Bridging the conflicting versions of Superman's history.

[Vakanai]

I like the idea of trying to tie various incarnations together into a neat bow, particularly with this version that incorporates so many versions of him.

I am all for including more Luthor family drama into the mythos. Lionel, in the early seasons, was such a magnificent bastard. I would love to more of him in the comics beyond the drunk loser he's been relegated to in the comics so far.

I disagree. I like the "whatever works for the story the writer is telling approach and the rest is nebulous." As for Luthor family drama, I prefer his sister Lena or that cousin from All Star Superman. But I never watched Smallville (I was reliant on my antenna then, and that channel never got picked up good).

[bat39]

Well, I think the beauty of a comic-book universe is that, technically, every interpretation of Superman is 'valid' - between the Multiverse, Hypertime, pocket universes, Flashpoint etc. etc.

The real issue of course is what counts as canon with the 'mainstream' version of the character.

IMO, for this purpose, I think the ideal continuity is one which is inclusive rather than reductive. A continuity that leaves room for as many interpretations of the character, and as much of the sandbox, to co-exist as is possible.

Obviously, some choices need to be made. Some versions are now regarded as the dominant interpretation and will rule out. But as far as possible, other versions should be allowed to be represented. Which is kinda how Grant Morrison approached Batman - an approach which, barring the more militant days of the New 52, continues to this day.

So how would such a continuity look like for Superman?


-Krypton. I'd go with a composite approach here. I like the idea that the various versions of Krypton across continuities can be reflected as the cultural diversity of Krypton. By and large I'd go with a kind of modernized approach to Pre-COIE Krypton (which is arguably what we've had for the last 15ish years), which I feel can be easily adapted and expanded upon. Also, one advantage we have with Krypton is that Superman doesn't personally know a lot about how things really were - he's mostly got access to historical records and what people tell or show him about Krypton. So that can help explain the contradictory versions to some extent.

-Clark's early years. So I'm personally not really in favor of a full-blown Superboy career, as I'd much rather prefer the age of heroes begin with Superman making his debut as an adult - which is the dominant interpretation. That doesn't mean Clark shouldn't have powers as a teenager and didn't have adventures. I'd definitely love to have him as Superboy as part of the LOSH (with his memory being wiped if necessary). Also, I'm personally in favor of the Kents staying alive, at least long enough to see Clark as Superman. If the issue is Clark being too dependent on the Kents - then a writer can simply choose not to feature them. Keeping them alive gives a writer the option to use them, not an obligation.

-Superman's early career. Now as much as I love the original Siegal/Shuster take on Superman, and Morrison's T-shirt and jeans crusader, I feel that doesn't really work with the 'mainstream' version of Superman. I'd have Superman wearing the classic suit, trunks and all (or better yet, the Fleischer cartoon version with the black instead of yellow on the symbol) and with all his powers. But he isn't completely invincible and his powers have limits. Also, in a nod to the Golden Age, I'd have him spend his early career in particular fighting slumlords and gangsters and corrupt businessmen and some more street-level threats, before he starts focusing on super-villains and alien threats and more sci-fi adventures. Also, I'd have Clark be a more crusading journalist ala the Reeves TV show.

-Luthor. I think a blend between businessman Lex and scientist/super-villain Lex is perfect here. As far as his backstory goes, I'd have him spend time in Smallville in his past and strike up an acquaintance with Clark, but I wouldn't have them be close friends or anything like that. Lex IMO only becomes a major part of Superman's life when they are both adults.

[Jim Kelly]

When you have thousands of pages to fill with popular characters like Superman and Batman, the publishers are bound to develop the back story a lot more and do tales about these heroes growing up and training to be heroes.

The Superboy feature was a way to do that. And it had to be called Superboy, because they needed readers to know this was connected to Superman (also they wanted the trademark). And if you think about it, why would Superman just appear on the scene as an adult with a ready made costume, secret identity disguise and mission statement? There has to be a back story.

The Kents are always more interesting at that period of Clark's life. They have less purpose once he's a man--and they're in danger of becoming albatrosses like Aunt May (a character I always hated). And the creators established that they had died by the time Clark arrived in Metropolis.

To bridge the gap between Byrne reboot and classic Superman, I would just say that Superman brought his parents back from the dead. But there would be some horrific edge to that. They are ghosts, virtual reality experiments, robots or time travellers.

Bob Rozakis did something wonderful with this in SUPERMAN: THE SECRET YEARS (1985)--with art by Swan and Schaffenberger. Clark keeps travelling back into his past (where he's a ghost thanks to the rules of time travel) so he can relive moments with Ma and Pa. It's so sad and shows why the emotional impact of their deaths is important in forming the man he becomes.

[Kuwagaton]

The most recent comics cement my reasoning that nothing has to "count." The names that Bendis mentioned in Kandor were largely irrelevant and inactive, but still at his disposal because he simply chose to use them instead of being facilitated by some convoluted story to establish having it both ways. They threw me a bone I guess by including Byrne's ethnic Kryptonian designs as a part of the current canon, but I didn't need the nod personally.

DC style vs Marvel style, May vs the Kents... well we've gone back and forth on having the Kents because continuity works for the stories. It's the opposite with Marvel. They did a neat story where Aunt May died and continuity dictated that she had to come back and expose the one who died as an actress. Lol.

[mrbrklyn]

maybe someone can explain how Jorel escaped Krypton's explosion? This is the problem of creeping continuity. It gets layer on layer of complexity which hampers the original vision of the character. At some point, Character development becomes Character assignation.

After 80 years, a character is what it is...

[Jim Kelly]

There were lots of stories over the years that played fast and loose with continuity--especially with what happened on Krypton and how it met its end. Most times, writers completely ignored those alterations and the state of affairs went back to what we all know. Sometimes, the comics kept these flights of fancy going for monthss or even years, but it always returns back to its original shape.

This is why I've learned not to sweat the small stuff, because I know things will get back to normal eventually. It's just, if it really takes a long time, then I might not be alive to see it.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

maybe someone can explain how Jorel escaped Krypton's explosion?

Dr. Manhattan plucked Jor-El from Lara's arms at that exact iconic moment of Krypton’s destruction. Presumably Doomsday Clock will resolve this particular subplot, but I am enjoying how Bendis is using it to develop Jon, Lois and Clark far more than Jurgens work with the character, which felt too editorially driven