It would have been better if _________ killed Superman instead of Doomsday

[tib2d2]

Should it have been a long time villain instead of the out of nowhere Doomsday? Or should an established character at least been a part of it?

[Jackalope89]

"It would have been betterif DBZ Broly killed Superman instead of Doomsday."

He is an established villain, hits like a mofo, and Supes would have had a bit of a harder time resolving to kill him than the monstrous Doomsday...

Okay, fine. Do it for the Elseworlds.

[Jeffrey2]

It would have been better if Lex Luthor killed Superman instead of Doomsday.

Superman's final defeat should come in dramatic fashion at the hands of his greatest enemy. The story has been done. Superman #149.

In the tale dead is dead. Superman does not come back to life. Luthor is tried and banished to the Phantom Zone and Supergirl takes on the mantel of Superman- becoming the defender of Truth and Justice. Superman #149 took place in a single issue. It would have been even more powerful if it had taken place over a string of issues like the Doomsday sage. Maybe DC will one day do an updated version of The Death of Superman as an Elseworlds story and give it the treatment is deserves.

[Ascended]

Well, if it's gonna be an established villain it's gotta be one you're ready to throw away on killing Superman. That's jumping the shark, and you're never gonna top it. So what established villain can be tossed away, but is still a capable enough threat to make killing Clark believable?

Metallo and Parasite come to mind of course, and back in the early 90's I wouldn't have been surprised if they had used the alien Brainiac, since they seemed so intent on removing much of the cosmic/space elements of Clark's mythos and had retconned Brainy into a human psychic. They could have used Mongul, but he was a semi-recurring threat back then I believe, so DC may have not wanted to kneecap him with a story he'd never surpass.

....when did DC start heavily working New God elements into Clark's world? I wanna say it didn't begin in earnest until after he came back to life, but Darkseid would've been a real obvious choice for killing Clark too.

Using Lex would've been a mistake; they were already sculpting him into a antagonistic supporting cast member, which was ripe with potential, and successfully killing Clark would've rendered him useless afterwards. In the grand scheme of the mythology, yes, if anyone's gonna kill Clark it should be Lex; he's Clark's antithesis, the representation of everything Clark is trying to convince mankind to leave behind. In the final battle for the soul of humanity's future it's got to be Clark v Lex. But in practical application, as a story you intend to only be one step in a ongoing narrative? It'd have done more damage to Lex and the mythos, long-term, than the Death/Return saga is worth.

[Thor-Ul]

"It would have been better if Mr. Mxyzptlyk killed Superman instead of Doomsday."
OK, maybe not the best idea. But it would had been a new excellent way to rip off Alan Moore.

[manwhohaseverything]

Funnyface kills superman with imagination and science... A comicstrip creator kills Superman by erasing very the idea and concept of him.Who knows if superman will be remade into something different or the creator realises it's a futile childish excercise?

[magha_regulus]

I think I have more issues with the way it happened. I don't like the way he was beaten to death with sheer brute strength. In my headcanon, Doomsday's bones are made of Kryptonite. (I'd love to one day make a custom of it). I know death by kryptonite might've been cliche but it's what I'd have preferred.

I do ultimately like that it was a new character but I wish Doomsday was more complex, and was both a physical and intellectual threat. My favorite version of Doomsday is actually the New 52 virus spewing version. I also think that having Superman die without that having a huge detrimental impact on the entire world was a missed opportunity. They should've really changed up the status quo across the entire line and maybe show a world where the villains were winning or where the world had actually been taken over by Mongul or the Cyborg Superman as a result of things being left wide-open in Superman's absence.

[Jim Kelly]

I hate Doomsday so much, just about any other super-villain would have been better. I hate the name--what self-respecting villain goes by Doomsday for a name? I hate the design--is this a dentists' convention, why make such a complicated design that every artist must have to spend hours on the drawing board trying to execute? And why this guy who seems expressly invented so the writers can kill off Superman without having to answer any sticky questions about continuity? I couldn't help but think they were putting their thumb on the scale to get the outcome they needed for their plot to work out.

When I was reading the whole series of comics about the Death, I kept expecting Luthor to be tied in somehow, so we would find out that it was all one big plot by Lex to kill his lifelong adversary. But noooo. That would be too satisfying for regular readers. Can't have that.

It would have been better if staying outside in the rain too long had killed Superman instead of Doobie Dave. My parents always warned me about staying outside in the rain too long and I would never listen, so this would have vindicated them.

[Adekis]

Draaga was dead by then, right? I might have said Draaga, pre-redemption.

In fact I neither love nor strongly dislike Doomsday. I'm fine with him being the guy what killed Superman. But I've been used to the idea for most of my life. I can no longer recall any reaction to Doomsday's existence that I had upon first learning about him, if there even was one. But to be honest, I'm not totally sure I like the idea of... sullying? any other character with Death of Superman. Not because I hate the story, but because, well, it's so big it would stick to any character involved forever.

