Have the last 20 years been a waste?

[lotchj]

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.

I don't like the truths superman!! I Hated the whole plot!! I threw all the comics from that arc away!! I hate it when they powered superman down, trying to make him another Batman! Superman can be powerful and still help the common man!! Superman doesn't need to be every ones punching bag! Some think the only way to relate to superman is to power him down!! I don't agree!! I think the boyscout superman is very relatable!!

[Soubhagya]

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.

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.

In my opinion the difference between T-shirt Superman and the usual Superman is in their aims and objectives. At least in how they start and operate.

New 52 Superman starts out not as a superhero per se. But more as a social warrior. Seeing systems as unjust where powerful exploit the weak and get away with it, he 'actively' targets that. As Clark Kent he is working to expose the truth and bring justice. As Superman he does superhero stuff as one would expect. But even as Superman he tries to expose the truth and bring bad guys to justice. He has an element of protector of the weak. He is actively working for the people. Not just save them from fires and killer robots.

The conventional Superman is slightly different. He is not actively engaging the corrupt and powerful. He saves people. Fights supervillains. Think of him like a firefighter. T-shirt Superman does the firefighting as well. But more as previously mentioned.

The usual Superman should fight against corrupt systems as well. He should get involved in more down to Earth problems. But writers tend to avoid that. Maybe because he's too powerful and they think its uninteresting. Furthermore, he is often chums with 'authority' figures. Books like Dark Knight Returns suggest that he could even work for government. Instead of going against injustice.

I love both iterations. I feel that best situation is that Superman starts out as theT-shirt jeans guy. And never gives up fighting injustice even when he is going against planetary level threats. Morrison actually kept that. Even after he got the costume, which is the signifier of him getting into conventional Superman stories, he would still wear variants of his street costume when seeking out and fighting injustice on the ground level.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

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.

I think it's all about leaving all the toys in the toybox for all creators. Why limit everyone to one version of Krypton? Let them play with all of them and let the readers figure out how it all fits.

You want green Saturn shirted Jor-El for your story? Go ahead.

You want Brando Jor-El, bearded or sans beard? Sure.

Some creator wants to do a flashback story about Neo-Victorian gimp suit Jor-El? Do it.

Want a dead Pa Kent? Superman could still remember a version of his history wherein Pa died of a heart attack, a car crash and a deadly disease from an ancient &^%$ing treasure. It doesn't matter if Pa Kent is alive or not in whatever iteration of continuity the mainline books are on.

The Multiverse is the future of all these big nerd properties. The audience is already primed. They don't have to worry about making it all consistent anymore. Superman is the perfect embodiment of that. He's not just one guy. He's multiple guys who are all Superman. They are all facets of the same hero.

If the comics lean into that, it could lead to better stories as long as you have a strong creative vision and editorial, and corporate concerns don't muck it up.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I slot jeans and T-shirt Superman into my head canon in between the death of Ma & Pa Kent and him joining the Daily Planet.

If they could relaunch the Earth One Superman, it should be done with that Superman.

[Frontier]

In my opinion the difference between T-shirt Superman and the usual Superman is in their aims and objectives. At least in how they start and operate.

New 52 Superman starts out not as a superhero per se. But more as a social warrior. Seeing systems as unjust where powerful exploit the weak and get away with it, he 'actively' targets that. As Clark Kent he is working to expose the truth and bring justice. As Superman he does superhero stuff as one would expect. But even as Superman he tries to expose the truth and bring bad guys to justice. He has an element of protector of the weak. He is actively working for the people. Not just save them from fires and killer robots.

The conventional Superman is slightly different. He is not actively engaging the corrupt and powerful. He saves people. Fights supervillains. Think of him like a firefighter. T-shirt Superman does the firefighting as well. But more as previously mentioned.

The usual Superman should fight against corrupt systems as well. He should get involved in more down to Earth problems. But writers tend to avoid that. Maybe because he's too powerful and they think its uninteresting. Furthermore, he is often chums with 'authority' figures. Books like Dark Knight Returns suggest that he could even work for government. Instead of going against injustice.

I love both iterations. I feel that best situation is that Superman starts out as theT-shirt jeans guy. And never gives up fighting injustice even when he is going against planetary level threats. Morrison actually kept that. Even after he got the costume, which is the signifier of him getting into conventional Superman stories, he would still wear variants of his street costume when seeking out and fighting injustice on the ground level.

My take on it is that coventional Superman still takes on corruption and people in power abusing their standing, just in a different way from T-shirt and jeans Supes.

[manwhohaseverything]

I don't like the truths superman!! I Hated the whole plot!! I threw all the comics from that arc away!! I hate it when they powered superman down, trying to make him another Batman! Superman can be powerful and still help the common man!! Superman doesn't need to be every ones punching bag! Some think the only way to relate to superman is to power him down!! I don't agree!! I think the boyscout superman is very relatable!!

