Bad ideas in the history of Superman comics [Archive]

King Krypton

11-20-2007, 01:21 PM

Kid Omega

11-20-2007, 03:25 PM

Most everything between Otto Binder and Grant Morrison.

J. Robb

11-20-2007, 03:50 PM

There's very few bad ideas, the problems are usually bad execution.

Rattlehead

11-20-2007, 04:10 PM

There's very few bad ideas, the problems are usually bad execution.

Not always. King Krypton's list is full of things that can only be described as bad ideas.

Sean Whitmore

11-20-2007, 04:28 PM

Not always. King Krypton's list is full of things that can only be described as bad ideas.

Of course, his list is also full of things that aren't true, so take that with a grain of salt.

SEAN

Rattlehead

11-20-2007, 04:33 PM

Of course, his list is also full of things that aren't true, so take that with a grain of salt.

SEAN

I've personally read a lot of the crap on that list. And of course, all of Smallville past Season 3, and Lois and Clark past Season 2 falls into the bad idea department.

thehod

11-21-2007, 05:20 AM

http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/3386/400/3386_4_0000000123.jpg

Don't really think anything else needs to be said, do you?

botch

11-21-2007, 05:35 AM

1. Superman being Passion of the Christed to death.

2. Doomsday, mindless killer with no personality.

3. Lois Lane, abusive wife and shrew for all seasons.

4. Jeb Friedman, the man who hooked up with Lois right after Superman's funeral and eventually stole her away from Superman.

5. Lex Luthor, static tycoon who can magically foil any and all attempts to expose him no matter how stupid and unrealistic his actions are.

6. ElectroSupes.

7. The thankfully-rejected idea that Superman's parents survivied in suspended animation.

8. Any kryptonite beyond gree, red, blue, gold and white.

9. Clark Kent willingly sacrficing an innocent life in exchange for resurrecting Lana Lang, killing Jonathan Kent in the process. (Yes, Smallville, line up and take your 40 whacks.)

10. Smallville's Lana Lang being the end-all be-all of the Superman mythos and the reason why Clark Kent and Lex Luthor become enemies.

11. Any Super-Pets beyond Krypto.

12. Extradimensional protoplasmic shapeshifter merged with an earthbound angle with fire wings Supergirl.

13. Cir-El Supergirl.

14. Russian cosmonaut Zod.

15. Krypton as a cold, barren, lifeless dystopia that deserved to blow up and has no meaning to Superman.

16. Any additional survivors of Krypton beyond Krypto, Supergirl/Kara, General Zod, and Zod's little band of goons.

17. Superman, whiny, henpicked, incompetent crybaby with a major yellow streak.

18. Interlinked books where you're forced to buy books you may not like or may not be able to afford just to follow one story.

19. The clutter of useless supporting characters in the latter half of the Jurgens era.

20. Terra Man in any incarnation.

21. Superman and Batman being at odds and not trusting each other instead of having a snarky but profound friendship.

22. Bloodthirst the crossdresser.

23. Superboy's punk haircut and earring.

24. Steel's flirtation with being a mutahuman.

25. Brainiac, the fatso carny who gets possessed by an alien intelligence and goes through bodies like most people go through candy bars.

26. Vartox's Zardoz costume.

27. Assembly-line Bizarros who get killed off with astounding regularity.

28. Gus Gorman and Ross Webster.

29. Nuclear Man.

30. Movie Luthor realizing that Kryptonian crystals could make weapons and vehicles he can use to conquer the world and wasting his time making an island instead.

31. Frog-eating Lois clones.

32. Lex Luthor, Pepe Le Pew-like Lois Lane stalker.

33. Teenybopper Metallo.

34. Resplendent Man.

35. Shelley Long, Drew Carey, Delta Burke, and other such losers as supervillains.

36. Clark Kent refusing to fly on Smallville or even try to live for anything other than Lana Lang when superheroes abound around him.

37. Imperiex, the Galactus wannabe who was nothing but a badly conceived plot device.

38. Lena Luthor -- first she's a baby, then she's genetically altered and force-grown into an adult Brainiac woman, then she's a baby again, then she's retconned out. What was the point of all this?

39. Devouris the Conqueror. The Tom Thumb version of Galactus, only incompetent.

40. Strange Visitor.

41. The whole of "For Tomorrow."

42. Dr. Polaris acting like a Bettie Page wannabe named Repulse.

43. Luthor cloning himself and pretending to be his own son while sleeping with Supergirl.

You know what? I have to stop here. Thinking of all the garbage that's polluted Superman since the Iron Age (and a few bad ideas before that) is just making me angry.

smallville has had some bad decisions, but the good outweighs the bad and if anything if they are going to reboot supes again, they should take the majority from smallville.

Clark didn't decide to be a hero until his late 20's in the post crisis comics, using the glasses and being a superhero as a kid is a dumb idea, and smallville is just folliwng post crisis. A hero's journey isn't like a light switch, that's why it's a journey, the world's greatest superhero should have an origin as big as Smallville's. Ideas like 'I have powers, I shall save the world' are exactly why Superman isn't that popular and why Marvel's characters are bigger sellers and much more popular. Smallville has managed to 'Marvelize' Superman and make him relevant to a modern audience and also likable without being too much of a boy scout or a badass and uncampy.

And Clark didn't know that another life was going to be exchanged, he has always valued life in Smallville. It's as realistic a portrayal as it can be without being a comic book character, naive but stern.

and krypto is a stupid idea in itself, if you think the other pets are stupid but krypto a superdog with a cape isn't stupid...well. this si the type of stuff that normal people roll their eyes at and say 'childish'.

Supes doesn't have too many good comics or ideas, guess it's fitting the world's first superhero to have the most comic book conventions.

i think bad comics has warped your taste, and my taste, just in case, my fave movie of last year was children of men and my fave album was something along the highway by cult of luna.

cactusmaac

11-21-2007, 05:43 AM

Electro Supes wasn't an inherently bad idea. Changing the costume and powers temporarily could have made for interesting stories. The problem was nobody really knew how they worked.

I don't know why Smallville Lana Lang gets so much hate.

Common to all corporate characters, Superman goes through patches of uninspiring runs but there's a lot of good material out there too.

Sean Whitmore

11-21-2007, 06:24 AM

Electro Supes wasn't an inherently bad idea. Changing the costume and powers temporarily could have made for interesting stories. The problem was nobody really knew how they worked.

Hell, I liked it. I got a kick out of Superman having to figure out ways to use his new powers to pull off the rescues he used to with ease.

Don't get me wrong, there were bad stories during that time, but that's because it was the 90s, not because Superman had new powers.

SEAN

pariah-1972

11-21-2007, 07:37 AM

Giving Superman a mullet way past it's due date.

Ms. M

11-21-2007, 06:41 PM

King Krypton's list is so comprehensive, it is hard to add to. But if we're including TV/movies, I will add the "sissy Superman" from the first season of the Justice League cartoon, which even the creators admit went too far.

I will also throw in the comic from a few years back when Lana made pathetic advances at the married Superman.

And while the Superpets are hard to defend, I do love Streaky the Supercat. I think it actually says a lot about male/female differences that Superman has a superdog and Supergirl has a supercat. Bring back Streaky!

ultramandingo

11-21-2007, 07:54 PM

...... a lot of supermans "bad ideads " are what make me heart him - giant turtle jimmy olson , bizzaro anything , composite superman , super pets , mermaid girlfreinds , Mr. Mxyzptlk - its all the attempts at making him " cool " that suck

Froggy

11-21-2007, 10:11 PM

The mullet. energy powers weren't that bad

d newton

11-22-2007, 05:28 AM

16. Any additional survivors of Krypton beyond Krypto, Supergirl/Kara, General Zod, and Zod's little band of goons.
Superman 668 to 670 proves otherwise. Not all Kryptontians (sp?) want to get involved in fights like Clark & his cousins.

Captain Smith

11-22-2007, 08:08 AM

Marrying Lois and becoming a wussy called "Smallville".

Having so many others exceed his power level and taking him out so easily in various story line. For example: There should be no doubt that J'onn isn't superior to him, yet the latter is seen that way.

Losing the abililty to fly between planets and stars

Super Hero Guy

11-22-2007, 08:11 AM

Any story from the Silver Age that involves Lois trying to trick Superman into marrying her. This is the best they could come up with?

caboose

11-22-2007, 09:42 AM

Any story from the Silver Age that involves Lois trying to trick Superman into marrying her. This is the best they could come up with?

Weren't they all in Lois's own comic though?

marshal99

11-22-2007, 10:01 AM

Any story from the Silver Age that involves Lois trying to trick Superman into marrying her. This is the best they could come up with?

Any modern writers nowadays would wish to have a comic that can last 137 issues like it did with Lois Lane back in the day.
IN present time , any comics that can last 50 issues are considered success.

Lois Lane lasted 137 issues
Jimmy Olsen lasted 163 issues.

Heraclevs

11-22-2007, 10:50 AM

In general, the devolution of Superman comics, and comics in general, into op/ed pieces, rather than pure entertainment, is a really bad idea. If I want to read propaganda, liberal or conservative, I'll buy a newspaper and head for the editorials. I don't support it creeping into my entertainment media.

It goes beyond comics... I used to like Green Day... used to.

- Romans 9

Heraclevs

11-22-2007, 02:13 PM

Oh, and the ability to understand all languages, too.

- Romans 9

Super Hero Guy

11-22-2007, 04:08 PM

Aarcee

11-24-2007, 10:45 PM

1. Superman Red & Superman Blue
2. the clones
3. Supergirl running around in a glorified cheerleading outfit (for the love of Rao, put some pants on that girl).

DeadXMan

11-24-2007, 11:01 PM

Giving Lois Lane and Jimmy Oslen their own comics.

The cheap attempt at explaining why nobody recognizes that Superman is Clark Kent back in the 70s (his glasses magnify his subconcious hypnotic power or something)

with out those comics superdickery would not exist

and kirby did Jimmy oslen's comic book
your dare speak ill of The king?:mad: :mad: :mad:

Sean Whitmore

11-24-2007, 11:07 PM

with out those comics superdickery would not exist

Neither would all the money that both of those series' huge circulations brought in.

SEAN

Aarcee

11-24-2007, 11:17 PM

with out those comics superdickery would not exist

A hilarious site. :D

http://www.superdickery.com/galleries.html

DeadXMan

11-24-2007, 11:25 PM

A hilarious site. :D

http://www.superdickery.com/galleries.html

my fave non-boner image

http://www.superdickery.com/images/dick/1296_4_063.jpg

Captain Smith

11-25-2007, 09:53 AM

CaptainCanada

11-25-2007, 02:14 PM

I didn't mind Electric Superman; Morrison did some really cool stuff with him on JLA. Now, mullet-Superman was just annoying.

The whole idea of Superman being Superboy when he was young is a terrible concept.

Zacharius

11-25-2007, 11:34 PM

Always being more powerful than anyone else.

"can do anything, defeated by nothing"

This is especially true in Tv series with lousy fights.

zebop

11-26-2007, 01:53 AM

1. Supermullet

2. Electro-Superman

3. Lex Luthor destroys Metropolis and the next day he's the President of the United States. Hello, I know it's fiction but even fiction has to make sense.

4. Marrying Lois Lane. Good-bye sexual tension, hello wussy Superman. Ask Lois if you can have your balls back.

5. Supergirl. Pick anyone you want. They all suck but the current Super-Brittney airhead is particularly annoying.

6. Bringing back green, red, gold, white, blue, black and bubble-gum Kryptonite. Ugh.

7. Toyman=child molester. WTF?

8. Chuck Austen.

Loren

11-26-2007, 03:05 PM

3. Lex Luthor destroys Metropolis and the next day he's the President of the United States. Hello, I know it's fiction but even fiction has to make sense.

1) I seem to recall that that the Metropolis incident wasn't entirely intentional on his part.

2) Even if it was, they addressed it in the story: it was blamed on a clone.

3) It was hardly "the next day." Action #700 was in 1994. Lex was elected President six years later, in 2000. He did other stuff inbetween that was more damaging to his electability than what happened to Metropolis.

7. Toyman=child molester. WTF?

I'm pretty sure he wasn't a child MOLESTER. A child killer, yes. But I don't recall any sexual crimes on his part.

Sean Whitmore

11-26-2007, 03:13 PM

Always being more powerful than anyone else.

Well, yeah, he's Superman.

SEAN

Loren

11-26-2007, 04:43 PM

The worst Superman ideas that always come to mind for me come from Byrne's "World of Smallville" mini-series. The "World of Krypton" and "World of Metropolis" minis were reasonably good, but the Smallville one introduced elements to the mythos that were SO bad, that I'm pretty sure they've never even been acknowledged by subsequent writers, even for the purpose of rectifying them. I think they were all quietly retconned by universal omission.

So, off the top of my head, the four worst ideas from that mini, in reverse order:

4. The Kent farm wasn't part of the Kent family. Ma Kent inherited it from her first husband when he died.

3. As indicated by #4, Ma Kent had a first husband before Jonathan Kent: Dan Fordman. (To illustrate just how how much this idea has been ignored, Smallville + "Dan Fordman" gets only 28 results in Google, several of which aren't even in English.)

2. ALL of the other kids in Smallville when Clark was growing up were Manhunter agents, implanted with devices to help the Manhunters spy on Clark.

1. A young Lana Lang was the Manhunters' primary agent in Smallville.

-----

I'll add one more, which seems to float in and out of the Superman mythos depending on the writer:

The notion that Krypton was located in a galaxy other than the Milky Way galaxy.

For most of Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis, Krypton was in the Milky Way. The animated series also put Krypton in our galaxy. On the other hand, the first movie said it was in the fictional Xeno Galaxy, and "Birthright" put it in the Andromeda galaxy. "Smallville" has insanely made references to Krypton being in contact with MULTIPLE galaxies.

A couple of years back (namely, here (http://comicfacts.blogspot.com/2005/03/kryptonian-astrophysics-101.html)) I went into some detail about why putting Krypton in another galaxy is a very bad idea. I see several reasons:

- Let's assume that Jor-El's ship traveled faster that light (through hyperspace or whatever). Let's say that little Kal was in suspended animation, and that the trip took 10 years. That would mean that the little prototype ship that could was traveling at a speed equivalent to 150 trillion mph, or about 220,000 times the speed of light. At that speed, you could travel from Earth to Pluto in about 1/14 of a second. Kryptonians may not know much about making spaceships, but they can sure make 'em fast.

I think this also creates an inconsistency where Jor-El (and Zor-El, I suppose) manages to create a one-person spacecraft that can achieve that kind of speed, and yet no one else on Krypton seems capable of even getting off-world.

- On a related note, it's pretty absurd to claim that Jor-El would send his kid to a whole other galaxy, rather than to a closer populated world. ("Birthright" tried to address this by claiming that while the Milky Way is awash with alien races, the Andromeda Galaxy has only one: Krypton.)

- It's inconsistent with everything else that's said about space travel in the Superman books and the DCU. The whole "Legion Lost" series was about how even 30th Century space travel couldn't cope with traveling between galaxies.

- As Kurt Busiek pointed out, other alien races in the Milky Way tend to know Kryptonians by reputation. There's no possible way they could know that if Krypton was in another galaxy.

King Krypton

11-26-2007, 07:02 PM

Currently, the Kryptonian space navy. One corny but neat thing in the original origin is Kal-el making it off Krypton in a little test ship.

If they had a space navy, then gave it up, blah, blah. The destruction of the planet without a wholesale abandon ship is quite silly.

Too many damn Kryptonians. So Supes is great because of his personality? That's a stretch, he's rather boring and had intervals when he went nuts or tried to rule the world.

He's just another supersuit now.

Superman was "just another supersuit" for 90% of the Iron Age. A small handful of Kryptonian survivors wouldn't change that either way. The character himself was neutered. Whether or not he's "THE ONLY KRYPTONIAN" (a concept I think is inherently faulty) wouldn't have changed the fact that the stories were gutless, Superman was wussed out, and the books were mired in self-imposed formula ruts.

