The "failure" of New 52 Superman: What happened?

[manofsteel1979]

First thing,this is not a thread where we argue about Jon Kent,Superwonder,Clois,or argue about the " real" Superman or speculate about the current goings on in the Rebirth Superman comics. There are plenty of threads devoted to those topics. Any attempt to derail this thread towards a specific agenda or used as a platform to name call fellow fans will be reported by me to the mods and they will deal with it in whatever manner they see fit.

Secondly,the reason I put " failure" in quotation marks is because I know to some here,the New 52 Superman wasn't a failure. For many he was a gateway into Superman fandom and I appreciate that. Heck,there were times I thought the same with certain issues and certain runs. I think that every generation deserves it's own illeration of Superman,and for some New 52 Superman,or as he's known,Nuperman was " their" guy. He certainly has a lot of vocal fans and supporters here in this forum.

However,elsewhere on the internet and it seems a majority of fandom,(and if reports are to be believed,many in the comics professional community) for whatever reason,view Nuperman in the same way many view the Ben Reilly era of Spiderman,or the Heroes Reborn era of Captain America or Iron Man or any of a number of unpopular experimental eras of other Superhero runs, I.E. a mistake. An unfortunate era that some are eager to sweep under the rug through whatever means necessary even if it means just taking the previous Superman and pasting him onto the current continuity.

It wasn't supposed to be like this. Nuperman had a pretty good pedigree giving him birth. A new origin retelling and retooling by Grant Morrison, the guy many hold up as the best creator since Alan Moore to work on the character . George Perez,co- creator of the New Teen Titans and arguably one of the greatest artists of all times and a decent writer in his own right and no stranger to Superman was writing his new adventures in the SUPERMAN book. Add to the mix a highly hyped new costume design by Jim Lee and lots of promises of bold new stories and directions,it was slated and seen as the flagship book and character of the bold new DCU . Sales were very strong those first months and the future seemed limitless...

....fast forward to Superman #52 the last issue of the bold new era of Superman...and the once highly vaunted Nuperman dies with little fanfare,literally turning to sand. Sales,while up on that final storyline,were falling back to the levels that supposedly prompted the reboot 5 years earlier, and many readers were so excited to see the previous illeration of Superman returning,they didn't care HOW it was being done...just that it was happening.

So...what happened ? What went wrong?

There are many reasons to list and things to blame,but first and foremost,in my opinion ,it comes down to the fact of lack of commitment and follow through on the part of DC on the reboot idea as a whole.

Yeah,DC renumbered all of their series with #1s and did top to bottom reboots on nearly all of their characters ... except for their sacred cash cows at the time,Batman and Green Lantern. Sure,they received cosmetic tweaks and small revisions to their history,but by and large,those franchises remained pretty much on course from before the reboot. Now,from a business standpoint,it makes sense not to Rock the boat too much with the things that make you money,but it doesn't make sense for the sake of a cohesive fictional shared universe.

By not fully rebooting some franchises like the Lantern books and completely rebooting things like the Superman books ,DC set the narrative as the New 52 being just another sales boosting event and in the back of many readers minds,it gave the whole enterprise a feeling of non permanence. In other words,ironically and perhaps poetically,it gave the impression Nuperman was built from sand. Add to the fact we still had the same editorial issues as before the reboot,the lack of a guiding hand to steer the ship,needlessly divisive "shipping" wars among fans ignited and encouraged by DC brass, vacant and empty endless crossovers...it all adds up to what we ended up with now.

So,what say you? Why do you think the New 52 Superman" failed" ?

[Prime]

He got bombarded with unnecessary crossovers that hindered character arcs. There should have been a build up.

[Kuwagaton]

Well in fairness those mentioned things really have to be touched on because a lot of it comes down to comparison. If we're talking about what works or what we can assume others believe to be a sort of success, we need to address the time before and after New 52 Superman. I don't like "Nuperman" because to me that sounds lesser.

It to me comes to the idea of trying so hard to make it "not your dad's " Superman. Through writers like JMS and Robinson, the character acquired a stench and lost aim. There just wasn't a good foundation for building future stories, especially with the messy cluster of conflicting origins. I'd emphasize how seriously that messes things up in today's market, not knowing if, say, Lex was 30 or 60. Having Superman touch down as a baby like four times and still have to deal with matrix stuff. That awful period where it was Superman vs Lois and his fellow heroes. And even if they could wipe all that, Superman was still boring. Spider-Man was single via a terrible story, but back at the top of the charts. Batman was up and through time on his craziest adventure, with Cap right behind him. These were his peers thriving in ways that he should also thrive, if not in sales then at least in concept.

So they got Morrison and retconned and it was NOT your dad's Superman. But Morrison can put out a good story with two broken hands. Even then, the Superman he wrote was essentially a year one. Trying to run with his ball, his run that was basically an eighteen month flashback, as a tall order. And so was giving Superman a makeover in general. If he's the first and arguably original, what happens when you change that?

