Action Comics 19-20 (New52) versus Action Comics 975 (Rebirth)

[Last Son of Krypton]

"Edgelord" Superman...

[MajorHoy]

. . . So, tell me, if Marvel doesn't feel the need to "reimagine" their characters even though its been 50+ years and we still have the same Spider-Man who debuted in Amazing Fantasy #15, . . .

Actually, we don't really. All the period things from the 1960s, 1970s, etc. that Peter experienced in his original stories have since been changed / altered / forgotten / and/or ignored since the current Peter Parker isn't in his 60s or 70s.
The current version of Peter Parker wouldn't have been alive during those events that made his earlier stories hip and edgy, not stodgy like many of the early 1960s DC stories could sometimes be.
As for a good number of the other Marvel characters, they've lost various elements of their past histories, too which have had to be ignored or re-written because what was happening in the world when they originally debuted no longer are relevant / no longer make sense for heroes who now don't have current histories that pre-date 9/11/2001.

[DCJdog]

Y'all need to be real. We all know that no one could do or experience so many things in one lifetime. How in the world could Spider-Man, Superman, or whatever comic book superhero could do all the things that they did in ALL of their comic book series? It's a comic . . . entertainment - it's all about the stories.

I love continuity and I hated how that the new 52 launch just separated the DC universe from years of great stories. I love what they doing with Rebirth. They are connecting it all back together and, as a result, they providing writers with all sorts of new material to draw from.

If you are going to enjoy comics for all their worth. You can't be anal about it. I am glad that DC is back to embracing the fact that their writing comic books.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Actually, we don't really. All the period things from the 1960s, 1970s, etc. that Peter experienced in his original stories have since been changed / altered / forgotten / and/or ignored since the current Peter Parker isn't in his 60s or 70s.
The current version of Peter Parker wouldn't have been alive during those events that made his earlier stories hip and edgy, not stodgy like many of the early 1960s DC stories could sometimes be.
As for a good number of the other Marvel characters, they've lost various elements of their past histories, too which have had to be ignored or re-written because what was happening in the world when they originally debuted no longer are relevant / no longer make sense for heroes who now don't have current histories that pre-date 9/11/2001.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not...

You do realize that Marvel is on a sliding timescale, right? So, literally everything is maintained, but moved forward in time to keep current. Flash Thompson originally went to serve in Vietnam. That was later retconned to a whichever war was the most current in real-world history, but the reality of Flash going off to serve remained the same. And likewise, if a character asked Peter now "what happened to Gwen Stacy?" or "what happened to Jean DeWolff?", you'd get the same answer from him as you would've gotten in 1973 or 1986, respectively. Gwen Stacy was kidnapped by Green Goblin and went off the GW Bridge and Peter's attempt to rescue her actually ended up killing her. Jean DeWolff was killed by her boyfriend, the Sin-Eater. These things HAPPENED just as much now as they did when originally published.

THAT is the magic of comic books: that they are a vast continuum of stories going back decades in real-time and you can pick up a comic and read about the same character your father/mother read about and your son/daughter can pick up a comic and read the same character you read about when you were a kid. That is what's true of Marvel, and before 2011, its what was true of DC too. Now, at least, it is true of Superman again and hopefully, it will be true of the rest of the DC Universe once Rebirth runs its course.

[Korath]

Those Abrams movies are mostly terrible. Star Trek Beyond's the only really good one. Surprise, surprise, that one casts aside Spock/Uhura for most of the movie, concentrates less on in-fighting between the characters and encourages teamwork, touches on the classic Trek past in a way that doesn't intrude on the main narrative and instead serves character motivations, and has a memorable villain with a pretty simplistic "what have you done for me lately" revenge plot.
.

You aren't serious, right ? Beyond was the worst of the Three new-wave Star Trek movies. It is the point of the thread, so I won't elaborate it here, but it was really a lot below Star Trek (2009) and Into Darkness in term of characterization of the characters, development of the enemy and the last fights (in space and in the station) were ridiculous.

[Miles To Go]

"Edgelord" Superman...

Digging that raw manly chest hair.

Jean DeWolff was killed by her boyfriend, the Sin-Eater.

