Superman: Red & Blue Announced

[HsssH]

Yeah, I think that Morrison was 100% right with Manchester's "I was young and evil and you had already started your journey into irrelevancy" line. Obviously not an exact quote.

[Myskin]

Never mind. I wasn't able to fully explain my point.

[Myskin]

Never mind. I wasn't able to fully explain my point.

[Vordan]

Also most writers simply don’t know how to write “inspirational” heroes. To them being “inspirational” means



Instead of



So lots of heroic posing and posturing, lots of speeches to the kids, not a lot of Superman doing cool ****.

[Myskin]

I can't believe I am saying this, but if I had to choose an "average" Superman I would be OK with - that is, not a groundbreaking Superman à la All Star, but a version of the character I would be happy to see on a regular basis and MAYBE would make me feel like reading corporate comics again, it would be the Louise Simonson and Jon Bogdanove version from 1990s Man of Steel series.

It's weird, because I was never really into it while it was still being published (maybe I was too young), but now I can't help but find it enjoyable and funny. It has humor, dense dialogues, action, compressed storylines, not many inspirational moments and the characters are graphically exaggerated in a good way. I consider that period the "TMNT era" of Superman, and it is particularly evident in this specific series (Lois looks like April O'Neil sometimes, too), with its bizarre, genetically engineered villains. It's like a lighter version of Erik Larsen's Savage Dragon (one of most enjoyable and creative superhero series ever).

[superduperman]

I can't believe I am saying this, but if I had to choose an "average" Superman I would be OK with - that is, not a groundbreaking Superman à la All Star, but a version of the character I would be happy to see on a regular basis and MAYBE would make me feel like reading corporate comics again, it would be the Louise Simonson and Jon Bogdanove version from 1990s Man of Steel series.

It's weird, because I was never really into it while it was still being published (maybe I was too young), but now I can't help but find it enjoyable and funny. It has humor, dense dialogues, action, compressed storylines, not many inspirational moments and the characters are graphically exaggerated in a good way. I consider that period the "TMNT era" of Superman, and it is particularly evident in this specific series (Lois looks like April O'Neil sometimes, too), with its bizarre, genetically engineered villains. It's like a lighter version of Erik Larsen's Savage Dragon (one of most enjoyable and creative superhero series ever).

Part of that may be because that era was much more stable, continuity wise, than today. I might not be a big fan of that era, but there's no question that it's the most stable period in his history continuity wise.

[13th Superman]

Also most writers simply don’t know how to write “inspirational” heroes. To them being “inspirational” means



Instead of



So lots of heroic posing and posturing, lots of speeches to the kids, not a lot of Superman doing cool ****.

Exactly! I hate how ineffectual this makes him look.

[Ra-El]

“Bad” is too harsh. Underwhelming would be a better description. I rather liked Waid’s story, Watters as well, Manupal’s story was gorgeous. Only rarely do you ever get an “amazing” anthology story, even in Batman B&W there’s a lot of crap to go with the gold. You may recall a handful of standouts but there were a lot more that were awful to forgettable that you don’t remember. Hell the recent B&W story, while showcasing far more variety than what we got here, still couldn’t come close to the quality of the original B&W.

But the original B&W had DC’s top talent put on it. This wasn’t that, this was mainly new blood getting try outs with a few old guard here and there. It did show a window into how both the writers and editors view Supes though, and I can’t deny that what we saw was disappointing.

THe bold part is the perfect summation of what I've been feeling. If this is all the people writing the stories think of Superman, it's not surprising they turn him evil the first chance they get and/or just use him as a punch bag, literaly or figuratively, for the characters they have more interest.

[titansupes]

Also most writers simply don’t know how to write “inspirational” heroes. To them being “inspirational” means



Instead of



So lots of heroic posing and posturing, lots of speeches to the kids, not a lot of Superman doing cool ****.

Yup yup yup yup yup. Even All-Star Superman-- the ultrapowerful burgeoning capital-S Sungod-- was very ACTIVE in each issue, for big things and small. And while the people around him understood his importance and loved him, they never actually treated him as a deity, nor did he posture as one.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Also most writers simply don’t know how to write “inspirational” heroes. To them being “inspirational” means



Instead of



So lots of heroic posing and posturing, lots of speeches to the kids, not a lot of Superman doing cool ****.

Yessss. I would love to see a lot more stories of Superman doing **** that inspires people rather than more stories telling us how inspirational he is

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I can't believe I am saying this, but if I had to choose an "average" Superman I would be OK with - that is, not a groundbreaking Superman à la All Star, but a version of the character I would be happy to see on a regular basis and MAYBE would make me feel like reading corporate comics again, it would be the Louise Simonson and Jon Bogdanove version from 1990s Man of Steel series.

It's weird, because I was never really into it while it was still being published (maybe I was too young), but now I can't help but find it enjoyable and funny. It has humor, dense dialogues, action, compressed storylines, not many inspirational moments and the characters are graphically exaggerated in a good way. I consider that period the "TMNT era" of Superman, and it is particularly evident in this specific series (Lois looks like April O'Neil sometimes, too), with its bizarre, genetically engineered villains. It's like a lighter version of Erik Larsen's Savage Dragon (one of most enjoyable and creative superhero series ever).

I've recently come to the same realization about Wizzie & Bog's Man of Steel run. I guess we were too young and dumb to appreciate how good it was at the time

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Part of that may be because that era was much more stable, continuity wise, than today. I might not be a big fan of that era, but there's no question that it's the most stable period in his history continuity wise.

I dunno about that. The Weisenger and Schwartz eras were pretty air tight in terms of stability and continuity.

Once Berganza took the editorial reigns, yeah it got very dicey

[Myskin]

I dunno about that. The Weisenger and Schwartz eras were pretty air tight in terms of stability and continuity.

Because continuity as we conceive it today didn't exist yet. They were mostly single episodes which were relatively coherent with each other, but modern continuity (as it was introduced by Marvel) became part of Superman comics only after Byrne's takeover.
The first years of Berganza's tenure were actually quite stable. Everything started to go downhill with Birthright and probably for reasons Berganza has relatively few responsibilities for.

[Myskin]

I've recently come to the same realization about Wizzie & Bog's Man of Steel run. I guess we were too young and dumb to appreciate how good it was at the time

I know, right? I mean, Jurgens was by far the most popular super-writer in that period (didn't particularly like him, still don't), but Simonson and Bogdanove's run was probably the most distinct and over-the-top in a good way (and funny, too. I don't remember many genuinely funny moments in Jurgens' Superman. He took himself too seriously). I have also realised that it was bizarrely cyberpunk-ish in its own way before Loeb and Kelly - not in the architecture of Metropolis, but in the villains, who often had robotic features (or limbs, eyes...). It is probably not a case that Simonson also wrote Steel's regular series. Yes, if I had to choose a direction for a revival of regular Superman would probably be this one.

EDIT PS: This issue https://superman86to99.tumblr.com/po...-november-1993 also has a pulp-ish aircraft, superhot Lois and a S&M villain - how can you NOT love it?

[Vordan]

Because continuity as we conceive it today didn't exist yet. They were mostly single episodes which were relatively coherent with each other, but modern continuity (as it was introduced by Marvel) became part of Superman comics only after Byrne's takeover.
The first years of Berganza's tenure were actually quite stable. Everything started to go downhill with Birthright and probably for reasons Berganza has relatively few responsibilities for.

Berganza not telling Carlin he had asked the Superman 2000 group to pitch and instead letting Carlin think they had pitched on their own volition is how those four got banned from Superman, so I’ll always blame him for that even if he wasn’t a sexual harasser.