How important is continuity to Superman comics?

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I do still think there's some folks taking that book the wrong way too. I've seen a few posters who seem more concerned with how it fits into the canon than with whether it's worth reading in the first place, and to me that just seems like the wrong way to look at it. We know that the book, if it's canon, is taking place in the near future. How it fits into the timeline is a question we won't be able to answer until we reach the point (roughly) where the story actually takes place. So until then, why are we worrying so much about the continuity and not just enjoying the ride?

This is where I'm at with that book. I don't really care how it fits into continuity for the time being. I'm sure they'll figure something out, but I don't need those answers right now, particularly if the end of the story could potentially be ruined by that explanation.

I mean, I'd rather read a fun Superman 4 issue story written by Grant Morrison with some wonky continuity than all the bland flavorless Superman stories written by Dan Jurgens that slotted in perfectly with the established history and/or meticulously tried to tidy up continuity.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

You can retrofit it in your head, also writers can write both the flashbacks and/or revisting the past for stories about the new history. Everyone had to do the same for post crisis.

If a creator has a great idea to tell that revisits the New 52 era, but wants to try to revise it so that it fits into the post-Superman Reborn status quo, sure, but I'd also be perfectly fine with someone doing a flashback to that period and hand-waving it away as time shenanigans.

I don't think the whatever continuity the DCU is going to end up with will attempt to approach it the same way that the Post-Crisis comics did, which involved a lot of "it didn't happened that way, it happened this way" retellings of old stories. I think they're going to take a more Marvel approach to continuity that keeps their past history clear on the broad strokes, but fuzzy on the details, thereby allowing creators to revise or revisit old stuff at their leisure without worrying too much about recreating the specifics of those old stories, because they all exist within a sliding timeline that would logically alter the technology and culture in which those events took place.

[Vakanai]

Continuity should matter, but WB/DC have been playing fast and loose with Supes and his line for years. Count the day one origins for Superman and then count how many of them got day twos.

There are way too many day-one origin stories for Superman in recent memory.

1. The Man of Steel by Byrne - 1986

2. Superman for All Seasons by Loeb - 1998

3. Birthright by Waid - 2003

4. Secret Identity by Buisek - 2004

5. Secret Origin by Johns - 2009

6. Earth One by Straczynski - 2010

7. New 52 by Morrison - 2011

8. Man of Steel film - 2013

9. American Alien by Landis - 2015

10. Rebirth by Tomasi & Gleason - 2016

11. Reborn by Tomasi & Gleason - 2017
*Where they combined New 52 and Post-Infinite Crisis Supermen into one.

12. Year One by Frank Miller - 2019

13. Man of Tomorrow DTV film - 2020


Like the other trend of Superman seemingly fighting Doomsday at least once every year now. The back to back and sometimes overlapping releases of origin stories for Superman is obnoxious.


Then you have the retcons in the middle of a story that fail to pan out as planned. The road to nowhere storyline of Mr. Oz Jor-El. Geoff Johns plans for the original Legion with Rebirth. Only for him to do nothing with them during his much delayed, nothing-burger Doomsday Clock. At the conclusion of Doomsday Clock, Bendis' Legion supplanted the Rebirth/Pre-Flashpoint Legion of Johns. Bendis' Legion. Tick-Tac-Toe, Clark Kent is Superman was revealed to the world two times in a row. DCYou 'Truth" and during Bendis' run.


I could go on. DC needs to get it's head on straight and pick a story and stick to one continuous story.

1986 isn't recent memory. Living memory sure, recent no. Superman for All Seasons wasn't so much an origin as it was an expansion to the already existing origin. And then you count Elseworld/non-continuity stories like Earth One and American Alien and Year One, and other media like Man of Steel and Man of Tomorrow. It's hard to take your argument on continuity seriously when so many of your examples aren't reboots but out of continuity books and other media adaptations.

[manwhohaseverything]

1986 isn't recent memory. Living memory sure, recent no. Superman for All Seasons wasn't so much an origin as it was an expansion to the already existing origin. And then you count Elseworld/non-continuity stories like Earth One and American Alien and Year One, and other media like Man of Steel and Man of Tomorrow. It's hard to take your argument on continuity seriously when so many of your examples aren't reboots but out of continuity books and other media adaptations.

