Have the last 20 years been a waste?

[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.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

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.



Thanks.

I don't think they need to dwell on any of the craziness of his history, they should just acknowledge that he knows that his life gets messed with on a regular basis and proceed with whatever story they want to tell using whatever history works best for the current Superman.

Focus on the story and give the readers a compelling character that is vital and modern, but don't build walls around what creators can and can't do with Superman's history because of some momentary continuity conflict. Trying to reconcile 80+ years of history is a fool's game, but trying to deny that large chunks of that history never happened doesn't seem like a great way forward either.

[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.

[Frontier]

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. "

I don't make a distinction between the two. Both ultimately come down to Superman trying to help people.

[Myskin]

I don't think they need to dwell on any of the craziness of his history, they should just acknowledge that he knows that his life gets messed with on a regular basis and proceed with whatever story they want to tell using whatever history works best for the current Superman.

Focus on the story and give the readers a compelling character that is vital and modern, but don't build walls around what creators can and can't do with Superman's history because of some momentary continuity conflict. Trying to reconcile 80+ years of history is a fool's game, but trying to deny that large chunks of that history never happened doesn't seem like a great way forward either.

The fact that Superman has had an extremely long and rich history is literally the one thing all of the runs since the Dominus effect have had in common. It's absolutely, definitely, crystal clear. There is no run which has not included at least one homage to some past Superman adventure. No writer has ever really denied that.

The point is not trying to reconcile the entirety of Superman's history. The point is that the writers and the editors' focus should be trying to find a way to make Superman work story-wise and character-wise even if it means leaving some chunks of his past stories aside. Recognizing that Superman has a crazy life which sometimes gets messed by some supernatural force (an idea which already sounded old when they published Superman 200, an issue focused on three conflicting continuities) doesn't mean anything if the character keeps being uninteresting or not easily relatable, or if Krypton keeps looking like a generic and not particularly good sci-fi movie of the 1930s. Again, they should find a way to make Superman work even if it means not making all readers happy.

[Frontier]

I mean, even after Reborn we don't have a firm origin (Is it Secret Origin? New 52? Some amalgamation of the two?) and it doesn't seem to have impeded the stories much.

[manwhohaseverything]

I don't make a distinction between the two. Both ultimately come down to Superman trying to help people.

Really? One is a man of the people. The other is a guy that works with system and sometimes for it. Which sometimes takes the guy away from The common folks. If that older woman felt like she was talking to someone like her that can help. There would be no hesitancy. Because superman is associated with an authority. She feels distant.It's like this, superman is essentially bruce wayne in the second pic. Rich person you see on tv. In the first one, he ain't. He wears tshirt and jeans like you. One can be beaten bloody and still stand up. The other is a flying god with titanium skin. One is naive dude who can't understand why people bet on wrong things.The other is an idealist standing with something he believes is right. Moreover, i doubt the boyscout characterisation would allow for him to do this and break the law.yeah! One is a criminal (assault on police officers). The other ain't.

[Myskin]

I mean, even after Reborn we don't have a firm origin (Is it Secret Origin? New 52? Some amalgamation of the two?) and it doesn't seem to have impeded the stories much.

That's mostly because the stories which took place after Rebirth were almost focused on a different character. Very few, classic, recognizable elements of Superman stories were there. Hamilton County and Jon Kent were interesting enough for many readers to divert their attention from the usual Superman problems and the contradictions the new continuity implied. Once the stories became about Metropolis again and old members of the cast like the Kents or Conner returned the entire structure started creaking again. It didn't help that there were elements of time travel and retcon at play, with Jor-El and Rogol Zaar.

[Frontier]

Really? One is a man of the people. The other is a guy that works with system and sometimes for it. Which sometimes takes the guy away from The common folks. If that older woman felt like she was talking to someone like her that can help. There would be no hesitancy. Because superman is associated with an authority. She feels distant.It's like this, superman is essentially bruce wayne in the second pic. Rich person you see on tv. In the first one, he ain't. He wears tshirt and jeans like you. One can be beaten bloody and still stand up. The other is a flying god with titanium skin. One is naive dude who can't understand why people bet on wrong things.The other is an idealist standing with something he believes is right. Moreover, i doubt the boyscout characterisation would allow for him to do this and break the law.yeah! One is a criminal (assault on police officers). The other ain't.

