SUPERMAN 2021: Why is DC giving the Superman titles to no-names?

[Comic-Reader Lad]

So, I've read the solicitations for March 2021, and I see that the new Superman teams are:

SUPERMAN:
Writer - Phillip Kennedy Johnson
Artist - Scott Godlewski

ACTION COMICS:
Writer - Phillip Kennedy Johnson
Artist - Daniel Sampere

I don't understand why DC is handing over their flagship character to a bunch of no-names.

Frankly, as a Superman fan, Johnson's description of what he wants to do is making me pessimistic.

"I can't begin to describe what an honor it is to be writing Superman and Action Comics, especially following one of my industry heroes, Brian Michael Bendis," Johnson says in the announcement. "One of my very earliest memories is the thrill I felt watching the Christopher Reeve Superman films for the first time. My goal for every issue will be to give readers that same physical reaction, and the same lofty aspirations that Superman inspires: the desire to be better than we are, and to do more than the world thinks we can do.”

The reason I'm dubious about Johnson is that every time I hear a writer talk about what a Superman fan he is and then they start talking all about what the Christopher Reeve movie meant to them as a kid, I get worried.

To me, the comics are canon, and everything else is just an adaptation. I'm SO tired of writers trying to force feed us their childhood memories of the Superman movie! I remember years ago when the artist, Gary Frank, started drawing Superman to look like Christopher Reeve! Enough already! Any writer or artist whose only real enthusiasm for, or knowledge of, the character comes from the movie should be an automatic no-go as far as getting the assignment is concerned. Superman movie-fanboys are not what the character needs. Same goes for Mort Weisinger fanboys who just want to bring back the Silver Age in all its stupidity. This reminds me of when Allan Heinberg took over Wonder Woman after Infinite Crisis, and all he could come up with was to regurgitate his childhood and make the comic book like the Lynda Carter TV show complete with a non-powered Diana Prince as a secret agent.

Johnson's statement above tells me we'll be getting another self-important slog where he beats readers over the head with how "inspirational" and "important" Superman is rather than telling rollicking action-adventure stories with the character. It seems, because of the movie, that writers often fall into the trap of focusing on how characters in the story perceive Superman or how they are affected by him. This makes Superman a colorless cipher in his own comic and a major reason why his detractors find the character to be dull.

Superman needs to stop being portrayed as a godlike symbol and start being shown as a person instead. We need to get inside Superman's head and find something interesting about what makes him tick. We need to understand things from Superman's point of view, not from the point of view of external characters.

I don't want another pastiche of Superman movie fanboy moments or Silver Age fanboy moments. We need a writer who wants to take Superman and his supporting cast (meaning the Daily Planet people, not the other Super-folk) and flesh them out and make us care about them as relevant characters of today.

But I don't think that's what we're gonna get.


Beyond that, going back to the beginning, can anyone explain what Phillip Kennedy Johnson, Scott Godlewski, and Daniel Sampere have done that's so great that they deserve to be on the Super-titles? In all seriousness, I don't know because I've never seen any of their work.

[LordUltimus]

I was under the impression that PKJ was a temp filler thing.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

I was under the impression that PKJ was a temp filler thing.

It sounded to me like he has a storyline prepared that will go through 2021 -- AND CHANGE SUPERMAN FOREVA!!!!!!

[Prime]

Superman does need new blood, but I do not like the shoehorning Jon thing

[manwhohaseverything]

The thing is,superman as a character is never going to outgrow christopher reeve portrayal.I have made my peace with superman being jesus like example figure.Superman's motive being "to be an example" rather than "do the right thing".I can criticise it.But,it is not going change anything.I believe,the writers and company have understood that.So,superman can be the example figure.They decided to create jon as this secondary figure who can be a person,trying to do the right thing as he believe a superman ,this symbol would do.That's what he means by donner superman being an inspiration.Superman gets to keep being a symbol of hope.While,jon who is rough around the edges can never truly achieve the "perfection".Becomes a man that does right thing ie a real superman.

[Cyberstrike]

Superman does need new blood, but I do not like the shoehorning Jon thing

The reason why Jon Kent is taking over as Superman on Earth is simple: WB/DC are still under the misconception that Superman isn't an "edgy hip young cool" character.