But,they all go for origin stories.they straight up decide to don't go for an adventure with superman and make it interesting.I applaud tom king for up in the sky..

[Vakanai]

But,they all go for origin stories.they straight up decide to don't go for an adventure with superman and make it interesting.I applaud tom king for up in the sky..

Not true - all the ones you listed do, but not everyone goes for an origin story. And even if they did? That'd be besides the point, it has nothing to do with the question posed by the thread. You just went off topic to say you don't like origin stories (or at least the amount of them in your lifetime).

[Doctor Know]

1986 isn't recent memory. Living memory sure, recent no. Superman for All Seasons wasn't so much an origin as it was an expansion to the already existing origin. And then you count Elseworld/non-continuity stories like Earth One and American Alien and Year One, and other media like Man of Steel and Man of Tomorrow. It's hard to take your argument on continuity seriously when so many of your examples aren't reboots but out of continuity books and other media adaptations.

I list Byrne's run to help demonstrate how super-saturated the last 15 to 20 years has been with day one origin stories. I can make a similar list of how many times Superman fights and kills Doomsday. It's nearly every year.

The point of my post was to demonstrate that when in doubt, writers will just tell an origin story and then bounce from the character all together. When it comes to continuity, it can be confusing. Non-comic fans would want to start with an origin, but which one do they choose? How many of them actually got day twos?

To go off on a tangent for a moment, but in the same vein. WW had 4 different origins in 2016. Rucka's Rebirth, Morrison's Earth One, Thompson's True Amazon, De Liz's Legend of Wonder Woman. Of the 4, only 2 got follow ups. All 4 of which being released 5 years after Azzerello's run started.

It's absurd and obnoxious. It hurts continuity, because we are always set back to day one with Superman or there is a new spin on his origins. Every two years or whenever a new writer signs on to the book.
There is no not-too-distant future seasoned and experience Superman continuity. Who can point to old adventures, of how he became a legend.

There is a futuristic Superman, but he's an accessory of Batman Beyond's futuristic dystopia. Supes doesn't have his own.

There is no functioning version of the Legion of Superheroes. So, the IP that was created to bolster Superman's cast of characters and adventures is out of reach for him.

Hell, Supes doesn't even mainline events anymore. There are no standalone stories readers can just jump into that aren't day one origins or forgotten continuity revisions (Doomsday Clock). I think the last ones were Doomed and Unchained from the New 52. The continuity that was "erased" and that we are all supposed to hate.


At the end of TPB and Hardcovers, DC always recommends similar stories the readers may like. But their recommendations are all over the place. Things from the Rebirth, New 52, Azzarello's For Tomorrow, Secret Identity, All Star Superman etc. Are the things that never fail to get a mention from DC. All of the aforementioned titles have nothing to do with one another. And that's a problem. There's no long term sustainability. Like I said in another thread about the current history of the DCU (COIE to Infinite Frontier). I defy anyone to make a sensible timeline of all the events and make it make sense. It's not happening.

[Yoda]

I list Byrne's run to help demonstrate how super-saturated the last 15 to 20 years has been with day one origin stories.

1986 was 36 years ago.

I can make a similar list of how many times Superman fights and kills Doomsday. It's nearly every year.

It's really not. There's been one live action movie. Two Animated movies, and like 4 or five comic battles over 30 years (the original Death of Superman was what? 1992?) Only one comic story was a "retelling" of the first Doomsday story. And you're equating movies and tv with comics. Like its all the same.

To go off on a tangent for a moment, but in the same vein. WW had 4 different origins in 2016. Rucka's Rebirth, Morrison's Earth One, Thompson's True Amazon, De Liz's Legend of Wonder Woman. Of the 4, only 2 got follow ups. All 4 of which being released 5 years after Azzerello's run started.

It's absurd and obnoxious. It hurts continuity, because we are always set back to day one with Superman or there is a new spin on his origins. Every two years or whenever a new writer signs on to the book.
There is no not-too-distant future seasoned and experience Superman continuity. Who can point to old adventures, of how he became a legend.

