Superman: Man of Steel, Birthright, and Secret Origins

[Jim Kelly]

Every Superman origin story is kookie, but each story is kookie in its own way.

I buy Christopher Reeve as a Kansas farmboy much more than Byrne's version. J.B's Clark seems to come from metrosexual Smallville, where guys wear really tight T-shirts and fitted formal shirts they bought at Abercrombie and Fitch; where they publish novels and unlike other writers really never have to struggle but instantly are welcomed on the cocktail circuit; where they are less salt of the earth and more know-it-all sophisticates. No wonder Lois hates the guy, he has the depth of a platinum credit card.

Byrne's Clark really seems more alien than his Superman (not that there's much effort to distinguish one from the other).

Counterpoised to that is Byrne's Ma and Pa Kent who are at once buried in every stereotype about farm folk and yet look so frail and small that one wonders how they managed all those years on their own without a big, strapping lad to do the chores.

Of course, just like every other Superman origin story, Byrne's exists simply so every other writer and artist can ignore it or warp it to their own needs. Ma and Pa Kent escape from their American Gothic prison to become flesh and blood individuals. Clark emerges as a more honest portrait of a guy from the sticks living in the big city.

However, one of the pleasures of comics is finding the funny in the stories. And if we don't take them too seriously, Byrne's comics deliver up a lot of funny.

Though each was better developed, I never felt that any of the three Post-COIE origin stories for Superman worked as well as the succinct Pre-COIE telling. All three fully fleshed out Clark's upbringing in a way that was never fully explored Pre-COIE, and while this enriched his character somewhat, I also feel it encumbered the character quite a bit as well. It sort of limited what writers could/would do with the character.

This is the best comment I've read on the origins. I never thought about it like that before, but it's absolutely right--we don't want origin stories to give us too much information, otherwise the writers have nothing to play with afterward. There should be enough spaces in the life of the character that there's room to dance around the facts.

[manofsteel1979]

Every Superman origin story is kookie, but each story is kookie in its own way.

I buy Christopher Reeve as a Kansas farmboy much more than Byrne's version. J.B's Clark seems to come from metrosexual Smallville, where guys wear really tight T-shirts and fitted formal shirts they bought at Abercrombie and Fitch; where they publish novels and unlike other writers really never have to struggle but instantly are welcomed on the cocktail circuit; where they are less salt of the earth and more know-it-all sophisticates. No wonder Lois hates the guy, he has the depth of a platinum credit card.

Byrne's Clark really seems more alien than his Superman (not that there's much effort to distinguish one from the other).

Counterpoised to that is Byrne's Ma and Pa Kent who are at once buried in every stereotype about farm folk and yet look so frail and small that one wonders how they managed all those years on their own without a big, strapping lad to do the chores.

Of course, just like every other Superman origin story, Byrne's exists simply so every other writer and artist can ignore it or warp it to their own needs. Ma and Pa Kent escape from their American Gothic prison to become flesh and blood individuals. Clark emerges as a more honest portrait of a guy from the sticks living in the big city.

However, one of the pleasures of comics is finding the funny in the stories. And if we don't take them too seriously, Byrne's comics deliver up a lot of funny.

I think you nailed why I found reading MOS after having read the various Superbooks for years by that point underwhelming...Byrnes characterizations of the cast just didn't feel like the characters I had been reading for a decade by that point. I little clarrification, I started reading Superman comics semiregularly around the time of the KRISIS OF THE KRIMSON KRYPTONITE and The "Death" of Luthor. I really got hooked for real during PANIC IN THE SKY and of course the DOOMSDAY arc. I caught up via back issues and didn't get into the meat and potatoes of the Bryne era until 1998, where I got ahold of the MOS series and the 22 issues of Superman Byrne did (although I already had issues #1,3, and #5 of SUPERMAN). The characters had obviously evolved from the rather shallow version Bryne introduced. I mean, his Lois was immensely unlikable and his Kent's did seem like they were every farm country stereotype you could name. Stern/Jurgens/Ordway and Simonson did a lot to enrich those characters and make them real and likable. I can see why those who started the Post-Crisis with Byrne looked at it much more negatively than some like me who started knee deep in the triangle era. Those comics from 1991-1995 were one hell of a great ride and is a huge reason (along with the Donner-films) that I became a die hard Superman fan and will always have a lot of affection for the character.