You might not like it. But, superman is essentially the product of era's. Truth had a lot meddling and problems. But, these things ain't it. It's not about being a punching bag either. A champion is someone who gets back up. If you mean by boyscout absolutely naive and enforcer another authority's will, then it's trash. I don't care for him. Sure, superman can be powerful and part of the common man. If he lives like one. Does he? More you do know that was his original power. Skin strong enough to Withstand less than a bursting shell, faster than a locomotive, able to leap 1\8 of a mile, able to lift tremendous weights... Etc. Superman doesn't need to be sun god, either. Writer can chose which iteration they want.

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.

I mean, I don't really see it.

Does this look like a guy who understands people or is connected to them? This whole conversation sucks.

It's portrayal. He absolutely does look like bruce wayne. Hence, people are distant. The guy himself is clueless and asks naive questions. I don't find naive good to be actual good.Nor do i find that kind of optimism true optimism. Superman isn't truly good in second case. He is Someone who is said to be good but can be easily twisted.Because his view of world is sunshine and daisies.

They might be criminals. But superman didn't exactly go for the proper channel either. You could argue it's self defense. Still, this is superman.That makes him a criminal too.

[Myskin]

I don't really see why the need to have to address Krypton necessarily is a testament to origin issues.

It's not that Bendis had necessarily to focus uniquely on the origin. There are Superman runs in which the origin is barely mentioned. What I mean is that there are some major points that sooner or later you'll have to address when you write Superman (the origin, the Kents, Luthor, Metropolis, how the main cast work, the Death, even Jon Kent now etc.). At that point you can do something very generic and ultimately unsatisfying - which is more or less what Johns did with Secret Origins and several parts of his run. However, if what you want to tell is a story with some meaning and some depth, as a writer you HAVE to give it a specific direction, even if it means disappointing some readers. Bendis chose to retell the origin as a conspiracy political thriller, tried to give Jon Kent a specific direction, planned to address certain elements, like Metropolis, but ultimately didn't, and was clearly forced - in my eyes - to include details - like the Kents - which IMHO wasn't really interested in managing. Tomasi was somehow luckier, or in a better position, because it looks like his run takes place in a bubble in which he was basically free to ignore most of his elements by focusing solely on Jon Kent. But I think that it's the only long run with this specific features in Superman's history.

[Myskin]

I think it's all about leaving all the toys in the toybox for all creators. Why limit everyone to one version of Krypton? Let them play with all of them and let the readers figure out how it all fits.

You want green Saturn shirted Jor-El for your story? Go ahead.

You want Brando Jor-El, bearded or sans beard? Sure.

Some creator wants to do a flashback story about Neo-Victorian gimp suit Jor-El? Do it.

Want a dead Pa Kent? Superman could still remember a version of his history wherein Pa died of a heart attack, a car crash and a deadly disease from an ancient &^%$ing treasure. It doesn't matter if Pa Kent is alive or not in whatever iteration of continuity the mainline books are on.

The Multiverse is the future of all these big nerd properties. The audience is already primed. They don't have to worry about making it all consistent anymore. Superman is the perfect embodiment of that. He's not just one guy. He's multiple guys who are all Superman. They are all facets of the same hero.

If the comics lean into that, it could lead to better stories as long as you have a strong creative vision and editorial, and corporate concerns don't muck it up.

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned it will never work. And, personally speaking, I wouldn't find this approach interesting. You cannot build anything character-wise. It would be a comic book with no real structure.
What you are suggesting may partially work for very short stories or miniseries, and that's what they did - for example - for the Adventure of Superman comic book some time ago, or All-Star. If you want to create a multi-year long run you need a character with a specific past, some recognizable milestones and a direction. It's Superman, but also Superman - especially Superman - must be relatable on a human level.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned it will never work. And, personally speaking, I wouldn't find this approach interesting. You cannot build anything character-wise. It would be a comic book with no real structure.
What you are suggesting may partially work for very short stories or miniseries, and that's what they did - for example - for the Adventure of Superman comic book some time ago, or All-Star. If you want to create a multi-year long run you need a character with a specific past, some recognizable milestones and a direction. It's Superman, but also Superman - especially Superman - must be relatable on a human level.

DC can and should still establish a solid creative direction with a clear foundation on the monthly books, which aren't going anywhere, but, let's be honest, they are going to matter less and less very soon. DC's new management is clearly not going to be satisfied with putting most of their eggs in the dwindling direct market that caters to an aging audience of obsessive hobbyists.

Stuff like Superman Smashes The Klan is the future. More eyeballs are going to be on that book than the vast majority of the stuff produced for monthly books. Since that's the case, I'd rather see creators on the monthly books exploring as many different kinds of stories with no aspect of the Superman stories deemed off-limits. Have great creators come on for extended runs, establish whatever foundation they plan to use, then let them explore that version of Superman for as long as they want, then reset the stage with whatever cosmic whatzit they want for the next creative team without having to stick with every detail of what came before. That is the beauty of DC's continuity. It's always changing. It's always evolving. Make Superman the living embodiment of DC's ever fluid nature.

