Should We Consider Superdad A New Version of Superman?

[Ascended]

Is the Loeb/Kelly version distinct from Byrne and Birthright? They certainly dialed around elements of his backstory with For All Seasons, Return to Krypton 2, and a number of flashback scenes that made the Kents younger and different looking when they found Clark?

Is post-Zero Hour separate from Byrne? Or maybe just immediately post-Byrne? Since Byrne didn't intend any handwringing about the execution of the Phantom Zoners?

Is Bronze Age separate from Weisinger? There's even that story where he loops around the end of the universe which could explain the subtle changes?

How many wardrobe changes did Jor-El have between 1939 and 1986? Saturn symbol? Sun symbol? Short or long sleeve?

I more or less interpret there to be somewhere between one and four versions of Superman with the comics as an unreliable narrator. The details are unimportant if we don't treat them as reliable reporting.

I get where you're coming from, and to a point I agree. However, the differences you're talking about are largely minor. Small shifts in tone or direction, maybe a few tweaks to history, and that's it. And it all flowed from issue to issue, year to year, without a clear break to set them apart from each other. Except for Birthright, which was never meant to be canon in the first place.

Superdad is a different matter. We're still dont know exactly what his history looked like and post-Crisis was a total mess by the end anyway, with at least four different origins in play that each brought vastly different approaches with them. How then are we supposed to judge Superdad's history, when the foundation he's supposedly built on is so fractured? The only thing Superdad has in common with post-Crisis is his wife. Everything else is different. He has as much in common with the Silver and Bronze Ages as he does post-Crisis. In fact the only era he doesnt seem to pull from heavily is the Golden Age, and even then there are subtle aspects that could be traced back to those early stories (such as his temper).

If his personality isn't strictly post-Crisis (insofar as that era had a singular personality ascribed to him), if his status quo is vastly different, if almost everything about his life is barely recognizable as a strictly post-Crisis construct, then why are we calling him the post-Crisis Superman? Because he married Lois? That's not enough in my book to call him the same guy. He doesnt feel like post-Crisis, his world doesnt look like post-Crisis, and if his history is the same it still doesnt change the fact that the stories in my hand right now feel like something new. The best we can say is that he's informed by the character's past. But that can be said of every version, even post-Crisis, which worked hard to distance itself from previous eras.

[Kuwagaton]

That's what I think, too. That if DC says that Superman is only one guy, there will be people who don't accept that. Basically, I think Patrick Gerard is right about the unreliable narrator (going back to Spider-Man for some reason, I think about how Stan Lee would call him Peter Porter. But that really doesn't matter to people, except how they find it weird that a writer didn't live in the details) and it shows with fan interpretation: their word isn't law here because that would leave no doubt who this is, their word only means what fans decide it means. What then is the incentive for getting burdened by the details?

[bat39]

We consider the Supermen of earths 1 and 2 different, but they share the same backstory. And that's because at some point they were diverged and differences were established.

Superdad is a very different animal than post-Crisis. I see it as being very much a similar situation. He has roots in post-Crisis but I wonder if hes evolved into something brand new.

The five year break helps sell that divide.

It comes down to perception ultimately, both the one DC wishes to create officially, and the one which fans develop on their own (which may or may not relate to or be a reaction to DC's marketing).

Even the whole Earth 1/Earth 2 thing is a perception as far as Superman is concerned. The fact is that Superman was, in today's parlance, 'soft-rebooted' back in the early 1950's. Then DC basically created a parallel universe doppelganger for Superman on the newly established 'Earth 2' (which was retroactively the setting for the Golden Age DC stories), and then declared him as being the 'original' Golden Age Superman, who's story had progressed to the point where he was married to Lois. Then they threw in some retcons to bring him closer to being the Superman from the earliest Siegal/Shuster stories, such as the Daily Star, the chest symbol, no Superboy career etc.

And fans bought it. To date people get sentimental over Kal-L being the 'Original' Superman, the Golden Age Superman, and its a major cause for the bitterness over his death in IC. Whereas, technically, he's an older parallel universe doppelganger Superman introduced in the late Silver Age/early Bronze Age, who was given a backstory that retroactively 'assigned' the Golden Age stories, and certain early Golden Age traits to him (even some which actually contradicted the bulk of Golden Age stories).

Now DC's doing pretty much the same thing with Superdad. He's a parallel universe doppelganger who's presented as being the Post-COIE/Pre-Flashpoint Superman. And now, there's an event revealing that the New 52 reality is a corrupted version of the Post-COIE/Pre-Flashpoint reality and that Superdad therefore is the REAL Superman. And it does seem that a lot of people have bought that perception - both fans and detractors. And even if the 'Rebirth' universe is ultimately only a 'spiritual' return to Post-COIE/Pre-Flashpoint without that continuity returning wholesale (and the same applies to Superman), fans will still embrace Superdad as a 'spiritual' return to that broad vision of Superman, even if certain facts don't fully line up.

