You mean before or after they canned the whole Expanded Universe? :thisforumneedsarollseyesemoticon:
Anyway, it would never, ever, EVER work with comic book characters with 70+ years of editorial life behind them, especially Superman. Everyone knows how Han Solo is supposed to be characterised, but Kal-El of Krypton? I must have read at least a hundred thousand posts in the last four years by people who complain about New52 Superman not feeling like "real Superman" and I distinctly remember feeling the same way during that whole World of New Krypton/Grounded hullabaloo before Flashpoint. We have a very vocal faction who wants the magic of the Silver Age back to Big Blue's titles, while another equally outspoken one (sometimes paradoxically overlapping with the former) believes that Superman's superhero mission means nothing without Clark Kent's life as a normal human being. Somebody thinks the pre-Flashpoint marriage was a colossal millstone for the character, others refuse to read anything where Lois Lane isn't at least a co-protagonist.
A lot like Judaism (a very convenient analogy, given Siegel and Shuster's roots), Superman means something different to everyone. It may be a terrible status quo for the editorial line as a whole since that means that it's damn near impossible to write something that is liked by everybody, but streamlining the character -- making a single version that can be indifferently used in all media so that everything can be thought as being part of a single continuity -- is absolutely impossible. One version would have to preval above all the others forever and then -- Rao help us all.