Michael Bailey nails the problem with Superman and DC comics: NEW COSTUME…SAME DRAMA…DEEPER SHOVEL

[Cypher]

that is what I think too, just watch the train wreck

Yep. Kind of sad to be dragged on for so long.

More and more I think its a sign of the time things more than the character. I dont know why DC cant just go get Jurgens, Waid, Ordway, or Stern to write a story and go with a successful formula and writers who understand things.

[Cypher]

What about his face? Only thing that changed was his haircut.

Not really.

Not that I'm against the look.

[Blacksun]

What about his face? Only thing that changed was his haircut.

his face is completely different, it was much more like a millo vertimilia not it looks more like a WWE fighter. It is very squared

[Sacred Knight]

I'm not seeing any big facial discrepancies. Maybe its in the fact the promotional material is giving him scowls. Other than that only other thing I've noticed in build I've noticed is an emphasis on his biceps with the t-shirt.

[Blacksun]

I'm not seeing any big facial discrepancies. Maybe its in the fact the promotional material is giving him scowls. Other than that only other thing I've noticed in build I've noticed is an emphasis on his biceps with the t-shirt.

it went from this:


to this:


his head is more squared with more masculine features.

[Ascended]

More and more I think its a sign of the time things more than the character. I dont know why DC cant just go get Jurgens, Waid, Ordway, or Stern to write a story and go with a successful formula and writers who understand things.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with Superman as a concept, certainly. He needs some work, but that's largely just to clean up around the edges.

Well, Jurgens did have an arc in the first year of the 52. And Perez started Superman off, so its not like DC didnt give that era of creators a shot. Perez had his hands tied of course, and that certainly impacted his quality. I still thought, all in all, it was solid work, though the villain was worthless beyond words. And as much as I adore the Triangle era, Im sad to say Jurgens' issues did not impress me. It felt extremely flat, like I was reading a twenty year old comic instead of something written today.

Honestly, I think there are two big issues with the 52. The first and most obvious is the un-even execution. You get a guy like Morrison, who most Superman fans love, and then you put Lobdell on the other book. Is anyone surprised when reviews are mixed? And of course, Idleson was a terrible editor who dragged the line down long before the reboot.

But then there's the fact that so much of the 52 pulled from pre-Crisis. The Kents are dead, Clark Kent is more of a disguise than it was in post-Crisis (though not as much of one as during pre-Crisis, so its a bit of a combination there) the power levels are very much Silver-Bronze Age, and with that has come a new round of "too powerful" complaints. And of course there's Clark's relationship with Lois, which has been rewound back to the beginning and DC isnt in a rush to tell that particular story again just yet, and that's a huge change from what we were used to. Unless you're familiar with the pre-Crisis stuff, the 52 isnt going to feel at all like Superman. I myself think that the foundation of the 52 is the strongest Superman has been in thirty years, but aside from Morrison and Pak the execution has been extremely unreliable (and they've had their bad issues too). Lobdell had great ideas but terrible execution, Diggle/Daniels was passable but forgettable, Jurgens was a let-down (to my utter disappointment) and Perez was forced to write blind. Snyder wrote a great supporting cast but a terribly un-skilled and clueless Superman. And Johns doesnt really get the nuance that makes Superman work.

We'll see what happens in TRUTH. If DC is serious about their editorial department backing off and letting creators do their own thing, these problems might work themselves out. I think the potential is there for this to be a glorious era for the character, he just needs to get the right creators and DC management need to stay out of the way.

[manofsteel1979]

That being said, Michael Bailey has been mostly positive on the New 52 stories recently (he seems to enjoy Pak's run)

I guess people seem to gloss over that fact. He clearly states that this is not a hit job on the New 52, just DC's overall treatment of Superman since INFINITE CRISIS, which by and large, has been dreadful. He doesn't say it's been all bad. It's just taking the last 8 years as a whole, it's that DC doesn't know what to do with Superman and it is his thesis, based on HIS beliefs and feelings, supported by SOME facts, is that is due to the people in charge don't quite get the character. DiDio's statement (which I had forgotten about until Bailey mentioned it)about seeing Supes as a fireman pretty much tells the tale of why we got crap like GROUNDED.

