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

[Superlad93]

That's why i like the current team of creators (sans Romita) as while they are all indeed big names in the field, none seem to have ego's bigger than the character and all seem to understand they aren't the star...the character they write is, and everything is in service to the character and make him the best he can be rather than trying to be overly clever for the sake of it or to stroke their own ego or leave their personal stamp which some of the other "big names" over the last decade had trouble avoiding ,even some who did good work on the titles. Yes I do include Morrison in that list, as there are times during his run where I got the feeling he let his own quirks and trying to out meta himself bury some interesting ideas/story beats.

See part of me understands because there are some inherent risk to allowing the creative teams to express themselves more, but I think the reward outweighs the risk for the most part. I also think that it's all in how you (the reader) interpret the work. Where you saw Morrison trying to "out meta himself" others like myself saw him taking a concept from the Superman legend and really playing with it as much as he could. The idea of the 5th dimension was finally given more weight and meaning and really elevated it's inhabitants and the concepts around them. No longer are they just guys from a cartoon dimension where things are just stranger, but instead now they on a physically higher state of being. I don't think there was anything in Morrison's run that didn't plant itself deep within established Superman myth and then just flesh it out.

I think if a team what's to come in and poke around Superman legends for patterns, concepts, and loose ends, and they want to expound/repackage/flesh out/revamp/ or anything to that effect then I say go for it. The creators should always have it in their minds that they are there to write and grow Superman but they must also keep in mind that they are there to actually create. As individuals they have the ability to bring their experiences, dreams, imaginations, and taste that are completely unique to them. I think as creators they gotta come at each project with a little bit of the ego. I respect and like Morrison so much because he's not afraid to use these characters to tell you wants on his mind, how he's feeling, what he's into. That's how these characters were made and sustained. It was just kids and young adults just telling the rest of the world what they liked and what they felt. Superman's creators? Loved sci-fi books and mags, bodybuilding, didn't like bullies, and felt alienated due to their heritage. Then in the Sliver Age (where most of his concepts come from) it's been said more than once that it was editor Mort Weisinger's therapy sessions that found their way into the books. If that's not ego then I don't know what is.

Somewhere out there right now there is a kid who wants to make a Superman story where he/she treats it like an indie film or book and it could be amazing, respectful to the character, fun, and a new twist with old and new ideas. We just don't know yet. The road could be bumpy but Superman will come out stronger for it when it's all said and done I feel. I'd personally love to see Landis try his hand at the main book for a few issues (I know he's rather busy) just to see how he'd tackle a Superman that he didn't build up. How would he make the project his own in that situation? Would he focus more on the story to show his personality? The character? Both? But yeah I'm still quite happy (crazy happy actually) to see him try his had in his own sandbox. Could be good--great even or not. I'm just glad to see new voices with more to say on the character than just the safe company standard.

[Superlad93]

I'm in my early 30's (not old enough to be President yet though), married, with one kid who came with the deal and one I made myself (my wife helped). But the draw of the marriage, for me, isnt because it mirrors my own life. I was there when they finally got hitched back in the 90's, and I was just a teenager, but still loved the idea. The fact that my own life's journey eventually caught up with post-Crisis Clark's is just a nice parallel.

For me, I see Superman as being that ultimate authority. He's the godfather of heroes, the one guy you can trust no matter what, and I think being married (and old enough to rent a car) help sell that concept. Additionally, the character has been around for the better part of a century and more stories have been told with him than most characters in fiction. The idea of pushing the status quo forward with marriage, and perhaps, eventually, a kid, opens up new avenues for storytelling that we haven't seen before. And marriage is pretty rare in mainstream comics, so using that as a narrative tool helps offset Superman a little bit and quiet down the claims that he's a vanilla character with nothing to add to the modern day landscape of comics.

Oh okay I see. Thanks a lot for sharing. I really appreciate the insight.

I agree with you, as usual. I like SUPERMAN as the ultimate "dad" figure. That said, I think there is a way of having both worlds. Having him be a bit older and more "commanding" and also being in the thick of it against the corruption.(...) I'm in my mid-20s and I do feel a little uncomfortable thinking of SUPERMAN, himself, as anything close to a peer. He is always around 33 in my head anyway.

