What should DC have kept from the pre-Flashpoint universe?

[Prime]

I really miss the development Metropolis got as a whole during the Triangle era. From Bibbo (mah fav'rit!) to Cadmus to Jim Harper, Maggie Sawyer, Dan Turpin, Henderson, Gangbuster, Morgan Edge and beyond, Metropolis had a rich and varied cast of characters who enriched the setting. I miss that.

I also miss the marriage, and (connected to that) Clark being older. Superman, to me, works best when he's old enough to have that ultimate father-figure type authority vibe going on, and putting him in his twenties just doesn't carry that. It'd have been easy to put a couple more years between Morrison's opening Action arc and the "present day", and advance Clark's life journey a little more to the point he's married to Lois. But alas.

But I think that what we gained far outweighs what we lost. Still, if I could bring back anything, it'd be one of those two things mentioned above. Most likely the marriage, since a wider supporting cast can be, and is, built over time.

Too bad DC never made him a father back then. Sure we had Chris but that didn't last long.

[Prime]

Speaking of which, I really do miss Chris Kent.

[superduperman]

I also miss the Kessel Superboy, but again that's another thing that went away a long time before Flashpoint thus to call it "pre-Flashpoint" wouldn't really be apt.

I always thought making him a Lex clone was somewhat pointless. By 2003 nobody cared who his donor was. This was clearly a case of "Guy in charge wants to incorporate his own fan fiction into continuity". Also, giving him all of Superman's full powers takes away from his individuality a little bit. When Roxy and Rex and Tana went away I just kind of stopped reading. Apparently I wasn't the only one.

[manofsteel1979]

To elaborate on yesterday, these are the things I'd retain from the previous continuity/pre new 52 universe.

1) The classic uniform in some form.I am not against him having a new updated costume in present day,but the original, classic trunked costume deserves a place in his history and back story. To completely erase it from continuity in the fashion the reboot did was borderline disrespectful. The t-shirt and jeans uniform was the prototype, the classic trunked uniform was the suit he wore for most of his career over the 5 years as Superman...and recently he obtained the Kryptonian "armor" in an adventure and decides to start wearing that. The classic suit gets it's rightful due as his "original" costume, and Jim Lee gets his kryptoarmor as what Superman is wearing now.

2) The original origin of Kon-El and versions of Hank Henshaw Cyborg Superman and Eradicator. Steel pretty much remained unchanged from his pre-flashpoint self in motivation and character enough that you could have kept all four and still have had a version of the REIGN OF THE SUPERMEN story having happened in the DCnU/DC YOU timeline similar to how a version of KNIGHTFALL and the Death of Bruce Wayne/Dick Grayson as Batman stories still having happened to Post FP Batman..If TPTB insisted on keeping THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN as a part of the current Superman's backstory, why not retain the actual best parts...I.E. The funeral/Return stories? After all The Coast City stuff with Hal Jordan apparently occurred still based on the fact that most of the GL history was retained.

3) A Lois Lane that knows the secret and a partner to Superman/Clark. Now, while I prefer them as married or engaged, dating etc, I think I would have even been ok with the idea that within the "missing" 5 years between ACTION #1 and SUPERMAN #1, that Lois and Clark had a serious relationship for awhile, but somewhere along the way they broke up and are now with other people (Lois with Jon Carroll....Clark with Diana IF DC absolutely insisted on it.). George Perez's idea to have Lois know in secret almost from the start would have been a brilliant alternative to the way Lois had been marginalized for the majority of the New 52 era.