Without getting personal, I don't get how some here can claim that personal philosophy and personal preferrences of the people in power plays absolutely NO role in how the franchise is run. Now, I will admit that the overall primary motivator is, yes, sales...and what they think will sell. I don't think (and Bailey, in this article doesn't seem to make the case) that personal bias against Superman as a character means that DiDio, Lee, et all are intentionally sabotaging the sales and performance of the Superman line. I think a few posters misread the article and my own statements and draw the conclusion that I think it's as simple as : DiDio hates Superman, therefore, they want Superman to tank. DiDio and Warners no doubt are probably as baffled as we are as fans over the sloppy performance of the Superman line. They do want Superman to be successful for their own monetary gain. That's their job. To put out product that sells. They would not actively sabotage Superman. There may be times it FEELS like they are...but I think most sane people, when looking at it logically, realize that even if they personally HATE Superman with a passion, for the sake of their jobs , they want Superman comics to sell...and they want Superman movies to sell tickets etc. I GET THAT.

Where their personal bias or lack of understanding of the character comes into play is in the making of bad decisions that cause the issues at the heart of Superman's problems. If you don't understand something and what makes it tick, it's a safe possibility you will either not be able to see if a certain writer/artist/editor is up to the task of working on that thing, so you hire either someone who you THINK understands the character, and says he/she likes or loves the character, yet when it comes down to it, really has no clue (like JMS with GROUNDED),or you hire someone with a similar mindset to yours that thinks that the character needs "fixing" in order for it to sell. Thus why we got stuff like NEW KRYPTON, GROUNDED Kryptonian Ceremonial Armor, the Lobdell debacle and the "Power Couple".

The intentions, as always are for it to all sell. They want Superman to be successful, but since they don't have a good understanding of the basic underpinnings of what made the character work for so long, and even more importantly, unable to detect creatively when something isn't working or clicking, they remain at a disadvantage. As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Now, with Pak, we (and DC) got lucky in someone that DOES seem to get and like Superman...so, wonderful. Maybe the new writer on SUPERMAN is of the same ilk. We will see soon. If so, then maybe the powers that be have finally discovered you need to hire people that know what makes the character work, and just turn them loose while staying out of the way. If that is what "TRUTH" really is....and the interview in the other thread seems to indicate that TRUTH originated from the creators and not from the editorial office as so much has been the case with Superman for 8 years (and longer), then perhaps we have FINALLY turned the corner away from business as usual. If so...then good job, DC.

[manofsteel1979]

it went from this:


to this:


his head is more squared with more masculine features.

and that's a bad thing? I say about time. I'm glad they seem to be returning officially to a more square jawed masculine model for Superman/Clark.

Oh...wow...this is post 700! Yay me. Wait...that doesn't mean I will be rebooted at Post #714 , will it?

[Jon-El]

Some people just want the Superman that's most familiar to them & some want something completely fresh. Some people want a silver / Bronze Age Superman. Some want something like the Byrne / Jurgens / Ordway version. Then you have people who weren't around for those versions of who never connected to them. They want an original take with fresh stories. Nobody is wrong but it makes it tough to get a consensus on the character.

[Myskin]

I guess people seem to gloss over that fact. He clearly states that this is not a hit job on the New 52, just DC's overall treatment of Superman since INFINITE CRISIS, which by and large, has been dreadful. He doesn't say it's been all bad. It's just taking the last 8 years as a whole, it's that DC doesn't know what to do with Superman and it is his thesis, based on HIS beliefs and feelings, supported by SOME facts, is that is due to the people in charge don't quite get the character. DiDio's statement (which I had forgotten about until Bailey mentioned it)about seeing Supes as a fireman pretty much tells the tale of why we got crap like GROUNDED.
.

Look, sorry but A- I don't see any concrete fact in Bailey's article concerning Didio's, Lee's personal bias and preferences and B- I am sure that the GROUNDED debacle has much to do with the impending New52 reboot (it was basically a giant fill-in, more or less like the Finches' current Wonder Woman run, or JMS' WW run which took place at the same time) aside from JMS' horrible prose. Anyway, as long as we don't have details (real details, like those in Brian Cronin's articles) it is just fan speculation.

