The Good, The bad and the Ugly: The Post-Flashpoint Superman Four Years Later

[Slim Shady]

Good...

Action Comics. Morrison's run was great and he laid down a really good blueprint for this Superman. Pak has been great. That's your flagship title, with the exception of a few issues in between, being consistently good.

New attitude. I like it. I will say some writers handle it better than others.

T-shirt and jeans. I'm with it.

Bad...

Superman title. Just all over the place. I did enjoy the little bit of Rocafort Superman that we got.

Lois Lane. It's not really not being with Clark, just the overall use, portrayal of her.

Crossovers. I like Doomed but it was too long. Hel was ok but was too long. Krypton Returns was a big letdown. So it hasn't been all bad but really could be improved.

Ugly...

Superman/Wonder Woman relationship. I don't really mind it. I just see it as a part of their new story and sooner or later will be a part of their history. But, I'm also not cool with pissing off half your die-hard fans either.

Superboy/Supergirl. I hope they bring these back strong. I really enjoyed Supergirl for the most part.

New history. Whenever you mess with things that have been in place, it gets a little ugly. I don't mind Clark and Lois not being together for right now, some people hate it. I like my Kents alive, some people don't mind. You almost can't avoid some things getting ugly when do these big things.

I broke it down 3 apiece, but overall it's been more good than bad. And by a pretty big margin to me.

[Last Son of Krypton]

For me, the post-Flashpoint Superman was almost unreadable before Pak came aboard. Blame of dated writers and a Morrison not at his best.
On the other hand, I loved all (or almost) the changes that have been made. Although they were mostly superficial changes and, as I see it, the new Superman hasn't yet really shown his potential. There's still much to improve or redefine.
In general, I consider the post-Flashpoint Superman as a whole a step in the right direction and the quality of the series improves from year to year.

Oh, I almost forgot this...

The Ugly: all the fighting among fans.

The end.

... and the solar flare... that's really... really bad.

[Flash Gordon]

The good:

Clark as more of a scrappy young blogger.

Everything Morrison did during his run.

Bruce Springsteen Superman of the people.

Morrison's (all too brief) LoSH ideas.

Relationship between our (more heroic) Superman and Batman with Earth 2 Superman and Batman, with their a bit more naive look at heroism.

Bits of Lobdell's run- having Rocafort on a SUPERMAN book!

Clark quitting the Daily Planet.

Clark's roommate Jimmy Olsen who doesn't know he's Superman quite yet.

Shay Veritas, even if we're still not sure who the hell she is- looks cool.

His strong presence in the Justice League.

The bad:

The utter lack of the LoSH.

Everyone knows who Clark Kent "is".

The 28 deaths of Earth 2 Superman.

Doomsday endlessness (given the fact that Morrison gave them a perfect way around not having that dumb character around)

Everything done with Brainiac post-Morrison.

The current Lex Luthor

General Zod, Ursa, Non- talk about uninteresting.

The Bizzaro Geoff Johns gave us (vastly prefer Bizzaroworld)

The Superman/Wonder Woman title. I don't care either way as far as the relationship itself goes, it has potential to be a fun idea. The book just has sucked since day 1 IMO.

Not letting Rags Morales design Superman's suit, or hell, Aaron Kuder.

That silly Darkseid issue Pak did. Everything Pak and others have done with Darkseid (this is mainly a Johnsian thing). Making Darkseid into a purely Superman threat, going as far as killing countless "Supermen".

I can't count anything as "the ugly", since I don't find any of this as stuff that can't be fixed. It's still a better Superman than we had before.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Everything done with Brainiac post-Morrison.

Funny thing, the Convergence Brainiac as the Multiversal sum of all Brainiacs was actually Morrison's idea (as was restoring the infinite Earths). Of course, it crashed and burned when placed in others' hands.

[Flash Gordon]

Funny thing, the Convergence Brainiac as the Multiversal sum of all Brainiacs was actually Morrison's idea (as was restoring the infinite Earths). Of course, it crashed and burned when placed in others' hands.

I don't see it as a bad concept, really. It surely makes Brainiac a HUGE threat, without compromising the basics- the execution was just bad.

[Sacred Knight]

Everything about Convergence was bad. Any halfway interesting idea that was utilized in that story was wasted by the sheer pointlessness and nonsensical nature of the tale told.