I get where you're coming from, and to a point I agree. However, the differences you're talking about are largely minor. Small shifts in tone or direction, maybe a few tweaks to history, and that's it. And it all flowed from issue to issue, year to year, without a clear break to set them apart from each other. Except for Birthright, which was never meant to be canon in the first place.

Superdad is a different matter. We're still dont know exactly what his history looked like and post-Crisis was a total mess by the end anyway, with at least four different origins in play that each brought vastly different approaches with them. How then are we supposed to judge Superdad's history, when the foundation he's supposedly built on is so fractured? The only thing Superdad has in common with post-Crisis is his wife. Everything else is different. He has as much in common with the Silver and Bronze Ages as he does post-Crisis. In fact the only era he doesnt seem to pull from heavily is the Golden Age, and even then there are subtle aspects that could be traced back to those early stories (such as his temper).

If his personality isn't strictly post-Crisis (insofar as that era had a singular personality ascribed to him), if his status quo is vastly different, if almost everything about his life is barely recognizable as a strictly post-Crisis construct, then why are we calling him the post-Crisis Superman? Because he married Lois? That's not enough in my book to call him the same guy. He doesnt feel like post-Crisis, his world doesnt look like post-Crisis, and if his history is the same it still doesnt change the fact that the stories in my hand right now feel like something new. The best we can say is that he's informed by the character's past. But that can be said of every version, even post-Crisis, which worked hard to distance itself from previous eras.

I think maybe one thing worth noting here is that, strictly speaking, he's the Pre-Flashpoint Superman and not the Post-COIE Superman, so to speak (though even I often amalgamate them, and they indeed often can be amalgamated easily). The difference is subtle, but its mainly to do with the fact that Pre-Flashpoint Superman was already on his way to becoming a kind of 'amalgam' Superman that merged the best of Pre-COIE and Post-COIE. The broad outlines of his life were Post-COIE. Apart from the origin, there was not a lot of effort made to contradict Post-COIE continuity. But things were still a bit shaky...the foundation was only in the process of being built.

Now if its this conception of the character that they are trying to restore, then it might just be possible to play around with the details a bit, because the foundation was still only at a nascent stage to begin with. At any rate, no 'Rebirth' character is going to 100% revert to their Pre-Flashpoint status...but they will return close enough to be being slightly modified versions of the 'classic' characters - more 'preboot' than 'reboot'. With enough timey-wimey vagueness going on, it might just be possible to overlook some details being changed in the translation from Pre-Flashpoint Superman to Rebirth Superman.

At any rate, I feel that if you can consider Rebirth Batman to be essentially the same as Pre-Flashpoint Batman once the dust has settled on Rebirth, than a strong case can be made for Superman as well.

[RedWhiteAndBlueSupes]

the very short answer to that question is.....no.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

There's only been one Superman in the comics, but he's been spit into multiple versions and his history has been been regularly altered. His personality has changed depending on that history and the worlds around him.

But he is Superman.

[Slaughter]

Can't we just blame it on the Time Trapper and move on?

You know... that may actually be the truth.

[Ascended]

It comes down to perception ultimately, both the one DC wishes to create officially, and the one which fans develop on their own (which may or may not relate to or be a reaction to DC's marketing).

Absolutely. Hell, far as I know there's no official designation between Supermen outside of Elseworlds and multiverses. Yet we've decided to draw lines in the sand anyway, in response to DC's multiple flipping on the property's approach and history.

Now DC's doing pretty much the same thing with Superdad.

This is what got me thinking about this whole thing in the first place. If we draw a line between those two Supermen, why aren't we with Superdad? Relatively similar situations, why is the result different? The only thing I can think of is that most fans are happy to have "their" Superman back and dont want to think of Superdad as a separate, yet similar, entity.

I think maybe one thing worth noting here is that, strictly speaking, he's the Pre-Flashpoint Superman and not the Post-COIE Superman, so to speak (though even I often amalgamate them, and they indeed often can be amalgamated easily). The difference is subtle, but its mainly to do with the fact that Pre-Flashpoint Superman was already on his way to becoming a kind of 'amalgam' Superman that merged the best of Pre-COIE and Post-COIE. The broad outlines of his life were Post-COIE. Apart from the origin, there was not a lot of effort made to contradict Post-COIE continuity. But things were still a bit shaky...the foundation was only in the process of being built.