4)I go back and forth on it...but I think keeping one of the Kents alive may not have been a terrible idea. Yes, I know and respect the original wishes and origins Siegel and Shuster set forth which established the Kents as having died before Clark became Superman, most mainstream media versions have shown that keeping one or both Kents alive can work if not overdone. I don't think anyone wants to see Superman constantly flying back to the farm for homespun wisdom every other issue,but on the other hand the idea that no matter how crazy life is with his duties as Superman/Clark/Kal, he manages to go see his folks every so often just because he's a good son. Yet, I see the value of the "Final Lesson" the Kent's deaths give the young Superman that even he can't always solve or save everything. So, I say compromise, have one of the Kents survive into Clark's present day. However, as it always seems that Jonathan is destined to die in every version, perhaps let's change it up and have Martha pass on, leaving a widowed Jonathan. That's a dynamic never usually shown, and you could increase complications by having Jonathan remarry, and said new step-mom not knowing her big city reporter step son is also Superman.

[Sacred Knight]

I always thought making him a Lex clone was somewhat pointless. By 2003 nobody cared who his donor was. This was clearly a case of "Guy in charge wants to incorporate his own fan fiction into continuity". Also, giving him all of Superman's full powers takes away from his individuality a little bit. When Roxy and Rex and Tana went away I just kind of stopped reading. Apparently I wasn't the only one.

Its probably the ultimate example of such a thing, since Geoff Johns as a young fan actually wrote into one of the letter columns with his idea that Lex should be revealed as Kon's donor.

[Last Son of Krypton]

I miss the post-Infinite Crisis pre-Flashpoint Kara/Kal relationship. Also, I'd like to see again the Superman robots (which are more a pre-crisis thing anyway).

[Tayswift]

I'd also point out that some of the fatherly advice that Clark got in pre-Flashpoint could've been distributed to Perry White. But yeah, the big thing for me is that when you consider that one of the general complaints for Superman is that everything comes too easily for him (whether or not this is true is irrelevant; perception is key here), the last thing you should do is give Superman another safety net.

what is a bigger safety net: a parent alive or a superpowered girlfriend?

I see no problem with a parent alive, to have some dinner, talk sometimes. I like clark to be a good son.
now I definately prefer Martha being alive, because so many relationships on comics are only about fathers

[The World]

And I'm one of those who'd argue for both parents, and my reasons go beyond the "it humanizes him" arguments, which I should note I feel are strong enough to justify them being alive on their own. No, his parent provide a benefit that other characters don't have, and that would be that they'd BE ALIVE, so you could TELL STORIES WHERE THE ALIEN AMONG US VISITS HIS ADOPTED PARENT WHO LOVE HIM VERY MUCH. Even if they only show up in person for one story in two or three years, and just have him over for dinner or visit him and Lois, how many other characters have that? Saying that since they don't serve a purpose they should be killed is a very unimaginative way to look at them. I mean, most adult workers to day still have parents who are alive, so why not Superman? Even if you're one of those stubborn early Silver Age devotees who despises any moment Superman acts remotely human, you can't tell me there's no potential to be had in a sequence where an all powerful alien with strange abilities sits down for apple pie with mama.

What does this mean? Are orphans no longer considered part of the human race? Less human than people with parents? If so why do so many people consider Batman MORE human than Superman despite his parents being dead?

This sort of thing implies humans have a blueprint; it kind of defeats the point of being human through trying to be human.

[Sacred Knight]

what is a bigger safety net: a parent alive or a superpowered girlfriend?

In the context we're discussing, his parents.

[Ascended]

And I'm one of those who'd argue for both parents, and my reasons go beyond the "it humanizes him" arguments, which I should note I feel are strong enough to justify them being alive on their own. No, his parent provide a benefit that other characters don't have, and that would be that they'd BE ALIVE, so you could TELL STORIES WHERE THE ALIEN AMONG US VISITS HIS ADOPTED PARENT WHO LOVE HIM VERY MUCH. Even if they only show up in person for one story in two or three years, and just have him over for dinner or visit him and Lois, how many other characters have that? Saying that since they don't serve a purpose they should be killed is a very unimaginative way to look at them. I mean, most adult workers to day still have parents who are alive, so why not Superman? Even if you're one of those stubborn early Silver Age devotees who despises any moment Superman acts remotely human, you can't tell me there's no potential to be had in a sequence where an all powerful alien with strange abilities sits down for apple pie with mama.