4. Marrying Lois Lane. Good-bye sexual tension, hello wussy Superman. Ask Lois if you can have your balls back.

Even as someone who hates Lois as a result of her Iron Age shrew makeover, I have to ask...how can there be "sexual tension" when there's absolutely no chance of them getting together? And being married does NOT inherently mean that the man has to become a wuss. That happened because DC backtracked on wanting to marry them and kept looking for reasons to break them up. They had no interest whatsoever in even trying to write a stable, happy marriage.

Aarcee

11-27-2007, 12:22 AM

How about Mr. Mtzysptlic (Yeah, I probably misspelled it; you try spelling it)?

dancj

11-27-2007, 05:52 AM

4. The Kent farm wasn't part of the Kent family. Ma Kent inherited it from her first husband when he died.

3. As indicated by #4, Ma Kent had a first husband before Jonathan Kent: Dan Fordman. (To illustrate just how how much this idea has been ignored, Smallville + "Dan Fordman" gets only 28 results in Google, several of which aren't even in English.)
Are they bad ideas? They seem pretty harmless to me.

2. ALL of the other kids in Smallville when Clark was growing up were Manhunter agents, implanted with devices to help the Manhunters spy on Clark.

1. A young Lana Lang was the Manhunters' primary agent in Smallville.
Blame Millenium for that. There was nothing right about that series.
I'll add one more, which seems to float in and out of the Superman mythos depending on the writer:

The notion that Krypton was located in a galaxy other than the Milky Way galaxy.
[Snip]
That would mean that the little prototype ship that could was traveling at a speed equivalent to 150 trillion mph, or about 220,000 times the speed of light.
I think most versions of the story have the ship using some kind of hyperspace/wormhole type technology which would make the distance pretty irrelevant - just like it's irrelevant to boom tube technology.

dancj

11-27-2007, 05:53 AM

How about Mr. Mtzysptlic (Yeah, I probably misspelled it; you try spelling it)?
Okay Mxyzptlk, (or in it's original form, Mxyztplk).

Damn I'm good!

Kid Omega

11-27-2007, 08:25 AM

I'll add one more, which seems to float in and out of the Superman mythos depending on the writer:

The notion that Krypton was located in a galaxy other than the Milky Way galaxy.

For most of Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis, Krypton was in the Milky Way. The animated series also put Krypton in our galaxy. On the other hand, the first movie said it was in the fictional Xeno Galaxy, and "Birthright" put it in the Andromeda galaxy. "Smallville" has insanely made references to Krypton being in contact with MULTIPLE galaxies.

A couple of years back (namely, here (http://comicfacts.blogspot.com/2005/03/kryptonian-astrophysics-101.html)) I went into some detail about why putting Krypton in another galaxy is a very bad idea. I see several reasons:

- Let's assume that Jor-El's ship traveled faster that light (through hyperspace or whatever). Let's say that little Kal was in suspended animation, and that the trip took 10 years. That would mean that the little prototype ship that could was traveling at a speed equivalent to 150 trillion mph, or about 220,000 times the speed of light. At that speed, you could travel from Earth to Pluto in about 1/14 of a second. Kryptonians may not know much about making spaceships, but they can sure make 'em fast.

I think this also creates an inconsistency where Jor-El (and Zor-El, I suppose) manages to create a one-person spacecraft that can achieve that kind of speed, and yet no one else on Krypton seems capable of even getting off-world.

- On a related note, it's pretty absurd to claim that Jor-El would send his kid to a whole other galaxy, rather than to a closer populated world. ("Birthright" tried to address this by claiming that while the Milky Way is awash with alien races, the Andromeda Galaxy has only one: Krypton.)

- It's inconsistent with everything else that's said about space travel in the Superman books and the DCU. The whole "Legion Lost" series was about how even 30th Century space travel couldn't cope with traveling between galaxies.

- As Kurt Busiek pointed out, other alien races in the Milky Way tend to know Kryptonians by reputation. There's no possible way they could know that if Krypton was in another galaxy.

Like someone else said, there's the wormhole/warp thing. Overall, it's not something I'd get wrapped up about, but if they're going to get specific... yeah, why leave the galaxy?

Even Star Trek only takes place on one end of the Milky Way Spiral Arm.

KET

11-27-2007, 02:25 PM

1. Supermullet

I dunno....the long hair never really bothered me. However, it did seem that the writers kept it going merely because they couldn't think of any other dumb changes, until...

2. Electro-Superman

...THIS, on the other hand, was just wholesale ridiculousness. Take one of the most recognizable superhero characters, and change nearly EVERYTHING about him except his name. It's really no big surprise that this idea flopped big time.

3. Lex Luthor destroys Metropolis and the next day he's the President of the United States. Hello, I know it's fiction but even fiction has to make sense.

Well, the whole Luthor as US President plotline would have probably played out better if DC and its writers stable had figured out a far better endgame to it than merely shoving the guy back into his stupid purple and green super-suit. Like most of DC's recent event-driven ideas, there was a lot of great build-up, then a total lack of a thought-out exit strategy.

4. Marrying Lois Lane. Good-bye sexual tension, hello wussy Superman. Ask Lois if you can have your balls back.

Actually, I blame the Lois and Clark TV show more for that one.

5. Supergirl. Pick anyone you want. They all suck but the current Super-Brittney airhead is particularly annoying.

Nahhh, the problem's not the character, it's DC's continuing MISMANAGEMENT and abuse of the character over the years. What's particularly frustrating about the situation now is that DC keeps running away screaming from what should be SG's basic concept: 'The Princess Myth with superpowers'. DC should really ask the folks at Disney about how it's supposed to be done.

The whole recent idea of turning SG into a slutty, Hollywood tabloid-styled headcase just doesn't fly well.

6. Bringing back green, red, gold, white, blue, black and bubble-gum Kryptonite. Ugh.

This recycling trend is merely indicative of lazy gimmicks DC always fall back on when they run out of ideas.

Loren

11-27-2007, 03:02 PM

Like someone else said, there's the wormhole/warp thing.

Which only solves the speed issue. All the other problems still stand. Wormholes don't explain why Jor-El would send his kid to another galaxy, why no one else seems capable of accomplishing the same technological feat (except when somebody visits dead Krypton), why anyone's ever heard of Kryptonians, or why no one else on Krypton used the same means of escape.

Thankfully, Busiek's recent Kryptonian material seems to shoot down the 'other galaxy' approach. There's such an obscene amount of empty space between galaxies, there's no way that Kristen Wells and Co. would have gradually made their way across it. And Kurt himself was the one who raised the issue of the Kryptonian reputation.

Overall, it's not something I'd get wrapped up about, but if they're going to get specific... yeah, why leave the galaxy?

Even Star Trek only takes place on one end of the Milky Way Spiral Arm.

Yep. And the difficulty of traveling merely from one side of the Milky Way to the other was the whole foundational plot to "Voyager."

Berserk

11-27-2007, 04:50 PM

In my opinion, the worst idea will always be the lack of any sort of disguise over his face. Just taking off his glasses and slicking back his hair should not fool anyone.

winegeek

11-27-2007, 06:03 PM

Actually, I blame the Lois and Clark TV show more for that one.

If you have Superman : Doomsday,watch the extras. They explain Clark and Lois were supposed to marry in Superman 75. WB wanted DC to delay for the new show, Lois and Clark to catch up. So they killed Superman instead.

The marriage was natural progression. Stalling for the TV show caused relationship problems. Johns & company are doing a very good job getting it all back on track.

MaxofSteel

11-27-2007, 06:28 PM

This recycling trend is merely indicative of lazy gimmicks DC always fall back on when they run out of ideas.

You may call it lazy gimmicks, but I call it fresh ideas for new readers. ;) Personally (as a non-new reader), I like the the return of the other K's myself.

Regarding the marriage though, I'd say it was inevitable, although it has unfortunately led to less interesting stories from Lois' standpoint. It seems she has less of a personality nowadays, or that she's lost her aggressive spark. I dunno. :/

Mon-el

11-27-2007, 10:26 PM

The whole idea of Superman being Superboy when he was young is a terrible concept.

I've had a couple of days to think about this. Instead of posting my first knee- jerk reaction.

Since Superboy was one of the few characters that was held over from the Golden Age to the Silver Age and throughout the Bronze Age. Seems apparent it's not really a bad idea is it? or was a "terrible concept".

Furthermore without the existence of Superboy you would never had the many characters that wouldn't have existed due to HIS character or his title. No other comic book character was actually made and then pushed out of his own title due to the popularity of the Legion of Super-Heroes.

KET

11-27-2007, 10:59 PM

If you have Superman : Doomsday,watch the extras. They explain Clark and Lois were supposed to marry in Superman 75. WB wanted DC to delay for the new show, Lois and Clark to catch up. So they killed Superman instead.

Actually, I already knew about all this comics history BEFORE DC bothered to put it on a DVD. Still, the idea doesn't work if they don't have writers who will follow through with making it work naturally.

The marriage was natural progression.

No, I think it was an inevitable consequence of Jenette Kahn's influence on the character's multi-media marketing strategy at the time. She had a LOT to do with getting "Lois and Clark" on the air.

KET

11-27-2007, 11:05 PM

You may call it lazy gimmicks, but I call it fresh ideas for new readers. ;) Personally (as a non-new reader), I like the the return of the other K's myself.

Whether you like the idea or not, it's still recycled. There's nothing fresh about it, and an all-too-typical example of DC's current nostalgia-pandering fetish.

pariah-1972

11-28-2007, 12:47 PM

Whether you like the idea or not, it's still recycled. There's nothing fresh about it, and an all-too-typical example of DC's current nostalgia-pandering fetish.If only this nostalgia fetish went all the way then we wouldn't have mass killings and have more fun lighthearted stuff.

MaxofSteel

11-28-2007, 02:07 PM

Whether you like the idea or not, it's still recycled. There's nothing fresh about it

That may be true, but I don't necessarily consider that to be a bad thing. Some old ideas tend to work better than newer ones. And if they work better, or are more interesting, why not use them again?

dancj

11-29-2007, 06:31 AM

Wormholes don't explain why Jor-El would send his kid to another galaxy, why no one else seems capable of accomplishing the same technological feat (except when somebody visits dead Krypton),
The New Gods do it all the time with their Boom Tube technology.

why anyone's ever heard of Kryptonians, or why no one else on Krypton used the same means of escape.
No-one else escaped because Jor-El was the only one who thought the planet was about to explode, and the only one who'd built a prototype space ship. I'm not sure how putting Krypton in another galaxy changes anything here.

King Krypton

11-29-2007, 05:58 PM

If you have Superman : Doomsday,watch the extras. They explain Clark and Lois were supposed to marry in Superman 75. WB wanted DC to delay for the new show, Lois and Clark to catch up. So they killed Superman instead.

The marriage was natural progression. Stalling for the TV show caused relationship problems.

There's also the fact that the creative teams had a change of heart during that delay period and decided they didn't want to marry them after all. Paul Levitz even admitted it in Superman: The Complete History. And even after the marriage was done, the new creative teams under Berganza were just as opposed to the marriage as the Jurgens-era guys ended up being, and Lois' abusive behavior carried over into that era and went to major extremes. When your creative teams have no intention of even trying to make the marriage work, there's no chance of it working.

Sean Whitmore

11-29-2007, 06:02 PM

And even after the marriage was done, the new creative teams under Berganza were just as opposed to the marriage as the Jurgens-era guys ended up being, and Lois' abusive behavior carried over into that era and went to major extremes.

"Uh-huh. Examples?" he asked, not really expecting an answer.

SEAN

winegeek

11-29-2007, 09:21 PM

When your creative teams have no intention of even trying to make the marriage work, there's no chance of it working.

True. Good thing Johns & Busiek show every intention of making the marriage work, and they've been doing a great job with it. Once DC made the decision they weren't going to retcon after Infinite Crisis, it seems there is an effort to stop living in the past and accept the status quo.

winegeek

11-29-2007, 09:28 PM

Actually, I already knew about all this comics history BEFORE DC bothered to put it on a DVD. Still, the idea doesn't work if they don't have writers who will follow through with making it work naturally.

So why blame the tv show? For many of us this isn't "history" but something we read real time. The stories pre-death were rich with character development, Lois wasn't portrayed as a shrew, they were engaged in a partnership. It all changed post death when DC had to stall, waiting for the show to catch up. That was when the problem began.

Regardless, no story works if the writers aren't on board. It's too bad DC didn't publish K-Metal, this discussion would be moot.

BoosterBronze

12-02-2007, 08:02 PM

Regardless, no story works if the writers aren't on board. It's too bad DC didn't publish K-Metal, this discussion would be moot.

True, but then we wouldn't have 40 years of fun "Oh, I'll prove you're Superman" stories.

King Krypton

12-03-2007, 08:04 PM

"Uh-huh. Examples?" he asked, not really expecting an answer.

SEAN

Hmm...let's see:

1. Leaving Superman under the pretense of vacationing with her mother, seding him "Dear John" messages teling him she's not coming back, and writing journal entries about how much she hates him for saving Wonder Woman instead of her dad. (Post-OWAW.)

2. Admitting while under Dracula's influence that she's got a grudge against him for saving Wonder Woman instead of her dad.

2. Hysterically accusing him of sleeping around with the JLA after Cir-El claims to be his daughter, even demanding that he cut off a rescue in progress so he can come home and be read the riot act.

3. Nagging him over Krypto at every turn.

4. Nagging him for leaving during emergencies (the dreaded giant lobster issue, a parting shot from the Jurgens era).

5. Throwing a hissy fit over Clark's firing being staged so he could spy on Luthor.

6. Giving a news crew unwarranted grief when they were trying to help her out on her first day of work as a TV anchor (Seagle run).

7. Chiding him for "eavesdropping" when he overhears someone dissing him.

All this stuff is from the last few years of the comics. Of course, you'll just pretend it doesn't exist and accuse me of lying, as is your wont. You'll also pretend that Kelly and Casey never said anything negative about the marriage in interviews with Wizard circa "Return to Krypton," I imagine, much less acknowledge Levitz's admssions that the marriage fell out of favor with the creative teams and is still an issue of contention at DC.

Sean Whitmore

12-03-2007, 08:14 PM

2. Admitting while under Dracula's influence that she's got a grudge against him for saving Wonder Woman instead of her dad.

5. Throwing a hissy fit over Clark's firing being staged so he could spy on Luthor.

7. Chiding him for "eavesdropping" when he overhears someone dissing him.

Ooooh! Abusive!

1. Leaving Superman under the pretense of vacationing with her mother, seding him "Dear John" messages teling him she's not coming back, and writing journal entries about how much she hates him for saving Wonder Woman instead of her dad. (Post-OWAW.)

4. Nagging him for leaving during emergencies (the dreaded giant lobster issue, a parting shot from the Jurgens era).

What a bitch. Women are supposed to have babies, not emotions.

3. Nagging him over Krypto at every turn.

The super powered dog that kept destroying their apartment and threatening their secret? You know that's not what "nagging" means, right?

6. Giving a news crew unwarranted grief when they were trying to help her out on her first day of work as a TV anchor (Seagle run).

That's abusive to her husband...how?

2. Hysterically accusing him of sleeping around with the JLA after Cir-El claims to be his daughter, even demanding that he cut off a rescue in progress so he can come home and be read the riot act.

Okay, I'll give you one. One out of your seven "examples" has merit.

Of course, you'll just pretend it doesn't exist and accuse me of lying, as is your wont.

Nah, "exaggerating to the point of ridiculousness" sums it up better.

SEAN

kello

12-03-2007, 09:25 PM

http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/3386/400/3386_4_0000000123.jpg

Don't really think anything else needs to be said, do you?

This was the first thing I thought of when I read the thread topic. If you don't consider Electro Supes to be the dumbest Superman transformation, I openly question your fanhood, nay, your sanity.