It's interesting that you both bring up Superman as being this "authority" or this "commanding" figure. That usually give me flashes of Bruce Timm's Superman whom I wasn't overly found of but never outright disliked. He had this sort of ex military stand at attention when he walks in vibe to him (I'm aware these may just be word choices but it's what came to mind). I always assumed that that's where all of those comments of him being a boy scout or vanilla came from (more than likely not what either of you were going for). I always thought if Superman had to be my "dad" then he'd be the laid back dad. The one that you run out of your room in joking anger while you're trying to check your IG, but you're both smiling while it's going on. He wants you to be the best you can be but he knows that you're gonna have to take more than a few lumps to get there. And that's fine because he'll be right there give you a hug brush away the tears and send you back in there.

The authority he has over you is a combination of admiration, love, respect, and you just really like him as a person. Like when he walks in the room it's not a stand at attention and a nervous sweat down your back. Instead I think you smile and stand a bit straighter and there's this infectious feeling that you can do anything. Then there are these flashes of brawling cocky 20 something you forget he used to be. Dad Superman to me has always been Santa meets The Doctor meets Hercules.

His 20 something mold I think is like your big brother or your older best friend who always pulls your ass out of the thick of it. He's that guy that'll take those two extra lumps so you don't get in trouble for a black eye when you get home. He might make some wrong moves, but he does them with such heart that you gotta be there to back him up because he'd do it for you. His command and authority I feel come from the idea that he's the first one in and last one out. He sweats the small stuff that you're going through because he just went through it too.

One of my favorite parts about Morrison's 20 something Superman (that has since left) is that he always seemed to have fresh bruises somewhere on him. He had this cool Rocky prize fighter vibe to him. I think that should have continued on. like having him show up to JLA meeting with a few band-aids and fresh bruises. He sits down like everything's chill and says something like "wrestled a collapsing star to buy some time for these astronauts". That scrappy nature that comes almost hardwired into the idea of a young 20 something is really fun with Superman. That last line in Morrison's run "you should see the other guy" encapsulates it all for me.

I think both takes have some really good merit to them.

[manofsteel1979]

I agree with you, as usual. I like SUPERMAN as the ultimate "dad" figure. That said, I think there is a way of having both worlds. Having him be a bit older and more "commanding" and also being in the thick of it against the corruption. We live in a society where the rich run rampant, the authority is simply those with lots of cash. Superman would oppose all of that.

I'm in my mid-20s and I do feel a little uncomfortable thinking of SUPERMAN, himself, as anything close to a peer. He is always around 33 in my head anyway.

Well as someone who passed 33 nearly 3 years ago, It's a little strange to think I'm either older than or the same age as Superman (34-37 in my personal head canon), especially as I definitely saw Superman as the ultimate cool dad when I was 12-13 when i started reading him regularly, and was the ultimate cool older brother when I reached my late teens/20's. Now he's kind of like my ultimate cool co-worker or buddy. In 10 years he will be my cool over-acheiving younger brother. Ah the passage of time.

For me personally, the marriage thing wasn't as much about giving Superman authority or Dad cred or anything like that,but more about denoting the passage of time, progress within the larger mythos, moving past the unending stasis of a "love triangle" that had gone on for 5 decades by that time. Getting Lois and Clark seriously engaged with her actively knowing the secret and acting as a partner of his in all aspects of his life was a big move on it's own, and the marriage was just icing on the cake really, and had a lot of potential that for whatever reason, no one either wanted to, or had the capacity to tackle, without giving into the urge, in Ascended's words, to giving in to the worst petty reality show impulses in trying to treat it as a "normal flawed marriage", when it was everything but. I know Loeb's later run is derided, but one of the best things he did was have Lois join Superman on some of his adventures. The first RETURN TO KRYPTON story that was done early 2001 was one of the best arguments for the Superman/Lois marriage, as it would have been a hell of a lot less fun without it.