It's not that the Kents being alive doesnt offer anything from a narrative point of view, its just that them being dead offers more.

It is true that a hero having parents who are alive, and having a good, active relationship with them, is rare. And being an orphan is pretty much standard. But that's largely besides the point and leads to the trap of comparing Superman to everyone else. That should never be a consideration. If you tell good Superman stories, they will by their very nature be unique to him, regardless of how many details are shared with other comic characters.

Additionally, the loss of one's parents is a classic aspect of the Hero's Journey, going as far back as Greek tragedies, if not further.

And if we'd only see them once every few years, I'd rather just use flashback sequences and actually flesh out Clark's relationship with them. In that way you can avoid the pitfalls that post-Crisis fell into (where they became just one more system of dependence for Clark), while still maintaining and showing a loving, close relationship between child and parents. The fact that it'd be flashbacks doesnt change what you can accomplish and explore.

In the context we're discussing, his parents.

Yup. Just as Superman is as "strong as the plot requires" his love interest can be a damsel in distress or a hero in her own right. Lois can save the day (and Superman himself) without powers if the story calls for it, just as Diana can be captured and used as bait if the plot calls for it. What they're actually capable of doing is secondary and a non-issue.

[manduck37]

There are a few things I'd have kept. Many have been mentioned already, like the marriage to Lois and the expanded Metropolis cast. I really miss that development and progress for Superman. That's not to say we won't get it again, but it seems a shame to lose it. One trivial little thing I'd have kept, the yellow "S" on the cape. The black just doesn't seem to fit

[sunofdarkchild]

When they started making things more like the silver age (bringing back the ridiculous power levels, changing Krypton into a nicer place, the Kara Supergirl) I lost interest in the pre-flashpoint continuity. So the things I would have kept would have been from before 2004.

The Kents, the marriage, the way Metropolis had developed, characters like Bibbo that helped flesh out the world. I'd have kept Matrix/Linda around under a different name and kept the Death of Superman origins of Steel and Superboy. I think the pre-flashpoint universe did a better job with the secondary and tertiary characters, at least for a while and before they started retconning big things left and right.

[superduperman]

There are a few things I'd have kept. Many have been mentioned already, like the marriage to Lois and the expanded Metropolis cast. I really miss that development and progress for Superman. That's not to say we won't get it again, but it seems a shame to lose it. One trivial little thing I'd have kept, the yellow "S" on the cape. The black just doesn't seem to fit

Yes! Thank you! It looked awkward when they first tried it back in 2001-02 and still looks awkward today!

[superduperman]

When they started making things more like the silver age (bringing back the ridiculous power levels, changing Krypton into a nicer place, the Kara Supergirl) I lost interest in the pre-flashpoint continuity. So the things I would have kept would have been from before 2004.

The Kents, the marriage, the way Metropolis had developed, characters like Bibbo that helped flesh out the world. I'd have kept Matrix/Linda around under a different name and kept the Death of Superman origins of Steel and Superboy. I think the pre-flashpoint universe did a better job with the secondary and tertiary characters, at least for a while and before they started retconning big things left and right.

I would argue the post-Crisis Superman (as it was known then) went off the rails before then. The electrical powers, the whole Brainiac 13 storyline, the 60th anniversary storyline, all seemed a little hookey to me even before all that. The Return to Krypton storyline just seemed like the icing on a we-don't-know-what-to-do-with-him-anymore cake. Keep in mind they started bringing stuff like Kandor back as early as 1996.

[Tayswift]

Yup. Just as Superman is as "strong as the plot requires" his love interest can be a damsel in distress or a hero in her own right. Lois can save the day (and Superman himself) without powers if the story calls for it, just as Diana can be captured and used as bait if the plot calls for it. What they're actually capable of doing is secondary and a non-issue.

wonder woman is much more help than lois, because she is superpowered. there is a big advantage on it. I really don't get this line of thought