this. Like they did in the nineties. Pick one and ignore the other. Prior to the 2000s, the pre-Crisis fan base was largely ignored if not outright mocked. Even getting them to release pre-Crisis stories in trades was like pulling teeth. They didn't want to acknowledge it at all. And, to some degree, we are seeing why now. Fans have put up with these constant changes because, at least speaking for myself, we think this time around they'll finally give us the version we want. It's a "Waiting for Godot" situation. I will say the one version that I think actually succeeded at forming a version not based on anything that came before, and I know it's not very popular around here, is Earth One. He had what was perhaps the simplest origin with a clever twist. Even if most fans didn't like the "emo" Superman feel to it. It didn't rely on what came before and was deliberately trying to be it's own thing.

[manwhohaseverything]

When you're talking about condensing 80 years of a character into several years of fuzzy continuity, a version that lasted 5-ish of those isn't going to have all the sway. It shouldn't. Pre-Crisis/Bronze Age got a decent due, Post-Crisis got a chunk (partly because it had been the most stable) and then Superman is in his New52 costume when he sees the note from Lois about Jon.

But it kept his parents dying in the crash, the costume being in-continuity, and several of the villains (at least before Doomsday Clock, I'm just talking about Reborn here). Expecting more than that would be unrealistic in the best of circumstances.

SO isn't the most fun origin, but it does a half-way decent job of squishing all the various versions of continuity (Pre/Post-Crisis) together to make one as-cohesive-as-could-be-expected whole. American Alien absolutely does not do that in any way, shape, or form.

Of course bridging that gap is hard - no one with any sense would say it could ever blend perfectly. But Batman's doesn't really fit when you examine it closely, either - it's the idea that it almost could that gives it a more solid footing that all the reboots Superman got.

Parents are back. They were always meant to be. There is that. But, i don't see a shred of new52 superman in the current one with or without bendis. I don't have a problem with it.Saying those two are the same is watering down both.Regardless, i refuse to acknowledge that ma and pa would be a ok with vigilante superman of the goldenage. There should be fair bit of tension in that relationship as soon as clark decides on being an outlaw.

Squishing continuity and telling a good story is different. I hate them trying to treat superman story as a jigsaw puzzle. On top of that wierd ass stupid explanations to make it appealing for the audience like the strongman suit being kryptonIan fashion, s being symbol of hope... Etc. Not only does it make people roll their eyes. It doesn't give superman a shred of relevance.

Batman went back mostly to goldenage except for the gun usage and killings. The character didn't stick to the comics code driven characterisation mostly, except for some fun stories. Superman didn't, there is a vast girths between each Iteration of the character that cannot be bridged. Batman doesn't have that girth. Batman is a rich guy vigilante detective beating up criminals in every iteration. Superman is a guy that punches the police in one iteration and shakes hands with them in the next.
Superman went from,

1. A guy who was found by passing motorcyclist. who wore a symbol and strongman suit challenging authority structures.
   To
2. The simple guy brought up by kansas folks. who generally doesn't acknowledge anything about the system. when he does he is generally an ally of the authorities and the status quo.

One is the champion of the people. The other is a savior of the people (even if he denies it). One is knows he is a vigilante. The other one tries to play around it. One is a criminal,The other ain't . are you going to tell me these will fit together? No,it ain't gonna.One is an idealist with convictions, knows reality of his existence and the world.The other is a boyscout that works on the notions of good.


The above two symbols have vastly different intent and meaning. The first one was a creation two jewish immigrants mind in the depression era. The second one is a brand that is sold as hope. Superman has come a long way for these two be one and the same. Why should these versions have to be one?every attempt at amalgamation has created a mess Dceu, dcau, postcrisis after silverage began to seep in... Etc. It doesn't work. It takes the impact of all these different characters away.This is'nt some trivial changes like for batman. These are massive overhauls to the character.

[Soubhagya]

Not really, i love jon and i loved new52 superman for the most part.
tshirt superman
jon kent breaking rules


Not really, it rewrote/erased new52. It made superman go back to having the saviour "dad" of metropolis interpretation,with the kid they tried to justify that. But, as soon as the kid left superman became unappealing for me.And as for so, its the worst origin story. Even american alien does do a better job with anything postcrisis-ish.
There is a fair amount of difference between superman the vigilante fighting a corrupt system and superman taking selfies with it.