[Flash Gordon]

Everything about Convergence was bad. Any halfway interesting idea that was utilized in that story was wasted by the sheer pointlessness and nonsensical nature of the tale told.

Some of the Superman issues of FE were setting up what could have been a super cool "SUPERMAN RETURNS" story. That issue that had him looking all sci-fi Moses and leading the charge into Manhattan (not sure why Manhattan), was such a wonderful and climatic moment that ultimately brought us nowhere.

We didn't get anything from that, I guess. Convergence was such a dumb book.

[Cipher]

Shay Veritas, even if we're still not sure who the hell she is- looks cool.

Oh, yeah. Another nifty little idea to come out of Lobdell's run, and a viable super-science ally character. Really, I dug everything about her, even when her dialogue blended in with Lobdell's single voice. Hope we see her again.

As for the Daily Planet cast, I think they were victims (after Morrison's run) of writer's relying on their iconography to establish their importance. But it doesn't work that way, and it doesn't work with everything else the New 52 version has done to draw new readers. Look at the response to Lana and Steel in this thread, whom writers have had to build-up within the pages of their books rather than relying on familiarity. Even Cat Grant is a character I care more about in this continuity than Jimmy, due to Lobdell putting in work to give her an arc while Jimmy was faffing about.

I really like Jimmy and Lois, but that's come mostly from diving into old material, where they get all sorts of chances to shine in one-offs. With the constant string of mega-arcs, writers have used them to up the stakes while leaving little room to actually explore their importance. Consequently, compared to other side characters in this version, writers have allowed them to remain something of a pair of ciphers, and that has to change. If you're redefining a character and their world, the side characters, all of them, need to come with.

It's never too late, though, and "Truth" is doing a much better job with them so far.

[Badou]

THE GOOD:

2) Once again the first superhero in the DCU. One of the biggest weaknesses of post-Crisis DCU Superman was the fact that Superman, who in most previous continuities was considered the first Superhero, pretty much became a "legacy" character. Yeah, I'm not a fan to what occurred with the Earth 2 characters as a result,but as it should be, Superman is once again the first public Superhero. The Earth 2 characters should have been given their own earth years ago. Superman is NOT a legacy hero. He is THE Superhero, and I'm glad he is once again the one who started it all on the current Earth.

THE BAD

2) the "5 year timeline" rule- That applies to the entire New 52 as a whole. Probably one of the most creative stiffling decisions borne from the New 52.

2.1) 4 years later and we still don't have a basic idea of what happened in those "missing" 5 years, aside from some vague version of THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN happened (or did it?).

These two things sort of go hand-in-hand though. The New 52 reboot happened because DC originally wanted to reboot the Superman character and franchise. It's what got the ball rolling that lead to them deciding on a reboot. The problem with that is they also wanted to deage him in the reboot, which is fine, but because they wanted him to be the "first" superhero and also be much younger it put a cap on the time frame they could work with in this new universe, which is why the terrible 5 Year Timeline happened. Because he was younger in current continuity and also the "first" superhero now DC had to cram everything they wanted to use in the New 52 into these limits, which included 3 generations of characters basically to fill out 52 new titles, and that causes arguably the biggest problem of the New 52.

DC should have hard rebooted everything (though I get the Morrison Batman and Johns Green Lantern stories weren't finished when the reboot happened) if they wanted Superman to be the first hero and also be much younger, or they should have given up on Superman being the first superhero allowing the Batman, Robin, Green Lantern and a few other franchises more room to work with in the New 52 causing less confusion.

[Frontier]

I've seen you bring this up elsewhere. Are you yourself married? (I apologize well in advance you don't wanna share that so publicly, and you can forget I asked all together) I'm wondering if people who are actually married responded to the idea of Superman settling down more because of it. He's always been this cool fun house mirror version of us (it may look odd and a bit alien but the reflection is still ours), so do you come at it from there?

I ask this because I'm 22 and I can really take it or leave it. I know there can be great story potential for such a situation. I'd even say add a kid of some sort (surrogate, adopted, biological, android) to really push it and see what happens. Reach into all those imaginary stories where Superman and Lois lived domestically and then make them contemporary. But on the flip said their is a very great appeal to young Mr 20 something who just makes it up as he goes along and hopes it all falls right. The guy who can uproot his whole life at a moments notice and be the only one who has to deal with the bigger fall out of it. Plus these that Americana Cowboy feel to him.

I just wonder what the draw is.

