30 years later, thoughts on John Byrne's THE MAN OF STEEL miniseries

[Beorg]

I really like it. The issue with Batman is my favorite of the six.

[daBronzeBomma]

Interesting responses on this thread so far!

I will say, taken on its own, as one independent story, THE MAN OF STEEL is still a solid read: consistently written and drawn, with clear beginning, middle and end, and the last page very clearly (maybe too clearly) sums up what the final takeaway is supposed to be.

The problem for me is not within the story itself, but it's unique place in and effect on the Superverse's greater history. It's really hard (like, almost impossible) for me to separate THE MAN OF STEEL miniseries from what it replaced and what effect it had on comicdom going forward.

This becomes doubly true if the tale I've heard (but never confirmed for myself) is true. That John Byrne loved Frank Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS (and its ... "take" on Superman, published earlier in the same year) so much that he changed some of his initial writing of THE MAN OF STEEL to better match Miller's Superman. And that ultimately, Byrne had it in his mind that his new young Superman could or would eventually become Miller's government stooge Superman. Excuse me while I puke.

IF (and please if anyone can decisively confirm or deny this, please do) that tale is true, then THE MAN OF STEEL and the entire Iron Age Superman (1986-1999) era is poisoned for me in hindsight.

[Tony]

This becomes doubly true if the tale I've heard (but never confirmed for myself) is true. That John Byrne loved Frank Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS (and its ... "take" on Superman, published earlier in the same year) so much that he changed some of his initial writing of THE MAN OF STEEL to better match Miller's Superman. And that ultimately, Byrne had it in his mind that his new young Superman could or would eventually become Miller's government stooge Superman. Excuse me while I puke.

IF (and please if anyone can decisively confirm or deny this, please do) that tale is true, then THE MAN OF STEEL and the entire Iron Age Superman (1986-1999) era is poisoned for me in hindsight.

That sound completely made up.

[superduperman]

Interesting responses on this thread so far!

I will say, taken on its own, as one independent story, THE MAN OF STEEL is still a solid read: consistently written and drawn, with clear beginning, middle and end, and the last page very clearly (maybe too clearly) sums up what the final takeaway is supposed to be.

The problem for me is not within the story itself, but it's unique place in and effect on the Superverse's greater history. It's really hard (like, almost impossible) for me to separate THE MAN OF STEEL miniseries from what it replaced and what effect it had on comicdom going forward.

This becomes doubly true if the tale I've heard (but never confirmed for myself) is true. That John Byrne loved Frank Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS (and its ... "take" on Superman, published earlier in the same year) so much that he changed some of his initial writing of THE MAN OF STEEL to better match Miller's Superman. And that ultimately, Byrne had it in his mind that his new young Superman could or would eventually become Miller's government stooge Superman. Excuse me while I puke.

IF (and please if anyone can decisively confirm or deny this, please do) that tale is true, then THE MAN OF STEEL and the entire Iron Age Superman (1986-1999) era is poisoned for me in hindsight.

There are some things we know for sure. One: That Byrne came up with the female Robin. Miller confirms this in one of the intros to DKR. And that he and Byrne were in contact during that time since both books were essentially being written more or less side by side. So this theory does appear to be correct. And I think I remember reading somewhere that Byrne said that he did try to make his Batman in line with Miller's. Superman's weakened power level also seems to go along with MOS. It was also well known that the reboot was coming at the time of DKR and that it was meant to be a potential future for the then DCU.

[Kuwagaton]

I've thought for a long time that both DC and Marvel comics would be considerably better reads if you put lower top end power limits on all the heroes and villains.

But I don't think it works at all well when you considerably lower one character when you're powering up practically all the other main players....which is what DC did with Superman.

In 1971? Yeah, it was pretty short sighted and I guess part of why they stepped away. Another huge part, I presume, is because although Superman wasn't being developed as a character like say, Peter Parker, the writers who were on board for the last of those fifteen years were stellar when it came to writing him as an idea.

In 1986? I guess he wasn't number one with a bullet, but he was still considered the most impressive DC hero by the real masses and in story.

Interesting responses on this thread so far!

I will say, taken on its own, as one independent story, THE MAN OF STEEL is still a solid read: consistently written and drawn, with clear beginning, middle and end, and the last page very clearly (maybe too clearly) sums up what the final takeaway is supposed to be.

The problem for me is not within the story itself, but it's unique place in and effect on the Superverse's greater history. It's really hard (like, almost impossible) for me to separate THE MAN OF STEEL miniseries from what it replaced and what effect it had on comicdom going forward.

I can really agree with this although I can't say I've ever read something along the lines of Byrne wanting to make Superman some government guy or whatever. To be honest I've never really read DKR so if he says that it was an influence, it's kinda vague to me.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

I've seen Byrne mention 'Superman: The Movie' influencing his Post-Crisis Superman, but I've never seen him mention TDKR in relation to Post-Crisis Superman.

