Mid-90's Tone Shift

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Speaking of the 90s. What was going on with Jimmy Olsen during the Superman Blue saga?

Maybe my memory is failing me, but I remember his relationship with Lois & Clark becoming strained, leaving the Daily Planet, and at some point was going to do a TV interview where he was to reveal Superman's identity.

Did I just imagine all that up, or did something like that actually happen?

[Lokimaru]

I think the Reason people responded to Rebirth so Much is because by releasing Superman and Action bi-Weekly We had Four Pure Superman titles a month again and you didn't have to wait a month to follow the story line (Which is why I think people don't like Superman Crossovers, They take too long to come out). You could change the names of the third and fourth Week pairings of Superman and Action to Man of Steel and Adventures with the appropriate numbering and people would eat it up.

[Kuwagaton]

Speaking of the 90s. What was going on with Jimmy Olsen during the Superman Blue saga?

Maybe my memory is failing me, but I remember his relationship with Lois & Clark becoming strained, leaving the Daily Planet, and at some point was going to do a TV interview where he was to reveal Superman's identity.

Did I just imagine all that up, or did something like that actually happen?

Yeah, he chickened out and ruined his career. Then he started hanging out with Misa. Of course, in Forever he went back to the Daily Planet.

[Clark_Kent]

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.

In regards to the Superman 2000 pitch, I just want to clarify I wasn't trying to say it would be better than what we got, or even that people would like it better. Just that the idea in fans' minds of a Morrison / Waid / Miller run Superman line is such a big thing in concept that, to many, it dwarfs pretty much anything that anyone else could have done. In my opinion, I think the splitting up of Lois & Clark, among other things, would have gone over just as well as it did in 2011. But mostly, fans just say "but...it's Morrison!" So I think a lot of the Loeb / Kelly era got unfairly saddled with "what could have been." For what it's worth, I'd love to see their long term plan played out in the alternate universe where the pitch was accepted; but I'm weird because I also want to read Alan Moore's unwritten 'Twilight of the Superheroes'.

At the end of the day, I just want great stories. I mostly got that from '86-95ish. I stayed a fan when the tone shifted, but it was pretty jarring for me. Especially considering it seemed to happen almost overnight. As I said, there's a big difference in tone between Superman #100 and the Adventures issue the following week (part 2 of Death of Clark Kent)...and by the time part 3 hit in Action, the tonal shift was massive. To go along with the shiny new paper was a softer tone, bigger dialoge bubbles, and bigger font in those bubbles meaning fewer words on the page. 2 weeks earlier, while discussing Conduit Clark says "I'd like to kill him!" because he's so angry. The following week he's cracking jokes fighting Warp (or whatever his name was). I'm rambling now, but my point is they didn't even wait for the story arc to be done. It was a lightswitch.

What is this Miller Metropolis pitch? I'm going to have to look it up, I haven't heard of that one.

[Myskin]

What is this Miller Metropolis pitch? I'm going to have to look it up, I haven't heard of that one.

Well, to be fair there isn't much to look up. The basic premise is that at some point during the 1980s Steve Gerber and Frank Miller had in mind a proposal for a relaunch/reboot of Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman. They were supposed to be published in prestige books with a more adult tone. The whole line was supposed to be called "Metropolis" - which makes me think that Superman was supposed to be the main hero (something similar to JM Lofficier's Expressionist trilogy, I guess) - and there was an attempt of getting him back to the roots: defender of the weak, etc. There aren't many details about it (it was supposed to include a new Supergirl and something like that) - Gerber died before giving a full account of what the project was supposed to be like and Miller doesn't speak much about it. However, it is generally acknowledged that Batman Year One is basically a rework of the "Batman" part of that project.

Please note that we are talking about Miller at his peak here, and Gerber was an extremely talented writer (comparable to a young Moore IMHO) who succeeded in creating a whole new, visionary and disturbing mythology of the Phantom Zone in just 5-6 issues in the 80s. Another untold story as I said, but I think that if they succeeded in doing it we would be looking at a wholly different Superman right now.

[Sacred Knight]

Speaking of the 90s. What was going on with Jimmy Olsen during the Superman Blue saga?

Maybe my memory is failing me, but I remember his relationship with Lois & Clark becoming strained, leaving the Daily Planet, and at some point was going to do a TV interview where he was to reveal Superman's identity.

Did I just imagine all that up, or did something like that actually happen?

He went to GBS to become an on-air newsman and became really popular, getting the nickname "Mr. Action" and such and the whole thing really went to his head. He became convinced that Colin Thornton was Superman after seeing him escape some sort of catastrophe unscathed (but that of course being because he's actually Lord Satanus), and was going to reveal it on-air. Lois and Clark saw this of course as a betrayal of his friendship with Superman (even though they knew he was wrong of course). At the last moment though on the air his conscience kicked in and he decided not to do the reveal, saying Superman had no secret identity and playing it that he was just trolling all along. This of course pissed everyone off and ruined him professionally.

