Which Superman writer was handed the biggest opportunity?

[JAK]

This was not Christ imagery they were trying to evoke...:

What? You don't like "Battle Armor Jesus - with Table-Turning Action! (spear sold separately)"? LOL!

....I think I watched too many Kenner/Mattel commercials as a kid ....

[Laufeyson]

This was not Christ imagery they were trying to evoke...:

Come on, man. That's when Superman is allowed to have fun. Now he is a Batman's Sidekick.

[manwhohaseverything]

There is Donner influence in the Byrne reboot, but not in the areas you're talking about. So, not really. You've taken things that came later and ascribed them to Byrne's Superman, and it doesn't work (frankly, they didn't even work at the time, when the people who wrote those stories tried to say it fit with the same Superman). Exile is not a reconfirmation of Clark-as-Christ, even in the most basic reading of it; what you're experiencing is confirmation bias. Reading the comics at the time (or at least not long after, in my case), Christ allegory was absolutely the last thing (afaik) all of us took from it.

Byrne's Superman was very human, even to the point of (initially) rejecting the Kryptonian part of himself. It just doesn't work, it's a square peg and a round hole.

Maybe.I am not discounting that. If byrne superman was just human, why do you think later creators on the title took the character into that route?I mean, usually writers like to keep a characterisation consistent enough. Did they suddenly decide to include an iconography used by donner in that way?why do a death and resurrection story?

[JAK]

Maybe.I am not discounting that. If byrne superman was just human, why do you think later creators on the title took the character into that route?I mean, usually writers like to keep a characterisation consistent enough. Did they suddenly decide to include an iconography used by donner in that way?why do a death and resurrection story?

The Donner iconography didn't really show up at much until after the Triangle Era (when I felt things started to go downhill - it was largely Johns's idea, iirc). The death of Superman story isn't meant to be a Jesus comparison, even if they played with those religious supporters I mentioned in the other thread (which were there as a contrast, really, as those people are portrayed as kinda crazy). Other characters had died and come back.

Superman was supposed to get married in 1992, in Superman #75 iirc (I still want to see that Super Summit board, would love to know their original plans!) - but WB had just started the "Lois & Clark" tv show, and the company thought it would mean more if both the show and the comics had them married at the same time. As the story goes, these Super Summits would usually have one of the people (same guy, Jerry Ordway) joke "let's just kill him" when they couldn't think of ideas, and they'd laugh about it and move on. But after planning the full year and being told to go back and redo it, they had nothing. So when he joked "let's kill him!" that time, a mix of anger, frustration, and writers block had them go "Ok, yeah. Let's do it. How? And what happens after?" and they were on their way with ideas.

It's also why some of the relationship stories were kinda "meh" at times after RoS, as they kept being told to stay in a holding pattern until the show was ready to do it (and 4 years is one long-ass holding pattern).

Going back to the death, interviews with the Super Summit team shows their focus wasn't on religion, it was on "what would people do when he's gone?" - which is why that part of the story is still the strongest and most heartfelt part, years later. Their focus was on character, which is why I love that era so much.

This is long, but well worth a watch:

[manwhohaseverything]

This is one of the reply's that i got from another thread. I do believe there is something going on, atleast at a subconscious level that drives the christ imagery and characterisation in books. As said, being human doesn't negate christ.It actually, emphasises it.

The Moses parallels were kind of hard to miss in the Pre-Crisis Superman. The cover blurb for the issue in which he (finally) enlarged the Bottle City of Kandor was "Let My People Grow," fer pity's sake.

An argument can be made that the Post-Crisis Superman was, for a couple of decades anyway, pushed much closer to a Christ archetype. Being born on Earth, being the ONLY son of Krypton, dying and rising again, the imagery from Smallville, his relative disinterest in Kryptonian culture... it all seemed a bit more Christian than his pre-Crisis counterpart.

[Laufeyson]

The Donner iconography didn't really show up at much until after the Triangle Era (when I felt things started to go downhill - it was largely Johns's idea, iirc). The death of Superman story isn't meant to be a Jesus comparison, even if they played with those religious supporters I mentioned in the other thread (which were there as a contrast, really, as those people are portrayed as kinda crazy). Other characters had died and come back.

Superman was supposed to get married in 1992, in Superman #75 iirc (I still want to see that Super Summit board, would love to know their original plans!) - but WB had just started the "Lois & Clark" tv show, and the company thought it would mean more if both the show and the comics had them married at the same time. As the story goes, these Super Summits would usually have one of the people (same guy, Jerry Ordway) joke "let's just kill him" when they couldn't think of ideas, and they'd laugh about it and move on. But after planning the full year and being told to go back and redo it, they had nothing. So when he joked "let's kill him!" that time, a mix of anger, frustration, and writers block had them go "Ok, yeah. Let's do it. How? And what happens after?" and they were on their way with ideas.

