Mid-90's Tone Shift

[manofsteel1979]

I think the tone shift started right around the #0 issues Because of two big events behind the scenes.

One was the departure of Roger Stern from ACTION with issue #700, who had pretty been the senior writer of the team the last several years starting as Byrne left in 1988. He I think was instrumental in keeping that flavor of the initial Post Crisis direction in place. David Michelline, who had been a Spiderman writter, took over ACTION.

Second was the editorial musical chairs as Carlin became executive editor of DC as a whole, and his role as Supereditor was passed briefly to KC Carlson and then, during Death of Clark Kent, it passed to Joey Calveretti (SP?).

Those two events combined I think did change the tone and direction of the books. While they still were quality that dwarfed most of what DC and Marvel was publishing at the time, the cracks were Certainly showing.

[manofsteel1979]

You're not alone, I noticed it at the time too. I didn't particularly dislike it, but it definitely wasn't quite the same. Except the art. The more cartoony style was more of an issue for me, I missed a more true to form "badass" type of art style, and I still do today. Indeed, a few years later I would end up taking a break from comics altogether. Was it directly because of this? No, but I wasn't so ultra-consumed by it anymore that I didn't make the extra effort into accommodating it into a post-high school lifestyle, y'know? So it was definitely a shift that I noticed. Even your more hardcore villains were taking up goofier schemes. Cyborg Superman enlisting the aid of Toyman? Granted his aim was to kill Superman but the toy-like contraption that eventually succeeding in splitting him was still goofy and not nearly as sinister a storyline as one was used to Hank being utilized in. Then there was a story where Brainiac decided to switch bodies with Superman, but somehow it was a three-way switch including a boy in an orphanage and Superman ends up in the boy's body. That one wasn't even a bad short arc, but again I was used to much more demented plots from these villains.

That Brainiac arc you mentioned was a fill in arc written by Mark Waid and Tom Peyer if I remember correctly. It also was the last work Curt Swan did before he passed away.

[Sacred Knight]

Oh wow, I never knew that. I wish I would have been more in sync with what creators were doing what at the time. But back then I didn't pay much attention to who was writing and who was drawing each title. I'll have to pull those issue out.

[Jim Kelly]

It's the twenty year cycle. The early '50s, early '70s and early '90s are distinguised by a shift to more horror and crime type comics. Following this comes some kind of industry crisis ('50s: the social protests directed at comics, parents burning comics in the public square and government investigations of publishers, with a good many publishers going out of business; '70s: the sharp fall off in newsstand sales as mom and pop stores go out of business, with mainstream publishers dying off; '90s: the bust of the speculator boom that nearly kills off Marvel and seriously threatens DC, with indie publishers dropping like flies). In reaction, the surviving publishers pull back from serious and dark comics and start to produce lighter material, in hopes of driving up their sales and fending off the creditors.

Conversely, the '40s, '60s and '80s are distinguished by rising sales and popular super-hero comics, with new publishers getting into the game and existing publishers doing rather well.

Don't ask me why this happens. I don't know. And don't ask about the 21st century. If the pattern held true, then the early 2010s would have been distinguised by a shift to serious and darker comics, with more crime and horror and right now the industry would be recovering from some existential crisis.

[Clark_Kent]

That Brainiac arc you mentioned was a fill in arc written by Mark Waid and Tom Peyer if I remember correctly. It also was the last work Curt Swan did before he passed away.

Swan drew a few pages of "Superman" (Brainiac in Supes' body) talking with Supergirl...and is notable for being (as far as I know) the only time he drew Superman with the long hair.

I did like that little arc, though. 4 issues if I recall, it was kinda fun.

[Clark_Kent]

I think the tone shift started right around the #0 issues Because of two big events behind the scenes.

One was the departure of Roger Stern from ACTION with issue #700, who had pretty been the senior writer of the team the last several years starting as Byrne left in 1988. He I think was instrumental in keeping that flavor of the initial Post Crisis direction in place. David Michelline, who had been a Spiderman writter, took over ACTION.

Second was the editorial musical chairs as Carlin became executive editor of DC as a whole, and his role as Supereditor was passed briefly to KC Carlson and then, during Death of Clark Kent, it passed to Joey Calveretti (SP?).

Those two events combined I think did change the tone and direction of the books. While they still were quality that dwarfed most of what DC and Marvel was publishing at the time, the cracks were Certainly showing.