Nector

12-03-2007, 09:43 PM

I think one of the worst ideas was Earth Two, I mean come on what are you trying to do you're just ripping off you're own Bizzaro idea (Power girl is hott though :p )

Which leads me to Another thing, Bizzaro is awesome but we don't need Zibarro

pariah-1972

12-03-2007, 10:10 PM

This was the first thing I thought of when I read the thread topic. If you don't consider Electro Supes to be the dumbest Superman transformation, I openly question your fanhood, nay, your sanity.I thought Electric Blue Superman looked cool but i haven't been a superman fan since i was a kid so take that for what you will.

Super Buddies Forever

12-03-2007, 11:39 PM

pariah-1972

12-04-2007, 01:01 AM

Darth Joker

12-04-2007, 07:18 AM

Hmm...let's see:

1. Leaving Superman under the pretense of vacationing with her mother, seding him "Dear John" messages teling him she's not coming back, and writing journal entries about how much she hates him for saving Wonder Woman instead of her dad. (Post-OWAW.)

2. Admitting while under Dracula's influence that she's got a grudge against him for saving Wonder Woman instead of her dad.

2. Hysterically accusing him of sleeping around with the JLA after Cir-El claims to be his daughter, even demanding that he cut off a rescue in progress so he can come home and be read the riot act.

3. Nagging him over Krypto at every turn.

4. Nagging him for leaving during emergencies (the dreaded giant lobster issue, a parting shot from the Jurgens era).

5. Throwing a hissy fit over Clark's firing being staged so he could spy on Luthor.

6. Giving a news crew unwarranted grief when they were trying to help her out on her first day of work as a TV anchor (Seagle run).

7. Chiding him for "eavesdropping" when he overhears someone dissing him.

All this stuff is from the last few years of the comics. Of course, you'll just pretend it doesn't exist and accuse me of lying, as is your wont. You'll also pretend that Kelly and Casey never said anything negative about the marriage in interviews with Wizard circa "Return to Krypton," I imagine, much less acknowledge Levitz's admssions that the marriage fell out of favor with the creative teams and is still an issue of contention at DC.

The first three are Lois feeling insecure over Wonder Woman's role in Clark's life. I mean - can you blame her? Lois isn't dumb - she knows that, in many ways, Diana is a more ideal match for Superman than she is. And she probably knows that Wonder Woman once had a big crush on Superman that hasn't entirely gone away.

The Krypto thing is understandable.

The final four aren't good, but that's the dark side of Lois' personality. She's suppossed to represent the prototypical female news reporter who is firmly feminist and will admirably do whatever she can to dig up the dirt on crooks and scroundrels. These folks are heroines to a degree, but they're not saints.

pariah-1972

12-04-2007, 11:34 AM

The first three are Lois feeling insecure over Wonder Woman's role in Clark's life. I mean - can you blame her? Lois isn't dumb - she knows that, in many ways, Diana is a more ideal match for Superman than she is. And she probably knows that Wonder Woman once had a big crush on Superman that hasn't entirely gone away.

The Krypto thing is understandable.

The final four aren't good, but that's the dark side of Lois' personality. She's suppossed to represent the prototypical female news reporter who is firmly feminist and will admirably do whatever she can to dig up the dirt on crooks and scroundrels. These folks are heroines to a degree, but they're not saints.I never really understood why people think diana is better suited for Superman.... unless we find out that Supes can't have children with lois, i think lois represents his fascination/obsession with being human and loving the human race.
Diana on the other hand comes from a race of amazon warriors that are practically first cousins to the roman gods and not to mention what the amazons have done recently i'm not sure there cultures would match up entirely.

PatrickG

12-04-2007, 12:25 PM

Agreed on the Manhunter points.

The notion that Krypton was located in a galaxy other than the Milky Way galaxy.

For most of Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis, Krypton was in the Milky Way. The animated series also put Krypton in our galaxy. On the other hand, the first movie said it was in the fictional Xeno Galaxy, and "Birthright" put it in the Andromeda galaxy. "Smallville" has insanely made references to Krypton being in contact with MULTIPLE galaxies.

A couple of years back (namely, here (http://comicfacts.blogspot.com/2005/03/kryptonian-astrophysics-101.html)) I went into some detail about why putting Krypton in another galaxy is a very bad idea. I see several reasons:

- Let's assume that Jor-El's ship traveled faster that light (through hyperspace or whatever). Let's say that little Kal was in suspended animation, and that the trip took 10 years. That would mean that the little prototype ship that could was traveling at a speed equivalent to 150 trillion mph, or about 220,000 times the speed of light. At that speed, you could travel from Earth to Pluto in about 1/14 of a second. Kryptonians may not know much about making spaceships, but they can sure make 'em fast.

He wasn't in suspended animation. He used a wormhole. That's also how so much Kryptonite wound up on earth.

I think this also creates an inconsistency where Jor-El (and Zor-El, I suppose) manages to create a one-person spacecraft that can achieve that kind of speed, and yet no one else on Krypton seems capable of even getting off-world.

I think they were capable and chose not to. The Busiek take seems to be that they were indoctrinated against offworld travel by a scientific and peaceful government scared of what the Kryptonians would become again under a yellow sun. The "Zod" millitary contingent believed Jor-El and were probably eager to use Krypton's destruction to declare martial law and go subjugate a bunch of lesser races after escaping. I'd go so far as to say that the Science Council was at least WILLFULLY ignorant and perhaps even suppressed the truth, committing to a course of racial mass suicide rather than allowing a new empire to form.

- On a related note, it's pretty absurd to claim that Jor-El would send his kid to a whole other galaxy, rather than to a closer populated world. ("Birthright" tried to address this by claiming that while the Milky Way is awash with alien races, the Andromeda Galaxy has only one: Krypton.)

By understanding was that Jor-El's options were limited. He needed a world where the natives looked Kryptonian but where his son would have a biological advantage in case he was greeted with hostility. Earth stands out as a choice because a Kryptonian could pass for human and powers are not terribly widespread.

- It's inconsistent with everything else that's said about space travel in the Superman books and the DCU. The whole "Legion Lost" series was about how even 30th Century space travel couldn't cope with traveling between galaxies.

I always found the DnA Legion's tech to be INTERESTING but a small fraction of what I'd like or expect 31st century tech to be. I mean, Star Trek or Babylon 5 should be to 31st century tech what the Crusades is to modern warfare.

- As Kurt Busiek pointed out, other alien races in the Milky Way tend to know Kryptonians by reputation. There's no possible way they could know that if Krypton was in another galaxy.

Sure they could. Kryptonians had an intergalactic empire. If they could travel between galaxies (and they can) and they had an empire that was defeated by an internal coup of idealistic scientists...

Heck... I'm gonna suggest that based on what we've seen, the "red sun" weakness was genetically engineered by anti-war Kryptonians to isolate and de-fang their military might. Similar to the Roger Stern Eradicator "genetic link". Heck, the Red Sun weakness may have been the Eradicator's contribution to the mythos post-IC.

To me, it makes little sense that something the volume of a human could be an effective solar battery for the kinds of feats Superman does. It works far better for me to imagine that he has a number of unusual properties which allow for his powers (which may be augmented or triggered off by sunlight). But it would essentially be a case of every cell in his body being conditioned like Pavlov's dog to shutdown in certain conditions, probably as the result of an engineered genetic mutation that the Kryptonians' used because they feared and rejected their own power.

Imagine a scenario where every adult is essentially a walking nuclear weapon capable of destroying the planet. It would seem sensible to concoct a safeguard against your people's own excesses, to give your race an Achilles heel to turn them away from the path of conquest and violence.

Darth Joker

12-05-2007, 12:35 AM

I never really understood why people think diana is better suited for Superman.... unless we find out that Supes can't have children with lois, i think lois represents his fascination/obsession with being human and loving the human race.
Diana on the other hand comes from a race of amazon warriors that are practically first cousins to the roman gods and not to mention what the amazons have done recently i'm not sure there cultures would match up entirely.

I'm a subscriber to the "man of steel, woman of kleenex" theory.

To be a brutally frank, I don't think that Lois should be able to even survive having sex with Supes. Wonder Woman, OTOH, would.

pariah-1972

12-05-2007, 01:08 AM

I'm a subscriber to the "man of steel, woman of kleenex" theory.

To be a brutally frank, I don't think that Lois should be able to even survive having sex with Supes. Wonder Woman, OTOH, would.
Meh i feel dirty thinking too much about a superman's sex life.
and anyways i was talking about emotional and personality capabilities.

pariah-1972

12-05-2007, 06:20 AM

blaargh doubley posted

BoosterBronze

12-05-2007, 12:23 PM

I think the Superman/Wonder Woman thing has less to do with sex, and more to do with the fact Superman is an amazing warrior and can share a kinship with WW as superhuman warrior trypes that Lois can never be a part of.

So when Superman is 'pretending' to be a mere mortal like Lois, she has to feel somehow diminished.

The Batman

12-05-2007, 01:00 PM

I've never seen Superman as a warrior though. Sure he has to fight, and because he's so powerful he's pretty good at it, but it's only a last resort for him. I also don't think Superman has to pretend anything around Lois anymore.

Jolly Mon

12-05-2007, 03:38 PM

Agreed on the Manhunter points.

He wasn't in suspended animation. He used a wormhole. That's also how so much Kryptonite wound up on earth.

I think they were capable and chose not to. The Busiek take seems to be that they were indoctrinated against offworld travel by a scientific and peaceful government scared of what the Kryptonians would become again under a yellow sun. The "Zod" millitary contingent believed Jor-El and were probably eager to use Krypton's destruction to declare martial law and go subjugate a bunch of lesser races after escaping. I'd go so far as to say that the Science Council was at least WILLFULLY ignorant and perhaps even suppressed the truth, committing to a course of racial mass suicide rather than allowing a new empire to form.

By understanding was that Jor-El's options were limited. He needed a world where the natives looked Kryptonian but where his son would have a biological advantage in case he was greeted with hostility. Earth stands out as a choice because a Kryptonian could pass for human and powers are not terribly widespread.

I always found the DnA Legion's tech to be INTERESTING but a small fraction of what I'd like or expect 31st century tech to be. I mean, Star Trek or Babylon 5 should be to 31st century tech what the Crusades is to modern warfare.

Sure they could. Kryptonians had an intergalactic empire. If they could travel between galaxies (and they can) and they had an empire that was defeated by an internal coup of idealistic scientists...

Heck... I'm gonna suggest that based on what we've seen, the "red sun" weakness was genetically engineered by anti-war Kryptonians to isolate and de-fang their military might. Similar to the Roger Stern Eradicator "genetic link". Heck, the Red Sun weakness may have been the Eradicator's contribution to the mythos post-IC.

To me, it makes little sense that something the volume of a human could be an effective solar battery for the kinds of feats Superman does. It works far better for me to imagine that he has a number of unusual properties which allow for his powers (which may be augmented or triggered off by sunlight). But it would essentially be a case of every cell in his body being conditioned like Pavlov's dog to shutdown in certain conditions, probably as the result of an engineered genetic mutation that the Kryptonians' used because they feared and rejected their own power.

Imagine a scenario where every adult is essentially a walking nuclear weapon capable of destroying the planet. It would seem sensible to concoct a safeguard against your people's own excesses, to give your race an Achilles heel to turn them away from the path of conquest and violence.

It seems like everyone wants to retcon Krypton's (and Superman's) backstory. You want Krypton's populace to have been condemned to "racial mass suicide", and the red sun weakness to be an "engineered genetic mutation that Kryptonians used because they feared and rejected their own power". Is there any thing else you'd like to change? Are you ok with his outfit?

pariah-1972

12-05-2007, 06:36 PM

Rik Sunn

12-05-2007, 07:11 PM

Rik Sunn

12-05-2007, 07:15 PM

I never had a huge beef with Electro Superman because I saw it was nothing more than a storyline. The only fault I have with it is that the writers never seemed to figure out how his new powers worked.

I disagree. As a reader during that time, I felt like the writers (and I) had a really good handle on how the powers worked. The only thing I didn't get a feel for was what the hell made it happen. There was an implication that it had something to do with that ancient wizard guy who was repressing the people of Kandor, but they never clarified it and eventually the whole thing just went away.

I also think the Millennium Giants and the whole red/blue "division" were really indicative of some really recycled ideas. During the '90s, I felt like not everyone was playing from the same playbook, so you got things like the Wolf character in Anima serving essentially the exact same function in the universe as what Parallax later turned out to be, and the Millennium Giants being essentially identical to the Giants in the Marvel vs. DC mini (a particularly egregious offense since Jurgens was involved with both and should have told the Superman writers "Hey, this one needs to be reworked!").

cactusmaac

12-06-2007, 03:35 AM

Which only solves the speed issue. All the other problems still stand. Wormholes don't explain why Jor-El would send his kid to another galaxy, why no one else seems capable of accomplishing the same technological feat (except when somebody visits dead Krypton), why anyone's ever heard of Kryptonians, or why no one else on Krypton used the same means of escape.

If you go by the pre-IC continuity, Jor-El got the idea from Starman. If you go by Smallville, Kryptonians had been visiting Earth for centuries and Jor-El picked the Kents as the family he wanted Supes get adopted into. I doubt he had many other options particularly for congenial planets with a yellow sun.

As for nobody else having the same technology, it's not that surprising. Krypton was one of the most advanced planets around and they probably weren't in the habit of socialising with the rest of the universe or letting outsiders learn their technological secrets.

I have really disliked a lot of the rehashing of Silver Age elements in Superman comics. Krypto is an incredibly stupid idea that should never have been reintroduced, Kandor too, I don't want Superman teaming with the LOSH during his teen years or meeting Mon-El, Luthor as mad scientist is nowhere as interesting as him being a billionaire tyrant.

It's good when Morrison writes Superman because he's imaginative and capable of capturing the spirit of the era. Too many other writers just geek out on the weird shit they read when they were ten without considering whether it fits with a modern interpretation of the character.

666MasterOfPuppets

12-06-2007, 10:51 AM

666MasterOfPuppets

12-06-2007, 11:03 AM

Hmm...let's see:

1. Leaving Superman under the pretense of vacationing with her mother, seding him "Dear John" messages teling him she's not coming back, and writing journal entries about how much she hates him for saving Wonder Woman instead of her dad. (Post-OWAW.)

2. Admitting while under Dracula's influence that she's got a grudge against him for saving Wonder Woman instead of her dad.

2. Hysterically accusing him of sleeping around with the JLA after Cir-El claims to be his daughter, even demanding that he cut off a rescue in progress so he can come home and be read the riot act.

3. Nagging him over Krypto at every turn.

4. Nagging him for leaving during emergencies (the dreaded giant lobster issue, a parting shot from the Jurgens era).

5. Throwing a hissy fit over Clark's firing being staged so he could spy on Luthor.

6. Giving a news crew unwarranted grief when they were trying to help her out on her first day of work as a TV anchor (Seagle run).

7. Chiding him for "eavesdropping" when he overhears someone dissing him.

All this stuff is from the last few years of the comics. Of course, you'll just pretend it doesn't exist and accuse me of lying, as is your wont. You'll also pretend that Kelly and Casey never said anything negative about the marriage in interviews with Wizard circa "Return to Krypton," I imagine, much less acknowledge Levitz's admssions that the marriage fell out of favor with the creative teams and is still an issue of contention at DC.

Yeah, Lois has crossed the line sometimes. Especially in "Lois & Clark", the show with the dumbest Clark Kent I've ever seen:

Clark Kent (a.k.a. Fred): I love you, Lois.
Lois (a.k.a. Daphne): I love you more.
Fred: No, I love you more.
Daphne: No, I love YOU more, hihihihi...
Fred: Let's solve this mystery!
Criminal: I would have succeeded if it weren't for those meddlers!!!

666MasterOfPuppets

12-06-2007, 12:08 PM

But he is mortal he is not a god and he can die he just happens to be a super mortal.

and this is how he sees himself obviously.

And this is the point that annoys me the most.