I hope the pre-Crisis elements get folded back in more successfully this time around then. None of that ever felt right with post-Crisis (even though they were elements I wanted back).

Now if its this conception of the character that they are trying to restore, then it might just be possible to play around with the details a bit, because the foundation was still only at a nascent stage to begin with. At any rate, no 'Rebirth' character is going to 100% revert to their Pre-Flashpoint status...but they will return close enough to be being slightly modified versions of the 'classic' characters - more 'preboot' than 'reboot'. With enough timey-wimey vagueness going on, it might just be possible to overlook some details being changed in the translation from Pre-Flashpoint Superman to Rebirth Superman.

And those who want to believe this is the exact same guy will be able to say they have what they want. And the vagueness of pre-52 does help that. I myself am not quite convinced "wanting it to be this way" is actually enough to make it true.

t any rate, I feel that if you can consider Rebirth Batman to be essentially the same as Pre-Flashpoint Batman once the dust has settled on Rebirth, than a strong case can be made for Superman as well.

I suspect that'll be the end result of Reborn/Rebirth. Maybe a little pre-52 style pre-Crisis sprinkled on top in a half-assed attempt to satisfy fans like me. But odds are Superdad will absolutely be pre-52, with changes to his history minor enough to not justify a new version.

[bat39]

Absolutely. Hell, far as I know there's no official designation between Supermen outside of Elseworlds and multiverses. Yet we've decided to draw lines in the sand anyway, in response to DC's multiple flipping on the property's approach and history.

Actually, DC has only ever drawn a line in the sand as far as different 'mainstream' interpretations of Superman go twice. Once with Earth 1/Earth 2, and now with Superdad/Nuperman (and until Reborn, we won't really know what the deal is there exactly). That apart, he's always been treated as just 'SUPERMAN'. Its about time we got back to that kind of thinking.

This is what got me thinking about this whole thing in the first place. If we draw a line between those two Supermen, why aren't we with Superdad? Relatively similar situations, why is the result different? The only thing I can think of is that most fans are happy to have "their" Superman back and dont want to think of Superdad as a separate, yet similar, entity.

The point is that DC wanted E2 Superman to be considered the original Golden Age Superman, and the fandom went along with it wholeheartedly. Never mind that during the actual Golden Age, Clark spent most of his time working in the Daily Planet and not Daily Star, and the chest symbol gradually evolved soon enough to become the classic version - or that it was a passing motorist that found Kal-L in the actual Action Comics # 1...and a bunch of other contradictory details. To say nothing of the nebulous period in the 50's where we don't know which stories fit into which earth.

So its no wonder that people consider Superdad to be the actual Pre-Flashpoint Superman, even if some of the details are hazy.

I hope the pre-Crisis elements get folded back in more successfully this time around then. None of that ever felt right with post-Crisis (even though they were elements I wanted back).

Yeah, I have no doubt that will be smoothed over. If there's one thing they've learnt from Morrison, I hope its how to retro-fit the Golden Age and Silver Age into modern continuity.

And those who want to believe this is the exact same guy will be able to say they have what they want. And the vagueness of pre-52 does help that. I myself am not quite convinced "wanting it to be this way" is actually enough to make it true.

Again, for all intents and purposes he will the 'that guy'.

I suspect that'll be the end result of Reborn/Rebirth. Maybe a little pre-52 style pre-Crisis sprinkled on top in a half-assed attempt to satisfy fans like me. But odds are Superdad will absolutely be pre-52, with changes to his history minor enough to not justify a new version.

True enough. But lets wait for Reborn.

[FishyZombie]

I think it's appropriate to revisit this thread given the resolution of reborn. I think we can now consider the guy walking out of Reborn to be a new version of the character, even though he's technically an amalgamation of New52 and Post Crisis, just one that utilizes Superman's history more than the New 52 version.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I think it's appropriate to revisit this thread given the resolution of reborn. I think we can now consider the guy walking out of Reborn to be a new version of the character, even though he's technically an amalgamation of New52 and Post Flashpoint, just one that utilizes Superman's history more than the New 52 version.

Can we really, though? The upcoming issues may change this, but it mostly seems that his entire Pre-Flashpoint history is back. If anything, I think its revealed that New 52 Superman was never not Pre-Flashpoint/Post-Crisis Superman. So, instead of four versions, there are just three again: Golden Age, Silver Age/Pre-Crisis, and Post-Crisis (the guy who was split into "Blue" and "Red" (aka New 52)). Though, I'd actually limit that to two, given that Infinite Crisis undid a lot of the rebooting of Superman that COIE brought about.