This is some pretty great stuff. Like sacred, I didn't pay much attention in those days to the names in the credits so I didn't know a lot of this.

Speaking of Action 700...I used to get my comics from a store in the tiny town I grew up in, and they stopped selling comics not too far into the Fall of Metropolis story. When they stopped selling them, I stopped buying for quite a long time. It was a shock to me at the time to find out Metropolis was rebuilt by Zatanna and her magic...and further confused me a few years later when No Mans Land hit. You'd think someone would have had her on the phone real quick lol

[Myskin]

What era of Superman speaks to you the most?

I guess that I could define the Loeb/Kelly era (up to a certain point at least: I'd say up to OWAW, even if there are some good issues after that, too) as my favorite one. For various reasons - it's the first era I followed with a real interest and without missing any issue, but also because some of those issues (AC 775) are among my favorite ones ever. But I really can't say that there is an era I like the best, mainly because all Superman eras have been disappointing to a degree - maybe the most consistent one in terms of worldbuilding and characterization has been the Bronze Age era (Maggin, etc), even if it is obviously dated now (in a good way, though).

IMHO if you don't take into consideration memorable issues (Superman 400) or miniseries which have basically become immortal milestones (All Star Superman or For All Seasons) Superman's editorial history after 1986 have been a long series of false starts, even if the triangle era has obviously been the most consistent one in terms of tone and cohesiveness. I am not very fond of it, but ultimately it doesn't matter because I see it as a product of its time, in the same way I think that some silly ideas which you could find in stories from 1950s (and which I wouldn't like to see again) are a product of THOSE times. I have many more problems with the stories which followed the triangle era: some good starts (one year later), but mostly disappointing, sometimes horrible, developments and endings. The main issue, I guess, is that Superman never had a Dark Knight Returns /Year One (Ok, there was All-Star, which IMHO is comparable to those stories but whose influence on Superman comics is basically zero), nor a No Man's Land, that is a long storyline based on a clever redesign/rethinking of the basic concepts which would allow the character to evolve in a clever, mature way. I guess that they never really played their cards right.

[Clark_Kent]

I guess that I could define the Loeb/Kelly era (up to a certain point at least: I'd say up to OWAW, even if there are some good issues after that, too) as my favorite one. For various reasons - it's the first era I followed with a real interest and without missing any issue, but also because some of those issues (AC 775) are among my favorite ones ever. But I really can't say that there is an era I like the best, mainly because all Superman eras have been disappointing to a degree - maybe the most consistent one in terms of worldbuilding and characterization has been the Bronze Age era (Maggin, etc), even if it is obviously dated now (in a good way, though).

IMHO if you don't take into consideration memorable issues (Superman 400) or miniseries which have basically become immortal milestones (All Star Superman or For All Seasons) Superman's editorial history after 1986 have been a long series of false starts, even if the triangle era has obviously been the most consistent one in terms of tone and cohesiveness. I am not very fond of it, but ultimately it doesn't matter because I see it as a product of its time, in the same way I think that some silly ideas which you could find in stories from 1950s (and which I wouldn't like to see again) are a product of THOSE times. I have many more problems with the stories which followed the triangle era: some good starts (one year later), but mostly disappointing, sometimes horrible, developments and endings. The main issue, I guess, is that Superman never had a Dark Knight Returns /Year One (Ok, there was All-Star, which IMHO is comparable to those stories but whose influence on Superman comics is basically zero), nor a No Man's Land, that is a long storyline based on a clever redesign/rethinking of the basic concepts which would allow the character to evolve in a clever, mature way. I guess that they never really played their cards right.

This...no matter the age, I've wished for this for forever. I hoped New Krypton would be *that* story...a mega epic for the character. Alas, we all know how that turned out.

I really like this post though, and if there were a 'like' button I would hit it. I appreciate your thoughts on it. As for Loeb/Kelly, there was a lot I enjoyed from them (particularly the beginning...I think it's the "No Limits!" tpb) and some I didn't (Y2K & Return to Krypton were misses for me). I think the era would be more fondly remembered if the Superman 2000 pitch had never been made public; I feel it's often judged more on what it wasn't, than on what it turned out to be.