[Clark_Kent]

Well, to be fair there isn't much to look up. The basic premise is that at some point during the 1980s Steve Gerber and Frank Miller had in mind a proposal for a relaunch/reboot of Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman. They were supposed to be published in prestige books with a more adult tone. The whole line was supposed to be called "Metropolis" - which makes me think that Superman was supposed to be the main hero (something similar to JM Lofficier's Expressionist trilogy, I guess) - and there was an attempt of getting him back to the roots: defender of the weak, etc. There aren't many details about it (it was supposed to include a new Supergirl and something like that) - Gerber died before giving a full account of what the project was supposed to be like and Miller doesn't speak much about it. However, it is generally acknowledged that Batman Year One is basically a rework of the "Batman" part of that project.

Please note that we are talking about Miller at his peak here, and Gerber was an extremely talented writer (comparable to a young Moore IMHO) who succeeded in creating a whole new, visionary and disturbing mythology of the Phantom Zone in just 5-6 issues in the 80s. Another untold story as I said, but I think that if they succeeded in doing it we would be looking at a wholly different Superman right now.

That's really interesting. I hadn't heard of this before, thank you for the info.

[Slaughter]

He went to GBS to become an on-air newsman and became really popular, getting the nickname "Mr. Action" and such and the whole thing really went to his head. He became convinced that Colin Thornton was Superman after seeing him escape some sort of catastrophe unscathed (but that of course being because he's actually Lord Satanus), and was going to reveal it on-air. Lois and Clark saw this of course as a betrayal of his friendship with Superman (even though they knew he was wrong of course). At the last moment though on the air his conscience kicked in and he decided not to do the reveal, saying Superman had no secret identity and playing it that he was just trolling all along. This of course pissed everyone off and ruined him professionally.

Jimmy actually had it narrowed down by three suspects at the time - some football player dude, Clark Kent and Colin Thornton.

[Patrick Gerard]

In regards to the Superman 2000 pitch, I just want to clarify I wasn't trying to say it would be better than what we got, or even that people would like it better. Just that the idea in fans' minds of a Morrison / Waid / Miller run Superman line is such a big thing in concept that, to many, it dwarfs pretty much anything that anyone else could have done. In my opinion, I think the splitting up of Lois & Clark, among other things, would have gone over just as well as it did in 2011. But mostly, fans just say "but...it's Morrison!" So I think a lot of the Loeb / Kelly era got unfairly saddled with "what could have been." For what it's worth, I'd love to see their long term plan played out in the alternate universe where the pitch was accepted; but I'm weird because I also want to read Alan Moore's unwritten 'Twilight of the Superheroes'.

At the end of the day, I just want great stories. I mostly got that from '86-95ish. I stayed a fan when the tone shifted, but it was pretty jarring for me. Especially considering it seemed to happen almost overnight. As I said, there's a big difference in tone between Superman #100 and the Adventures issue the following week (part 2 of Death of Clark Kent)...and by the time part 3 hit in Action, the tonal shift was massive. To go along with the shiny new paper was a softer tone, bigger dialoge bubbles, and bigger font in those bubbles meaning fewer words on the page. 2 weeks earlier, while discussing Conduit Clark says "I'd like to kill him!" because he's so angry. The following week he's cracking jokes fighting Warp (or whatever his name was). I'm rambling now, but my point is they didn't even wait for the story arc to be done. It was a lightswitch.

What is this Miller Metropolis pitch? I'm going to have to look it up, I haven't heard of that one.

One thing that boggles my mind:

Grant proposed a new super-emblem.

It was shot down along with the rest of the pitch.

I got him to draw it for me once.

It was reused in All-Star Superman (visible in preview art). It was redrawn out of the book.

It was hinted at with Most Awesome Superbat. Basically, Grant's take was that the yellow parts of Superman's symbol were the symbol. It's not an S but an arrangement of yellow shapes. I always liked this because that's how I perceived Superman's symbol before I could read.

He alluded to it in the New 52. It wasn't really visible but it's in dialogue where he describes the symbol as two goldfish shapes.

He did manage to give Earth-23 Superman a variation of the symbol and reversed the red and yellow to emphasize the idea.

It's such a great visual if you imagine the various yellow elements being arranged. It could also beautifully reconcile the symbol being both Kryptonian and a design of the Kents, both alien and an actual S, if his blankets had symbols on them that the Kents composited into an S.

If I could force one tidbit, I would have the yellow shapes scrambled on Jor-El's chest inside his sun emblem and have the Kents arrange those shapes from Kal-El's blankets as an S. I'd also have the yellow parts be the raised bits in live action appearances with the red parts of the logo being a recessed backdrop.