Rob Liefeld's Supreme, maybe? Ha! No, that would probably suck.

[exile001]

Well, if it's gonna be an established villain it's gotta be one you're ready to throw away on killing Superman. That's jumping the shark, and you're never gonna top it. So what established villain can be tossed away, but is still a capable enough threat to make killing Clark believable?

Metallo and Parasite come to mind of course, and back in the early 90's I wouldn't have been surprised if they had used the alien Brainiac, since they seemed so intent on removing much of the cosmic/space elements of Clark's mythos and had retconned Brainy into a human psychic. They could have used Mongul, but he was a semi-recurring threat back then I believe, so DC may have not wanted to kneecap him with a story he'd never surpass.

....when did DC start heavily working New God elements into Clark's world? I wanna say it didn't begin in earnest until after he came back to life, but Darkseid would've been a real obvious choice for killing Clark too.

Using Lex would've been a mistake; they were already sculpting him into a antagonistic supporting cast member, which was ripe with potential, and successfully killing Clark would've rendered him useless afterwards. In the grand scheme of the mythology, yes, if anyone's gonna kill Clark it should be Lex; he's Clark's antithesis, the representation of everything Clark is trying to convince mankind to leave behind. In the final battle for the soul of humanity's future it's got to be Clark v Lex. But in practical application, as a story you intend to only be one step in a ongoing narrative? It'd have done more damage to Lex and the mythos, long-term, than the Death/Return saga is worth.

Pretty much this.

Death/Reign gave the franchise two big new threats in Doomsday and Cyborg (who has been criminally underutilised and nerfed since the late 90s).

To echo the example, had Mongul killed Superman he'd still just be Mongul.

Back then Lex was as much a supporting cast member as villain, so they'd have to completely change his status quo. I'm glad they didn't as DC (Didio) have desperately tried time and time again to remove Lex from his position as corrupt businessman king of metropolis and revert to generic supervillain but it doesn't stick.

[Jim Kelly]

I see nothing wrong with a character who is meant be a bad guy continuing to be a bad guy. It's not like only good guys are popular. Making super-villains into good guys is one of those trends in modern comics that I don't like.

[Jon Clark]

Well, if it's gonna be an established villain it's gotta be one you're ready to throw away on killing Superman. That's jumping the shark, and you're never gonna top it. So what established villain can be tossed away, but is still a capable enough threat to make killing Clark believable?

Using Lex would've been a mistake; they were already sculpting him into a antagonistic supporting cast member, which was ripe with potential, and successfully killing Clark would've rendered him useless afterwards. In the grand scheme of the mythology, yes, if anyone's gonna kill Clark it should be Lex; he's Clark's antithesis, the representation of everything Clark is trying to convince mankind to leave behind. In the final battle for the soul of humanity's future it's got to be Clark v Lex. But in practical application, as a story you intend to only be one step in a ongoing narrative? It'd have done more damage to Lex and the mythos, long-term, than the Death/Return saga is worth.

I never bought the logic that Lex would be undermined by giving him a win (with an asterisk).

At the time Lex was already believed dead and was posing as his own son. Only we readers and a few Luthor flunkies knew different. Even Lois and Clark were giving the "new" Lex benefit of the doubt.

Now picture Lex being the mastermind behind Superman's death, but having through his usual tactics made it impossible to connect him to it. He could even have his cake and eat it too if he wanted by letting the breadcrumbs lead back to Lex Sr (his original self) so that the credit would be Luthor's but no one would hold it against his current self since Lex Jr supposedly took over from dear old dad and was on the up-and-up.

As for this being the top with nowhere else to go- isn't that just as true for guys like Doomsday or Bane, who are introduced with a win over the heroes. Yet we see them pop back up and actually base their reputations on the fact they defeated Superman and Batman respectively, even though they will never be in that winning position again. Why couldn't Lex or the Joker have the same status, I can see lex being revitalized by having killed Superman once and knowing it is possible striving hard to kill Superman again.

[manwhohaseverything]

I see nothing wrong with a character who is meant be a bad guy continuing to be a bad guy. It's not like only good guys are popular. Making super-villains into good guys is one of those trends in modern comics that I don't like.

The problem with bad guy thing is the character/antagonist become just a plot device .You know who is good therefore who would win.

My problem with superman is exactly that.If lex questions heroworshipping individuals( even if it's superman ) assigning good guy/bad guy claims would water down the theme and point of the story.A "villain" saying heroworshipping and cults of personlaities can be disastrous isn't complex.An antagonist saying that?sure.