Superman IS, or in any case SHOULD be an IMMORTAL ALIEN GOD sent to Earth to save us. I love the whole messianic angle that's existed within the character since his very creation, in some form.

Hell, in fact, I read somewhere that Jor-El means "Awe/Wrath Of God" and Kal-El "Voice Of God" in hebrew, and that Siegel and Shuster liked to play with mythic imagery.

To this day, I fail to see what's the fear some people have (including DC) of writing an ultra-powerful Superman. And the whole "if Superman's too powerful then he's impossible to write because he has no challenge" theory has gotten old already.

Superman is larger than life itself. He's immortal, timeless. He should be able to ignite stars with his heat vision, hold black holes in his hand, move planets away from their stars and even turn them into DUST with his bare hands.

But now, the aforementioned theory has made that almost every other guy with super-powers is "nearly" as powerful as he is, which in my opinion, is simply ridiculous and doesn't hold water for me.

Another thing that bugs me is that there are too many Kryptonians. I can stand Zod and his lackeys, but things are going too far (no, I haven't read Busiek's "Third Kryptonian" storyline, so please don't spoil it, ok?), I believe. Superman should be unique in every possible way.

I admit that some things from the Silver Age might work again, but it's also true for me that not EVERY single idea that was used in the Silver Age might work TODAY.

PatrickG

12-06-2007, 12:58 PM

It seems like everyone wants to retcon Krypton's (and Superman's) backstory. You want Krypton's populace to have been condemned to "racial mass suicide", and the red sun weakness to be an "engineered genetic mutation that Kryptonians used because they feared and rejected their own power". Is there any thing else you'd like to change? Are you ok with his outfit?

I love the outfit.

Heck, I wish Jor-El had the headband and sun on his chest.

I'm against retcons only when they go against the intrinsic nature of something. When they contradict something.

I'm in favor of as many retcons as possible when they add depth to something.

IMO, the conversation between Jor-El and the Science Council should always hearken back to its earliest interpretations.

I'm extremely wary about recostuming characters or changing a single word of dialogue.

I'd much rather explain the published dialogue and costuming of characters than revamp them to keep the spirit intact.

IMHO, the particulars of Superman's published history are what we keep unfairly losing track of. The costumes, the origins, the nuggets of dialogue.

If you want to make Krypton "more relatable", you don't do that by making it more sci-fi. You make the old sci-fi work by tacking onto it without changing it.

I could much easier accept that the council lied and really believed Jor-El but felt that death as a species was nobler than the alternative, as opposed to constantly revamping them to make their stubborn denial more justified.

Why didn't they believe him? It's at the heart of almost any revamp. Krypton is supposed to be a utopia and highly advanced and yet they didn't heed Jor-El's warning.

Every revamp has tried to address this and it usually involves making Kryptonians look evil or stupid. Maggin's Earth-Prime Superboy origin had the council accept Jor-El's warning but move too slowly because they were bureaucratic, presumably to add realism. The Animated Series made the council into Brainiac's unwitting pawns.

I'd rather they appear high minded like the Guardians, operating under a "greater good", than evil or stupid or manipulated.

The average person may not accept that their planet is about to blow up. But the most intelligent, most scientifically advanced beings in the universe don't have that out.

I'd rather see an additive retcon stacked into their history, a "lost scene" after Jor-El leaves the council, than see their conversation with him constantly revamped to address the impossible folly of their decision.

Preserve the particulars of plot. Modify the spirit. Reveal secrets. Don't adjust the particulars to suit your reading.

That Krypton was ond of the oldest and most advanced civilizations should be irrefutable. That Kal-El was born into a scientific utopia should be irrefutable. That the council rejected Jor-El should be irrefutable.

This presents a problem and the problem should not involve sullying Kryptonians' reputation as a species of unparalleled intellectual genius. You make them shortsighted or stupid or pawns or bureaucrats and you impugn that. I'd rather make them sacrificial martyrs and keep their established words intact while adding new ones than change or deviate needlessly from what has been said.

When a character says or does something "out of character", you would do better to create mitigating circumstances or suggest that they were lying than try to smooth over a story.

New Earth has come close to my "ideal world" but not quite far enough. IMO, Superman's continuity should be his publishing history with the oldest elements taking precedence over the newest and the most memorable elements taking precedent over all.

He should be married to Lois. He should have fought Doomsday. I see no reason to contradict that he was a TV anchor or that Roger Corben was the second Metallo when John Corben was presumed dead without contradicting that John Corben was Metallo when Brainiac 13 invaded or that Superman fought a scientist named Metalo early in his career.

Honor the greatest number of stories possible while adding nuance to them with retcons that add new knowledge but do not contradict anything of substance.

Changing Jor-El and the Science Council's interactions contradicts substance for spirit and thus throws the narrative baby out with the bathwater.

Adhere to the substance. If that means adjusting the spirit to preserve the substance then do so. It's so crucial to establish a cohesive narrative voice in a serial genre like this. The invisible narrator has to be reliable which means that anything implausible must be a lie perpetrated by a character or an omission. But what we see on the printed page must be the SELECTIVE literal truth, not the figurative truth or the emotional truth.

PatrickG

12-06-2007, 01:11 PM

I disagree with a lot of the items on the initial list, feeling that there's an awful lot of Silver Age rose-colored glasses and post-COIE hatin' going on there. But that being said, I can think of a few things that just drive me NUTS as a big Supes fan:

The whole "King of the World" storyline. Ack.

This new/old thing of him losing his powers at the drop of a hat in the presence of red sun or the absence of a yellow one. In the post-COIE days of "living solar battery" Superman, he would have been able to at least stay super for a few minutes under a red sun, and things like the ending of IC and/or the first few pages of the current LOSH story arc (where he arrives in the future and, before he even starts to feel noticeably weak, he's having his skin penetrated by simple firearms) wouldn't happen.

Most post-COIE reimaginings of some of the retconned Silver Age concepts. I don't need to see a new Krypto, thanks. I've never liked any of the various post-Crisis incarnations of Kandor. If they can't be restored to their original form, you probably should just avoid using them altogether.

The Clone Disease. Outside of Superboy, I'm not aware of any non-Superman characters who were affected by this, in spite of being in a universe where clones were spectacularly common. There were plenty of better ways to hit the reset button on Lex Luthor, without creating this thing that should have, but didn't, affect the whole DCU.

Here is one of the crucial problems I recognize as a Silver Age aficionado.

There are elements of the mythos that people cannot forget. Wipe these out and people struggle to reintroduce them.

IMO, the way forward is to acknowledge everything.

Instead of retelling the Kryptonian Kandor's origin, use it. Use it matter-of-factly. Tell new stories with it instead of harping back on its beginnings.

All-Star Superman is great, partly, because I have yet to see a rationalization or a reintroduction of anything. Anything Grant wanted to use, he was free to assume was already on the table.

X-Men has maintained a large fanbase because they keep the quirks and tweaks and embarrassing complications. Nobody ever felt the need to make Jean Grey into Cable's real mother. His mother is her clone. Deal with it. Narrative consistency. Absurd things happened and they get explained or don't get explained but they still happened.

Same thing with Batman, largely, or Fantastic Four or Spider-man or Wolverine or most of the JLA's membership.

Gotham City used to have giant roof props. Nobody ever retconned that. Any retcons that did happen with Batman never really addressed anything goofy or eliminated it. He still has a robot T-Rex in the Batcave. The retcons with Batman happened whenever somebody did a stylish flashback that was well-received.

But there can and have been flashbacks of the current continuity with a goofy grin alongside the Club of Heroes and fighting the Riddler on giant typewriters. It happened. No need to retell it or ultimize it, for the most part. Paul Sloane was still the second Two-Face. Chief Man of the Bats teamed up with Batman. He started dark, got goofy and got dark again. Nobody really HAS to contradict this and if one person does, nobody flinches.

Write mature stories that include less mature stories as part of their backsdrop. That's half the fun.

dupersuper

12-06-2007, 01:58 PM

and the Millennium Giants being essentially identical to the Giants in the Marvel vs. DC mini (a particularly egregious offense since Jurgens was involved with both and should have told the Superman writers "Hey, this one needs to be reworked!").

Well, they were all giants, and they don't talk, but that's about it. The DC/Marvel giants were far larger and more powerful, looked humanoid, and were representations/cosmic entitys. The MG's were just skyscraper sized weird looking things destroying and recreating earths' magnetic field. Completely different power levels, motivations, circumstances, etc. They were far more like the giants from the GL/LEGION/Darkstar story Trinity, but that was intended and mentioned in-story.

Bored at 3:00AM

12-06-2007, 09:50 PM

TROUBLEZ

12-06-2007, 10:00 PM

Going from the completely mechanical Brainiac who looked and acted terrifying to a green guy with a yellow mustache and goatee.

J. Robb

12-06-2007, 10:08 PM

The worst ideas in the history of Superman have generally been from creators who think Superman is broken and needs to be fixed. Since 1986, Superman comics have been a merry-go-round of various creators playing tug-o-war over who Superman is and where he comes from.
Aside from the obvious BIG changes in '86, the "merry-go-round" didn't really start until the Loeb/Kelly team's "Return to Krypton" story in 2001. Superman's been suffering death by a million retcons since then.

Bored at 3:00AM

12-07-2007, 03:58 AM

Aside from the obvious BIG changes in '86, the "merry-go-round" didn't really start until the Loeb/Kelly team's "Return to Krypton" story in 2001. Superman's been suffering death by a million retcons since then.

I disagree. The creators who immediately followed Byrne started reintroducing stuff he'd ditched very quickly, drastically altered them or at the very least shoehorned them into the new status quo that Byrne had setup. The tug-o-war over the utopian vs. dystopian Krypton also started before the Berganza/Loeb/Kelly era began. I remember them back-peddling on the cold unemotional Krypton around the time Electro Supes.

To my mind, Byrne's initial and ill-advised "Superman is broken! I'll fix him!" mission statement was taken up by every creator that came afterwards.

Unfortunately, neither Byrne nor any of the creators that followed him realised what Alan Moore so effectively showed in Supreme. There was nothing wrong with Superman that a little imagination and good writing couldn't fix.

marshal99

12-07-2007, 04:34 AM

Going from the completely mechanical Brainiac who looked and acted terrifying to a green guy with a yellow mustache and goatee.

Actually , the pre-crisis Brainiac started out as just a normal looking bald headed green guy with hideous clothing in space. The completely mechanical Brainiac only came into being in the 80s. The mechanical brainiac and Luthor with the green war armor came in the same issue. If i'm not wrong , Perez had a hand in at least one of the new redesign if not both.

http://www.supermanartists.comics.org/superwhoswho/brainiac-action242.JPG

MythicBrawn

12-07-2007, 06:22 AM

I'm a subscriber to the "man of steel, woman of kleenex" theory.

To be a brutally frank, I don't think that Lois should be able to even survive having sex with Supes. Wonder Woman, OTOH, would.

I 1000% agree with you on this one. I figure sex with Lois, a normal human, would be extremely unsatisfying because he would have to hold back too much. It would be similar to a normal man having sex with WW. WW would probably be unsatisfied plus the guy would run the danger of damaging/losing his unit. But, who cares. It's comics so bring on the suspension of disbelief.

Joe-Dono

12-07-2007, 01:50 PM

I dont really think that the whole sex thing should be explored, who knows what kind of pandoras box we could uncover.

pariah-1972

12-07-2007, 01:52 PM

Why is everyone picking on Byrne:(

Carter Hall

12-07-2007, 03:26 PM

http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/3386/400/3386_4_0000000123.jpg

Don't really think anything else needs to be said, do you?

Absolutely agree. I don't think there's ever been a worse Superman idea than this.

J. Robb

12-07-2007, 06:12 PM

I disagree. The creators who immediately followed Byrne started reintroducing stuff he'd ditched very quickly, drastically altered them or at the very least shoehorned them into the new status quo that Byrne had setup. The tug-o-war over the utopian vs. dystopian Krypton also started before the Berganza/Loeb/Kelly era began. I remember them back-peddling on the cold unemotional Krypton around the time Electro Supes.

To my mind, Byrne's initial and ill-advised "Superman is broken! I'll fix him!" mission statement was taken up by every creator that came afterwards.
For me though, the difference with the post-Byrne teams is they made their changes organically. For the most part, the changes were made within the stories instead of just ignoring or retconning the past.

More recently, changes are made editorially, not in the stories, so we get fractured storytelling like a new General Zod or revamped origin every couple of years. They make zero sense within the comics themselves, we're just meant to accept the editorial decree "This is how things are now". Then when we don't accept that, they change things again, and say "Okay, this is how things are now..."

Superman wasn't broken in 2001, but after many unnessecary "fixes", he certainly is now.

TROUBLEZ

12-07-2007, 11:01 PM

I hate that too.

"THIS is Supermans origin"
"Okay, now this is Supermans origin NOW."
"Scracth all those before, this is finally Supermans origin"

Instead of coming out with a mini series every 5 or 10 years that has to explain EVERY LITTLE THING just do it in a back of of an anniversary issue or annual. And make it brief so it's not too constricting for writers.

Joe-Dono

12-08-2007, 12:54 AM

stupid question time... why is superman electric?

Zacharius

12-08-2007, 01:41 AM

Code vs killing is a bad idea.

Original Superman killed; it was better that way.

pauwoo

12-08-2007, 05:52 AM

Electro Supes

Superman Red & Blue

New Superboy

Grant Morrison

Sean Whitmore

12-08-2007, 05:55 AM

Grant Morrison

Must have missed the issue where the idea of "Grant Morrison" was introduced. What is it, some crazy form of kryptonite?

SEAN

666MasterOfPuppets

12-08-2007, 11:25 AM

4thHorseman

12-08-2007, 11:54 AM

stupid question time... why is superman electric?

Nobody knows

Iroquois

12-08-2007, 12:16 PM

Another thing I see as a bad idea is the red sun weakness. And losing all of his powers when under a red sun IMMEDIATELY. Some powers, like his invulnerability, should be intrinsically tied to his molecular structure or something.

Bah.
I concur with the part about losing his powers instantly. If he's storing yellow sun energy, then red sun won't suck them away. He'll just won't be refueling any more, thus ending up powerless at some point.

And add the stupid sun lamps in this. Even Kryptonite isn't that cheap.

mlcm

12-08-2007, 03:28 PM

I concur with the part about losing his powers instantly. If he's storing yellow sun energy, then red sun won't suck them away. He'll just won't be refueling any more, thus ending up powerless at some point.

And add the stupid sun lamps in this. Even Kryptonite isn't that cheap.

The Superman from Grant Morrison's DC One Million was victim of a power drain thanks to the yellow sun. Luckily, he punched the shit out of time and got better.

666MasterOfPuppets

12-08-2007, 03:33 PM

I concur with the part about losing his powers instantly. If he's storing yellow sun energy, then red sun won't suck them away. He'll just won't be refueling any more, thus ending up powerless at some point.

And add the stupid sun lamps in this. Even Kryptonite isn't that cheap.

I'm more supportive of the "yellow sun turns his powers on, red sun turns them off (eventually)" way.

And agreed on the sun lamps...

Bored at 3:00AM

12-09-2007, 12:30 AM

Superman wasn't broken in 2001, but after many unnessecary "fixes", he certainly is now.

He wasn't broken in 1986 either....

Super Buddies Forever

12-09-2007, 04:01 AM

I don't think many people would have a problem, myself included, with the New Earth origin/altered continuity had Birthright never happened. The last five years of Superman have been a trainwreck due to MoS being retconned away and then all of that being washed away within two years of its introduction.

I would have accepted Birthright had it come out right after IC. I would have accepted New Earth Superman had Birthright never been published. Together it's just been too much. At least when Zero Hour occurred, nothing was really altered with Superman's origin.