Alas, though looking back now, seeing how it was mishandled, perhaps it's for the best if main canon Superman is never married to anyone, especially if tptb isn't going to explore it fully. However, I do think that things like having Lois know his identity and acting as a partner/peer/friend is pretty progressive on it's own and whatever happens after TRUTH, once the secret identity goes back in the bag (it will happen, just a matter of when and how), Lois retains the knowledge and continues on in that fashion. After all, it's what Siegel and Shuster were more or less planning to do in the 40's.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I think the oldest I imagine Superman is George Reeves, the guy from the old show. For me, he doesn't need to be Dad, but he has to be skillful with his powers. New powers, the Solar Flare doesn't work for me because I dislike the notion of Superman as a battery. I prefer to think of him as a solar miracle, not in the religious sense, but freak of nature sense.

I did like the return to the ridiculous power level of Superman, and his first meeting with the justice league was great. I like the original Jeans Superman more than the current. The new guy decks things a lot. I'm enjoying it but I'm glad the Justice League books offer Superman cape and all. (Actually, put Jeans Superman in the league. I bet he wouldn't listen to a Bat lecture.)I want to read more of Grant Morrisons white t-shirt Superman. I imagine Huck Finn type stories of young Superman running up and down the timestream with the legion. Preflashpoint or not, I want Superman to excel with his skill set of uncharted speed, strength, vision, and wits.

[Ascended]

Oh okay I see. Thanks a lot for sharing. I really appreciate the insight.

I think both takes have some really good merit to them.

Oh, I absolutely agree that both versions are "worthy". And you guys know I love me some t-shirt and jeans, angry young man hero of the people Superman. But the Superman I see in my head? He's been that brash young guy. He's done that balls to the wall stuff already, learned from it, and some of those rougher edges have smoothed out. He's still a champion of the oppressed, still angry at the corruption and greed and vice out there, but he's more seasoned. He's not an "authority" figure in the sense that he has some rank or political power, he's an "authority" because he's friggin Superman, and his actions, words, and deeds just quietly demand respect.

Morrison's t-shirt and jeans Superman is where he should begin, but the "definitive" Superman I see in my head is a little more collected and in control.

Totally agree that he should always be bruised and busted up though.

[nightrider]

Do we really want a married Superman? I don't think I want that. It doesn't make for a good story telling when you're stuck in a marriage without having a new love interest.

[Tayswift]

I've sometimes wondered if Superman's marriage had the bad fortune to come around at a time when the stability of marriage was in decline in the real world. Just about the time everybody was getting used to a main-continuity Mr. and Mrs. Superman, the most stable relationships in comics (the Hawks, Wally-Flash and Linda, Elongated Man and Sue) were all being dismantled. It makes me wonder if the creators couldn't relate to stable relationships, or thought their readers couldn't.

If nothing else, that's one of the benefits that were lost with the original Earth-2. You could tell "future" stories about a married Superman in them, but DC never really took full advantage of that.

the longest marriage on comics is Sue and Reed. there were good stories and bad stories told with them married. Someone would thought that marriage dosn't affect the quality of the stories.
I really have no idea why DC ended their iconic relationships, but they are paying the price with low sales.
Readers for sure could relate, some creators too. But Dc think that young people doesn't get married or thing marriage is boring. they simply doesn't know the public they are after

That's interesting. My perspective is probably different because I lived most of that stuff when it already happened, but frankly, the marriage has always been kind of a "meh" to me.
I mean, as far as I can tell, there were basically 2 set ups. Either they were trying to put some drama into the relationship, which you don't believe because, come on, that's Lois and Clark. There's "Official Couple" written all over their face, who's gonna believe they're going to break up. And since both are "icons", any time one of them acted petty (because that's what humans do when they fight in a couple) felt "wrong", and so you had to give them "excuses", like "it was actually Parasite" or whatever.
Or it was sort of , how to put it, "there". To me, their moments together as a couple felt a bit like, "yup, they're still married, now back to the part where something actually happens". I found it a bit dull and not really like an actual couple so I never thought it actually brought much, is what I'm saying.

but what people want to happen on a marriage? it just like a normal relationship, but officially commited. some couples even live together before getting married, the routine won't change

In these 5 years that I read comics, superman spend more time dating wonder woman than lois and the quality of stories didn't improve

[Auguste Dupin]

but what people want to happen on a marriage? it just like a normal relationship, but officially commited. some couples even live together before getting married, the routine won't change

In these 5 years that I read comics, superman spend more time dating wonder woman than lois and the quality of stories didn't improve

I've read Superman comics for much longer and it certainly didn't get worse.
And if nothing can happen in a marriage,then what's the point of reading about one? Stories by definition rely on stuff happening to be compelling.
Note that what you're saying is not true, and that lots of stuff do happen in marriages (or similarily commited relationships). Not that you would know by reading Lois and Clark's I admit.