It's also why some of the relationship stories were kinda "meh" at times after RoS, as they kept being told to stay in a holding pattern until the show was ready to do it (and 4 years is one long-ass holding pattern).

Going back to the death, interviews with the Super Summit team shows their focus wasn't on religion, it was on "what would people do when he's gone?" - which is why that part of the story is still the strongest and most heartfelt part, years later. Their focus was on character, which is why I love that era so much.

This is long, but well worth a watch:

I think you are right on that. In Roger Stern's The Death and Life of Superman, you can see that Roger Stern doesn't focus on the Christ/Moses part of Clark, but into his character. The character where for the first time (since COIE) Clark is finding himself against a force of nature in the form of Doomsday and how Clark, Lois, The JL, Pa and Ma Kent, and everyone from Superman myth are reacting to that event. For everyone who hated the Death of Superman saga, but wanted to try to like it... I can't recommend this book enough. Roger Stern really is still one of the best Superhero writer of all time.

[Powerboy]

I would have to say John Byrne got the biggest opportunity because it happened during a time when comic readership was still very high and he got to define who Superman would be at the foundation for the next 25 years.

Grant Morrison would be up there but that happened after comics were much more of a niche market.

In terms of mass recognition, I'd have to say Richard Donner was handed a huge opportunity even though he really wasn't the screen writer but that Superman defined the character perhaps to this day.

We could say the same about the opportunity Zack Snyder had. Again, not the writer but I'm talking about mass recognition and opportunity.

[JAK]

This is one of the reply's that i got from another thread. I do believe there is something going on, atleast at a subconscious level that drives the christ imagery and characterisation in books. As said, being human doesn't negate christ.It actually, emphasises it.

While what they're saying can seem like that from a cursory view, taking a look any closer than that shows it's not the case. It's also curious that "disinterest in Kryptonian culture" could be thought of as a "Christ-like" thing.. kinda boggles the mind.

But I can absolutely tell you that, at the time, "Christ archetype" is not what they were going for. The early 2000's stuff and a bit onward? Someone absolutely *could* make a case for that, to varrying degrees. But not the Byrne-to-Triangle Superman. Those books shaped my idea of Superman and my love of that take is one of the main reasons why I hate that movies/etc try to shove Christian imagery into Superman, because it's so foreign to the main Post-Crisis/Triangle take.

I think you are right on that. In Roger Stern's The Death and Life of Superman, you can see that Roger Stern doesn't focus on the Christ/Moses part of Clark, but into his character. The character where for the first time (since COIE) Clark is finding himself against a force of nature in the form of Doomsday and how Clark, Lois, The JL, Pa and Ma Kent, and everyone from Superman myth are reacting to that event. For everyone who hated the Death of Superman saga, but wanted to try to like it... I can't recommend this book enough. Roger Stern really is still one of the best Superhero writer of all time.

Stern is a fantastic writer, absolutely. That whole group, really, hasn't quite received the respect I think they deserve for the work they did and the talent they have (Jurgens gets a lot of praise, but the group - as a whole - really needs the spotlight). It was one of the longest solid runs on Superman ever, and who knows how long it could have gone if DC had just let them do their thing.

[Jim Kelly]

I admire the Sand Superman Saga and Denny O'Neil was a good comic book writer, but I don't think he was the right fit for Superman. Yet who would have been the best writer to start off the Julius Schwartz era of Superman? Elliot Maggin hadn't broken into comics yet and most of the other writers at National Periodical Publications had already worked on the Superman family. Who was there on staff to bring a fresh new take to Superman? Thinking this over, with the very few writers available, the only one I can come up with is John Albano. He was working on ALL-STAR WESTERN/WEIRD WESTERN TALES and his scripts for Jonah Hex were realistic and daring. He had also done a lot of work for the humour line--in particular ANGEL & THE APE. Plus horror anthology tales. I don't know if he could have done a better job than Denny O'Neil, but it's fun to speculate.

[Ascended]

Stern is a fantastic writer, absolutely. That whole group, really, hasn't quite received the respect I think they deserve for the work they did and the talent they have (Jurgens gets a lot of praise, but the group - as a whole - really needs the spotlight). It was one of the longest solid runs on Superman ever, and who knows how long it could have gone if DC had just let them do their thing.

Damn straight. Personally I think Stern may have been the best of them, but that entire group, writers and artists both, accomplished something we haven't seen before or since. Back when DC was doing those weekly books like 52 and Countdown, they talked about how it was such a big achievement and so hard to pull off, but the Super books had basically already done it, and maintained their momentum and quality for a huge stretch of time. There's a reason people say the triangle era is a hidden gem; it rarely gets the love and respect it deserves.

Just to put it into perspective; that run brought in two elements that have become core ideas of Superman's mythos; his marriage and his death-rebirth, and those ideas have been used for nearly three decades across multiple media formats/continuities and are nearly as entrenched as Smallville, kryptonite, and Jimmy Olsen. The vast majority of main canon runs can't imagine even leaving one idea behind that becomes half so popular, and the triangle era did it twice.