A Superman who can't be himself can't be who you want him to be. Regardless of how long the bubble didn't pop I think he was doomed from the start. A lot of people focus on editorial and talent, but I think they are scapegoats.

[Johnny Thunders!]

The crossovers stank, books seem to drag on. It felt like there was no guiding vision for the character. I was enjoying Adventures of Superman more because the issues were self contained. Even if issue to issue featured a different kind of Superman, they felt complete. The Kennerh Roccafort books felt so energetic.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Poor planning and a lack of cohesion

There's been lots of talk of people higher up than Didio interfering with Superman when the New 52 launched, but it's more than that. Johns was doing his own thing in Justice League, Perez was doing his own thing in Superman, and Morrison was doing his own thing in Action Comics while sharing very little details as to how his run was going to proceed, severely impacting Perez's Superman run, which was already facing other problems.

Morrison's Action Comics was great, and I think it's one of the best Superman stories of all time, but it became less new-reader friendly with every issue, and it was hit by delays which hurt its momentum. If I remember things right, the final issue or the final two issues of the first arc were released after the two issue Legion story because Rags Morales couldn't meet the deadlines.

John's Superman over in Justice League was reminiscent of Earth-One, in that it was a painful attempt to make Superman "cool". Morrison would make a younger and brasher Superman work, by giving him an idealistic bent. Jonhs on the other hand wrote him like a teenager with superpowers until later into Justice League.

Perez's issue #1 felt like it was supposed to take place after Grounded, a new direction for Post-Crisis Superman. I read issue #1 again recently and it doesn't feel like something that should have come with a reboot. Reading it, the book comes across as me having to know about this specific Superman and knowing that he's different from how he was before. The destruction of the Daily Planet globe, Jimmy saying Superman had become camera shy lately, etc. There's this weird sense of the book calling back to prior history that doesn't exist anymore for the character, but not in the sense that it's a brand new Superman.

So right from the start there were problems.

The Superman books quickly became a mess, with Superman going through creative teams every other month, and by the time Pak came on board to Action Comics, the damage had been done after Morrison's departure and DC's fumbling of getting a new team for the book. Then there were the crossovers which got in the way of Pak's run.

DC also messed up with the creative teams they chose for the Superman books. Pak and Morrison were great, but everyone that came before weren't the right picks for either of the Superman books.

George Perez is a very talented creator, but he is not the kind of person you put on a Superman book when you reboot the character. The Superman line needed creative teams with more contemporary voices, and instead it had to go through the likes of Perez, Lobdell, and Jurgens.

[Kuwagaton]

The Kennerh Roccafort books felt so energetic.

I became a huge fan of rocafort with Madame Mirage. The first two issues were strong, and I weathered the mediocre crossover, an then he was gone. At least, gone long enough for me to drop Lobdell in the mean time.

[manofsteel1979]

Well in fairness those mentioned things really have to be touched on because a lot of it comes down to comparison. If we're talking about what works or what we can assume others believe to be a sort of success, we need to address the time before and after New 52 Superman. I don't like "Nuperman" because to me that sounds lesser.

It to me comes to the idea of trying so hard to make it "not your dad's " Superman. Through writers like JMS and Robinson, the character acquired a stench and lost aim. There just wasn't a good foundation for building future stories, especially with the messy cluster of conflicting origins. I'd emphasize how seriously that messes things up in today's market, not knowing if, say, Lex was 30 or 60. Having Superman touch down as a baby like four times and still have to deal with matrix stuff. That awful period where it was Superman vs Lois and his fellow heroes. And even if they could wipe all that, Superman was still boring. Spider-Man was single via a terrible story, but back at the top of the charts. Batman was up and through time on his craziest adventure, with Cap right behind him. These were his peers thriving in ways that he should also thrive, if not in sales then at least in concept.

So they got Morrison and retconned and it was NOT your dad's Superman. But Morrison can put out a good story with two broken hands. Even then, the Superman he wrote was essentially a year one. Trying to run with his ball, his run that was basically an eighteen month flashback, as a tall order. And so was giving Superman a makeover in general. If he's the first and arguably original, what happens when you change that?

A Superman who can't be himself can't be who you want him to be. Regardless of how long the bubble didn't pop I think he was doomed from the start. A lot of people focus on editorial and talent, but I think they are scapegoats.

Well,of course certain things I mentioned in the opening paragraph will likely have to be touched on,i just don't want this discussion to devolve into the usual phallic measuring contests threads that touch on those aspects tend to become. I trust in you as a mod and our other mods to be able to help keep it focused on the core question at hand,and hopefully we can do our part to reign ourselves in.