And no, I never had a problem with Post-Crisis introductions of Pre-Crisis concepts. My personal favorite was Bibbo's Krypto. Had Loeb really wanted to bring a super-powered dog back into the equation, that dog should have just been caught in a Cadmus experiment or something. As it stood, it was just too much to accept that there just so happened to be another dog named Krypto living in the faux-Silver Age Krypton while ignoring the other one ever existed.

Looking back on it, this constant tug of war with Superman's status quo really did begin back in the Loeb/McGuinness era. Suddenly Jimmy Olsen had been de-aged to 12, there was the failed attempt to reinsert the Silver Age Krypton (I breathed a massive sigh of relief when RTK2 undid that), we had new versions of Krypto, Bizarro, and Supergirl that ignored the characters of the same names that had existed in the same continuity before, and Lex Luthor became a cackling power suit wearing goon.

I'll agree that it's amazing that Batman has never been touched to this degree. The only glaring retcons I can think that ever happened to Batman due to timestream hijinx (aka editorial mucking) were Jason Todd becoming a juvenile delinquent and Joe Chill's status as the Wayne killer (and, even in the years immediately following Zero Hour up through the Murderer/Fugitive arc, it was always kept ambiguous whether Chill hadn't done it or if it was just Batman's paranoia getting to him following his alternate timeline experience during Zero Hour). Everything else more or less happened as published.

It's hard to take any Superman canonicity seriously at this point, because you know the second a new editorial team comes into power Superman's history will just be altered to fit the childhoods of those in power. When those who grew up reading Post-Crisis Supes take over, we'll see the reinsertion of cold Krypton, Matrix, and Eradicator. That won't last long, because then the Loeb fanboys will move in, or maybe someone who really liked Birthright.

I just want it to stop. Make me a promise that Superman's history will go untouched for the new few decades and let me warm up to this New Earth version before you pull the rug out from under me again.

DeadXMan

12-09-2007, 04:25 AM

What ever happen to Bibbo and Krypto(n)

J. Robb

12-09-2007, 11:26 AM

He wasn't broken in 1986 either....
No, he wasn't, which makes this decade's creative teams look even worse. Not only did they not learn from past mistakes, they've made the mistakes the norm.

Iroquois

12-09-2007, 11:46 AM

kello

12-09-2007, 11:51 AM

stupid question time... why is superman electric?

To the best of my knowledge, he got the powers from doing the "electric slide" too much.

Super Buddies Forever

12-09-2007, 05:00 PM

At least until the reboot, Superman was consistent and so was the change that followed. It was later, when things got retconned out of nowhere (including the whole Birthright origin debacle) that the real problems started.

Exactly. While I can understand how pre-'86 fans must have felt when MoS erased the continuity of old (especially in light of "my" era now being erased), at least the writers and editors stuck with it for 15 plus years. While they did add new elements, they did so within the confines of the world Byrne set up. They respected that it was the origin, even if they weren't happy with some of the changes.

Now it feels that some creative teams are more eager on defining Superman's past than moving him forward into the future. What was the bloody point of Birthright if it was going to be rendered null and void within two years of becoming the official origin? What's more, was it ever established HOW Birthright became canon? I recall some bizarre time travel story in Superman 200, but the implications never made much sense to me.

Where are the Linear Men when you need them? They never let this go on when the DCU was under their watch.

Zombie Superman

12-09-2007, 07:20 PM

Iroquois

12-10-2007, 02:35 AM

I defend the marriage too. But not Chris. Chris realized what fears I had since I read he was adopted by Lois and Superman. I hate the idea of Superman Jr. and Chris is already in control of all his powers and can apparently carry out rescue missions.

Zacharius

12-10-2007, 03:00 AM

Worst idea.

Lois Lane.

She gets into trouble so often it´s ridiculous.

If Superman had a medal for every time he’s rescued Lois Lane, he’d have enough metal to build a battleship, for, as all Metropolis knows, these rescues have run the gamut from bandits to burning buildings. Extricating Lois from trouble has become daily routine for Superman! (Jul/Aug 1946: “Clark Kent’s Bodyguard!”).

There was one story where Lois jumped out of window just to prove Superman always rescues her and modern Lois is equally lousy.

Celibate Superman would be a better idea.

Zombie Superman

12-10-2007, 05:19 AM

Worst idea.

Lois Lane.

She gets into trouble so often it´s ridiculous.

There was one story where Lois jumped out of window just to prove Superman always rescues her and modern Lois is equally lousy.

Celibate Superman would be a better idea.

You're single, aren't you?

Z\S/

Iroquois

12-10-2007, 05:37 AM

I think he was being mostly sarcastic. And he's not very far off, even though it really depends on the writer. If you take L&C:TNAoS, the situation was ridiculous. The woman would be in danger at least three times per episode.

On the other hand, the original Golden Age Lois Lane, much of a bitch as she might have been to Clark, she was kick-ass.

666MasterOfPuppets

12-10-2007, 05:59 AM

As a married man, I'd like to defend both the marriage AND the addition of Chris Kent.

Both were certainly done with more maturity and longer-lasting ramifications than Spidey's now late marriage and his late daughter.

Horrid ideas I dislike intensely:

Electro Superman

The Byrne Krypton

Various 90s stories, post-Death of Superman

Matrix Supergirl

Steven Seagle and Scott McDaniel's run on Superman

"For Tomorrow"

The fact that as yet, we've seen neither hide or spit-curl of the Earth-1 Superman

Dominus

More to come...

Z\S/

OT: Since when does Spidey have a daughter?

Back on topic: Agreed on Seagle and McDaniel. It failed to meet my expectations. I remember Seagle saying things like that the whole idea for him was to make Superman do things no one else could. Nothing like that happened.

Disagreed on "For Tomorrow", but hey, I understand why many people didn't like it.

Knight Lancer

12-10-2007, 09:20 AM

OT: Since when does Spidey have a daughter?

Exactly....

Zacharius

12-10-2007, 10:32 AM

Early on, however, Lois Lane comes to realize that she is under Superman’s personal protection and that, no matter how dire her predicament, the Man of Steel will always arrive in time to rescue her.

“Why should I worry,” replies Lois smugly, “when Superman has made it his full-time activity to look after helpless me?”

“Superman has always managed to show up and save me whenever I was in trouble! I’m sure he won’t fail me now!”

Maybe it´s just me, but I think Lois is a gold-digger who expects constant services from Superman (regardless of what other responsibilities Superman may have)

J. Robb

12-10-2007, 03:23 PM

My only real problem with Chris Kent was his lacklustre introduction. Clark and Lois adopting a Kryptonian kid should have been a big deal, as big as the Death story or the wedding. Instead, he's considered so unimportant DC couldn't even bother to finish his introductory story.

blackphoenix

12-10-2007, 03:46 PM

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but that Dr. Frankenfurter looking dude (from that Spilled Blood or whatever storyline with the racist Bloodsport and that Heavy Metal chick) kinda sucked. Some dude in a corset who claims to be responsible for all the wars thru history? Yeah, ok.

And the Cir-El Supergirl.

And the CURRENT Supergirl.

dupersuper

12-10-2007, 04:11 PM

llozymandias

12-10-2007, 04:19 PM

The way too many writers (since the 70s) have written Superman as though he was the george reeves version. A very low iq character who thinks with his fists. Also too many of those writers wrote him as a very easily beaten character.

Then there is how Luthor has been written over the years; too often in the 70s & early-mid 80s he was written as a buffoon. In the late 80s & the nineties he was written as nothing more than a cheap copy of the Kingpin. Now he is written either as a bigot (who only hates superman because Kal is an alien) or as a mis-guided good guy who thinks he is saving humanity from Superman's harmful influence. Basically Lex is written too often as DC's J Jonah Jameson. Why can't Lex be written right again? An evil super-genius who wants to conquer & rule everything, & who hates Superman because Kal is Lex's biggest obstacle.

Changing Rao from the kryptonian name for "GOD" to the name of krypton's sun & the name of a "sun-god" who actually existed in krypton's past.

The Batman

12-10-2007, 04:23 PM

Maybe it´s just me, but I think Lois is a gold-digger who expects constant services from Superman (regardless of what other responsibilities Superman may have)

Yeah, those quotes need to be placed into context before we can start talking about what a superhero golddigger Lois is.

Froggy

12-10-2007, 11:37 PM

what was that story where superman fought the indian gods? not bashing that one just wanted to know. only stories i hated were the over complicated continuity related ones

Ite

12-11-2007, 12:21 AM

http://images2.fotosik.pl/98/7ac74c53078e18e6.jpg

TROUBLEZ

12-11-2007, 05:45 PM

I don't think this is a horrible idea, but it doesn't make too much sense:

Superman in All-Star and I'm assuming the Silver Age, is portrayed as super-brilliant. He has robots that can do many extraordinary things, he has developed suits that can mimic his powers for 24 hours, etc, etc. So why doesn't he provide his intellect and inventions with the rest of the world. The Super-Suit would of course fall into the wrong hands, but if he's super brilliant, why not use his intellect to further the advancement of the human race?

In "For Tomorrow" the padre asks Superman if he can cure cancer, and Superman says he doesn't know, but even if he could he wouldn't, because he doesn't have the right to do that. Why not?

If he' so smart, why is it okay for him to change human development/destiny by stopping giant missles, invasions, etc, but doesn't want to share his technology, inventions or possible cures?

Zacharius

12-12-2007, 02:44 AM

If he' so smart, why is it okay for him to change human development/destiny by stopping giant missles, invasions, etc, but doesn't want to share his technology, inventions or possible cures?

Usual excuse is that if superhumans did everything normal humans would become less important and that would be too much for their fragile egos.

Real reason is that publishers realised that Superman couldn´t stop Hitler in comics because in real life WW2 would have continued anyway.

Publishers have continued status quo - policy since then.

666MasterOfPuppets

12-12-2007, 04:16 AM

Iroquois

12-12-2007, 09:54 AM

Superman, much as he wants to fit in, knows that he's an alien. I'd assume he believes that it's not his place to interfere as much. He's there as a shield of a sort, but nothing beyond that.

TROUBLEZ

12-12-2007, 10:03 PM

Superman, much as he wants to fit in, knows that he's an alien. I'd assume he believes that it's not his place to interfere as much. He's there as a shield of a sort, but nothing beyond that.

So there is degrees as to how much Superman will interfere?

How does he decide what is interfering and what is just saving lives? A disease that he might be able to cure should be allowed to kill people, but what about a country that is experiencing mass genocide? Does he leave Metropolis and save the people or choose not too?

I just dont think the cancer thing should have been brought up, but that's just me.

Iroquois

12-13-2007, 02:00 AM

dupersuper

12-13-2007, 08:12 AM

There are plenty of geniuses throughout history who didn't cure cancer...

The Batman

12-13-2007, 11:57 AM

Actually, yes, there are degrees. The thing with Superman is that he will sort of "act in impulse", in the sense that if he hears a bridge falling, he'll catch it. But when it comes to gigantic decisions that affect directly humanity as a whole, he'll think about it twice. Imagine him curing cancer and two years in the future, the Earth being overpopulated. Who do you blame then?

Pretty much. Superman helps out in small and immediate ways like catching the occaisional falling girl reporter or stopping the odd bald evil genius. Things like the elimination of diesease and hunger and war, which to happen will require humankind to grow up and put behind them their differences and to work together towards a common good, he probably doesn't do because it'd mean that humanity would never have to grow up or mature, humanity would remain a child race under the care of a dotting overprotective Super-patriarch.

As it stands, Superman still looks after us, but not to such a degree that there aren't still things that we'll have to figure out for ourselves.

ultramandingo

12-13-2007, 12:52 PM

........howabot Joe Shuster Jerry Siegel selling off rights to their character for $130 !!!!!

http://www.greatkrypton.com/superman/creators.php

Choppa

12-13-2007, 01:07 PM

As it stands, Superman still looks after us, but not to such a degree that there aren't still things that we'll have to figure out for ourselves.

Along with this I always believed that Superman does help in some capacity in order to inspire humanity to rise above it's problems and have hope adn to be a role model for other superheroes.

Zacharius

12-13-2007, 01:43 PM

he probably doesn't do because it'd mean that humanity would never have to grow up or mature, humanity would remain a child race under the care of a dotting overprotective Super-patriarch.

This is still rationalisation to keep the world somewhat similar to real life Earth.

Readers simply do not want perfect paradise.

The prosaic reason for the lack of true change in the DCU involves publishing schedules and audience accessibility—the world the superheroes inhabit needs to be readily understandable by new readers; the imaginary world must match the real world up to a point. More importantly, a true superhero utopia would lack drama, and the imperfections of these universes makes room for the conflict that the stories require. (Admittedly, Gaiman's Miracleman issues challenge this last argument).

Powerboy

12-14-2007, 08:23 AM

Hell, I liked it. I got a kick out of Superman having to figure out ways to use his new powers to pull off the rescues he used to with ease.

Don't get me wrong, there were bad stories during that time, but that's because it was the 90s, not because Superman had new powers.

SEAN

I think DC gave a good explanation at the time when people were criticizing the electro-Superman. I read that talk show hosts were making fun of the powers and saying that's not the Superman they remember. Key word, "Remember" as in "When was the last time most of them actually bought a Superman comic?" As DC put it, they can make all the jokes they want but we are talking about a character who has been around for decades and people just were not reading him anymore. Anything that shakes up the status quo may bring ridicule from the purists but it also brings readers.

Powerboy

12-14-2007, 08:35 AM

5. Lex Luthor, static tycoon who can magically foil any and all attempts to expose him no matter how stupid and unrealistic his actions are.

15. Krypton as a cold, barren, lifeless dystopia that deserved to blow up and has no meaning to Superman.

16. Any additional survivors of Krypton beyond Krypto, Supergirl/Kara, General Zod, and Zod's little band of goons.

17. Superman, whiny, henpicked, incompetent crybaby with a major yellow streak.

18. Interlinked books where you're forced to buy books you may not like or may not be able to afford just to follow one story.

21. Superman and Batman being at odds and not trusting each other instead of having a snarky but profound friendship.

5. At first, Lex Luthor as a corporate owner was a good idea. Luthor the mad scientist had been done to death and was in an endless repetition of mad scheme foiled by Superman, off to jail again. Corporate Luthor was a villain for the 1980s that could be taken much more seriously. The problem, as with all good things, is that it too finally got old from endless repetition too and now mad scientist Luthor is starting to look good again for a while.

15. This was again a more 1980s cultural view of the dangers of technology and a more humanist view that its the human qualities that gave Superman his greatness. Yes it dumped a lot of the mythical perfect man idea but it worked in its time.

16. But Krypto is okay? Its just a matter of keeping around the characters and situations you've grown to like.

17. I don't get that at all unless you mean more a real person than a symbol.

18. I agree with that one. With the price of comics today, this Countdown "Try to make me buy another book" thing stinks.

21. Six of one, a half dozen of the other. The friendship was warm and fuzzy but it really didn't make sense unless they get to know each other for a long time and learn to trust each other considerig their very different attitudes and approaches.

DMike

12-17-2007, 01:41 PM

15. Krypton as a cold, barren, lifeless dystopia that deserved to blow up and has no meaning to Superman.

I'm still confused at the idea that the Byrne Krypton somehow deserved to blow up for being cold, barren, and lifeless compared to the Silver Age version. Is there some kind of unwritten standard that a society has to be warm, thriving, and emotional to deserve to exist? If anything, one would think the kind of planets that deserve to blow up are the violent war-faring ones like Apokolips or the Dominator/Spider Guild/Gordanian homeworlds.

PatrickG

12-17-2007, 02:37 PM

I'm still confused at the idea that the Byrne Krypton somehow deserved to blow up for being cold, barren, and lifeless compared to the Silver Age version. Is there some kind of unwritten standard that a society has to be warm, thriving, and emotional to deserve to exist? If anything, one would think the kind of planets that deserve to blow up are the violent war-faring ones like Apokolips or the Dominator/Spider Guild/Gordanian homeworlds.

He stated that his goal was to make it worthy of destruction. This fanned the flames a bit online when it came out.