Anything and everything is possible should be the mission statement for Superman moving forward. That doesn't mean you need to retell the origin over and over again. Past events only need to be brought up if they are relevant to whatever story is currently being told, then let the fans figure out how it all fits together. Let creators go crazy and see what resonates and what doesn't. Make more about the stuff that works and don't worry if all of that stuff jibes with each other.

[HsssH]

For the most part I'm a fan of "everything happened" approach, but when it comes to Superman it is a bit problematic. When you look at Batman he also has many different origin and "year X" stories that flesh him out and they often contradict each other, but certain core elements never really change unless someone goes for deliberate out of continuity experiment. Criminal always kills Bruce's parents, there is always Alfred and Gordon, Bruce is always rich, Bruce always went to train somewhere, Bruce is always, more or less, damaged just like most of his villains.

With Superman we don't have it. Writers are still trying to figure out why and how Krypton exploded, are Kents alive or dead? Is he married or not? Was he a Superboy? Is he last Kryptonian? He doesn't have that many "core" elements that are not thrown out by one origin or another. Does this mean that we need new origin? It would probably be enough if someone just picked one of dozens available and sticked with it.

[JAK]

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned it will never work. And, personally speaking, I wouldn't find this approach interesting. You cannot build anything character-wise. It would be a comic book with no real structure.
What you are suggesting may partially work for very short stories or miniseries, and that's what they did - for example - for the Adventure of Superman comic book some time ago, or All-Star. If you want to create a multi-year long run you need a character with a specific past, some recognizable milestones and a direction. It's Superman, but also Superman - especially Superman - must be relatable on a human level.

I can see it possibly working, but only in a larger context. Yes, there's a multiverse of Supermen (Bored's point), but unless we know which is which and they each have their own history, we won't fully attach to any of them (your point).

So, on a grand scale, all the toys can be in the box - but (imo) they just can't all be in the box of every version of the character.

[JAK]

DC can and should still establish a solid creative direction with a clear foundation on the monthly books, which aren't going anywhere, but, let's be honest, they are going to matter less and less very soon. DC's new management is clearly not going to be satisfied with putting most of their eggs in the dwindling direct market that caters to an aging audience of obsessive hobbyists.

Stuff like Superman Smashes The Klan is the future. More eyeballs are going to be on that book than the vast majority of the stuff produced for monthly books. I'd rather see Superman exploring as many different kinds of stories with no aspect of the character deemed off-limits.

Oh, that's totally fine by me - I don't think anyone would want those books to not exist. They're some of his best stuff. I think this topic is more concerning the mainline books specifically, not so much offshoots, one-shots, and elseworlds.

[JAK]

Writers are still trying to figure out why and how Krypton exploded, are Kents alive or dead? Is he married or not? Was he a Superboy? Is he last Kryptonian? He doesn't have that many "core" elements that are not thrown out by one origin or another. Does this mean that we need new origin? It would probably be enough if someone just picked one of dozens available and sticked with it.

This. It's the lack of consistency and consideration that's really doing damage. And just when something is hitting it's stride (Rebirth - story-wise, if not sales) we turn a big corner out of the blue. These things need more time to solidify.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Oh, that's totally fine by me - I don't think anyone would want those books to not exist. They're some of his best stuff. I think this topic is more concerning the mainline books specifically, not so much offshoots, one-shots, and elseworlds.

I'm saying take the "whatever is best for the story" approach of the one-shots and elseworlds books and apply it to the monthly books to see if it works longform.

[Myskin]

DC can and should still establish a solid creative direction with a clear foundation on the monthly books, which aren't going anywhere, but, let's be honest, they are going to matter less and less very soon. DC's new management is clearly not going to be satisfied with putting most of their eggs in the dwindling direct market that caters to an aging audience of obsessive hobbyists.

Stuff like Superman Smashes The Klan is the future. More eyeballs are going to be on that book than the vast majority of the stuff produced for monthly books. I'd rather see Superman exploring as many different kinds of stories with no aspect of the character deemed off-limits.

The day when DC will fully convert to OGNs maybe they will follow the "choose your past" Superman, but it's not something particulary new - I mean, they have been creating standalone stories with a loose continuity since the 1980s. In Mike Kennedy's Infinite City, which was published in 2006, there is a completely different take on Jor El.

I don't think that this approach would necessarily solve some of the main Superman-related problems. It would solve some of them, maybe (with a shorter story there is less risk of course-correcting) but all in all you always have to make the character relatable and interesting. If I think of Superman-centered OGNs or miniseries which have been released in the latest 20 years I don't think that the average quality is really that higher in comparison to the regular series. You have excellent things like All-Star and For All Seasons, but also Superman Earth One. The same impression of a dated and paternalistic character is not absent at all in OGNs, in general. If you are hoping for a series of OGNs of averagely high quality I wouldn't hold my breath.

I also don't necessarily think that the end of the regular series should be something we should hope for. I agree that quality is abysmal and we will get fewer and fewer of them in the future, but there are things in regular series which you can't do in an OGN, and vice versa.