Having Jon Kent as Superman on Earth as an "edgy hip young cool" means that they can have a Superman who can brood about his powers and responsibility, might bend or even break the rules, fights dirty, gives Batman the finger and tells Batman what part of his body he can kiss, while making out with Wonder Woman in front of a shocked Lois Lane that is what these morons think will make Superman "edgy, hip, young, and cool" and relatable to readers and to fans of the various TV shows and movies.

And when all that fails and/or blows up in their faces. They will bring his dad back to Earth with a de-aging ray make Jon a kid again and put him in the Phantom Zone for a time out with Clark becoming THE Superman again, all the while the next creative team tries to figure out what to do with Superman.

At least this time they have got a way of out if and/or when this plan goes wrong unlike the mess that was The Death and The Return of Superman. Or maybe Jon Kent will become very popular and they will keep him around as Superman for a long time.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

Superman does need new blood...

It's pretty telling that no one can extol the virtues of Phillip Kennedy Johnson, Scott Godlewski, and Daniel Sampere.

I don't agree that "new blood" automatically means "good." Also, from what Johnson said, we're not getting "new." We're getting Christopher Reeve. That's over 40 years OLD.

The thing is,superman as a character is never going to outgrow christopher reeve portrayal.I have made my peace with superman being jesus like example figure.Superman's motive being "to be an example" rather than "do the right thing".I can criticise it.But,it is not going change anything.I believe,the writers and company have understood that.So,superman can be the example figure.They decided to create jon as this secondary figure who can be a person,trying to do the right thing as he believe a superman ,this symbol would do.That's what he means by donner superman being an inspiration.Superman gets to keep being a symbol of hope.While,jon who is rough around the edges can never truly achieve the "perfection".Becomes a man that does right thing ie a real superman.

A good writer can make us forget all about Christopher Reeve. When John Byrne took over the character and then Mike Carlin followed up with his weekly format, it was NOT a Reeve-Donner knockoff, and we got 10 solid years of great Superman stories from 1986-1996 that made the character, his supporting cast, and his overall corner of the DCU very interesting and fleshed out to me.

I would like to see writers that use that run as their touchstone going forward -- not to retell those stories (not Doomsday AGAIN!), but just as a mindset on how to make Superman and his milieu feel interesting and fully developed.

[Hcmarvel]

It's pretty telling that no one can extol the virtues of Phillip Kennedy Johnson, Scott Godlewski, and Daniel Sampere.

I don't agree that "new blood" automatically means "good." Also, from what Johnson said, we're not getting "new." We're getting Christopher Reeve. That's over 40 years OLD.



A good writer can make us forget all about Christopher Reeve. When John Byrne took over the character and then Mike Carlin followed up with his weekly format, it was NOT a Reeve-Donner knockoff, and we got 10 solid years of great Superman stories from 1986-1996 that made the character, his supporting cast, and his overall corner of the DCU very interesting and fleshed out to me.

I would like to see writers that use that run as their touchstone going forward -- not to retell those stories (not Doomsday AGAIN!), but just as a mindset on how to make Superman and his milieu feel interesting and fully developed.

HAHAHAHA. If you don't think Byrne's Superman was directly influenced by Reeves, to the point that he drew Superman to look like Reeves (not to the extent Gary Frank did but unmistakably) throughout that run then I don't know what to tell you.

[manwhohaseverything]

A good writer can make us forget all about Christopher Reeve. When John Byrne took over the character and then Mike Carlin followed up with his weekly format, it was NOT a Reeve-Donner knockoff, and we got 10 solid years of great Superman stories from 1986-1996 that made the character, his supporting cast, and his overall corner of the DCU very interesting and fleshed out to me.

Actually,byrne did pull from donner.But,i get it.Byrne's superman was a lot influenced by the siegel superman in a way as well.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

HAHAHAHA. If you don't think Byrne's Superman was directly influenced by Reeves, to the point that he drew Superman to look like Reeves (not to the extent Gary Frank did but unmistakably) throughout that run then I don't know what to tell you.