[Dataweaver]

My opinion about Birthright is that it’s decent enough on its own; but when viewed as a replacement for Man of Steel, it tries too hard to fix things that aren't broken (again, my opinion). For instance, does Luthor really need to be a scientific genius to work as a foil for Superman? Not really; the important thing is that he's clever, and challenges Superman in ways that can't be solved through brute force. Indeed, the other big thing about Birthright's Luthor is that he came across as too alien: the Man of Steel Luthor was dangerous because he understood people and how they think, making him a Magnificent Bastard who could wrap people around his finger with little to no effort; by contrast, the Birthright Luthor just didn't get people. His faux alien invasion was the closest he could come to manipulating people to do what he wants; and he carried that off with all the grace of a locomotive.

Likewise, arranging for them to have met as teenagers doesn't really do anything useful without Superboy being part of the picture: the whole point of the pre-Crisis "childhood friends turned enemies" thing was that Luthor was Superboy's friend, and developed a hatred for him that carried over to Superman after he made his debut in Metropolis. Without that link — without Luthor being able to say "Superman is the guy who did this to me back when I was a teen", there's little point in tying Luthor to Smallville.

Conversely, if Birthright had restored Superboy to Superman's backstory, there would have been no need for Secret Origins; but Birthright didn't go there. Of course, Clark as Superboy presents its own difficulties, which is presumably why it was dropped in the New 52 reboot: it dilutes the impact of Superman's debut in Metropolis, and places too many restrictions on it. For instance, if you want a "Men of Steel"-style origin where Superman's debut in Metropolis has him "faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound", then you can't have Clark flying around Smallville five years earlier; and you can't have him in costume as a teen if you want the donning of the costume for the first time to be part of his Metropolis debut. Likewise, if Luthor did know Superboy as a teen in Smallville, one would expect him to scour Smallville for any clue as to how to take down Superman.

[Jim Kelly]

My problem with Byrne's Luthor is waiting for the other shoe to drop. Because it should drop. I'll give Lex a year to be brought to justice, but that's all I'll give. And that's a lot more than I would give a story when I was a kid.

As a kid, I couldn't count on the same titles being in the store the next month. So I always wanted to find comics that tied everything up in the same issue. When I brought home a comic that turned out to be continued in the next issue, it's was like biting into a bad peach.

Once comics became a little more reliable (but not always--finding certain titles in the store the next month has always been a problem), I became more comfortable with stories continuing for a few issues. But I still always believed in a resolution to the plot. A year is the limit for me.

Not every comic is written in that style. Some comics want to tell us that there is no hope in the world and nothing ever gets resolved--the other shoe never drops. But Superman never existed in that world. I always counted on Superman to bring criminals to justice and for good to triumph over evil. So at some point Lex has to account for his crimes. He can't keep doing bad things to good people and never answer to Superman or the law for his offenses. Superman would not allow it. I realize that in the old days Luthor would always get out of prison, but at least at the end of the story he was put away.

Another reason I never liked comics that don't provide resolution is I felt the publisher putting his hand in my pocket. As a little kid, I already figured out that the only reason they continued a story was to get me to buy the next issue. The best way to get me to buy another issue is to give me a satisfying story in this one. Then next month I'll look for the same title, hoping to find a story just as good as the last one. If I see you trying to put your hand in my pocket--I'm going to keep well away from you.

I get exasperated with comics that refuse to wrap things up, that just keep teasing me and never deliver on their promise. If you don't have it in your skillset to tell a story with a rousing ending, then you're wasting my time.

[Buried Alien]

My problem with Byrne's Luthor is waiting for the other shoe to drop. Because it should drop. I'll give Lex a year to be brought to justice, but that's all I'll give. And that's a lot more than I would give a story when I was a kid.

As a kid, I couldn't count on the same titles being in the store the next month. So I always wanted to find comics that tied everything up in the same issue. When I brought home a comic that turned out to be continued in the next issue, it's was like biting into a bad peach.

Once comics became a little more reliable (but not always--finding certain titles in the store the next month has always been a problem), I became more comfortable with stories continuing for a few issues. But I still always believed in a resolution to the plot. A year is the limit for me.

Not every comic is written in that style. Some comics want to tell us that there is no hope in the world and nothing ever gets resolved--the other shoe never drops. But Superman never existed in that world. I always counted on Superman to bring criminals to justice and for good to triumph over evil. So at some point Lex has to account for his crimes. He can't keep doing bad things to good people and never answer to Superman or the law for his offenses. Superman would not allow it. I realize that in the old days Luthor would always get out of prison, but at least at the end of the story he was put away.