Some headcanon fanfic incoming,Suppose superman is goldenage mode.He is this vigilante robinhood figure kicking ass for the weak.Then you have an antagonist. The robocop.Someone who believes "by the book" ultimately may fall prey to the system(ocp-esque thing).who is good guy here?robocop or the theif superman?Now that's complex. Atleast that's how i want "villains" and "heroes" to be...

[JAK]

In fact I neither love nor strongly dislike Doomsday. I'm fine with him being the guy what killed Superman. But I've been used to the idea for most of my life. I can no longer recall any reaction to Doomsday's existence that I had upon first learning about him, if there even was one. But to be honest, I'm not totally sure I like the idea of... sullying? any other character with Death of Superman. Not because I hate the story, but because, well, it's so big it would stick to any character involved forever.

This is my thing, too. I like that it's Doomsday - I like that it was (at least at the time) a character that couldn't be reasoned with in the way that Superman usually tries to. Just a sheer force for death. That he was later deemed to be ancient Kryptonian makes even more sense.

Well, if it's gonna be an established villain it's gotta be one you're ready to throw away on killing Superman. That's jumping the shark, and you're never gonna top it. So what established villain can be tossed away, but is still a capable enough threat to make killing Clark believable?

Metallo and Parasite come to mind of course, and back in the early 90's I wouldn't have been surprised if they had used the alien Brainiac, since they seemed so intent on removing much of the cosmic/space elements of Clark's mythos and had retconned Brainy into a human psychic. They could have used Mongul, but he was a semi-recurring threat back then I believe, so DC may have not wanted to kneecap him with a story he'd never surpass.

....when did DC start heavily working New God elements into Clark's world? I wanna say it didn't begin in earnest until after he came back to life, but Darkseid would've been a real obvious choice for killing Clark too.

Using Lex would've been a mistake; they were already sculpting him into a antagonistic supporting cast member, which was ripe with potential, and successfully killing Clark would've rendered him useless afterwards. In the grand scheme of the mythology, yes, if anyone's gonna kill Clark it should be Lex; he's Clark's antithesis, the representation of everything Clark is trying to convince mankind to leave behind. In the final battle for the soul of humanity's future it's got to be Clark v Lex. But in practical application, as a story you intend to only be one step in a ongoing narrative? It'd have done more damage to Lex and the mythos, long-term, than the Death/Return saga is worth.

Yeah, they'll always be "the one that killed Superman but couldn't do it again".

I never bought the logic that Lex would be undermined by giving him a win (with an asterisk).

At the time Lex was already believed dead and was posing as his own son. Only we readers and a few Luthor flunkies knew different. Even Lois and Clark were giving the "new" Lex benefit of the doubt.

Now picture Lex being the mastermind behind Superman's death, but having through his usual tactics made it impossible to connect him to it. He could even have his cake and eat it too if he wanted by letting the breadcrumbs lead back to Lex Sr (his original self) so that the credit would be Luthor's but no one would hold it against his current self since Lex Jr supposedly took over from dear old dad and was on the up-and-up.

As for this being the top with nowhere else to go- isn't that just as true for guys like Doomsday or Bane, who are introduced with a win over the heroes. Yet we see them pop back up and actually base their reputations on the fact they defeated Superman and Batman respectively, even though they will never be in that winning position again. Why couldn't Lex or the Joker have the same status, I can see lex being revitalized by having killed Superman once and knowing it is possible striving hard to kill Superman again.

I will say, I do like your scenario! Though I think your point about Bane and Doomsday lends best to a character where that's all they will ever have - because otherwise that would take over another character's whole "thing".

One idea for your scenario: I kinda like the idea of Lex laying the crumbs, but something interferes and he doesn't get that public win. Out of anything, that would bug the crap out of Lex - and might lead to some very interesting stories where he keeps trying to make it stick but he can't without outing who he really is.. eventually just doing so because his hubris gets the better of him.

As Exile001 said, Death/Reign gave us two new villains, and I think that's a good thing in the grand scheme.

[Stanlos]

Should it have been a long time villain instead of the out of nowhere Doomsday? Or should an established character at least been a part of it?

I kind of prefer how the All Star Superman handled his death compared to the many returns Doomsday has made, each with increasingly diminished quality with the most criminal being the INFINITE CRISIS fumble even after Gail Simone provided a MASTERCLASS in tense, epic buildup crystalizing the spirit of heroism in the face of insurmountable odds.

There was heart, love, and care in that first event. I didn't need to see the interviews to see the tears evidence the emotion of the creative team responsible for that story. The work spoke for itself.

But the creature should never ever return if it is going to get IC-Johns'd like that. Although that is a running theme with IC--the buildup was well handled and very well planned with a year's worth of lead-up. But all themes and premises were dropped, especially with respect to the "triumvirate of power and justice" that is the Trinity.