[superduperman]

Best guess? They were running out of ideas. It was about ten years after the reboot and all the SA tropes were still off limits so they had to start going back to that well for ideas. Remember, the new Kandor showed up in 1996. I think that was the first SA thing that they brought back, if not in the original form. They can make up new villains with the word "Blood" in it or they can go back and try to make all the goofy SA stuff work again. Guess which one hadn't been tried yet. Keep in mind, this was also around the time that Lois & Clark was still on the air and it didn't exactly take the mythos seriously. I didn't read the mainstream books much back then but I remember skimming through the wedding issue and it just seemed like a hodge podge of ideas thrown in for the sake of space filler. Final Night brought back his connection to the Legion, if not his history with them. I've said this before, you don't give Superman electrical powers because you have a ton of other ideas lined up. By the time Return to Krypton came around, it was obvious they wanted to use the SA again. I get why they turned Birthright into the mainstream origin.

[Myskin]

This...no matter the age, I've wished for this for forever. I hoped New Krypton would be *that* story...a mega epic for the character. Alas, we all know how that turned out.

I really like this post though, and if there were a 'like' button I would hit it. I appreciate your thoughts on it. As for Loeb/Kelly, there was a lot I enjoyed from them (particularly the beginning...I think it's the "No Limits!" tpb) and some I didn't (Y2K & Return to Krypton were misses for me). I think the era would be more fondly remembered if the Superman 2000 pitch had never been made public; I feel it's often judged more on what it wasn't, than on what it turned out to be.

Thanks for the kind words. About the memories of the Loeb/Kelly era... Yes, a lot of people would have liked Superman 2000 better, but it wouldn't have changed the reaction of the readers that much. It had some huge bumps along the road (OWAW, the resolution to some storyline, Cir-El) and a lot of conservative fans hated it and everything it represented.

Yes, I agree that New Krypton was a well-intentioned attempt at redesigning Superman concepts in order to make the inner clockworks work right at last (nothing as radical as DKR to be fair - we were more along the lines of The Blackest Night, but still) but it didn't end well and I guess that we really can't expect anything that radical anymore. The Superman 2000 pitch which you mentioned has become almost mythical at this point, maybe even more than it really deserves - I think that we should keep in mind that every untold story is always better than any published story. If I had to point out the very precise moment when Superman-related things took the wrong path, I'd say that it is when Steve Gerber and Frank Miller weren't allowed to create the Metropolis pitch in the 1980s - yes, that's another untold story and we don't know much about it, but it would have become a reality in the last moment in comic book history when stories could be revolutionary AND have enduring consequences.

I'd say that since 1986 Superman stories have always followed - with some variation - the same path: they do something new, maybe even unsettling, with the character; they have some rethinking; they try to appease fans by resurrecting some nostalgic concept; they try to reconcile everything in a new, "inclusive", continuity. That's exactly what they are doing right now with Reborn, that's what they did with Loeb/Kelly and I think that to a degree that's what they did with the period you are talking about. Some concepts which weren't possible in the post-Crisis continuity came back (Kandor, Blue/Red, etc), but I think that the strongest indicator that there was some nostalgic element at work was the Dominus saga. As far as I remember, that's the first time they were really suggesting that past eras of the character could come back in full force.

As far as I am concerned, I've come to the conclusion that both the "nostalgic" and the "inclusive" push are not particularly useful nor healthy for the character. My thoughts were different years ago - I was all for the "inclusive" push - but now I think that it merely produces generic stories and it is just a way the publisher uses to appease the inner collector which lives inside every fan :"Every story counts! Every story happened, just in a different way!". They all miss the point, that is finding some meaning, something important to say about this character and this world. And by the way, the final mashup is never really that good.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

I'd say that since 1986 Superman stories have always followed - with some variation - the same path: they do something new, maybe even unsettling, with the character; they have some rethinking; they try to appease fans by resurrecting some nostalgic concept; they try to reconcile everything in a new, "inclusive", continuity.

This right here.

When you think about it, 'Truth' really signaled that things were going to regress once more. As did the New Krypton saga/Grounded before it.

As far as I am concerned, I've come to the conclusion that both the "nostalgic" and the "inclusive" push are not particularly useful nor healthy for the character. My thoughts were different years ago - I was all for the "inclusive" push - but now I think that it merely produces generic stories and it is just a way the publisher uses to appease the inner collector which lives inside every fan :"Every story counts! Every story happened, just in a different way!". They all miss the point, that is finding some meaning, something important to say about this character and this world. And by the way, the final mashup is never really that good.

The same thing happened with me.