Another reason I never liked comics that don't provide resolution is I felt the publisher putting his hand in my pocket. As a little kid, I already figured out that the only reason they continued a story was to get me to buy the next issue. The best way to get me to buy another issue is to give me a satisfying story in this one. Then next month I'll look for the same title, hoping to find a story just as good as the last one. If I see you trying to put your hand in my pocket--I'm going to keep well away from you.

I get exasperated with comics that refuse to wrap things up, that just keep teasing me and never deliver on their promise. If you don't have it in your skillset to tell a story with a rousing ending, then you're wasting my time.

I know what you mean, Jim. Modern superhero comics in general seem to have lost the art of an *ending*. Nothing ever really ends anymore, at least in the conventional sense: every story runs into the next story without a proper resolution and break.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Dataweaver]

True enough. While strictly episodic comics stifle character growth, you need a certain extent of an episodic format or else getting people to pick up your title becomes increasingly difficult.

OTOH, the notion of Luthor as a jailbird who breaks out just long enough to hassle Superman before getting locked up again just doesn't feel right to me: that's more suitable to Batman's rogues' gallery, such as Joker's effective permanent residence being a cell in Arkham Asylum.

[Jim Kelly]

Maggin made Luthor work. I see his version of Luthor as an ascetic. Prison does not bother him, because he can be satisfied anywhere. His brain is that marvelous. And probably the absence of outward stimuli better suits his thought process. As Lex could always escape whenever he wanted, Maggin's Luthor stayed in prison until there was a need for him to do so--and then carry out whatever brilliant scheme he had devised. I also doubt that it mattered to him if he succeeded or he failed. Everything was a science experiment. So if a plan proved unsuccessful that was just as useful data as had it been unsucccessful.

With other writers, there were different places Luthor could go. He could go to Lexor or he could be imprisoned in a space prison or in Kandor. Superman might not have been able to prove a case against Luthor in an American court--but he might have convinced the Thanagar police or the Guardians of the Universe that Luthor deserved to be in an intergalactic prison. Given Byrne's Superman was willing to kill simply out of the fear that criminals might escape to cause more death and destruction--I have to wonder why his Superman allowed Lex to remain at large for so long, knowing that Luthor was causing grievous harm.

[Dataweaver]

IMHO, the killing of the "phantom zone criminals" was a misstep: Superman doesn't need a traumatic event to decide not to kill, any more than he needs a tragedy in his past (i.e., the death of his parents) to decide to become a superhero. But even within the story as presented, note that the whole point of the killing of the Kryptonian criminals was that it was an aberration, being the exception to the rule that Superman doesn't kill.

You and I should probably just agree to disagree about Luthor. To me, Luthor "gets his comeuppance" every time Superman hands him a setback; he doesn't need to be publically outed as a villain and imprisoned with his assets frozen. Just thwarting him is enough, given how much he's used to getting his way. And if he does suffer swift justice from Superman on a regular basis, his menace as a villain is greatly diminished. So I prefer him as the one guy in Superman’s rogue's gallery who always seems to get away with what he’s doing, more or less, with little more than the occasional slap on the wrist. Every other Superman villain can and should be dealt with swiftly and decisively; just not Luthor.

[Jim Kelly]

I don't really see the Byrne Lex Luthor as even the same character as other Luthors. And to a certain degree, I think the businessman villain was a good idea and it goes back to the roots of the original Superman--which Byrne was supposedly trying to do. I just think that there was a really great idea for a story there and had Byrne been up to the task it could have worked out in a satisfying way. There were some episodes with his Luthor that were good, though.

One of the things that irked me is that Byrne left in the middle of it all. That's another reason I don't like stories that are teased out for long periods of time, because it always seems that the original creator leaves and other creators come along to tie things up. And then we never know how the original creator really would have tied up the story.

If the corrupt businessman who runs the city is a classic original Superman plot then it cries out for resolution. Because that's what original Superman did. He saw the common man suffereing under the weight of corrupt capitalism and he took those shysters by the tie and dropped them from the top of a building if they didn't give up their evil ways. In the late '80s this was the kind of story that we needed to see. We needed to see those arrogant fat cats get what's coming to them. Not seeing that comeuppance was just a painful reminder of our own miserable world, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

If Luthor was J. Wilbur Wolfingham in a better suit, then original Superman would have found a way to out-con his con. Maybe Lex would not have ended up in prison, but he might have ended up in a third world country with only two nickels to rub together.