Anyway, I don't think that the situation concerning the Superman line would be that simple to fix. I mean, Morrison created the most critically acclaimed Superman story ever, but so far it basically had no legacy (while, for example, Miller's Dark Knight Returns is a milestone), even if Pak used more or less the same tone in his run. And when Morrison himself took the reins of the regular series, he failed (I mean, let's admit it, that version of the character had potential and there are some good ideas here and there, but they are largely undervedeveloped and rushed). IMHO it's not that DC hasn't tried - and with very good intentions - to relaunch the character in the latest 10 years. Quite the contrary, they basically tried everything. We had a Christopher Reeve-inspired Superman, revival of Silver Age elements, revival of the Golden Age elements, revival of the Jurgens era elements... Superman married, Superman unmarried, armored Superman, dead kryptonians, living kryptonians, at least 3-4 different versions of Supergirl, 5 DIFFERENT origins... Nothing worked, and I suspect that it doesn't depend only on DC's bad decisions. What DC basically did was desperately attempting to inject new elements and directions while, at the same time, tying them to classic elements which the fans could recognize. I think that it was an impossible compromise. First of all, Superman fans are even more nitpicky and fixated than Wonder Woman fans, and that says a lot (we are still debating about Superman's trunks after almost four years, for God's sake). Pleasing everyone is impossible. But above all, as I said, you can't relaunch the character with a superficial restyling. Superman would need RADICAL decisions, and I mean way more radical than everything DC attempted in the latest 20 years. When I say "radical", I mean "Dark Knight Returns" level.

I don't like the romance between WW and Superman, especially because I don't like heavy interactions between two major characters (every character should have their own universe and cast IMHO), but - even if that storyline isn't going anywhere - I understand why DC took that decision. Basically, they were trying to have Superman develop a new own romantic life and EVERY conceivable female character, including Lana Lang, would have appeared as a light version of Lois Lane. They had only one choice, that is a female character who was at the same time a major DC character, strong enough to have her own series for 70+ years. But aside from the Supes/WW storyline, I found it interesting that it made some heavy contradictions about Lois emerge. Basically, even if Lois as a character is represented as a strong and independent woman, when you take the romantic element out of the equation, she loses her purpose. And that's because for 75 years, her primary role was being Supes' primary romantic interest. And that's why almost nobody knows what to do with Lois now (even if they are attempting: Futures' end is largely a mess, but Lois is rather important there, and in Superman unchained too). From this point of view, Lois as a character is way less independent than, for example, James Gordon. DC could easily create a whole series entirely focused on Gordon without Batman (in fact they did it and are still doing it). But creating a whole series about the Daily Planet or Lois, without Superman or Clark, would require a LOT, and I mean a LOT of work (I'm not talking about one-shots, but a whole long-term series). For a number of reasons: in 75 years the Planet has never been developed as a plausible newspaper, Perry is a nice character but never really had a real development, etc. But, more than everything, because Lois has yet to find a role which wouldn't include the participation of Superman as a romantic interest. IMHO that's a very good example which explains why clinging to tradition ultimately damages the characters. Within Superman's lore there are a LOT of similar cases.

DC should: gather 4-5 of the most important and visionary brains in modern comics culture (it doesn't matter if they like Superman or not, I suspect that too much love could represent a weakness, I mean, it's not that Waid's Birthright is without any problem) - I mean guys like Jonathan Hickman, Brandon Graham and Geof Darrow - pay them a lot of money, close them in a room and have them talk about Superman for months if necessary, until they come up with a complex, believable plan which entirely rebuilds the character. And then they should implement this plan within stories and stick with it, even if old school fans don't like it. DC's target should be young people who read modern and sophisticated comic books like the Walking Dead, not older generations of readers who know every single Silver Age story by heart.

[JBatmanFan05]

What DC should do is simply commit to a permanent classic Superman book with trunks & all. No digital only Adv of Superman here. Then they can continue to mishandle the character on the main titles and try to get some people to think Superman is kewl so they'll go see the neck-snapping grayscale somber films.