[BeefBourguignon]

I have never heard or read that rumor before and generally the 1986 to mid 90s era of Superman comics is my favorite to research. Doesn't mean it is not true, of course, (I often misremember trivia) but if it is not fabricated it should not be too difficult to find original source evidence. Myself, I am very skeptical of this.

There are some things we know for sure. One: That Byrne came up with the female Robin. Miller confirms this in one of the intros to DKR. And that he and Byrne were in contact during that time since both books were essentially being written more or less side by side. So this theory does appear to be correct. And I think I remember reading somewhere that Byrne said that he did try to make his Batman in line with Miller's. Superman's weakened power level also seems to go along with MOS. It was also well known that the reboot was coming at the time of DKR and that it was meant to be a potential future for the then DCU.

Because one or two things is true does not mean something else is. Even if you can generalize enough to make facts fit theory.That is not good reasoning and is the perfect place for confirmation bias to come into play. Edit: I mean that as caution for all of us and not an attack

[Tony]

"And that ultimately, Byrne had it in his mind that his new young Superman could or would eventually become Miller's government stooge Superman."

How on earth with all the Byrne detractors could this go untalked about for 30 years, it's make believe. I tell you what though you can go to his board and ask him if he said this. Please link the response.

[Kid_Quantum]

It's pretty good, in and of itself. But it doesn't really hold up over time.

Loved the changes to Lex. And this MoS version of Lois is typically my favorite (she's just SO assertive).

Didn't like the major changes to Clark. The All-American Boy and Best Selling Novel angle really doesn't do it for me at all.

I also never understood his reasoning for anonymity before the space shuttle incident (which itself is fantastic). It makes sense afterwards, but before...?

[Montressor]

Reading it at the time--hot off the heels of Crisis and while Byrne was killing it over at Marvel--was very exciting. I loved so much of what he did, it was a true modernization of Superman. And as a writer, Byrne knew how to toss in surprises--I loved his resolution of the Superboy saga (which, unfortunately, did the Legion in to a degree), and the appearance of Supergirl as a last-page cliffhanger left me speechless at the time.

I loved what he did with Superman, though nowadays I truly love concepts like the 'campy' Krypton, Krypto, Zod, and Clark's career as Superboy. Whether or not he ever called himself 'Superboy' in this current timeline I think an integral part of the character is his friendship with the teens from the future (while he himself was still a teen), and that needs to be re-established, and strongly.

[Tony]

Reading it at the time--hot off the heels of Crisis and while Byrne was killing it over at Marvel--was very exciting. I loved so much of what he did, it was a true modernization of Superman. And as a writer, Byrne knew how to toss in surprises--I loved his resolution of the Superboy saga (which, unfortunately, did the Legion in to a degree), and the appearance of Supergirl as a last-page cliffhanger left me speechless at the time.

I loved what he did with Superman, though nowadays I truly love concepts like the 'campy' Krypton, Krypto, Zod, and Clark's career as Superboy. Whether or not he ever called himself 'Superboy' in this current timeline I think an integral part of the character is his friendship with the teens from the future (while he himself was still a teen), and that needs to be re-established, and strongly.

Yeah I felt the same really. Looking back now and saying it should never have happened erases all the stories that were brought about by the changes that people loved. The books were great for a decade, being of the time is meaningless, it's comics you change direction when you need to until you get it right, as I think they now have. I would never want to lose that take and all those great years.

[daBronzeBomma]

How on earth with all the Byrne detractors could this go untalked about for 30 years, it's make believe. I tell you what though you can go to his board and ask him if he said this. Please link the response.

No, I'll tell YOU what: you can go to his house, ring his doorbell, and ask him directly. Please record and post the encounter on youtube.

Dark Knight Returns:


Byrne's Superman run, shortly afterwards:

[Tony]

No, I'll tell YOU what: you can go to his house, ring his doorbell, and ask him directly. Please record and post the encounter on youtube.

Dark Knight Returns:


Byrne's Superman run, shortly afterwards:

Yes because saying he strongly disagrees with the presidents decision but he'll follow the law of the land = government stooge. I'm good on this topic see it however you want.

[JackDaw]

Yes because saying he strongly disagrees with the presidents decision but he'll follow the law of the land = government stooge. I'm good on this topic see it however you want.

Shouldn't worry about it too much. A lot of the interpretation of what Superman did in DKR is bizarre when you look at what actually happened in comic itself.

A lot claim Batman beat Superman for example...but in "big fight", Superman took one punch from Batman plugged into city grid, looked confused why his friend was making a daft attempt to fight him, and flew away. Then later at Batman's "funeral" Superman saw through Bruce's plot, but didn't expose it.

That translates for any into a Batman win...where a more realistic interpretation is Superman helping a friend!

[Tony]

Yeah it's been a really long time since I read it (when it came out in the 80s) But I basically remember it as he was hit my a nuke and a lightning bolt and synthetic Green K and Batman in his Super suit and all Batman managed to do was fake his death, I'm not even sure how accurate my memory is. I should get it from hoopla and give it a reread. The real loser was poor Alfred when he thought he was dead and he made the grand gesture lol.