I know what Byrne did. I was there at the time. There may have been some influence, but in no way, shape, or form was the Byrne Superman a direct knockoff of the Reeve films even though Byrne was a fan of them. His Lois may have been somewhat visually inspired by Kidder, but again, she still looked like Lois. Frank was just slavish fanboyism as was Geoff Johns bringing in his ex-boss Donner as his co-writer and incorporating the crystal technology into the comics.

For one thing, Byrne immediately got rid of the meek Clark Kent trope -- remember Clark Kent, football hero from Man of Steel #1? So, there was no attempt made to duplicate the pre-Crisis Superman and Reeve's portrayal of the Clark/Kal duality from that era. There was an attempt to humanize Superman, and while Byrne himself may have attributed it to Reeve, it really was more of a Marvelization of Superman (without the persecution complex inner monologue) than anything else.



Anyway, we're still left with the fact that no one can say WHY Johnson deserves to be the Superman writer. Everyone just wants to talk about everything else.

This does NOT bode well for the character, and I don't see why the average fan is all of a sudden going to be snapping up Superman comics off the racks.

I still don't get the wisdom behind launching a new era of Superman with no-names.

[superduperman]

Because AT&T doesn't want to pay big salaries. And there are only three versions of Superman and every version is some variation of the three. Golden Age, Silver Age, and Donner. Go back and look at any version in the last 40 years and you'll see some variation of the three in them. Byrne even admitted most of his ideas were based on the Donner movies.

[Vordan]

1. DC is no longer doing superstar contracts. No more stuff like Bendis getting his own imprint to oversee. Also the old time super stars are exactly that, old. Neither Waid, Johns nor Morrison sell like they used to anymore. Who out of DC’s current stable of writers would you prefer to see on the books?
2. Johnson is on both until the big Superman event that’s coming, then he’s giving one book to someone else. The current theory is that both Jon and Clark will be Supermen, and each will take one of the main books. Johnson will be staying on Action so that’s probably where Clark will be while someone else (probably Lewis or Watters since both are writing Jon in Future State) will take Superman featuring Jon.
3. Johnson is a new hire so he’s cheap and right now that’s what DC wants. AT&T is breathing down their necks because of the debt so they have to cut costs where they can.
4. Johnson’s pitch for Superman doesn’t sound like a Reeves retread. He wants to focus on the cosmic side of Superman, to show how cool he is. Yes he cites the usual cliches but his plan doesn’t seem to be “let’s have Superman fight Luthor again” so I’m willing to see what he’s got. His Future State Superman work sounds awesome at least. Only downside is he plans to bring in new Rogues instead of using the classic ones, but that’s par for course. No one outside of Johns/Busiek has really focused on the classic Superman Rogues.
5. Sampere is a legit great. He’s a fantastic artist and huge step up from Romita Jr.
6. DC need this. They need new blood, they need to find their Al Ewing or Donny Cates. They need to start cultivating the next generation of writers because Marvel has already done that. Yes there’s a strong chance some will fall flat on their faces, but if you never try you’ll never find anyone to take over now that the old guard is moving on.

[Prime]

It's pretty telling that no one can extol the virtues of Phillip Kennedy Johnson, Scott Godlewski, and Daniel Sampere.

I don't agree that "new blood" automatically means "good." Also, from what Johnson said, we're not getting "new." We're getting Christopher Reeve. That's over 40 years OLD.



A good writer can make us forget all about Christopher Reeve. When John Byrne took over the character and then Mike Carlin followed up with his weekly format, it was NOT a Reeve-Donner knockoff, and we got 10 solid years of great Superman stories from 1986-1996 that made the character, his supporting cast, and his overall corner of the DCU very interesting and fleshed out to me.

I would like to see writers that use that run as their touchstone going forward -- not to retell those stories (not Doomsday AGAIN!), but just as a mindset on how to make Superman and his milieu feel interesting and fully developed.

You have a point.we need to stray ways from the Donner films

[Vordan]

You have a point.we need to stray ways from the Donner films

We have. What could you call “Donner-esque” that’s happened lately?

[Prime]

We have. What could you call “Donner-esque” that’s happened lately?

We do t need to go back either.and keep the edgelord Snyder stuff away too