[manofsteel1979]

Anyway, I don't think that the situation concerning the Superman line would be that simple to fix. I mean, Morrison created the most critically acclaimed Superman story ever, but so far it basically had no legacy (while, for example, Miller's Dark Knight Returns is a milestone), even if Pak used more or less the same tone in his run. And when Morrison himself took the reins of the regular series, he failed (I mean, let's admit it, that version of the character had potential and there are some good ideas here and there, but they are largely undervedeveloped and rushed). IMHO it's not that DC hasn't tried - and with very good intentions - to relaunch the character in the latest 10 years. Quite the contrary, they basically tried everything. We had a Christopher Reeve-inspired Superman, revival of Silver Age elements, revival of the Golden Age elements, revival of the Jurgens era elements... Superman married, Superman unmarried, armored Superman, dead kryptonians, living kryptonians, at least 3-4 different versions of Supergirl, 5 DIFFERENT origins... Nothing worked, and I suspect that it doesn't depend only on DC's bad decisions. What DC basically did was desperately attempting to inject new elements and directions while, at the same time, tying them to classic elements which the fans could recognize. I think that it was an impossible compromise. First of all, Superman fans are even more nitpicky and fixated than Wonder Woman fans, and that says a lot (we are still debating about Superman's trunks after almost four years, for God's sake). Pleasing everyone is impossible. But above all, as I said, you can't relaunch the character with a superficial restyling. Superman would need RADICAL decisions, and I mean way more radical than everything DC attempted in the latest 20 years. When I say "radical", I mean "Dark Knight Returns" level.

I don't entirely disagree with you. You make good points, but to be fair to Morrison is that he wasn't given the free reign with the New 52 run he was with AS SUPERMAN. Yeah he set the new basic origin story, but he still had to work within the box that was already constructed (I.E. The Jim Lee armor, Lois Lane's role going forward reduced,the iron clad "5 year" timeline, the wildstorm influence over the "feel" of the universe etc) so I'm sure there were ideas and concepts he wanted to work in, but couldn't due to the tighter editorial control. Of course, the tighter editorial reigns weren't just a Superman problem, but a DC problem over all. as we saw with so many horror stories of the creators having their work rewritten whole cloth without their input and constant creative turnover on many of their books from around 2011-2013. It's highly possible the reason his stories were rushed is that he wanted to get out of dodge with all the chaos going on editorially, so he set up stuff early on he didn't ultimately have time later to explore in the detail he probably would have preferred to explore,but again we will never know for sure.

And yes, you are right that Batman has had the critical reexamination Superman has lacked and likely why Batman has been on sound footing for 20-30 years, but I think that stems from the people at Warners being more interested in BATMAN as a whole since DKR and the Burton BATMAN film. They seem to have had more interest in examining and exploring and "groundskeeping" those mythos in detail, and hiring people willing to do just that. Meanwhile Superman sort of sits there unexamined, and really no one at Warners for the longest time wanted to really do anything with him. Again though, that comes down to, yes, preferrence and bias affecting approaches. It started in the 80's and has continued today. DiDio and Lee (and Johns to an extent) are just in the same mindset. Perhaps TRUTH signifies a realization on their part. Perhaps this is just more of what you described above, flinging more spaggetti at the wall in desperation that something may stick. We will see.

I don't like the romance between WW and Superman, especially because I don't like heavy interactions between two major characters (every character should have their own universe and cast IMHO), but - even if that storyline isn't going anywhere - I understand why DC took that decision. Basically, they were trying to have Superman develop a new own romantic life and EVERY conceivable female character, including Lana Lang, would have appeared as a light version of Lois Lane. They had only one choice, that is a female character who was at the same time a major DC character, strong enough to have her own series for 70+ years. But aside from the Supes/WW storyline, I found it interesting that it made some heavy contradictions about Lois emerge. Basically, even if Lois as a character is represented as a strong and independent woman, when you take the romantic element out of the equation, she loses her purpose. And that's because for 75 years, her primary role was being Supes' primary romantic interest. And that's why almost nobody knows what to do with Lois now (even if they are attempting: Futures' end is largely a mess, but Lois is rather important there, and in Superman unchained too). From this point of view, Lois as a character is way less independent than, for example, James Gordon. DC could easily create a whole series entirely focused on Gordon without Batman (in fact they did it and are still doing it). But creating a whole series about the Daily Planet or Lois, without Superman or Clark, would require a LOT, and I mean a LOT of work (I'm not talking about one-shots, but a whole long-term series). For a number of reasons: in 75 years the Planet has never been developed as a plausible newspaper, Perry is a nice character but never really had a real development, etc. But, more than everything, because Lois has yet to find a role which wouldn't include the participation of Superman as a romantic interest. IMHO that's a very good example which explains why clinging to tradition ultimately damages the characters. Within Superman's lore there are a LOT of similar cases.

