Do people still think the Post-Crisis writers were better?

[sunofdarkchild]

I think I’d view it as a more focused and competent editorial system and editorialphilosophy, rather than necessarily better writers of greater “freedom.”

My main complaint about the Post-Triangle Era Superman books is that editorial inconstancy and bad leadership often undid whatever good work a writer did before, and often lead to talented writers and up-and-comers fleeing the books more than anything else.

The Post-Crisis Era began really as just a Bronze Age staff getting new continuity to play with, and there were plenty of missteps as there were in any other era - Byrne’s Sleaze story is rightly a moment of shame for the era, for instance.

But editorial then knew how to strike where the iron was hot, manage multiple books, and to let things develop and grow on each other. Most of the ‘00s-‘10s Superman books had moments of brilliance or promise, that then wound up being dropped and ignored within a few years.

This is the correct answer. The Superman editors were so much better in the late 80s and 90s than they have been since.

[Kuwagaton]

Certainly. Carlin, and Cavalieri were actually part of the creative team vs being "the editors."

Okay, my memory is fuzzy here, but did the dialogue indicate it didn't happen, or did the dialogue indicate that they hoped nothing happened?

Sleez mentioned that Superman had resisted him up to the point where Scott showed up. Not flattering for any character still, but an intentionally forgettable problem for Superman.

[Jon-El]

My favorite version of the character is the pre-Crisis one. All the backstory and mythology of that character is what I think of when I think Superman. However, I loved the period 1986 - 1993 quite a bit. Some of my favorite comics are from that era so I appreciate what was being done. I remember the excitement of hearing that Byrne was going to be doing Superman. I was so curious what the costume would look like. I remember drawing what I thought his interpretation might look like. No cape, gauntlets, and the Colossus shoulder things. I was shocked but pleased that he kept the look so classic. The energy of that time was great though. I always wondered what someone like Steve Gerber would’ve done with the character. I liked what Byrne did though and he also produced some great art. Garcia Lopez would’ve been amazing but the impact wouldn’t have been as great as having John Byrne on the title.

I’ve always said that Crisis showed that a great story could be told with the old continuity and think it’s the same with Superman. There were some great stories done in the 70’s but they are aimed at a bit younger audience that today. Bates, Maggin, Pasko, Conway, & people like Wein and Starlin showed the great stories could be told with pre Crisis Superman. I loved both eras though.

[Vordan]

Was there ever a reason given as to why they didn’t radically redesign the costume for Post-Crisis? Given the extent Byrne overhauled everything else it’s odd that was left untouched. The Chris Reeve films still too fresh in pop culture to do such a radical breakaway?

[Sacred Knight]

I just don't think the visual (and lets be realistic, when we talk the visual we're usually talking about the trunks) was that big a deal into the 80s despite him being close to hitting the half century mark by that time. That's usually the biggest reason given behind any updates to the suit that have taken place, and without that being an issue then, it would seem reasonable to me that they just saw absolutely no reason to mess with the visual at all. But this logic is based only on my personal experience. Being a child of the 80s and 90s I can say I didn't catch any wind of the trunks being lame and goofy looking until the 90s. That's just me though, others may have a different recollection.

[Kuwagaton]

I personally hadn't heard or met someone who complained about the costume until the Electric suit came about and people were like "yeah about time." Granted there wasn't an internet site I was on like I am these days but most people I knew seemed to understand that it's what half of the comic heroes out there were still wearing anyway. They took away Batman's trunks in the mid 90s and they were back before the end of the decade.

I still think that the look should just be accepted if you want to accept everything else. Nothing wrong with an update but nothing needed anyway. I feel the same way when people do Popeye with a full sleeve or a doo rag or something.

I have a hard time believing that a real overhaul of the costume crossed the creators' minds back then or that the freedom was available

[Jon-El]

I remember seeing a one page promo for the “Man of Steel” mini series and it had the issue #1 image of him standing there opening his shirt. For me, that was really comforting. While I expected a costume change, I didn’t really want one. Byrne basically made the S bigger and changed the hair. It still looked like Superman to me.

I don’t remember anyone making an issue about the trunks until I was on a forum or something so I’m thinking late 90’s. Batman lost them sometime in the 90’s so maybe it was an issue. I just never heard anything about it.

[exile001]

Batman lost them sometime in the 90’s so maybe it was an issue. I just never heard anything about it.

I'm pretty sure that was just to make Batman's costume closer to the movies. It happened in the Troika arc so 1995-ish which is when Forever was released. They tried to make it all black/grey and immediately seemed to roll it back and return to (a much darker) blue/grey. Batman kept the black/grey with Kelley Jones' incredibly stylised work, but Detective Comics and everything else was blue/grey.

I'm pretty sure the trunks were back by the end of No Man's Land (if not before) and disappeared again with the New (trunkless) 52.

[Jim Kelly]

The first try at trunk-less Batman didn't last. He went back to his black trunks after that. The second time was more successful.

I'm not perfectly happy with the trunk-less look on Batman, but the second time seemed a better design. The first attempt--well, I think of the ballet scene from TOP SECRET.

[godisawesome]

This is the correct answer. The Superman editors were so much better in the late 80s and 90s than they have been since.

Certainly. Carlin, and Cavalieri were actually part of the creative team vs being "the editors."

They were like Denny O’Neill at the Bat offices - part of the creative team, but without being dictators.

And one thing that I think should be considered about Post-Crisis was that the editorial direction was keeping pace with the BatBooks for a long time in terms fo expanding the story and competently handling crossover and big events, which when done well can compensate for other issues in quality. The Death and Return of Superman was an event that I would argue had a better immediate fall out than Knightfall.

And, like some parts of the Silver and Bronze Age, they weren’t afraid to try “adjusting” as opposed to outright retconning everything away.

[Stanlos]

I think there are gems (and duds) in all the eras

[Will Evans]

But Superman definitely isn't what he once was and while he's still one of our biggest icons, I'd say it's more due to the fact that he's grandfathered in from the popularity of his early impact and success. Even so, he doesn't move as much merchandise as he used to, his last film ventures were duds (one of them leaning towards post-COIE for the basis), he's relegated to the small screen now and it's possible the next film reboot may not have Clark at all. His most popular other media appearance right now is the evil version from Injustice. So while some post-Crisis ideas kept him afloat and stuck around, how successful they are is a bit of a mixed bag.

Yes a lot of the pre-Crisis stories haven't aged well, but that's due to the writing style than the mythos and how the character was set up at the time. Moore's stories can only be written with Superman as he was at that time, and they've aged far better than the Byrne comics have despite the latter being the more "modern" incarnation. And I think the post-COIE mythos has only contributed three things of note: businessman Lex, the marriage and his death. And the marriage is just an extension of Lois being his iconic love interest going all the way back to Action #1.

Sam Lane being an Army General, who conflicts with both Clark and Superman has stayed around. With Lois growing up as an army brat.

[SiegePerilous02]

Sam Lane being an Army General, who conflicts with both Clark and Superman has stayed around. With Lois growing up as an army brat.

They've stuck around, but have also been criticized as being a ripoff of the Hulk and Ross.

And are either of those things big selling points for readers?

[manwhohaseverything]

They've stuck around, but have also been criticized as being a ripoff of the Hulk and Ross.

And are either of those things big selling points for readers?

Army brat gives a context to why lois is generally good at fighting.other than that.no.Lane is better as a spy in my opinion.

[manwhohaseverything]

They've stuck around, but have also been criticized as being a ripoff of the Hulk and Ross.

And are either of those things big selling points for readers?

Army brat gives a context to why lois is generally good at fighting.other than that.no.Lane is better as a spy in my opinion.