These aren't "in continuity". You're still mixing apples and oranges. Rucka's was the only revamped origin in all that. The rest were out of continuity takes. Are you arguing that there should be no out of continuity comics for any characters?

[Vordan]

I totally think out of continuity or not there should be a ban on any more origin stories for Superman for at least a decade if not more. I want more Up in the Skys, more stories set where he’s actually being Superman, and less stories that are all about just starting out or about trying to fix his continuity.

[Yoda]

I totally think out of continuity or not there should be a ban on any more origin stories for Superman for at least a decade if not more. I want more Up in the Skys, more stories set where he’s actually being Superman, and less stories that are all about just starting out or about trying to fix his continuity.

There's a benefit to modernizing origins and giving new takes for different audiences. The idea that "we got ours" and it's time to move on isn't helpful, particularly where tastes and styles change pretty rapidly now. Even comics from the 2000's are starting to look a little dated.

Batman gets as many if not more Year One or Year Two style takes and that doesn't seem to hurt his popularity any. And you have to account for quality as well. The Earth One series and Miller's Year One are garbage. So to the extent someone could actually put together an evergreen style take on it would still be welcome.

And again, it's not like we aren't getting these type of stories. We have had Up in the Sky, Smashes the Klan, and now Superman & Lobo against Year One. And we got the Death and Return movies against Man of Tomorrow. And we are getting MAwS as well which isn't a strictly "Year One" style take. Just early on.

[Doctor Know]

1986 was 36 years ago.

That still leaves Birthright through Man of Tomorrow. That's 11 origins in less than 20 years. Byrne's MOS is anchor to show how obsessed and hurting for ideas DC is.

It's really not. There's been one live action movie. Two Animated movies, and like 4 or five comic battles over 30 years (the original Death of Superman was what? 1992?) Only one comic story was a "retelling" of the first Doomsday story. And you're equating movies and tv with comics. Like its all the same.

Times Superman has fought and killed Doomsday to my recollection.

1. Infinite Crisis - 2005
2. Superman Doomsday - 2007 movie
3. New Krypton - 2008
4. Reign of Doomsday - 2011
5. Morrison's Superdoom - 2012
6. Superman/Wonder Woman - 2013
7. Doomed - 2014
8. Batman v Superman - 2016
9. Death of Superman - 2018 DCAU

I'm not aware of other instances, but I'm sure they exist. 9 times fighting a one-dimensional plot device (because Doomsday is not a character), over the past 16 years is not a good look. I'm not counting the Paradooms from 2020's Apokolips War. Also, from what I've seen online, Doomsday makes appearances in Scott Snyder's Metal and Death Metal. The point being, just like with the day one origins, we are super-saturated in stories about Doomsday. Enough is enough.

These aren't "in continuity". You're still mixing apples and oranges. Rucka's was the only revamped origin in all that. The rest were out of continuity takes. Are you arguing that there should be no out of continuity comics for any characters?

Did anyone ask for 4 variants of WW's origins in one year? Looking at the calendar, we got the DCEU WW movie the following year in 2017. Which had it's own origin. The issue is a lot of these authors only have one story to tell. If it was an ambiguous story set in the middle or early part of a character's career, that be a different story. But no. It's always day one. If this was Spider-Man, how many times would people put up with Uncle Ben being murderered to teach Peter a lesson about "great power and great responsibility"?

The bee in my bonnet is from the author's being demonstrably lazy. Tell a different story. Instead of remixing a pre-existing one. Overlapping and competing with the guy or gal who just told the same story the year prior.

[SiegePerilous02]

Did anyone ask for 4 variants of WW's origins in one year? Looking at the calendar, we got the DCEU WW movie the following year in 2017. Which had it's own origin. The issue is a lot of these authors only have one story to tell. If it was an ambiguous story set in the middle or early part of a character's career, that be a different story. But no. It's always day one. If this was Spider-Man, how many times would people put up with Uncle Ben being murderered to teach Peter a lesson about "great power and great responsibility"?