[misslane]

lots of stuff do happen in marriages (or similarily commited relationships). Not that you would know by reading Lois and Clark's I admit.

Are you saying that nothing happened in Lois and Clark's marriage? Because that doesn't ring true to me. They had significant fights (one which led Lois to travel with her mother for a time to get some space), they dealt with secrets (Lois making a deal with Lex to save The Daily Planet), they adjusted to Clark's physical changes (blue/red Superman, powerlessness during Up, Up, and Away), they struggled with adopting a child (Lor Zod a.k.a Chris Kent), and they endured time away from each other and loss (New Krypton and Grounded). Plenty happened in Lois and Clark's marriage. What makes you think it didn't, or is that really what you're saying?

[Agent Z]

Do we really want a married Superman? I don't think I want that. It doesn't make for a good story telling when you're stuck in a marriage without having a new love interest.

Not if you assume a good story requires a new love interest

[Jon Clark]

Do we really want a married Superman? I don't think I want that. It doesn't make for a good story telling when you're stuck in a marriage without having a new love interest.

But what good is giving the character a love interest if it can never go anywhere?

Part of what drove me off Spider-man after One More Day wasn't that I thought Pete and MJ was the greatest couple ever, but the idea that whoever came after MJ from that point on was just a place saver. In the case of Superman- why would I want to read about Clark&Lois, Clark&Diana, Clark&Lori, etc, if from the day they introduce the relationship there is some clock ticking in the background on the relationship? Regardless of which couplr I prefer, I'd rather the writers consider the current relationship to at least potentially leading to something permanent or else just not bother having romance as part of the story.

[Tayswift]

But what good is giving the character a love interest if it can never go anywhere?

Part of what drove me off Spider-man after One More Day wasn't that I thought Pete and MJ was the greatest couple ever, but the idea that whoever came after MJ from that point on was just a place saver. In the case of Superman- why would I want to read about Clark&Lois, Clark&Diana, Clark&Lori, etc, if from the day they introduce the relationship there is some clock ticking in the background on the relationship? Regardless of which couplr I prefer, I'd rather the writers consider the current relationship to at least potentially leading to something permanent or else just not bother having romance as part of the story.

I don't understand this: "it can never go anywhere". on DC comics things majority of time never go anywhere because of reboots.

there is a illusion that new love interests improve the stories, not true at all. for it got much worse with superman.
not counting that new 52 superman stories could be told with superman dating Lois.

[objectivewatcher2013]

The Good: 1. Got rid of the red trunks.
2. Dissolved the marriage
Sadly, that it's it for the good.

The Bad: Killing off the Kents was a mistake. What makes Superman be Superman is Clark Kent's from the Kents. Taking them away is like taking Alfred from Bruce Wayne, doesn't work.

The ugly: What they've done to Supergirl and Superboy is criminal. And finally, this "Truth" storyline is idiotic. And makes Lois look like a moron.

[Sacred Knight]

Clark still was instilled with the values of the Kents. Just because they died doesn't mean he forgets all that they taught him. They still in large part made him the man he became. They don't need to be around in the present for that.

[sunofdarkchild]

The good-actually went for a hard reboot that allowed them to try a new direction, though that was largely Morrison.

The bad-The Clark/Lois relationship and the Supes/WW relationship. No matter how they push the latter everyone knows Clark and Lois end up together in the end, so even if they do a good job with the WW relationship-which they have not come close to doing, it gives no reason to care.

The ugly-the lack of world building. Why is the triangle era my favorite Superman era and the only one I ever have any desire to reread? Because whatever problems it may have had, they did a fantastic job of world building with the supporting cast and locations in Metropolis. Without a properly build-up world to interact with Superman gets boring real fast.