J. Robb

12-17-2007, 04:03 PM

If anything, one would think the kind of planets that deserve to blow up are the violent war-faring ones like Apokolips or the Dominator/Spider Guild/Gordanian homeworlds.
Or the "New Earth" Krypton.

ultramandingo

12-17-2007, 07:08 PM

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg106/ultramandingo/supermancontrecassiusclay.gif

Bored at 3:00AM

12-18-2007, 03:47 AM

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg106/ultramandingo/supermancontrecassiusclay.gif

I respectfully disagree in the strongest manner possible. I think this is one of the best ideas in the history of Superman comics.

ultramandingo

12-18-2007, 08:54 AM

.......... in the french version superman surenders before the fight starts . and lois has hairy pits

FortKnox

12-18-2007, 09:42 AM

http://images2.fotosik.pl/98/7ac74c53078e18e6.jpg

Heh old John seems real happy to have some more black heroes in DC. Batman looks like he doesn't give a rat's ass.

Sean Whitmore

12-18-2007, 03:39 PM

http://images2.fotosik.pl/98/7ac74c53078e18e6.jpg

So you've got a problem with black people, I'm forced to assume?

SEAN

Iroquois

12-18-2007, 03:55 PM

mattx110

12-18-2007, 04:04 PM

"when did your krypton explode?"

smile, handshake? pat on the back...

Did he plant the bombs himself?!?!!!?

circle superman is a horrible superperson!

edit: and I know exactly what green lantern there is thinking.

Sean Whitmore

12-18-2007, 04:20 PM

I'd assume he meant something along the lines of perverted political correctness that ends up being racist, since it's presenting a parallel world where Superman just has to be black, as if color is so improtant that defines you.

Only assuming of course, I've never read the book.

It's possible, though it'd be a ridiculous overreaction.

Of course, he didn't say anything of the sort, so there's really no telling.

SEAN

CBikle

12-18-2007, 04:59 PM

"when did your krypton explode?"

smile, handshake? pat on the back...

I'm just guessing there was an awkward silence for about a minute and then Superman excused himself to talk with Eskimo Batman from Earth 14.

mattx110

12-18-2007, 05:07 PM

I'm just guessing there was an awkward silence for about a minute and then Superman excused himself to talk with Eskimo Batman from Earth 14.
DC should get Paul Cornell to redo this story.

earth-20 superman: "By RAO, another universe with it's own Superman? Tell me, is Krypton....?"
our superman: "I barely knew it when it was lost. All I have are recreations of Artifacts, and some pieces of Brainiac kept in stasis."
e-20: "I'm so sorry. It was beautiful. Pride of the galaxies"
superman: "please, tell me about our home".

edit: I know I'm ignoring Jerry Siegel's Superman back in time story, but that's still only a short amount of time, and he didn't get to know the real Krypton, just re-experience the pain of it's loss

edit edit: my completely fictional unlikely hypothetical has an editor's note, I was born in the wrong era of comics.

Anakin Flair

12-25-2007, 07:08 PM

43. Luthor cloning himself and pretending to be his own son while sleeping with Supergirl.

That wasn't a bad idea, that was Lex being a Mack-Daddy, not to mention being a great mind-frak against Supes. Imagine how bad for Superman it would have been if Supergirl at the time had been Kara?

Personally, the one idea I never got was the whole Peter David run of Supergirl, turning her into an earth-bound angel. It just seems like he had an idea for a comic, but DC gave him Supergirl instead. And look- when he got his own book, it was apparently the same darn thing, minus Supergirl.

blackphoenix

02-11-2008, 01:37 PM

Lana Lang on Smallville. Being a weepy victim for most of the series, she's now a certified psycho who's willing to torture people . And she is sometimes possessed by an ancestor who was a witch.:rolleyes:

Lois and Clark. Why did I ever watch that show??

Again, the current Supergirl. She's gone from a super powered bully to a complete cipher.

Steve Lombard in the '70's and All Star Superman. Why do we/did we need this douchebag? Do we really need someone to bully Clark just for the hell of it?

Super Jimmy. I REFUSE to believe Olsen is a big deal now.

Klas Wullt

03-30-2011, 12:38 PM

But I like several of these ideas. It is a matter of taste,
don't be so bent to say " Kryptons list can ONLY be described as bad ideas".

Particulary 2,5,7,15,21 and 34.

Krypton as alien was good and MODERN up to date believable.
The conflict between Batman and Superman made alot of sense
and was dramatic. I never liked the best friends becouse they are both on the good side.
Lex Luther as fat powermonger and dirty politician
was thrilling and believable.

Most of the Smallville ideas you mentions are good becouse they dont
let superman wear a uggly costume, he doesnt fly and he actually have human feelings with all the weakness that it brings.
Sacrificing a human life for good cause is a grown up and realistic
moral scenario.

25. was a good modern and more subtle reintreprintation.
I was so sad Brainiac reverted to the old android version.

1. Superman being Passion of the Christed to death.

2. Doomsday, mindless killer with no personality.

3. Lois Lane, abusive wife and shrew for all seasons.

4. Jeb Friedman, the man who hooked up with Lois right after Superman's funeral and eventually stole her away from Superman.

5. Lex Luthor, static tycoon who can magically foil any and all attempts to expose him no matter how stupid and unrealistic his actions are.

6. ElectroSupes.

7. The thankfully-rejected idea that Superman's parents survivied in suspended animation.

8. Any kryptonite beyond gree, red, blue, gold and white.

9. Clark Kent willingly sacrficing an innocent life in exchange for resurrecting Lana Lang, killing Jonathan Kent in the process. (Yes, Smallville, line up and take your 40 whacks.)

10. Smallville's Lana Lang being the end-all be-all of the Superman mythos and the reason why Clark Kent and Lex Luthor become enemies.

11. Any Super-Pets beyond Krypto.

12. Extradimensional protoplasmic shapeshifter merged with an earthbound angle with fire wings Supergirl.

13. Cir-El Supergirl.

14. Russian cosmonaut Zod.

15. Krypton as a cold, barren, lifeless dystopia that deserved to blow up and has no meaning to Superman.

16. Any additional survivors of Krypton beyond Krypto, Supergirl/Kara, General Zod, and Zod's little band of goons.

17. Superman, whiny, henpicked, incompetent crybaby with a major yellow streak.

18. Interlinked books where you're forced to buy books you may not like or may not be able to afford just to follow one story.

19. The clutter of useless supporting characters in the latter half of the Jurgens era.

20. Terra Man in any incarnation.

21. Superman and Batman being at odds and not trusting each other instead of having a snarky but profound friendship.

22. Bloodthirst the crossdresser.

23. Superboy's punk haircut and earring.

24. Steel's flirtation with being a mutahuman.

25. Brainiac, the fatso carny who gets possessed by an alien intelligence and goes through bodies like most people go through candy bars.

26. Vartox's Zardoz costume.

27. Assembly-line Bizarros who get killed off with astounding regularity.

28. Gus Gorman and Ross Webster.

29. Nuclear Man.

30. Movie Luthor realizing that Kryptonian crystals could make weapons and vehicles he can use to conquer the world and wasting his time making an island instead.

31. Frog-eating Lois clones.

32. Lex Luthor, Pepe Le Pew-like Lois Lane stalker.

33. Teenybopper Metallo.

34. Resplendent Man.

35. Shelley Long, Drew Carey, Delta Burke, and other such losers as supervillains.

36. Clark Kent refusing to fly on Smallville or even try to live for anything other than Lana Lang when superheroes abound around him.

37. Imperiex, the Galactus wannabe who was nothing but a badly conceived plot device.

38. Lena Luthor -- first she's a baby, then she's genetically altered and force-grown into an adult Brainiac woman, then she's a baby again, then she's retconned out. What was the point of all this?

39. Devouris the Conqueror. The Tom Thumb version of Galactus, only incompetent.

40. Strange Visitor.

41. The whole of "For Tomorrow."

42. Dr. Polaris acting like a Bettie Page wannabe named Repulse.

43. Luthor cloning himself and pretending to be his own son while sleeping with Supergirl.

You know what? I have to stop here. Thinking of all the garbage that's polluted Superman since the Iron Age (and a few bad ideas before that) is just making me angry.

jade_nova

03-30-2011, 01:03 PM

The constant reuse of Doomsday after his initial appearence.

Klas Wullt

03-30-2011, 01:04 PM

I loved the electroblue Superman.
It made me buy a issue of translated Justice League
for the first time in years.
Then I was dissappointed when the old superman steriotype still exists
in wikipedia.

I loved the 90-thies. I read those comics and boughts them.
I liked them. The darker and more cynical comics
where grown up and believable.

Superman was always problematic for me.
I thought Green Lantern, Justice Leage, Teen Titans and Batman
where often more grim and politically realistic.
Superman was difficult becouse its so optimsitic and naive
plus the character is to powerfull.
In the 90thies he got less powerfull and metropolis
darker but superman was still something optimistic
but in a grim world.
Metropolis become for me something with both dark and light
where Superman could fail and make mistakes.
I liked when there where no alternative realities
and when superman couldnt travel time and alternative earths.
Kingdom Come represented everything I didnt like about superman and the other comics.
The naive and optimistic Superman seem have won against
all more diverse and interesting version of the man of steel.

I always wanted to make my own superman, one more compatible with the dark batman universe.
Basically like the first Batman movies, but superman instead.

I would want superman to be genetically enginered alien to have human form
to fit in the human world.
I never liked the kryptonians being space humans looking just like humans
or the universe being overpopulated by "alien" species that either look just
like humans or like Disney figures.
Basically remove all aliens from Superman except those that you can keep more subtle.
The Marsian Hunter and that girl in teen titan are the only DC aliens I like.

Mat001

03-30-2011, 01:23 PM

Never looked in here til now.

3. Lois Lane, abusive wife and shrew for all seasons.

She's abusive?

4. Jeb Friedman, the man who hooked up with Lois right after Superman's funeral and eventually stole her away from Superman.

Uh, no. That didn't happen. Jeb never hooked up with her after Clark died. He tried to, but she pushed him off. When she broke off the engagement, it had nothing to do with Jeb and she was not interested in him. It was all about her fears and insecurities regarding her individuality and marriage.

5. Lex Luthor, static tycoon who can magically foil any and all attempts to expose him no matter how stupid and unrealistic his actions are.

Yet it's the most popular incarnation and has worked. If you prepare ten steps ahead, then you'll survive.

9. Clark Kent willingly sacrficing an innocent life in exchange for resurrecting Lana Lang, killing Jonathan Kent in the process. (Yes, Smallville, line up and take your 40 whacks.)

He didn't know that someone would die. Jor-El just told him that he would have to pay a price in order for there to be balance to the universe. And as noted, Jonathan would've died had Lana not been on that road that night.

10. Smallville's Lana Lang being the end-all be-all of the Superman mythos and the reason why Clark Kent and Lex Luthor become enemies.

Did you even watch the show? They became enemies because Lex started acting like Lionel used to and proved that he was not going to let go of his obsession with finding out what happened on that bridge the day they met again. Clark and Lex were already enemies by season four, long before Lex took up with Lana.

12. Extradimensional protoplasmic shapeshifter merged with an earthbound angle with fire wings Supergirl.

Sorry, can't agree.

15. Krypton as a cold, barren, lifeless dystopia that deserved to blow up and has no meaning to Superman.

How did it deserve to blow up?

17. Superman, whiny, henpicked, incompetent crybaby with a major yellow streak.

Seriously?

18. Interlinked books where you're forced to buy books you may not like or may not be able to afford just to follow one story.

And yet the best stories came from then.

23. Superboy's punk haircut and earring.

Take it you don't like guys with earrings?

24. Steel's flirtation with being a mutahuman.

He's always been a Metahuman. Simonson hinted at it early on.

25. Brainiac, the fatso carny who gets possessed by an alien intelligence and goes through bodies like most people go through candy bars.

Cannot agree.

27. Assembly-line Bizarros who get killed off with astounding regularity.

Of which only three occured.

30. Movie Luthor realizing that Kryptonian crystals could make weapons and vehicles he can use to conquer the world and wasting his time making an island instead.

That's because he wants to be rich.

36. Clark Kent refusing to fly on Smallville or even try to live for anything other than Lana Lang when superheroes abound around him.

That's because he wants to be normal. We all want to be normal.

43. Luthor cloning himself and pretending to be his own son while sleeping with Supergirl.

Made for a good storyline. Opened up all kinds of avenues. Plus, it wiped Lex's slate clean for a couple of years.

stk

03-30-2011, 03:01 PM

Yet it's the most popular incarnation and has worked.That's arguable, at best. And I don't think it's an argument you'd win.

"Most popular incarnation of Lex Luthor with the continuously diminishing readership born and begun reading during a particular era"? Sure, maybe. "Most popular incarnation" in general? No, I don't think any kind of numbers would support that.

pariah-1972

03-30-2011, 03:16 PM

Doomsday 'nuff said.

BFF

03-30-2011, 07:37 PM

Handing JMS the reigns.

In fact, overall, he was probably handed too much too soon by DC, i.e. 2/3rds of Trinity. Perhaps having him gradually ease into the DCU over the course of a couple years would've been a better approach. I mean, DC basically hired him fresh off his embarrassing and disastrous One More Day storyline over at Marvel, so it's not like DC caught this star at his highest point. I know JMS wouldn't have gone for writing Booster Gold or something like that but maybe giving him Wonder Woman first, have prove himself on that title, before handing him Supes would've been a better way to do it. JMS was at Marvel for years. Let him adjust to DC a bit first. The way things played out instead, JMS burned out while writing unpopular stories on both titles before having to turn things over to other writers and taking a hiatus from monthlies.

Grounded was a horrible idea, a slap in the face to Superman fans, and exposed JMS' Marvel-ness. I mean, imagine a hypothetical Marvel fanboy who hates DC and hates Supes, and imagine this hypothetical fanboy writing Superman. Wouldn't Grounded have been one of the ideas that emerged from the fanboy's mind? Can you imagine an more insulting storyline than the old Marvel chestnut of "the people can't connect with Superman" so let's have him walk across America and connect with them? I can't. And yet DC editorial let JMS run with it, even after Grant Morrison already showed the way on how to write Superman with All-Star. You don't write Supes "grounded," you write him epic. Period.

As far as this DC fan is concerned, JMS can stay on hiatus forever.

thwhtGuardian

03-30-2011, 07:43 PM

That's arguable, at best. And I don't think it's an argument you'd win.

"Most popular incarnation of Lex Luthor with the continuously diminishing readership born and begun reading during a particular era"? Sure, maybe. "Most popular incarnation" in general? No, I don't think any kind of numbers would support that.

Comic sales might be down, but you have to figure that business tycoon Lex existed in outside media as well. For all the kids who grew up watch the Superman cartoon, and to a lesser extent Justice League, corporate fat cat Lex was the only Lex they knew so that's who the character was for them. I imagine that population out weighs the populations that are still fans of previous versions.

RickIsley

03-30-2011, 08:13 PM

stk

03-30-2011, 10:38 PM

Comic sales might be down, but you have to figure that business tycoon Lex existed in outside media as well. For all the kids who grew up watch the Superman cartoon,When it comes to TV, kids will watch whatever is put in front of them. It's not up to them what version of Lex they are given. The cartoon was trying to reflect the then-current comics.

and to a lesser extent Justice League, corporate fat cat Lex was the only Lex they knew....annnnnnd no. Justice League Lex was a mix between (former) fatcat combined with super-criminal and super-scientist. And my perception is that Justice League was a more popular cartoon than Superman TAS.

So I don't buy that argument.

thwhtGuardian

03-30-2011, 10:42 PM

When it comes to TV, kids will watch whatever is put in front of them. It's not up to them what version of Lex they are given. The cartoon was trying to reflect the then-current comics.

....annnnnnd no. Justice League Lex was a mix between (former) fatcat combined with super-criminal and super-scientist. And my perception is that Justice League was a more popular cartoon than Superman TAS.