The bee in my bonnet is from the author's being demonstrably lazy. Tell a different story. Instead of remixing a pre-existing one. Overlapping and competing with the guy or gal who just told the same story the year prior.

As far as I can tell, all the WW origins sold well (Year one and Earth One in particular, with the latter needing an origin as a starting point for a trilogy of books). Only one was marketed as being in the main continuity, Earth One and LoWW were all clearly marketed as being separate from the main line. So nobody should have been confused by the effects on continuity.

The authors did not all have one story to tell. Rucka left the main book because he couldn't keep up with the double shipping schedule but had plans for more if he stayed, Morrison went on to write two more books in their story that couldn't have worked in the main canon, and Renee De Liz had sequels planned that were cut short due to her bad mouthing the publisher, not down to lack of interest among the readership. The movie is also aimed at a different (and bigger) audience that mostly doesn't overlap, so having another origin there is moot. As far as the influx of WW origins go, none of it seemed to create any issues and the books did well.

[Yoda]

That still leaves Birthright through Man of Tomorrow. That's 11 origins in less than 20 years. Byrne's MOS is anchor to show how obsessed and hurting for ideas DC is.

Except they aren't. Secret Identity is a completely different take on the character and spans his entire life. It's ridiculous to include that as an "origin". For All Seasons is different. Rebirth and Reborn aren't new "origins" they are continuations of the story and gave a brief recap. You're lumping things that are completely distinct from a new "origin" simply because it references and early career.

Times Superman has fought and killed Doomsday to my recollection.

1. Infinite Crisis - 2005
2. Superman Doomsday - 2007 movie
3. New Krypton - 2008
4. Reign of Doomsday - 2011
5. Morrison's Superdoom - 2012
6. Superman/Wonder Woman - 2013
7. Doomed - 2014
8. Batman v Superman - 2016
9. Death of Superman - 2018 DCAU

I'm not aware of other instances, but I'm sure they exist. 9 times fighting a one-dimensional plot device (because Doomsday is not a character), over the past 16 years is not a good look. I'm not counting the Paradooms from 2020's Apokolips War. Also, from what I've seen online, Doomsday makes appearances in Scott Snyder's Metal and Death Metal. The point being, just like with the day one origins, we are super-saturated in stories about Doomsday. Enough is enough.

How many times did he fight, Lex, Brainiac, or other villians. This is basically you saying you don't like Doomsday so he shouldn't be used. There's only three other "Death of Superman" stories. The rest are not rehash of Death of Superman. So it doesn't fit your argument at all. Just because you don't like the character doesn't make every time he's appeared a rehash or lack of imagination.

But no. It's always day one. If this was Spider-Man, how many times would people put up with Uncle Ben being murderered to teach Peter a lesson about "great power and great responsibility"?

So this makes me think you're kinda trolling here. Because the MCU Spider-Man is like one of the few times they've actually started his career in the middle of his career - and it's still basically telling his origin in the MCU. I think if you actually looked there are probably more Spider-Man year one or origin tales floating around than Superman. I mean, he's had like four times as many animated series. Ultimate Spider-Man, three movie series in the last 20 years, etc. I'm not a huge Spider-Man fan, but I'd be surprised if they all started in the middle of his career.

[Vordan]

There's a benefit to modernizing origins and giving new takes for different audiences. The idea that "we got ours" and it's time to move on isn't helpful, particularly where tastes and styles change pretty rapidly now. Even comics from the 2000's are starting to look a little dated.

Batman gets as many if not more Year One or Year Two style takes and that doesn't seem to hurt his popularity any. And you have to account for quality as well. The Earth One series and Miller's Year One are garbage. So to the extent someone could actually put together an evergreen style take on it would still be welcome.

And again, it's not like we aren't getting these type of stories. We have had Up in the Sky, Smashes the Klan, and now Superman & Lobo against Year One. And we got the Death and Return movies against Man of Tomorrow. And we are getting MAwS as well which isn't a strictly "Year One" style take. Just early on.

I’d just rather get Superman & Lois: Ignition over another take on Year One Superman. Gimmie Year Two Superman though where he’s already established but not fully embraced as the greatest hero ever though, and I’d be fine with that (which I’m hoping is something Waid will deliver with his upcoming project).