Was Carter her boyfriend? If I remember right, they went out on just the one date that got ruined when Jean took an emergency call and Stan, already on the brink of mental collapse after his partner died, snapped.

Actually, we don't really. All the period things from the 1960s, 1970s, etc. that Peter experienced in his original stories have since been changed / altered / forgotten / and/or ignored since the current Peter Parker isn't in his 60s or 70s.
The current version of Peter Parker wouldn't have been alive during those events that made his earlier stories hip and edgy, not stodgy like many of the early 1960s DC stories could sometimes be.
As for a good number of the other Marvel characters, they've lost various elements of their past histories, too which have had to be ignored or re-written because what was happening in the world when they originally debuted no longer are relevant / no longer make sense for heroes who now don't have current histories that pre-date 9/11/2001.

This is probably why I preferred to follow the Ultimate Universe when I got into my twenties, and why I've always preferred realities like MC2, Ultimate Universe had a fresh history that was concurrent and up-to-date, while MC2 did'nt just keep the history, but sort of also kept the dates from where those histories come from, and really only go their own way after the end-point of the 1990s.

[Shriveling_memo]

Super dad in the long run will cause another reboot in trying to save this character. Stop forcing the man with Lois because is 1930 or 40s that how it was written.
Stop forcing the issues of him being superman or Clark.
Superman was boring before the reboot, there was hope in the new 52 but I think that's gone when there doing this crazy thing connecting it all together.

There will be a new reboot, an little jon will be the cause of it

[manofsteel1979]

Super dad in the long run will cause another reboot in trying to save this character. Stop forcing the man with Lois because is 1930 or 40s that how it was written.
Stop forcing the issues of him being superman or Clark.
Superman was boring before the reboot, there was hope in the new 52 but I think that's gone when there doing this crazy thing connecting it all together.

There will be a new reboot, an little jon will be the cause of it

Eh....No....But thanks for playing.

[Miles To Go]

Superman was boring before the reboot

If Superdad is "boring" I don't want to be excited

there was hope in the new 52

Hope's the last thing it had.

[FishyZombie]

Super dad in the long run will cause another reboot in trying to save this character. Stop forcing the man with Lois because is 1930 or 40s that how it was written.

and the 50s, and the 60s and the 70s........the 80s, the 90s, the 2000s.... the 2010s. For better or worse Dc comics will probably stop publishing Superman comics before the character goes a full decade without Lois being the main love interest.

[Chris24601]

Super dad in the long run will cause another reboot in trying to save this character... There will be a new reboot, an little jon will be the cause of it

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Jon is going to end up as insurance that a complete reboot won't happen again. Other media may explore Superman's early days, but Jon actually goes a long way towards fixing something that's long been wrong with the Superman titles.

All the people talking about how Nuperman was younger and hipper seem to overlook the reason why Jimmy Olsen was introduced into the comics.

Superman has NEVER been young and hip. He's always been, at best, a big brother figure watching out for you but, more often than not, he's been the Ward Cleaver; the moral authority/father-figure of the DCU (even before the DCU was a formalized thing). Jimmy Olsen was brought into the stories precisely because the writers realized that kids couldn't relate to Superman himself as a counterpart. Jimmy Olsen was who kids were supposed to identify with in the Superman stories, but that got lost over time as demands for realism aged up Jimmy Olsen from someone in their early teens into practically Superman's contemporary (a couple years younger than Superman himself) and then the idea that you could somehow take Ward Cleaver and make him younger and hipper and that this would appeal to people.

Superman has always been a Dad-figure, its just now been made literal with Jon. Its also something that is eminently usable as the launching point for a re-boot in the same way that "The Incredibles" could be the launch of a series... just picture Superman and Batman as "Mr. Incredible" and "Frozone" respectively.

So my hunch is that while some elements of Jon might get re-tooled with time (ex. some variation of "snatched from this time and was imprisoned on Telos for a year where Jon was born" might carry through Superman:Reborn but could be dropped 5, 10 or 20 years down the line) I don't think any present day stories are going to retgone Jon from existence. Like sidekicks who graduate to their own names (ex. Nightwing) actual biological kids born to a hero in the present day tend to stick in terms of continuity.