I do agree though the driving need to distance New 52 Superman so far from previous versions,or rather,to appear to be doing so,that turned many people off to the reboot from the start even though it could be argued Byrne made more changes to the character as he was 50 years prior than the New 52 made from the character as he existed just prior to 2011.

The difference was the marketing.

The 1986 revamp emphasized the things that remained the same and made an effort to pretty much present the Superman Byrne was doing as the Superman everyone knew and loved,just simplified a bit and channeled through one of comics then big names. It was presented as "Superman by John Byrne! "Not "it's a completely new Superman by John Byrne"

Of course,If one dug deeper,Byrne changed A LOT from what was done before,but while some readers doubtlessly were upset,a lot were willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and those that did stick around over the next 5 years were ultimately rewarded with one of the best eras of stories ever.


On the other hand,The new 52 was hell-bent on trying to present a completely new Superman,or rather the appearance of a new Superman by emphasizing what they changed (new kewler costume! New girlfriend! New badass attitude!) And largely ignoring the fact that all that was really done was returning the character to a mix of the Golden Age origins mixed with a dose of the silver age,a big chunk of the Bronze age with a dash of the post Crisis era,all wrapped in a new costume.

The secret of New 52 was he really wasn't all that new. He was just marketed as such and in a way that made some older readers not want to follow things into the reboot. The powers that be spent like 4 months sending the message that the Superman that existed prior was somehow lame and silly and outdated...but don't worry... we at DC made him cool at last! Truth was though,he was just a repackaged and modernized PreCrisis Superman more than anything,but many longtime readers didn't know because they just went off the marketing and decided not to give things an honest chance and were just bidding their time until the "real" Superman returned.

of course DC didn't help matters by not full on rebooting the entire DCU around Superman (the aforementioned Batman and GL lines more pointing)nor committing to any real filling in of the 5 year gap between Morrison's origins and the present day adventures,furthering the impression that" this is all some long game stunt" rather than " this is Superman now" in the way Byrne's version was presented. It was all about perception.

To add insult to injury,those like me that did give it a chance over those 5 years were ultimately rewarded with TRUTH,a storyline as a whole that only reinforced the worst marketing stereotypes of New 52 Superman,but now made them actual canon. The first couple years and some brief moments during Greg Pak's runs on ACTION and Bat/Supes and perhaps Charles Soule's inital Superwonder arc were as good as it got for Nu Superman,and it was that realization that had me stop reading Superman for the first time in 20 plus years until the Rebirth rumblings. It was only like a 6 month break...but it felt like an eternity. I missed Superman.

[Jadeb]

The difference was the marketing.

I'd disagree. I don't care for the Byrne era, and I actively dislike some of the changes he implemented, but he built a cohesive world around Superman. The New 52, on the other hand, failed at that utterly once Morrison left. This was because they built it on a handful of sales-driven ideas (and poorly considered attempts at modernization) rather than taking a holistic approach to creating a workable status quo, as Byrne had. His changes often stood in cold, stark contrast to what came before; after Morrison's run, the New 52 version quickly turned into a muddy mess.

[Kuwagaton]

I'd agree that maybe even 90% was a blend of the three previous eras, and marketing was more overbearing than the actual changes. But ultimately I feel it was up to the stories to establish the character over the marketing and we didn't get that. Right from the start I couldn't really see the character as consistent or coherent because of where Perez and Johns were.

[hellacre]

He did not "fail". DC put the worse writers on the flag ship book and then they dragged his stronger books ( Act, BMSM, SMWW) into too long crossovers with little consistency among the writers. Then he was deliberately killed and replaced for a version, who when he debuted in the new 52, he did not exactly top sales. They had to kill new 52 for pre new 52 to take over in a relaunch with #1's and other incentives to make retailers happy after the debacle of DCYou.

When new 52 Superman worked. He worked well. And we talking about the character, not who he dated or what he wore. How he operated. How he viewed his heroics. How he stood up for the world. How his moral core was centered around his own innate goodness and the sum of his experiences and not diluted down to one factor or person.

DC really messed up a great opportunity imo to build on a Superman that could appeal to a wider more diverse audience. He had all the core traits of SM with a modern sensibility and importantly I feel got back what his creators wanted to say about him.

[manofsteel1979]

I'd agree that maybe even 90% was a blend of the three previous eras, and marketing was more overbearing than the actual changes. But ultimately I feel it was up to the stories to establish the character over the marketing and we didn't get that. Right from the start I couldn't really see the character as consistent or coherent because of where Perez and Johns were.

Yeah and you have a point in terms of the Perez /Morrison divide. Perez's first couple issues were essentially preFlashpoint Superman in a different suit. I've often wondered if Perez even KNEW he was part of a reboot when he started writing his run.