[Doctor Know]

As far as I can tell, all the WW origins sold well (Year one and Earth One in particular, with the latter needing an origin as a starting point for a trilogy of books). Only one was marketed as being in the main continuity, Earth One and LoWW were all clearly marketed as being separate from the main line. So nobody should have been confused by the effects on continuity.

The authors did not all have one story to tell. Rucka left the main book because he couldn't keep up with the double shipping schedule but had plans for more if he stayed, Morrison went on to write two more books in their story that couldn't have worked in the main canon, and Renee De Liz had sequels planned that were cut short due to her bad mouthing the publisher, not down to lack of interest among the readership. The movie is also aimed at a different (and bigger) audience that mostly doesn't overlap, so having another origin there is moot. As far as the influx of WW origins go, none of it seemed to create any issues and the books did well.

I wasn't really referring to Rucka or Morrison. Their books got sequels. It's more the obnoxious nature of releasing 4 in one year.

Except they aren't. Secret Identity is a completely different take on the character and spans his entire life. It's ridiculous to include that as an "origin". For All Seasons is different. Rebirth and Reborn aren't new "origins" they are continuations of the story and gave a brief recap. You're lumping things that are completely distinct from a new "origin" simply because it references and early career.

I'll remove Secret Identity. I don't see any difference between a story like For All Seasons, Earth One and American Alien. They're all day one, early adventure stories for Supes. Variants of how each respective author thinks Superman's origin began. That still leaves us with 10 variants over the past 16 years. Mark my words, there will be another soon.

How many times did he fight, Lex, Brainiac, or other villians. This is basically you saying you don't like Doomsday so he shouldn't be used. There's only three other "Death of Superman" stories. The rest are not rehash of Death of Superman. So it doesn't fit your argument at all. Just because you don't like the character doesn't make every time he's appeared a rehash or lack of imagination.

Difference is, it's almost always the same story with Doomsday. Each is trying to invoke the original Death of Superman from 1992, while not outright repeating killing Supes. The exceptions being BvS, Doomsday and Death of Superman from DCAU. Because they were adapting elements of the original story. And Doomed, because Greg Pak (Incredible Hulk, Planet Hulk, War World Hulk, Totally Awesome Hulk) decided to make Doomsday a Hulk like persona and transformation for Superman.

So this makes me think you're kinda trolling here. Because the MCU Spider-Man is like one of the few times they've actually started his career in the middle of his career - and it's still basically telling his origin in the MCU. I think if you actually looked there are probably more Spider-Man year one or origin tales floating around than Superman. I mean, he's had like four times as many animated series. Ultimate Spider-Man, three movie series in the last 20 years, etc. I'm not a huge Spider-Man fan, but I'd be surprised if they all started in the middle of his career.

Fair enough about the MCU Spidey. One of the reasons people hated about TASM with Garfield, is that it retold everything from Rami's first two Spider-Man movies on fast forward. I honestly haven't tracked the number of Spidey origins and remixes. But I will investigate it. If what you say is true, it is fairly obnoxious. What Spidey and Bats have over Supes though is a stronger sense of continuity over the years and reboots (New 52) and soft-reboots (Rebirth and Marvel NOW 1.0, 2.0 and All New All Different).

[Yoda]

I’d just rather get Superman & Lois: Ignition over another take on Year One Superman. Gimmie Year Two Superman though where he’s already established but not fully embraced as the greatest hero ever though, and I’d be fine with that (which I’m hoping is something Waid will deliver with his upcoming project).

Preaching to the choir with this honestly. I'm not sure I'm that certain Waid will be able to deliver something as solid as Birthright again, but I live in hope. I also just think there is a serious benefit to a modernized take on his entire early career. Like give me a long form of Superman & Lois' flashback episode. I think this is more true of Superman than most other characters because there are a lot of tropes built into the character that need a modern touch to flesh out. Like Yang did with Smashes the Klan. I think there's benefit to that. And yes its been done. But often times its been done really poorly or has at least aged really poorly.