[Dataweaver]

I appreciate Morrison’s “five years ago” Superman for the way he captures the essence of how Superman started out. But the other thing I appreciate is that that was described as Superman as he was then, and that his “crusader for social justice” days when he was more like a vigilante than a superhero were a phase that he grew out of, becoming more self-restrained and responsible in his activities and more inclined to respect and work within the law. The days when Superman killed a thug for trying to shoot him or a con-artist for trying to cheat someone should be left in the late 30s; not even Morrison’s Action Comics went to far as to show Superman having so low a regard for life or such a willingness to take the law into his own hands.

[BBally]

My thoughts on the Post Crisis Superman origins:

- Byrne's Man Of Steel has the advantage of being the most accessible version of Superman's origin especially for new readers who aren't familiar with the character. It had a good story with great art by Bryne, while there are new ideas that I really liked (Kents being alive, Luthor as a business tycoon), there are somethings I didn't agree with (making Krypton cold and sterlie, making Clark a jock, messing up the Legion timeline). Overall, a really good origin that was straight forward with its story.

- Birthright is my personal favorite among the three despite its problems, I prefer the designs of Krypton in that book over Byrne's, in fact it looked like a combination of the Pre-Crisis look with the Byrne's look. I like the idea of Clark and Lex knowing each other in Smallville (although Maggin had the better idea in his short story Luthor's Gift by having Clark 13 and Lex 16) however I wasn't fond of the art in the book and the ending felt a bit rushed.

- Secret Origin: Other than having great art from Gary Frank, this origin felt more like a by the numbers mishmash than an actual story. I get that Geoff Johns tried to combine so many elements from the previous 3 origins plus elements from Pre-Crisis but like many of Johns attempts of bringing back Pre-Crisis ideas, it felt like a glorified fanfiction to me, except I've read fanfiction of Superman origins done better.

[Johnny Thunders!]

Birthright is definitely my favorite. Clark's mind is hungrier, he doesn't seem limited by his Smallville upbringing. Byrne's Superman and Luthor bothered me because their intelligence seemed blunted. Super Strength was fine but Super Intelligence became too fanciful. I completely prefer Luthor so consumed by his hate for Superman that he has no time for business suits and his image. I like Luthor to have no pretense about being THE Super Criminal. With Secret Origin, I like like it but, The Donner fixation with Superman in the comics had a limited appeal to me. It's fun like Batman 66 is to me.

[Jim Kelly]

I liked the first three issues of SUPERMAN: SECRET ORIGINS by Johns and Frank. I liked the little Donner touches and the Christopher Reeve look. What I didn't like is Lex Luthor. It was good to see him put back in Clark's early life, but Johns really didn't do much with that--compared with Michael Rosenbaum on SMALLVILLE, it was too tentative. If you're going to give us young Lex, then go all in.

Johns seemed to be saying that every major threat to Superman is the product of Luthor's scheming. On the one hand, I think that makes Luthor too central to the Superman story, to the disadvantage of every other major villain; and on the other hand, there's no grounded reason for why Luthor hates Superman to the degree that he does.

This SECRET ORIGINS came out at the wrong time. If it had come out two years earlier, then I think it would have created a stir among Superman fans. It would have introduced all the innovations that Johns and Frank would do--it would have set a road map for Superman going forward. When it did come out, it came out at a time when Superman was in trouble creatively and editorally. Within two years, all the innovations it sought to establish were swept aside for another reboot. It never had the chance to make its mark like MAN OF STEEL or Batman's YEAR ONE. Rather than serving as a prelude, it ended up as an epitaph. More "Whatever Happened To . . ." than "The Story of Superman's Life."

[enriqibi000]

Morisons Men of Steel has been retconed by the Superman: Reborn story arc, Secret Origins is back in continuity again.

[Flash Gordon]

Secret Origins is terrible. I have no interest in the Superman that, that tale attempts to weave- sadly.

Birthright and Man of Steel both have a lot of good going for them, they're alright. Man of Steel was a very good foundation, and had lots of new avenues to explore creatively.

I dug the hell out of Morrison's Action Comics. That's the best out of all of them, by far.