I think Tomasi, Jurgens, and Johns's intention with Reborn was to erase one of those divisions, not create a new one.

[GodofBoredom]

I don't consider him a new character, to be honest. He is, after all, shown on panel to be Superman (new 52) remembering that he is Post-Crisis Superman (pre Flashpoint) and becoming one (or the reverse, either way it's the same). The Universe rearranged itself to fit a continuous history, but the character in his essence is two versions of himself that we're already familiar with, and have read since 1986.

I'm reluctant to call that a new character since it doesn't fit that definition.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I don't consider him a new character, to be honest. He is, after all, shown on panel to be Superman (new 52) remembering that he is Post-Crisis Superman (pre Flashpoint) and becoming one (or the reverse, either way it's the same). The Universe rearranged itself to fit a continuous history, but the character in his essence is two versions of himself that we're already familiar with, and have read since 1986.

I'm reluctant to call that a new character since it doesn't fit that definition.

Yeah, I agree with this. Calling him a "new" character seems kinda arbitrary. Even inserting Jon in-continuity doesn't make him a new Superman any more than OMD made Peter a new Spider-Man.

I also wonder if Diana and Bruce will now remember Pre-Flashpoint Superman or are they still in the dark about Clark regaining his life until after Rebirth is over.

[GodofBoredom]

Yeah, I agree with this. Calling him a "new" character seems kinda arbitrary. Even inserting Jon in-continuity doesn't make him a new Superman any more than OMD made Peter a new Spider-Man.

I also wonder if Diana and Bruce will now remember Pre-Flashpoint Superman or are they still in the dark about Clark regaining his life until after Rebirth is over.

Yes, and besides, if we'd consider a new Superman every time there's continuity changes, we'd have like half a dozen different versions of Superman since 1986, what with the numerous new origins and history alterations.

It's intuitive to think of him as the same guy, unless a hard reboot happens, even moreso when we quite directly see him as the same person remembering his erased/forgotten past.

[manofsteel1979]

It all depends on what degree the New 52 continuity is indeed a part of the equation.

However, technically he is at least a variation of Pre-Flashpoint Superman, as he and Lois didn't have a son for 10 years of continuity prior. Jon IS a part of New 52/Post-Flashpoint history given as his existence didn't exist originally until Post-Flashpoint, and he is being retroactively fit into the previously existing history.

Also another thing is Ma and Pa Kent. Pa died only literally in the last days of the Pre FP DCU and Ma was alive as of Flashpoint. Of course Post FP Supes lost them both as a teen. It's possible Martha ( and Jonathan, if they also undo his death) could be around again,but it's telling in that montage in 976, Ma and Pa are no where to be seen with the Jon scenes.They seem to set up Perry as a paternal figure to Clark and Lois in both the scene where they apparently share the news of their pregnancy, and again showing Perry and Jimmy with Jon. You'd think that one of those two scenes would have shown Ma and Pa or at least just Ma if either of them are alive in the present day,which makes me think the Kents are indeed gone and have been gone for at least 10 years of Superman's 15 year career, meaning that indeed this is an entirely new Superman with a mix of Pre Flashpoint and New Flashpoint, or at the very least a variation of the Pre-Flashpoint version.

I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. It's Schrodinger's Cat in a way. I try to think of him as one guy who has had a crazy life that keeps getting rewritten by cosmic forces beyond his control.

We shail see soon I guess.

[bat39]

I think I'll wait for Action 977 and 978 before making a final judgement on whether Post-Reborn Superman is a 'new' version or not.

One thing that I feel is consistent across Rebirth is how things are moving to a re-imagining of Pre-Flashpoint status quos and mythos, rather than a 100% restoration of old continuity wholesale.

Look at Wonder Woman. I haven't been following the book too closely since 'Year One' ended - but basically 'Year One' is a brand new origin story, albeit one that evokes the more 'classic' and Pre-Flashpoint versions.

Over at Green Arrow, we recently had a retelling of Oliver and Roy's history, and its a modern re-imagining of those old Golden Age and Silver Age stories of Green Arrow and Speedy.

With the Teen Titans, there's a re-imagined version of the OG Titans history in place.

The common theme seems to be that the past has been 're-painted', but its a familiar drawing that is being 'touched up'.

I think the same will be the case for Superman.

When all is said and done, he'll resemble the character who's been around since 1986 (or even as far back as 1938, depending on how things go)...but just like how Roy Harper was a technician who developed trick arrows in addition to being Speedy, just like how Steve Trevor was a young man who had romantic feelings for Diana instead of being an older man married to Etta Candy, just like how Barry Allen and Iris West have never been married and have only now seriously started dating - some details will be different.