I'm glad we agree on the WW/SUPERMAN thing being a bad idea, even if we disagree WHY it is a bad idea. However, I think the main motivator isn't exploring new ideas as much as selling merchandise. The way it's all been handled stinks of Warner Bros telling DC that focus groups liked the idea of a Superman/Wonder Woman "romance" and that it was a surefire way to bolster WW's merchandising cred by connecting it to Superman, so you will put them together and help us sell some stuff. It just all feels like not a decision born from the creators clamoring to write these two as a couple but corporate suits hoping that two great tastes will taste good together...and sell tshirts. Neither of us can prove anything one way or another in that regard.

And I do agree, nostalgia for nostalgia's sake is never good. However, change for the sake of change without putting thought into it is just equally as bad, and THAT has been the issue. For instance, changing Superman's costume to modernize it in some respects isn't a bad idea. However, changing it to high collared armor with tons of seams everywhere for the express purpose of following pre-existing trends isn't. Getting rid of the secret identity for a time to re-explore if he needs said secret identity isn't a bad idea to examine. However, getting rid of it just because Captain America or Iron Man no longer has secret identities, and they are doing fine, so thus it should be done with Superman, IS a bad idea. Whenever I see that point made by some (not you...but I've seen that argument used for getting rid of Clark Kent in other threads)...I'm sorry but that loses me. Making Superman more like generic hero #46 just to make him trendy for the sake of it without actually thinking it through is NEVER a good idea.

DC should: gather 4-5 of the most important and visionary brains in modern comics culture (it doesn't matter if they like Superman or not, I suspect that too much love could represent a weakness, I mean, it's not that Waid's Birthright is without any problem) - I mean guys like Jonathan Hickman, Brandon Graham and Geof Darrow - pay them a lot of money, close them in a room and have them talk about Superman for months if necessary, until they come up with a complex, believable plan which entirely rebuilds the character. And then they should implement this plan within stories and stick with it, even if old school fans don't like it. DC's target should be young people who read modern and sophisticated comic books like the Walking Dead, not older generations of readers who know every single Silver Age story by heart.

I sorta agree with you, but I would require said creators to read the entire early Siegel and Shuster run of Superman and use that as the spiritual core of all the changes you would make. That's the core essence of Superman, without the baggage of 70 years attached. You stick close to that spirit, the basic characters and relationships, but build logically from that...it will work itself out.The further you move away from that core is where the character gets into trouble.

[Myskin]

You make good points, but to be fair to Morrison is that he wasn't given the free reign with the New 52 run he was with AS SUPERMAN.

Sorry, but we don't know this. I mean, of course he wasn't given free reign with Superman, probably he didn't have free reign with Batman either (at least at the beginning), but personally speaking I think that he simply wasn't really interested in the story. I don't think that he wouldn't have been able to provide a good execution if he really wanted to do it. I mean, Morrison is probably my favourite writer, but I think that he approached the story lazily, with a rehearsal of discarded ideas for his All-Star Superman specials. Some of the parts I hate the most are the most "Morrisonian" ones, like the scenes about Mxyzptlk and the fifth dimension. The ending is just a mess. I think that his heart was simply with Batman and Multiversity (I think that it is not a case that the "Multiversity" issue, the one with President Superman, is generally acclaimed as the best issue of the whole run).

I think that stems from the people at Warners being more interested in BATMAN as a whole since DKR and the Burton BATMAN film.

Of course they are. I mean, shouldn't they? Batman is basically the most perfect superhero ever. The critical thinking about the character, the path of deconstruction, reconstruction, with Miller, Burton, Dini, ecc, was so important and articulate that Batman is currently a perfectly adaptable superhero, with the richest gallery of villains, and a great background. Basically, they worked on Batman so much that DC could simply forget about all the other heroes and keep on publishing esclusively Batman comics. Basically, Batman as a character will be able to survive almost everything.