So I don't buy that argument.

Which why I said to a lesser extent, but the fact that children watched Superman TAS and that was most likely their primary exposure so that is who the character was in their minds and that's all that matters. Smallville is another example, there Lex was very much like the one from TAS and again is the sole interpretation of the character for a large number of people.

stk

03-30-2011, 11:49 PM

Which why I said to a lesser extent, but the fact that children watched Superman TAS and that was most likely their primary exposure so that is who the character was in their minds and that's all that matters. Smallville is another example, there Lex was very much like the one from TAS and again is the sole interpretation of the character for a large number of people.
I don't think you can lump Smallville Lex in with TAS Lex or Byrne Lex at all.

Similarities: They are rich

Differences: Everything else. Completely different personalities, to begin with.

And as far as primary exposure goes, it could be argued more kids' primary exposure was through Justice League and the super-scientist/criminal version just by benefit of the series running more seasons. And in the cartoons post-Justice League, starting from Doomsday and running through the various DTVs, Lex has always been portrayed as super-genius scientist along with whatever else the particular story requires (I guess with the possible exception of Public Enemies).

So again, sorry, MoS fans. A popular version of Lex, yes. With a certain segment of fans growing up during a specific range of time. Most popular, I don't think so.

Reptisaurus!

03-31-2011, 12:23 AM

Silver Age Lois Lane in general.

dupersuper

03-31-2011, 01:34 AM

But I like several of these ideas.

Yeah, that's just a list of Byrne reboot/post Crisis hate.

NotSuper

03-31-2011, 01:50 AM

Yeah, that's just a list of Byrne reboot/post Crisis hate.
No it's not. There are ideas on there from all eras, and movies and TV shows.

NotSuper

03-31-2011, 01:52 AM

No it's not. There are ideas on there from all eras, and movies and TV shows.
Not saying I agree with all of them, but saying they're "just Byrne hate" is flat-out wrong.

dupersuper

03-31-2011, 02:03 AM

No it's not. There are ideas on there from all eras, and movies and TV shows.

True, but...

Originally Posted by King Krypton
1. Superman being Passion of the Christed to death.

2. Doomsday, mindless killer with no personality.

3. Lois Lane, abusive wife and shrew for all seasons.

4. Jeb Friedman, the man who hooked up with Lois right after Superman's funeral and eventually stole her away from Superman.

5. Lex Luthor, static tycoon who can magically foil any and all attempts to expose him no matter how stupid and unrealistic his actions are.

6. ElectroSupes.

7. The thankfully-rejected idea that Superman's parents survivied in suspended animation.

8. Any kryptonite beyond green, red, blue, gold and white.

9. Clark Kent willingly sacrficing an innocent life in exchange for resurrecting Lana Lang, killing Jonathan Kent in the process. (Yes, Smallville, line up and take your 40 whacks.)

10. Smallville's Lana Lang being the end-all be-all of the Superman mythos and the reason why Clark Kent and Lex Luthor become enemies.

11. Any Super-Pets beyond Krypto.

12. Extradimensional protoplasmic shapeshifter merged with an earthbound angle with fire wings Supergirl.

13. Cir-El Supergirl.

14. Russian cosmonaut Zod.

15. Krypton as a cold, barren, lifeless dystopia that deserved to blow up and has no meaning to Superman.

16. Any additional survivors of Krypton beyond Krypto, Supergirl/Kara, General Zod, and Zod's little band of goons.

17. Superman, whiny, henpicked, incompetent crybaby with a major yellow streak.

18. Interlinked books where you're forced to buy books you may not like or may not be able to afford just to follow one story.

19. The clutter of useless supporting characters in the latter half of the Jurgens era.

20. Terra Man in any incarnation.

21. Superman and Batman being at odds and not trusting each other instead of having a snarky but profound friendship.

22. Bloodthirst the crossdresser.

23. Superboy's punk haircut and earring.

24. Steel's flirtation with being a mutahuman.

25. Brainiac, the fatso carny who gets possessed by an alien intelligence and goes through bodies like most people go through candy bars.

26. Vartox's Zardoz costume.

27. Assembly-line Bizarros who get killed off with astounding regularity.

28. Gus Gorman and Ross Webster.

29. Nuclear Man.

30. Movie Luthor realizing that Kryptonian crystals could make weapons and vehicles he can use to conquer the world and wasting his time making an island instead.

31. Frog-eating Lois clones.

32. Lex Luthor, Pepe Le Pew-like Lois Lane stalker.

33. Teenybopper Metallo.

34. Resplendent Man.

35. Shelley Long, Drew Carey, Delta Burke, and other such losers as supervillains.

36. Clark Kent refusing to fly on Smallville or even try to live for anything other than Lana Lang when superheroes abound around him.

37. Imperiex, the Galactus wannabe who was nothing but a badly conceived plot device.

38. Lena Luthor -- first she's a baby, then she's genetically altered and force-grown into an adult Brainiac woman, then she's a baby again, then she's retconned out. What was the point of all this?

39. Devouris the Conqueror. The Tom Thumb version of Galactus, only incompetent.

40. Strange Visitor.

41. The whole of "For Tomorrow."

42. Dr. Polaris acting like a Bettie Page wannabe named Repulse.

43. Luthor cloning himself and pretending to be his own son while sleeping with Supergirl

That's 20 out of 43 about the Byrne/Wolfman years or the triangle era that built on it, more if you count the Terra Man from that time in #20, Doomsdays beating Supes to death as 1, Lexs thing with Lois in 32...

NotSuper

03-31-2011, 02:09 AM

True, but...

*lost list*

That's 20 out of 43 about the Byrne/Wolfman years or the triangle era that built on it, more if you count the Terra Man from that time in #20, Doomsdays beating Supes to death as 1, Lexs thing with Lois in 32...
20 out of 43? That's basically half of them. That doesn't really help your point.

It'd be easier to just say you made a mistake. Why try to rationalize it?

NotSuper

03-31-2011, 02:11 AM

Also, #7 was a Silver Age idea, not a post-Crisis one.

dupersuper

03-31-2011, 10:23 PM

20 out of 43? That's basically half of them. That doesn't really help your point.

It'd be easier to just say you made a mistake. Why try to rationalize it?

Except I don't think I did; half is a rather large percentage given that the list is supposed to come from all over Supermans history in all media.

Also, #7 was a Silver Age idea, not a post-Crisis one.

Sorry; I though you were referring to Byrnes almost bringing Lara along.

Also, just to dispute specific points I don't agree with you on:

Originally Posted by King Krypton
3. Lois Lane, abusive wife and shrew for all seasons.

What books are you reading??

4. Jeb Friedman, the man who hooked up with Lois right after Superman's funeral and eventually stole her away from Superman.

"stole her"? Come on; he got 1 kiss while she thought Clark was dead.

6. ElectroSupes.

It was just a limited story, I don't see the big deal.

9. Clark Kent willingly sacrficing an innocent life in exchange for resurrecting Lana Lang, killing Jonathan Kent in the process. (Yes, Smallville, line up and take your 40 whacks.)

Smallville has issues, but I don't recall Clark being given much of a choice in the matter.

10. Smallville's Lana Lang being the end-all be-all of the Superman mythos and the reason why Clark Kent and Lex Luthor become enemies.

She's only 1 reason, and 2nd at best (1st being Lex feeling betrayed by his only real friend not trusting him enough to share his secret), and she hasn't even been a regular character for like 3 years.

12. Extradimensional protoplasmic shapeshifter merged with an earthbound angle with fire wings Supergirl.

It gave us the Peter David series, so I don't care.

13. Cir-El Supergirl.

She was around for, like, 5 issues as a plot from Brainiac.

14. Russian cosmonaut Zod.

A silly idea, but I thought it was as well done as could be expected.

15. Krypton as a cold, barren, lifeless dystopia that deserved to blow up and has no meaning to Superman.

I don't see Byrnes Krypton as "deserving to blow up", and I like the contrast. It means nothing to have Clark choose his humanity over his Kryptonian heritage if Kryptonians are just humans with hovercars.

17. Superman, whiny, henpicked, incompetent crybaby with a major yellow streak.

I seriously have no idea where this is coming from.

18. Interlinked books where you're forced to buy books you may not like or may not be able to afford just to follow one story.

I'm being influenced by unapologetic nostalgia, but I loved the triangle era.

19. The clutter of useless supporting characters in the latter half of the Jurgens era.

Which ones are you calling useless?

20. Terra Man in any incarnation.

He's a space cowboy...what's not to like?

21. Superman and Batman being at odds and not trusting each other instead of having a snarky but profound friendship.

Being at odds works early on; I agree it's silly when done now.

29. Nuclear Man.

I thought he was a potentially salvagable villain caught in a horrid, horrid movie.

33. Teenybopper Metallo.

What's this from?

35. Shelley Long, Drew Carey, Delta Burke, and other such losers as supervillains.

Silly camp villains worked ok for Bats in the 60s...

38. Lena Luthor -- first she's a baby, then she's genetically altered and force-grown into an adult Brainiac woman, then she's a baby again, then she's retconned out. What was the point of all this?

If we ask "What was the point of the retconned out DC character" we could start a whole new thread...

39. Devouris the Conqueror. The Tom Thumb version of Galactus, only incompetent.

A 1 issue joke character...

41. The whole of "For Tomorrow."

The whole? It had major issues, but I liked some of his talk with the priest and his threats to the elementals.

Imitorar

04-01-2011, 04:24 AM

Comic sales might be down, but you have to figure that business tycoon Lex existed in outside media as well. For all the kids who grew up watch the Superman cartoon, and to a lesser extent Justice League, corporate fat cat Lex was the only Lex they knew so that's who the character was for them. I imagine that population out weighs the populations that are still fans of previous versions.

I grew up on Superman: The Animated Series, and the Lex Luthor of Red Son blew my mind (as did the hyper-powerful Superman of Red Son, for that matter). I had never seen Luthor portrayed like that before, and I instantly loved that take on the character far more than that of the industrialist in the cartoon. Not that everyone would have a similar reaction, but as stk pointed out, people will go with that interpretation of Luthor because they haven't seen anything else, when it may be that an alternate take on Luthor would appeal to them more if they were aware of it.

As to bad ideas in the history of Superman comics, Man of Steel. I'm an Iron Age Superman hater, and Man of Steel did several things utterly wrong. I'd say the big ones were the Batman relationship, the removal of Superboy (and the effect that had on the poor Legion, who might still make sense if it hadn't happened) and the dead Krypton that Superman just sort of ignored. But the whole thing just seemed off in tone, and it led the character in a direction that I think was mostly off for the next 20 years or so, with occasional high points.

Crisis

04-01-2011, 11:59 AM

Not having Lana and Superman marry b4 crisis ended. *since Clark and Lana were dating seriously at the time and he and lois were broken up*

Having both of them find out he was superman and showing real consequences of his lying to them about it over the years...lana more so since she knew him longer. (pre-crisis)

NotSuper

04-01-2011, 02:33 PM

Except I don't think I did; half is a rather large percentage given that the list is supposed to come from all over Supermans history in all media.
By that line of reasoning, you could argue that the list is against other media adaptations of Superman. You're seeing what you want to see here and ignoring factors that don't support you. It's called confirmation bias.

Sorry; I though you were referring to Byrnes almost bringing Lara along.
I wasn't referring to anything. I was pointing out what King Krypton was referring to.

Also, just to dispute specific points I don't agree with you on:
Huh? I didn't make the list. :confused:

Action Ace

04-01-2011, 07:47 PM

I adore King Krypton. His posts on various sites in the last fifteen years have saved me hours (days?) of posting. :biggrin:

dupersuper

04-01-2011, 09:26 PM

By that line of reasoning, you could argue that the list is against other media adaptations of Superman. You're seeing what you want to see here and ignoring factors that don't support you. It's called confirmation bias.

No, by that line of reasoning you'd have to have half the examples from 1 specific source for me to argue the list is against that particular source. There are far more examples from the Byrne/triangle eras than any other. That's not bias; that's counting.

Huh? I didn't make the list. :confused:

Sorry; I assumed it was yours when you took issue with my comments on it.

cetansib

04-02-2011, 04:41 PM

How about "A super-powered 15-year-old Kryptonian girl? I know, I'll put her in an Earth orphanage!" Silver Age Supes is really lucky that didn't work out badly.

On that subject, the modern version - "A super-powered 17-year-old Kryptonian girl? I know, I'll have Bruce give her an unlimited bank account to draw on and leave her on her own." Yikes! Only an adult who has never lived with a teenager would think that's a good idea. And yes, they implied it was her idea. Yep, that's the way it usually works.:eek:

AdamYJ

04-02-2011, 05:01 PM

Comic sales might be down, but you have to figure that business tycoon Lex existed in outside media as well. For all the kids who grew up watch the Superman cartoon, and to a lesser extent Justice League, corporate fat cat Lex was the only Lex they knew so that's who the character was for them. I imagine that population out weighs the populations that are still fans of previous versions.

Just aiming this at everybody who's talking about the Luthor thing.

Honestly, I don't think Lex Luthor's that great in either incarnation.

The problem with the corporate fatcat Luthor is that he has this tendency of taking over everything. It's like he can't lety anyone else in Metropolis be evil without his being involved. He's overexposed.

The problem with mad scientist Lex is that he's really just not that interesting or fun a villian. I've read some of his stories and my feeling is "So what."

Businessman Luthor is the one I know best. I also understand that he's an important villian in any of his incarnations. However, I have yet to find a version of Luthor that I like and am excited to read about.

superchick

04-03-2011, 10:40 AM

Jody Garland

04-03-2011, 11:01 AM

I don't think many were bad ideas, but one that sticks out to me is the Triangle era. Now, I haven't read many of that era, and have heard little but good things, but the idea of four/five interlinked books a month is one I don't like.

That said, it seems to have been executed quite well. Just because something is a bad idea doesn't mean the execution can't be good, same as the opposite.

Other things I thought were bad ideas:
Removing Superboy. The idea that Superman wasn't Superboy is fine; it's just that removing him in the main continuity causes too much continuity issues.

ANYTHING with Superman's parents surviving. Well, OK, that recent Elseworlds story is a different case.

Lex Luthor staying a businessman for as long as he did. It's a cool idea, but it gets silly that he can stay out of serious trouble after a while.

NotSuper

04-03-2011, 01:17 PM

No, by that line of reasoning you'd have to have half the examples from 1 specific source for me to argue the list is against that particular source. There are far more examples from the Byrne/triangle eras than any other. That's not bias; that's counting.
No. First of all, the Byrne and triangle/90s eras are NOT the same. Linking them together to prove your point is you seeing what you want to see. Post-crisis does not just equal Byrne--lots of other writers there.

AdamYJ

04-03-2011, 03:44 PM

ANYTHING with Superman's parents surviving. Well, OK, that recent Elseworlds story is a different case.

You mean the Kents or the Els? Personally, I kind of like the Kents surviving. However, I'm a Post-Crisis boy.

Lex Luthor staying a businessman for as long as he did. It's a cool idea, but it gets silly that he can stay out of serious trouble after a while.

They essentially dethroned him a while back. However, they didn't seem to know what to do with him once he was a "renegade scientist" again. Of course, it's possible that the well of Luthor stories has become a bit dry.

Jody Garland

04-03-2011, 05:14 PM

I meant the Els. I like the Kents living into Clark's adulthood.

I'm familiar with Luthor being dethroned. His arc through Infinite Crisis-52-Geoff's Action Comics was a favorite of mine in that era. I like the idea of him returning to being a mad scientist. It's the best of both worlds- he was a superintelligent businessman who inevitably fell.

The Batman

04-03-2011, 05:27 PM

I'm familiar with Luthor being dethroned. His arc through Infinite Crisis-52-Geoff's Action Comics was a favorite of mine in that era. I like the idea of him returning to being a mad scientist. It's the best of both worlds- he was a superintelligent businessman who inevitably fell.

