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.

[The World]

No. I'm cynical over all on the direction Superman has been heading since the late 80's but there's no way to look at the last 20 years or so and say that they've been a waste. I'm hard leaning in my preference to the Pre-Crisis days but from the 80's forward Superman has produced at least a few titles that end up being regarded as seminal or legendary. There's a couple in my closet that I revisit from time to time. Even in the past few years produced Yang's Smashes the Clan and New-Superman/JLC which were superb to me. Miller's Year One was pretty good for a more grounded take until it kind of went sideways at the end. Though the in continuity vs out of continuity stuff seems to matter less and less to me as the years go on I suppose. If someone had a solid idea and it made it to press then it's not a wasted effort in my eyes. Honestly I haven't been really concerned about the quality of main continuity Superman since late 2013 or so.

I agree with the notion of setting Superman back to where he was around '98 and just leaving him there as a character more or less. Imo there a very clear disharmony in the character at the fault line between Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis though. I think the true blue difference between Batman and Superman is that Batman's fans are intimately aware of the characters inner working which have been supported by the careful reinforcement of the characters core elements by the writers who themselves are fans of the original works and try to maintain a sense of harmony within character even if the surrounding minutiae is muddled. Meanwhile Superman has gone in the opposite direction with writers obsessing over tertiary concepts while the beating heart of the character kind of snuffed out. While you had Snyder once again hitting those beats of the RedHood->Joker connection and revisiting the well worn early days of Batman in the N52, but with Superman you the fanbase struggling with accepting that Superman's creators had a very different idea of what Superman was and declaring it "not getting Superman" or "trying to make Superman kewl" or "edgy" or whatever.

There's has always been that strange tension between Post-Crisis Superman and Pre-Crisis Superman though Infinite Crisis brings Kal-L back as a villain for current day Supes to clash with physically and ideologically and Joe Casey had the Spirit of Justice. Funnily enough Doomsday clock I believe tries to both pass off Rebirth Superman as the whole of the entirety of Superman's publication history but also acknowledges that he doesn't do this effectively and says there a world out there that has the Superman that predates Post-Crisis Superman on it. Post-Crisis Superman is never going to be Pre-Crisis Superman and frankly he shouldn't have to. If you want more stories staring Silver Age or Golden Age Superman then just use that big ol' multiverse you've got and write more stories about them (without watering them down) and let Post-Crisis Superman be what he was created to be.

[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. "

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I am of the mind that Superman should embrace all the reboots and revamps and timey-whimeyness of his life and stop trying to pretend that his life is normal. It's not normal and it never will be normal. He's &*%@ing Superman.

Of course his history will have been rewritten again and again by giant cosmic whomevers and his loved ones will be dragged along with all this craziness, sometimes for good and sometimes for ill. Of course he's been split into two parts and smooshed back together over and over, just as he's been turned evil, made fat, transformed into a monkey, and whatever else you can imagine. Again, he's Superman. His life is crazy.

I don't think you can treat the lifestory of a guy like Superman the way you can Batman, who is grounded in something more reality based like a street robbery gone bad. Superman is based on nonsensical sci-fi concepts, sun gods, 5th dimensional imps, and 1930s politics. Lean into the crazy, don't run.

In other words, it's not a bug, it's a feature.

[manwhohaseverything]

Stopping flamewars shouldn't be a reasoning for story telling. The reason superman got rebooted was because of major issues.as long as Those issues remain so they will keep throwing darts at the wall.They will keep trying to make it a puzzle instead of a story.
1)fan and writer complaints(precrisis) about too powerful, too boring, unrelatable.. Etc. (which was caused by two outside forces.competition with Shazam and comics code)
2)not only does those compliants still exist. But, also a new one is added on top. Superman is lame and uncool.(i don't believe it's because of the trunks either. It's the character's general attitude. You can't propaganda or forcing the "hope" narrative it away)

[Myskin]

I am of the mind that Superman should embrace all the reboots and revamps and timey-whimeyness of his life and stop trying to pretend that his life is normal. It's not normal and it never will be normal. He's &*%@ing Superman.

Of course his history will have been rewritten again and again by giant cosmic whomevers and his loved ones will be dragged along with all this craziness, sometimes for good and sometimes for ill. Of course he's been split into two parts and smooshed back together over and over, just as he's been turned evil, made fat, transformed into a monkey, and whatever else you can imagine. Again, he's Superman. His life is crazy.

OK, but at one point what really counts is that the character must be in some measure relatable/understandable on a human level. There is a recurring idea among the readers and - I guess - among the writers as well: at the end of the next reboot/reset/crisis, Superman will recall of all his past incarnations. IMHO that's something which may even happen at the end of Death Metal.

Let's imagine them taking this specific direction. How and in what measure does Superman benefit from such a choice? IMHO this is very similar to the "merged Krypton" concept or the "Superman is the center of the metaverse" concept. That is, something very flattering for the fans who would feel reassured that all of the comic books they have bought still "count", but ultimately useless character-wise. If they want to create a character - someone relatable on a human level - it would make a huge difference if he remembered Pa Kent indirectly killed by Brainiac, his parents dead in a car accident while he was at a prom or his parents alive. And how would he be relatable if he remembered ALL of these things at the same time?

Having all of the pasts "canon" at the same time is NOT a choice. I'd say that it is rather the absence of a choice. At one point, writers HAVE to decide the "one" past that is canon. Or they can simply ignore major details of character's life, that is something they are currently doing now and they have already done in the past (had New52 Superman ever met Doomsday?), basically disappointing everyone.

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!

Thanks.