I used to want everything to be canon, because I thought it would make the current iteration of the character richer, deeper. But since then I've changed my mind on the subject, and see making old stories canon to newer versions of the character as a way of imposing limitations, and does nothing to really enrich the character.

Now I'm more for starting from scratch, building the character up with new creative voices, taking the character in a more progressive direction that might even alienate longtime fans.

The New 52 could have been it, but they messed that up from day one.

[Flash Gordon]

Thanks for the kind words. About the memories of the Loeb/Kelly era... Yes, a lot of people would have liked Superman 2000 better, but it wouldn't have changed the reaction of the readers that much. It had some huge bumps along the road (OWAW, the resolution to some storyline, Cir-El) and a lot of conservative fans hated it and everything it represented.

Yes, I agree that New Krypton was a well-intentioned attempt at redesigning Superman concepts in order to make the inner clockworks work right at last (nothing as radical as DKR to be fair - we were more along the lines of The Blackest Night, but still) but it didn't end well and I guess that we really can't expect anything that radical anymore. The Superman 2000 pitch which you mentioned has become almost mythical at this point, maybe even more than it really deserves - I think that we should keep in mind that every untold story is always better than any published story. If I had to point out the very precise moment when Superman-related things took the wrong path, I'd say that it is when Steve Gerber and Frank Miller weren't allowed to create the Metropolis pitch in the 1980s - yes, that's another untold story and we don't know much about it, but it would have become a reality in the last moment in comic book history when stories could be revolutionary AND have enduring consequences.

I'd say that since 1986 Superman stories have always followed - with some variation - the same path: they do something new, maybe even unsettling, with the character; they have some rethinking; they try to appease fans by resurrecting some nostalgic concept; they try to reconcile everything in a new, "inclusive", continuity. That's exactly what they are doing right now with Reborn, that's what they did with Loeb/Kelly and I think that to a degree that's what they did with the period you are talking about. Some concepts which weren't possible in the post-Crisis continuity came back (Kandor, Blue/Red, etc), but I think that the strongest indicator that there was some nostalgic element at work was the Dominus saga. As far as I remember, that's the first time they were really suggesting that past eras of the character could come back in full force.

As far as I am concerned, I've come to the conclusion that both the "nostalgic" and the "inclusive" push are not particularly useful nor healthy for the character. My thoughts were different years ago - I was all for the "inclusive" push - but now I think that it merely produces generic stories and it is just a way the publisher uses to appease the inner collector which lives inside every fan :"Every story counts! Every story happened, just in a different way!". They all miss the point, that is finding some meaning, something important to say about this character and this world. And by the way, the final mashup is never really that good.

Exactly this.

I feel the same way. Obsession with "eras of Superman" and returning to them, that is rampant in fans, has crushed a lot of my interest in ongoing stories of Superman. It just illustrates so well the "why" in- this is why we can't have nice things.

Nothing wrong with enjoying a period of comic books moreso than others but demanding that, that be resuscitated as the new verison of an age old character's "continuity" is rough stuff.

[BeefBourguignon]

Who is demanding what? Why does every thread in this forum become about eras and canon and continuity? That is not even the topic here.

[Myskin]

Who is demanding what? Why does every thread in this forum become about eras and canon and continuity? That is not even the topic here.

It's part of the topic, because the user who opened it talked a particular tonal shift in the 1990s (which includes the Dominus story, Blue/Red and other silly things) and I explained my personal thoughts behind that tonal shift: part of a phenomenon which periodically repeats itself in Superman stories.

[Kuwagaton]

I think the tone shift started right around the #0 issues Because of two big events behind the scenes.

One was the departure of Roger Stern from ACTION with issue #700, who had pretty been the senior writer of the team the last several years starting as Byrne left in 1988. He I think was instrumental in keeping that flavor of the initial Post Crisis direction in place. David Michelline, who had been a Spiderman writter, took over ACTION.

Second was the editorial musical chairs as Carlin became executive editor of DC as a whole, and his role as Supereditor was passed briefly to KC Carlson and then, during Death of Clark Kent, it passed to Joey Calveretti (SP?).

Those two events combined I think did change the tone and direction of the books. While they still were quality that dwarfed most of what DC and Marvel was publishing at the time, the cracks were Certainly showing.

Yes, thank you. With Michelinie, you can also see the same effect on Spider-Man, transitioning to the 90s from stories like Kraven's Last Hunt to the Venom and Carnage type stuff.