Y'all know I'm not a big fan of the early post-Crisis' take on Clark, and *I'm* saying the triangle era was f*cking genius; that tells you how good it was.

[SiegePerilous02]

Damn straight. Personally I think Stern may have been the best of them, but that entire group, writers and artists both, accomplished something we haven't seen before or since. Back when DC was doing those weekly books like 52 and Countdown, they talked about how it was such a big achievement and so hard to pull off, but the Super books had basically already done it, and maintained their momentum and quality for a huge stretch of time. There's a reason people say the triangle era is a hidden gem; it rarely gets the love and respect it deserves.

Just to put it into perspective; that run brought in two elements that have become core ideas of Superman's mythos; his marriage and his death-rebirth, and those ideas have been used for nearly three decades across multiple media formats/continuities and are nearly as entrenched as Smallville, kryptonite, and Jimmy Olsen. The vast majority of main canon runs can't imagine even leaving one idea behind that becomes half so popular, and the triangle era did it twice.

Y'all know I'm not a big fan of the early post-Crisis' take on Clark, and *I'm* saying the triangle era was f*cking genius; that tells you how good it was.

Judging by what you and others have said, it really does seem this era is great in spite of the COIE changes, not really because of them and could have worked just as well as an outgrowth of the Pre-COIE set up.

I should get around to reading it at some point...

[Laufeyson]

Judging by what you and others have said, it really does seem this era is great in spite of the COIE changes, not really because of them and could have worked just as well as an outgrowth of the Pre-COIE set up.

I should get around to reading it at some point...

Oh, you should. That was the only period that I believe Superman's comics are better than Batman as a whole, because of how Stern, Simonsons, and Jurgens are tackling Superman of John Byrne from every perspective. It's that good.

[manwhohaseverything]

While what they're saying can seem like that from a cursory view, taking a look any closer than that shows it's not the case. It's also curious that "disinterest in Kryptonian culture" could be thought of as a "Christ-like" thing.. kinda boggles the mind.

It's largely like this. In the goldenage, it was the working class, the poor and the oppressed he needed to free, by freeing the city from corruption(the moses allegory or gladiator allegory ). In silverage, kal el wanted to take his people to freedom.as the poster said, the kandorians are very much part of the iconography. In both cases either clark or kal take a role of a champion and pick sides. He can't stay neutral. That's always been how superman rolled.I do think exile was more trying to go back to gladiators(something i appreciated) , tarzan, hercules.. Etc roots of the character. Those stories really did take the gladiator thing literally. He wore suits similar to gladiators over and over and over again. Even goldenage superman would be put to shame. Lol!

[Kuwagaton]

I'd say Morrison. He was invested enough to do a good run with loads to unpack, but he wasn't really a takeover guy. Had he been and wanted to stay around, they weren't in any real position to push against him. As we saw there wasn't anyone in the wings to come and run with the ball like there was with Byrne.

I admire the Sand Superman Saga and Denny O'Neil was a good comic book writer, but I don't think he was the right fit for Superman. Yet who would have been the best writer to start off the Julius Schwartz era of Superman? Elliot Maggin hadn't broken into comics yet and most of the other writers at National Periodical Publications had already worked on the Superman family. Who was there on staff to bring a fresh new take to Superman? Thinking this over, with the very few writers available, the only one I can come up with is John Albano. He was working on ALL-STAR WESTERN/WEIRD WESTERN TALES and his scripts for Jonah Hex were realistic and daring. He had also done a lot of work for the humour line--in particular ANGEL & THE APE. Plus horror anthology tales. I don't know if he could have done a better job than Denny O'Neil, but it's fun to speculate.

John Albano! I love his Supergirl.

Judging by what you and others have said, it really does seem this era is great in spite of the COIE changes, not really because of them and could have worked just as well as an outgrowth of the Pre-COIE set up.

I should get around to reading it at some point...

I think they took everything Byrne did or sort of did and improved, so it's hard to say what it would have looked like if those changes weren't put down. Loeb on the other hand I'd say is an example of working in spite of the changes.

[Jim Kelly]

I admired the way that so many writers could weave the Superman stories together in the days of Jerry Ordway, Roger Stern, Dan Jurgens and Louise Simonson--but try reading that today. Unless you have an encyclopedic memory of the whole run from Byrne through Loeb--it's maddening. You can't just pick up an issue and know exactly what's going on.

I wanted to write about Maxima, but then I realized I need to know about Draaga, so then I have to read about Superman's exile in space. If I was really serious about this, I'd likely have to go right back to MAN OF STEEL to follow all the story threads. How do we expect anyone who wasn't a fan at the time to come into this run cold and know what the hell is happening? You'd have to spend a few years to get through it all--and probably take notes so you don't get lost. Reading WAR AND PEACE is easier.

It's much less trouble to read pre-Crisis comics. You can pick up any random comic, knowing nothing, and everything you need to know is right there on the page.