Superman was never involved in such sophisticated and important stories, with one exception: I am not Byrne Superman's greatest fan, but I must admit that THAT version of the character, somehow, was more coherent and complete than the one we currently have. Somehow, it worked. It could have been a great starting point to completely re-analyze the character (more or less like Jim Starlin's Batman, which was one single step on the evolution of Bruce Wayne - followed by other ones - and had its importance), but they simply chose not to do so. Nowadays, Byrne's Superman is rather dated IMHO and no real evolution followed. Just think about what Batman would be now if the current version was the same one which was created by Chuck Dixon and Doug Moench: it had its merits, but today it is dated and full of boring tie-ins and crossovers. Batman without Paul Dini, Greg Rucka, Ed Brubaker, Jeph Loeb, Grant Morrison, Scott Snyder, Chris Nolan, the Arkham series...

The way it's all been handled stinks of Warner Bros telling DC that focus groups liked the idea of a Superman/Wonder Woman "romance" and that it was a surefire way to bolster WW's merchandising cred by connecting it to Superman, so you will put them together and help us sell some stuff. It just all feels like not a decision born from the creators clamoring to write these two as a couple but corporate suits hoping that two great tastes will taste good together...and sell tshirts.

Look, sorry but that's another speculation. I mean, I don't even know if there is really such a rich merchandise focused on the Supes/WW couple, enough to justify such a move. I am still rather convinced about the idea that it was simply the only way to offer an alternative path, romatically speaking for Superman.

However, getting rid of it just because Captain America or Iron Man no longer has secret identities, and they are doing fine, so thus it should be done with Superman, IS a bad idea.

The fact that almost every superhero renounces their identity (not only Cap and Iron Man, I'd include within the number Daredevil who had an important and rich private life) IMHO demonstrates that secret identities are currently not that indispensable for characters. Of course, that doesn't mean that Superman SHOULD be without a secret identity. On the other hand, all the versions of Clark Kent I have seen in the latest 25 years make me wonder why he SHOULDN'T.

The philosophy "If it isn't broken don't fix it" IMHO here doesn't work, because the character is ALREADY broken. Not because of DC, but because Superman simply doesn't work anymore as far its most important elements are concerned.

The further you move away from that core is where the character gets into trouble.

Maybe, but that's not entirely true. I mean, sometimes the legacy of a character works better than the prototype. IMHO, Daredevil as a character was born when Miller re-created him, not when Stan Lee wrote him.

[DochaDocha]

I'm a little surprised that Bailey wrote this, only because, as others indicated, Bailey seemed to be the most accepting of New 52 among Superman Homepage writers. However, I don't necessarily disagree with much of what he has to say, either.

I do have to ask myself if Superman has jumped the shark. Is it possible that stuff that older fans like just isn't commercially viable anymore? No idea. I do often think to myself that DC and Warner Bros are always trying to tinker with a good formula, the way the Coca-Cola company screwed around with New Coke and Coke Classic, but who knows. It also could very well be that everyone in charge has their own version of Superman that they think will succeed, and few (if not none) of them happen to like the things that older Superman fans tend to like.

On the other hand, desire for preservation of old ideas has to be balanced with the fact that most things can't perpetually maintain or increase audience interest. There are definitely collectors who collect everything, but how many of those people's motivations are driven by habit of collecting and desire to complete their collections, as opposed to unwavering interest in the fictional content itself?

In short, I support change in the regard that it serves a lot of needs. That doesn't mean I support every new idea, though. That gets rebalanced by the fact that I think bad ideas are an inevitable consequence of trying to stay current. Personally, I am willing to ride out the sea of changes that we're about to see, but I begrudge nobody who is angry and wants nothing to do with it. I, too, have a breaking point (for the zero of you who are wondering, it's Batman v. Superman; if that movie fails in a few particular areas, I might forever be done as a Superman fan).

EDIT: I'm probably less harsh on Jim Lee because even though I think "For Tomorrow" was not very good, and "Unchained" was really disappointing, he did have that commentary on Justice League: War pointing out that seeing Superman kick butt, even Batman's butt, has entertainment value, and in that regard he seemed to be swimming upstream against a current of modern day creators who think it's only interesting if it's the other way around. Just FYI.

[Blacksun]

and that's a bad thing? I say about time. I'm glad they seem to be returning officially to a more square jawed masculine model for Superman/Clark.

Oh...wow...this is post 700! Yay me. Wait...that doesn't mean I will be rebooted at Post #714 , will it?

he already had a square jaw, now even his head is square. He was much more attractive on ones I posted than the last one.