Bridging this gap would be hard. There is a huge tonal difference.
"one of us"
"you are friends with the police. I can't tell you. "

It shouldn't be that difficult. Maybe a love/hate relationship. Initially, he is fighting unjust systems. They look at him as an enemy. Good people can be within bad systems trying to do good. Commissioner Gordon in Batman Year One is a classic example.

As Superman's power grows and he gets into world saving adventures, the authorities could have no choice but acknowledge him. Ready to stab him in the back when there'a chance.

In this way you can show Superman do more. What if Superman's crusade is effective? Bad guys are removed and guys like Gordon take their place. Corrupt businessmen get behind bars. And people like John Henry Irons lead big businesses. Maybe only Luthor manages to keep his place.

Give time to Morrison's first arc from Action. Clark and Superman are one hell of a team. Superman is the reason Metropolis turned into a far better place then it was before. Even though it retains some of its former ugliness. Just like Batman ended organized crime in Year One. But by the time of Dark Victory a new brand of criminal has taken over. Supervillains. Organized crime still exists in Gotham. But the real problems are the Jokers and the Riddlers.

That's a proper Superman Year One.

After that you can perhaps do a Superman Incorporated. There are metahumans in other cities. He could help them do the same thing he did. Find them. Train them. Let them do the exposing bad guys.

If writers could stop thinking about doing the umpteeenth origin, they could think about what Superman does. Instead of where he comes from.

[Vordan]

“90% of anything is crap”. I know we look over at Batman and feel envious at how he’s basically had nonstop quality since the 90s, but that’s really rare. Spider-Man has had as almost of an uneven time comic book wise as Superman with the last 20 years and his fanbase is just as broken. My favorite Marvel character Hulk was crap from the end of Pak’s run pretty much all the way up to Ewing.

We’ve gotten good stuff out of Superman, or at least stuff I liked and I don’t really want to give all that back up. And what would we even be going back to? The Byrne take is as dated now as what it replaced back when it was fresh. No the only way is forward, and DC needs to stop running in a circle in regards to Superman. Right now we don’t know if Batman’s origin is Zero Year or Year One, King’s rum referenced both. Batman fans don’t care, they’re still reading Tynion’s run because guess what? It doesn’t matter. The idea that if Superman had a crystal clear perfect continuity record, he would somehow get a sales boost isn’t one that I think is actually backed up by logic. People simply want stories that entertain them, they don’t give a damn about the nitty gritty continuity, that’s what DC and members of the CBR forums as a whole really fail to understand.

[Ra-El]

“90% of anything is crap”. I know we look over at Batman and feel envious at how he’s basically had nonstop quality since the 90s, but that’s really rare. Spider-Man has had as almost of an uneven time comic book wise as Superman with the last 20 years and his fanbase is just as broken. My favorite Marvel character Hulk was crap from the end of Pak’s run pretty much all the way up to Ewing.

We’ve gotten good stuff out of Superman, or at least stuff I liked and I don’t really want to give all that back up. And what would we even be going back to? The Byrne take is as dated now as what it replaced back when it was fresh. No the only way is forward, and DC needs to stop running in a circle in regards to Superman. Right now we don’t know if Batman’s origin is Zero Year or Year One, King’s rum referenced both. Batman fans don’t care, they’re still reading Tynion’s run because guess what? It doesn’t matter. The idea that if Superman had a crystal clear perfect continuity record, he would somehow get a sales boost isn’t one that I think is actually backed up by logic. People simply want stories that entertain them, they don’t give a damn about the nitty gritty continuity, that’s what DC and members of the CBR forums as a whole really fail to understand.

Yes, the only way is forward. What Superman needs is something like Hickman did with the X-Men, someone who comes and give the books a new and interesting direction. The X-Men line wasn't in a much better place than Superman, with the last few directions disliked by most fans (I mean, NO CYCLOPS?), but Hickman came, and gave the books a clear and new direction and the fans are back now.