Again, I don't see a difference. He's trying to help people in any way he can. Superman doesn't look like Bruce Wayne, he looks like a Superhero.

If Superman saw police abusing their power, he'd step in whether he was wearing a costume or a t-shirt and jeans. They're the criminals, not him.

That's mostly because the stories which took place after Rebirth were almost focused on a different character. Very few, classic, recognizable elements of Superman stories were there. Hamilton County and Jon Kent were interesting enough for many readers to divert their attention from the usual Superman problems and the contradictions the new continuity implied. Once the stories became about Metropolis again and old members of the cast like the Kents or Conner returned the entire structure started creaking again. It didn't help that there were elements of time travel and retcon at play, with Jor-El and Rogol Zaar.

I mean, I don't really see it.

As much as an issue it is with Bendis, continuity problems haven't dogged his Superman run much and he's been more centered around Metropolis or the traditional supporting cast and they haven't really focused on the origin much. It's his status quo changes that have seemed more controversial.

Really, as long as you have the core tenets of the Superman origin in mind, I think you're pretty much free to go from there for the most part and just work with what you want to work with when it comes to modern Superman continuity.

[manofsteel1979]

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.

This. At this point unless DC is willing to reset the entire universe Superman is in and everything around him or just separate Superman from the rest of the DCU and put him in his own pocket universe,there's no way to "streamline " Superman successfully. We know DC is never going to reset Batman completely back to square one ,and there is never going to be a DC universe where there isn't a Superman in it,so another back to square one reboot isn't going to ever take. Maybe the most you can do is resolve as many ongoing dangling plots as possible and then have a common status quo branching off from a specific restart point, but telling Superman's origin AGAIN, having him meet Lois,Jimmy and Perry for the first time AGAIN ,etc...I don't think anyone wants or needs that. Instead of running from the craziness...embrace it. Past creative teams over the last decade or so have gotten very close to doing just that but for whatever reason they never go all the way there.

To the OP's question....has it all been wasted time?

No. I don't think so. There have been periods where its felt rudderless and pointless, but even during the low periods there have been good issues and runs to be found. Even during my least favorite era ,the New 52, we got a fairly great run of Action Comics,first under Grant Morrison and then eventually Greg Pak.

For all the **** we've gotten,we also got stuff like the Loeb/Kelly run, the criminally underrated Joe Casey and Deric Aucoin Adventures of Superman run, the all too brief Geoff John's and Kurt Busiek runs , All star Superman,the aforementioned Mortison and Pak ACTION era, the rebirth
SUPERMAN title with Tomasi and Gleeson. Heck,even much of what Bendis has done I think has been pretty decent. I would have liked to have been able to site more than that, but for me at least,looking back,I'm still glad we got the good stuff and for those stories alone I don't think it's all been a waste.

What will be interesting is seeing how DIDio finally gone from the company affects Superman. Superman's troubles sort of began before DiDio took over,but those issues seem accelerated after his tenure began. With Bendis run seemingly heading to some kind of conclusion or change in the next 6 months to a year, itll be interesting what happens next. It looked like we were about to get a Superman status quo where an aged up Jon was going to inherit the mantle with Clark/Kal either gone from the picture entirely or in a new larger intergalactic role,but I wonder if that is indeed going forward to a certain degree or just not happening.

[Myskin]

As much as an issue it is with Bendis, continuity problems haven't dogged his Superman run much and he's been more centered around Metropolis or the traditional supporting cast and they haven't really focused on the origin much. It's his status quo changes that have seemed more controversial.

Really, as long as you have the core tenets of the Superman origin in mind, I think you're pretty much free to go from there for the most part and just work with what you want to work with when it comes to modern Superman continuity.