I'm close in age to you, and not married, and I'm a big fan of the marriage .

Maybe in part because I don't really see Superman as the young 20-something type even if that is how DC is portraying him now, and his being a young 20-something is certainly not what appeals to me about the character.

I'm just a big fan of the Clark and Lois romance, I like seeing them together and what they bring to each other in the relationship, and I think marriage is a good progression from that and feel Clark settling down like that was natural for the character.

[Superlad93]

I'm close in age to you, and not married, and I'm a big fan of the marriage .

Maybe in part because I don't really see Superman as the young 20-something type even if that is how DC is portraying him now, and his being a young 20-something is certainly not what appeals to me about the character.

I'm just a big fan of the Clark and Lois romance, I like seeing them together and what they bring to each other in the relationship, and I think marriage is a good progression from that and feel Clark settling down like that was natural for the character.

I can appreciate that quite a bit (thanks for sharing btw). Ideally I don't really see him as a young 20 something either. I think it's a really fun take and has yet to really take flight (so to speak) under anyone's (that I've seen) pen. But my default setting is an upper 30 something Superman.

I'm conflicted on the Lois and Clark marriage. I think it's a beautiful idea to the point of being damn near poetic. I think the potential is there for a fantastic take on the character if they really play it up. But it doesn't really have much pop to it on first glance and I'm terrified of the very real possibility of it looking like a bad sitcom ya know? (and not being tong and cheek self aware about it) Don't get me wrong, I think "Everybody Loves Superman" sounds like a great mini or maxi where it looks at it with a self aware wink and plays with funny and dumb ideas. But I don't want to see that all of the time.

It just feels like a landmine sometimes (the marriage) but ultimately I think it could work.

[Cipher]

I'm going to cut against the grain here and say I really like the mid-to-late-20s Superman, and would like to add it to my list of positives, although I agree more could be done with it. Still, even as a background element (rooming with Jimmy, etc.) I'm glad to have it as part of the status quo. It might help that in real life I know a lot of younger journalists, so it's rather easy to identify with where Clark and co. fit into the world.

I think in general it also reduces the risk of the character seeming paternalistic, which is one of my misgivings with takes closer to Byrne's version.

That said, I'm equally fine with the marriage for an older take, and in general am a fan of realistic aging and relationship progression, which is part of the reason I like the idea of reboots -- you get to allow characters to explore that territory while still knowing you can return to a more iconic status quo when the story's done.

[Superlad93]

think in general it also reduces the risk of the character seeming paternalistic, which is part of my misgiving with takes closer to Byrne's version.

Ah and therein lies the issue with the 30 to 40 something take: he just ends just ends up looking like Superdad. But I'd argue (pretty passionately actually) that it's part of is appeal. The thing is that most writers look at him as if he's constantly speaking to the reader and teaching a lesson as a father would. That's where the "preachy" or "boy scout" taglines came from. But so few are remembering that everyone's dad is a living breathing person with hopes, dreams, fears, and issues. If you go in to write Superdad then you write him as more than a set of rules and regulations. You write him as a guy.

I would absolutely throw money at whatever creative team writes Superman in a midlife Crisis (see what I did there lol) I mean really go for it! There's great story to be had with a man who's trying to build his family, and a man who's trying to keep his family. But no one can lie, the 20 something Superman has his own set of charm too. So long as good imaginative story is there I can either just fine.

[Cipher]

You write him as a guy.

This ought to always be the approach, and it's one I can get behind no matter the character's fictional age.

I prefer him acting as an inspiring peer rather than a father-figure, but given the right touch of humanity and identifiable motivations, any age can fit that role, or a more father-figure-esque version can become equally inspiring and admirable. I think it requires a defter hand than simply presenting a younger Clark, though, so if I had to pick one, I'd choose this one, at least for a while. I'm glad there are multiple takes.

On a side note, I'm shocked Midlife Crisis hasn't been used for the title of an Ambush Bug issue or something. Hell, I'm shocked it wasn't used for a Very Serious DC crossover in the mid-2000s.

[Superlad93]

This ought to always be the approach, and it's one I can get behind no matter the character's fictional age.

Agreed!

On a side note, I'm shocked Midlife Crisis hasn't been used for the title of an Ambush Bug issue or something. Hell, I'm shocked it wasn't used for a Very Serious DC crossover in the mid-2000s.

I know right! DC asleep at the wheel lol