Of course the other thing is one gets the impression the line wide reboot was imposed from above editorial to some extent while the 86 one originated from editorial and DC themselves,and had been planned to some extent about as far back as 1984. The New 52 probably didn't start rolling until late 2010. The former had the advantage of long term planning and even that wasn't foolproof.

I do think any world building issues were exacerbated by the inherent problems at the start. I think it's very possible some creators didn't do their best work during their runs because they themselves really necessarily like the incarnation of Superman they were hired to write. lets be honest,creators are fans too,and it's very possible some creators were also,in some respect,waiting for the " real" Superman to return. That's even more possible seeing as according to Jurgens apparently it was common knowledge as far back as just prior to CONVERGENCE there was going to be a move away from New 52 Superman and back to preFlashpoint Superman. It was just a question of how and when at that point.

[13th Superman]

Morrison's run hooked me to the character in a way I didn't feel since reading his golden age stories. The Superman I view in my head is a combination of the golden age era comics I read combing through archives and the re runs I used to watch of the old George Reeves television show. John Byrne's early material had some of that but something about what Morrison did encapsulated what I loved about Superman. I wish he had more time to build that world. I had friends who were strict Marvel readers but absolutely loved Morrison's take and bought his run. After he left, things went downhill. The time jump to 5 years into the future was jarring, and it didn't seem at all that everyone was on the same page. It felt like the writers were lost. Some wanted to depict him as an already established hero, while it still seemed as though in other stories he was fledgling hero. I don't think there was a mission plan or some guideline for Supes. The time jump happened too fast and then the constant crossovers. Everything didn't grow organically until Pak got his hand on him. This felt like a genuine continuation after Superman defeated Brainiac's invasion. There was just so much potential. He actually felt like a character rather than an archetype which was another big hook.

[Knightsilver]

I'd say some of the biggest issues were the removal(or rather ignoring) of so many things that were uniquely "Superman". The Daily Planet cast only appeared rarely,along with Clark...there was no real supporting cast,just characters that appeared occasionally. The time wasn't taken to truly develop and flesh out NU52 Superman's world,it was just him going from adventure to adventure. It was almost like Superman by people who didn't like Superman,but just wanted a powerful hero period.

[manofsteel1979]

He did not "fail". DC put the worse writers on the flag ship book and then they dragged his stronger books ( Act, BMSM, SMWW) into too long crossovers with little consistency among the writers. Then he was deliberately killed and replaced for a version, who when he debuted in the new 52, he did not exactly top sales. They had to kill new 52 for pre new 52 to take over in a relaunch with #1's and other incentives to make retailers happy after the debacle of DCYou.

When new 52 Superman worked. He worked well. And we talking about the character, not who he dated or what he wore. How he operated. How he viewed his heroics. How he stood up for the world. How his moral core was centered around his own innate goodness and the sum of his experiences and not diluted down to one factor or person.

DC really messed up a great opportunity imo to build on a Superman that could appeal to a wider more diverse audience. He had all the core traits of SM with a modern sensibility and importantly I feel got back what his creators wanted to say about him.

Good analysis and I largely agree it was mishandling and mismanagement... some originating from the start and some as it went,that hurt things and led to his doom. in the " greatest moments" thread and how Superman was written in Superman #51 illustrates that Nuperman could embody what the greatest versions of Superman always have when written well... but sadly he wasn't always written well. However to be fair,neither was preFlashpoint Superman at times.

And while,yes,if DC handled it correctly they could have had a Superman that not only resonated with old fogies like me,but younger people as well...but the fact is...they didn't. In that sense it did " fail", because I doubt no one was happy with what we had by the end of TRUTH and most of the same complaints levied against Superman from non fans before the reboot remained 5 years later. Not to say he didn't gain some fans,but judging from comics fandom outside this forum,most really weren't moved by New 52 Superman,which is on DC. Morrison left them a gift they properly didn't unwrap.

They didn't need to kill him off and swap him out with the previous version either,but the remedy,good consistent writing and art,not only would have eventually fixed New 52 Superman,but would have fixed his predecessor as well,which would have made the 2011 reboot largely unessasary anyhow. It's too early at this point to say though Rebirth is only popular because of hype or retailer incentives,etc. We will have a better judge of that about a year from the relaunch,athough I suspect it will ultimately overall will have better" legs" from a sales standpoint.

[Kuwagaton]

He did not "fail". DC put the worse writers on the flag ship book and then they dragged his stronger books ( Act, BMSM, SMWW) into too long crossovers with little consistency among the writers.

For the past few years plenty of people have blamed the writers. I thank them all for stepping up but I can admit that for many it wasn't the best they've put out. However... Snyder, Soule, Morrison, Lobdell, Pak, Yang, Johns, Giffen, and Perez can all write comics. In writing comics they represent critical success, commercial success, or both. "Worst" just can't be accurate. So there just had to be something other than them not being good.