The problem is not the origin. Or, to put it better, it is not only the origin.
What Bendis was trying to do - and by the way, as a writer I generally consider Bendis above the average - was focusing on some major details of Superman's origin without openly retelling it. He basically took the extremely generic postRebirth Krypton and tried to give it a new meaning by retconning it and transforming Superman's origin in a conspiracy political thriller - sort of.
After a couple of years since his run started I'd say that he failed. We don't know about the Circle and Rogol Zaar much more than when they debuted. I won't investigate the reasons WHY he failed - I guess that it is a responsibility shared by Bendis, the editors and the powers that be - but right now I am pretty sure that sooner or later this retelling will be swept under the rug as it has already happened with so many previous origins.
The point is - what Bendis was trying to do was right or at least unavoidable. No matter what kind of stories you are trying to tell, Krypton is such a huge part of Superman stories that sooner or later you MUST focus on it and try to give it a specific direction or meaning.
And the same could be said with other elements. To a degree, I'd say that Bendis was simply not allowed to touch certain elements (Luthor is busy with the Legion of Doom and is basically absent from Bendis stories, except when he attacks Metropolis for... Reasons... I guess). Other points, like the Kents, seem - and probably are - out of place or even forced by Doomsday Clock. Others, like Jon Kent, are simply absent (as I was saying in another thread, no one has succeeded in making Jon work in Superman's most recognizable environment, that is Metropolis, yet). For other details, like Metropolis, there were plans which Bendis never really developed. I'd say that there are still some interesting elements because Bendis is a good writer and he knows how to keep your attention alive, but his entire run looks like a temporary placeholder before a hard reboot (which maybe will come after Death Metal).

[JAK]

Stopping flamewars shouldn't be a reasoning for story telling.

We're not talking about storytelling, other than setup for storytelling - we're talking about a constructed origin that includes as much as possible as a back-story to make things more unified moving forward. To bridge rifts caused by the company as much as possible.

My mentioning flamewars was to demonstrate how strong the rift was back then - just looking at that on the surface level isn't really looking at it. Though - again - without the context, it would be hard to see that.

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.

In some ways, that's what the metaverse was all about. It's not a terrible idea, either - but I do still think some things can be blended to make a semi-cohesive whole to move forward from, even within the framework of what you're talking about.

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.

DC has a hard time making "pick one" stick. Post-Crisis worked for a good while, but that was the first major time they did so fully - everything else was a direction change and a soft reboot (or an "after the fact" split ala Golden and Silver Age). Every time they've tried to do it since, they haven't stuck the landing or they got cold feet and didn't fully follow through. However, I do think that a carefully-thought-out "little bit of everything" could be more workable. But they have to put the kind of thought into it that went into "52" (not New 52) and make a concerted effort to stay there for awhile.

[Frontier]

The problem is not the origin. Or, to put it better, it is not only the origin.
What Bendis was trying to do - and by the way, as a writer I generally consider Bendis above the average - was focusing on some major details of Superman's origin without openly retelling it. He basically took the extremely generic postRebirth Krypton and tried to give it a new meaning by retconning it and transforming Superman's origin in a conspiracy political thriller - sort of.
After a couple of years since his run started I'd say that he failed. We don't know about the Circle and Rogol Zaar much more than when they debuted. I won't investigate the reasons WHY he failed - I guess that it is a responsibility shared by Bendis, the editors and the powers that be - but right now I am pretty sure that sooner or later this retelling will be swept under the rug as it has already happened with so many previous origins.
The point is - what Bendis was trying to do was right or at least unavoidable. No matter what kind of stories you are trying to tell, Krypton is such a huge part of Superman stories that sooner or later you MUST focus on it and try to give it a specific direction or meaning.
And the same could be said with other elements. To a degree, I'd say that Bendis was simply not allowed to touch certain elements (Luthor is busy with the Legion of Doom and is basically absent from Bendis stories, except when he attacks Metropolis for... Reasons... I guess). Other points, like the Kents, seem - and probably are - out of place or even forced by Doomsday Clock. Others, like Jon Kent, are simply absent (as I was saying in another thread, no one has succeeded in making Jon work in Superman's most recognizable environment, that is Metropolis, yet). For other details, like Metropolis, there were plans which Bendis never really developed. I'd say that there are still some interesting elements because Bendis is a good writer and he knows how to keep your attention alive, but his entire run looks like a temporary placeholder before a hard reboot (which maybe will come after Death Metal).

I'd mostly put the fault on Bendis. He can have really strong ideas but completely fumble the execution. This was a major issue with him during his later years at Marvel.

I don't really see why the need to have to address Krypton necessarily is a testament to origin issues or the need for something concrete but just how writing these kind of IP's work. It's no different than King on Batman.