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?