Which, from what I understand, had been the plan for the character when Lexcorp was first introduced in Man of Steel. And yeah, I like the idea of Lex Luthor genius super-criminal who is free from the artifice of having to play the respectable businessman.

NotSuper

04-03-2011, 05:32 PM

Which, from what I understand, had been the plan for the character when Lexcorp was first introduced in Man of Steel. And yeah, I like the idea of Lex Luthor genius super-criminal who is free from the artifice of having to play the respectable businessman.
I think that was more Wolfman's idea than Byrne's. (By that I mean Luthor returning to being a public criminal after being brought down.) I remember Wolfman's stories always off-handedly mentioning Luthor's scientist past. For example, he told Hamilton that he sometimes "missed being back in the lab" and doing "scientific work" himself. Also, before being betrayed by Lex, Hamilton (a super-scientist in his own right) seemed to hold a deep respect for Luthor's genius.

lariatofhestia

04-03-2011, 05:38 PM

Anything that has people coming to the conclusion that Clark is a whiny, preachy, whipped, boring, naive, dimwit jock.

Mayowa

04-03-2011, 05:56 PM

Anything that has people coming to the conclusion that Clark is a whiny, preachy, whipped, boring, naive, dimwit jock.

Booyah!

10char

stk

04-04-2011, 12:37 AM

when Lexcorp was first introduced in Man of Steel.Actually, the idea of LexCorp was first introduced pre-Man of Steel and pre-CoIE. As was the idea of Luthor being a successful businessman.

From the LexCorp page on wikipedia:
Later writers such Elliot S. Maggin refined this idea. In his in-continuity novel Superman: Last Son of Krypton Luthor is revealed to secretly own the Thunder Corporation, a very large and powerful company that he uses as a front to finance his criminal organization. The Chairman of the Board and principle stockholder of Thunder Corporation was a non-existent billionaire playboy named Lucius D. Tommytown. Luthor would occasionally hire an actor to portray Tommytown in order to continue the illusion and would even write fanciful reports about the playboy's activities and having them sent to a magazine under the alias Brian Wallingford. The headquarters for the Thunder Corporation legitimate operations and, unbeknownst to all, headquarters for Lex Luthor's criminal empire and location of his penthouse suite was the Zephrymore Building. Luthor went through an elaborate ruse because he thought himself too honest to pretend to be anything but a criminal.

Maggin speculated that Luthor, whom he characterized as not being compeltely evil would eventually reform and, retiring from crime, become a legitimate business man. In Superman #416, it is shown that his company Lex Corp, would go on to be tremendously successful. A future Superman is pleased to learn that his old friend's holographic devices are standard equipment for reporters.

Mat001

04-04-2011, 12:42 PM

I don't think you can lump Smallville Lex in with TAS Lex or Byrne Lex at all.

Similarities: They are rich

Differences: Everything else. Completely different personalities, to begin with.

And as far as primary exposure goes, it could be argued more kids' primary exposure was through Justice League and the super-scientist/criminal version just by benefit of the series running more seasons. And in the cartoons post-Justice League, starting from Doomsday and running through the various DTVs, Lex has always been portrayed as super-genius scientist along with whatever else the particular story requires (I guess with the possible exception of Public Enemies).

So again, sorry, MoS fans. A popular version of Lex, yes. With a certain segment of fans growing up during a specific range of time. Most popular, I don't think so.

Been busy lately, but now I can respond to this. You're post here is all kinds of wrong. Ever since MOS, Lex has been portrayed as a businessman in nearly every incarnation outside of the comics. Yes, he's also depicted as a scientist, but then again, Byrne and Wolfman established that Lex's beginnings had him use his genius to build his fortune from three thousand dollars. It was only after building Lexcorp that he let his employees handle the grunt work. But the outside media, excluding the films, had him as a corporate man.

-1988 gave us the newest animated series on CBS. A short lived 13 episode run, which was based off of MOS and featured designs by Gil Kane. Lex, in this version, was businessman Lex.

-That same year we had the debut of "Superboy"/"The Adventures Of Superboy". In this version, Lex is the fugitive scientist except in "Roads Not Taken", we see in a parallel universe that Lex became a major political and corporate leader before being murdered by Superboy.

-In 1993, "Lois & Clark" debuted and featured businessman Lex for the first season. Seasons two and three had Lex as a fugitive, but his background was in business.

-1996 saw the debut of "Superman: The Animated Series". Lex is the head of Lexcorp and has a scientific background which is played up more in "Justice League" and "Justice League Unlimited". But he's still a businessman.

-2001 gave us "Smallville" and for the next seven seasons, Lex was working at Luthorcorp. Even taking over as CEO before his injuries at the end of season seven and his death in season eight. Ergo, he was a businessman.

-2006 gave us the horrible "Brainiac Attacks" animated film, where Lex is in charge of Lexcorp once again. He does don the battle armor and demonstrates a scientific background, but he still runs his own company.

-That same year we had the episode of "The Batman" where Superman made his debut and in that same episode, Lex is portrayed as the CEO of Lexcorp.

-2007 had Lex running Lexcorp in "Superman: Doomsday".

-2008 gave us a cameo of Lex in his office at Lexcorp, in "New Frontier".

-2009's "Public Enemies" refers to Lex as the CEO of Lexcorp before becoming President.

-2011's "All Star Superman" refers to Lex's past before his downfall as a businessman.

And let's backtrack a moment to the films. While the first two were made before MOS, in all the films with Lex, he is a scientist criminal who is into real estate. And according to the first film, his venture is known as Lex Luthor Incorperated. Not exactly a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, but in every sense of the word, he's a businessman. Now, his earlier portrayals such as "Super Friends" and "Super Powers" had him as an evil scientist only, but for most of his media career, he's been either a CEO or both a scientist and a CEO.

The fact that WB keeps turning to that, shows how popular it really is.

The problem with the corporate fatcat Luthor is that he has this tendency of taking over everything. It's like he can't lety anyone else in Metropolis be evil without his being involved.

When you're top dog, you don't want someone to come and knock you off your perch. It's the same way that Bruce Wayne didn't like anyone operating in Gotham that wasn't trained by him personally. And he would tell them to get out of his city.

CaptainLiberty76

04-04-2011, 01:05 PM

1. Superman being Passion of the Christed to death.

2. Doomsday, mindless killer with no personality.

3. Lois Lane, abusive wife and shrew for all seasons.

4. Jeb Friedman, the man who hooked up with Lois right after Superman's funeral and eventually stole her away from Superman.

5. Lex Luthor, static tycoon who can magically foil any and all attempts to expose him no matter how stupid and unrealistic his actions are.

6. ElectroSupes.

7. The thankfully-rejected idea that Superman's parents survivied in suspended animation.

8. Any kryptonite beyond green, red, blue, gold and white.

9. Clark Kent willingly sacrficing an innocent life in exchange for resurrecting Lana Lang, killing Jonathan Kent in the process. (Yes, Smallville, line up and take your 40 whacks.)

10. Smallville's Lana Lang being the end-all be-all of the Superman mythos and the reason why Clark Kent and Lex Luthor become enemies.

11. Any Super-Pets beyond Krypto.

12. Extradimensional protoplasmic shapeshifter merged with an earthbound angle with fire wings Supergirl.

13. Cir-El Supergirl.

14. Russian cosmonaut Zod.

15. Krypton as a cold, barren, lifeless dystopia that deserved to blow up and has no meaning to Superman.

16. Any additional survivors of Krypton beyond Krypto, Supergirl/Kara, General Zod, and Zod's little band of goons.

17. Superman, whiny, henpicked, incompetent crybaby with a major yellow streak.
18. Interlinked books where you're forced to buy books you may not like or may not be able to afford just to follow one story.

19. The clutter of useless supporting characters in the latter half of the Jurgens era.

20. Terra Man in any incarnation.

21. Superman and Batman being at odds and not trusting each other instead of having a snarky but profound friendship.

22. Bloodthirst the crossdresser.

23. Superboy's punk haircut and earring.

24. Steel's flirtation with being a mutahuman.

25. Brainiac, the fatso carny who gets possessed by an alien intelligence and goes through bodies like most people go through candy bars.

26. Vartox's Zardoz costume.

27. Assembly-line Bizarros who get killed off with astounding regularity.

28. Gus Gorman and Ross Webster.

29. Nuclear Man.

30. Movie Luthor realizing that Kryptonian crystals could make weapons and vehicles he can use to conquer the world and wasting his time making an island instead.

31. Frog-eating Lois clones.

32. Lex Luthor, Pepe Le Pew-like Lois Lane stalker.

33. Teenybopper Metallo.

34. Resplendent Man.

35. Shelley Long, Drew Carey, Delta Burke, and other such losers as supervillains.

36. Clark Kent refusing to fly on Smallville or even try to live for anything other than Lana Lang when superheroes abound around him.

37. Imperiex, the Galactus wannabe who was nothing but a badly conceived plot device.

38. Lena Luthor -- first she's a baby, then she's genetically altered and force-grown into an adult Brainiac woman, then she's a baby again, then she's retconned out. What was the point of all this?

39. Devouris the Conqueror. The Tom Thumb version of Galactus, only incompetent.

40. Strange Visitor.

41. The whole of "For Tomorrow."

42. Dr. Polaris acting like a Bettie Page wannabe named Repulse.

43. Luthor cloning himself and pretending to be his own son while sleeping with Supergirl.

You know what? I have to stop here. Thinking of all the garbage that's polluted Superman since the Iron Age (and a few bad ideas before that) is just making me angry.

Agreed in whole or in part. Great list!

other dislikes of Super-mythos: Red K; Super pets of any sort; and Wayne Boring art.

OldSchoolfan

04-04-2011, 01:18 PM

While I don't agree with very much that King Krypton list...I think the triangle numbers were awesome and Superman in the nineties rocked.

My contribution of worst idea ever is the approval of the cover of Action 457. You are going to tell me no one in the office saw any thing wrong with it?

I can just imagine what kind of subtexts Grant Morrison sees in that cover.

Nomads1

04-04-2011, 01:34 PM

Petes12

04-04-2011, 03:06 PM

Haven't read the whole thread, so don't know if it was mentioned before, but what cover is this? Got a scan?

Peace

lol google it. it's pretty funny.

Nomads1

04-04-2011, 03:16 PM

lol google it. it's pretty funny.

OK. Followed your suggestion. Now that was disturbing.:smile:

Peace

stk

04-04-2011, 05:04 PM

Been busy lately, but now I can respond to this. You're post here is all kinds of wrong. Ever since MOS, Lex has been portrayed as a businessman in nearly every incarnation outside of the comics.

You are skewing the point of my post. I was talking about the split of people who know Luthor as ONLY a businessman versus how many know him as a scientist or super-criminal in combination with anything else. Thus, the Justice League Unlimited, Superman: Doomsday, etc. examples I used.

The post I was originally responding to claimed that Luthor as a businessman only is the most popular version of the character ever to have existed, and I don't think that is a supportable claim. Yes, you have the stuff right around the height of the MoS-era, like Lois and Clark and TAS. But that stuff is a moment in time compared to the decades before and since, during which Lex has also been known as a super-scientist and/or super-criminal. The idea that Superman is anywhere near as popular now as he was at the peak of the Silver Age alone seems difficult to buy.

And my point about Smallville Lex was meant to be separate, and I still stand behind it: In terms of personality and motivation, Smallville Lex is NOTHING like TAS or MoS Lex.

Blaze Of Glory

04-04-2011, 08:34 PM

Grounded is the worst Superman story I've ever seen

dupersuper

04-05-2011, 01:37 AM

Of course, it's possible that the well of Luthor stories has become a bit dry.

Don't try telling Paul Cornell that...

No. First of all, the Byrne and triangle/90s eras are NOT the same. Linking them together to prove your point is you seeing what you want to see. Post-crisis does not just equal Byrne--lots of other writers there.

All of whom built very clearly on the Byrne foundation...

Mat001

04-05-2011, 12:02 PM

You are skewing the point of my post. I was talking about the split of people who know Luthor as ONLY a businessman versus how many know him as a scientist or super-criminal in combination with anything else. Thus, the Justice League Unlimited, Superman: Doomsday, etc. examples I used.

The post I was originally responding to claimed that Luthor as a businessman only is the most popular version of the character ever to have existed, and I don't think that is a supportable claim. Yes, you have the stuff right around the height of the MoS-era, like Lois and Clark and TAS. But that stuff is a moment in time compared to the decades before and since, during which Lex has also been known as a super-scientist and/or super-criminal.

Before 1978, Lex Luthor was only depicted once in live action media with "Superman vs The Atom" movie serial. Otherwise, most people knew Lex from the comics and cartoons of the day. In the years since the first film, the general public knows of Lex as a businessman and a scientist.

The idea that Superman is anywhere near as popular now as he was at the peak of the Silver Age alone seems difficult to buy.

Yet, he is. People still buy his merchendise, both young and old. People still buy the DVDs of his movies and television series. They buy the video games even when they're crappy. "Superman Returns" still made money, even if it wasn't "The Dark Knight" level. "Smallville" has been on for ten successful seasons. His direct to video animated films have done well. The box set of the film series score sold out so quickly that a second limited edition set was commissioned to meet demand. A new film is in the works. Just because the comics don't sell the numbers that they did in 1992-93, doesn't change facts.

And my point about Smallville Lex was meant to be separate, and I still stand behind it: In terms of personality and motivation, Smallville Lex is NOTHING like TAS or MoS Lex.

By season four, Lex's motivations began to align when his quest for power surfaced in looking for the stones. And in season five, he feared an alien invasion. Both taken directly from the comics and cartoons. In seasons one, seven and nine we've seen that Lex longs to become President and rule over all. Willing to destroy the world in a nuclear holocaust. There are differences to be sure, but there are also simularities as well.

The Batman

04-05-2011, 12:23 PM

Yet, he is. People still buy his merchendise, both young and old. People still buy the DVDs of his movies and television series. They buy the video games even when they're crappy. "Superman Returns" still made money, even if it wasn't "The Dark Knight" level. "Smallville" has been on for ten successful seasons. His direct to video animated films have done well. The box set of the film series score sold out so quickly that a second limited edition set was commissioned to meet demand. A new film is in the works. Just because the comics don't sell the numbers that they did in 1992-93, doesn't change facts.

Worth noting: Superman Returns made a bit more money at the box office than Batman Begins did.

Lord Bravery

04-05-2011, 12:28 PM

Superman Returns had a much bigger budget than Batman Begins though.

Anyway... bad ideas in the history of Superman? This Grounded crap. To be specific, Superman telling a little kid to give a bunch of crack dealers a message on his behalf.

Seriously JMS? SERIOUSLY?

Nomads1

04-05-2011, 12:55 PM

Nomads1

04-05-2011, 01:08 PM

For me, all the bad ideas started with the Loeb "subtle" revamp of Superman, bringing back the silver age Krypton and Krypto, essentially bringing to an end the uniqueness of Superman as the Last Son of Krypton. I mean, when Byrne did his revamp, it was radical, and may have upset a lot of people, but there was a clean cut. From this moment on, what came before doesn't matter much. This is the origin of Superman now. However, with Loeb, I got completly lost. I didn't know what mattered, what didn't, what had happened and what hadn't. What was Superman's origin from then on? From that moment on, for me, at least, Superman's history became as confusing, if not more, as Hawkman's or Donna Troy's. And I must say that, ever since, the character never regained the intrest he held for me before. I just decided it wasn't woth it. A pity. First Wolfman and Kane pre-crisis, and then Byrne, Ordway, Jurgens and the rest really made me love the character, something that the silver age never could make me do.

Peace

Mat001

04-05-2011, 01:08 PM

Superman Returns had a much bigger budget than Batman Begins though.

That's besides the point. If Superman wasn't still popular, WB wouldn't have made the kind of dough that they did on it. It would've bombed like "The Adventures Of Pluto Nash", a movie with a high budget and a very low domestic box office. Sure, "Batman Begins" made a more substantial profit than "Superman Returns" did because of the budget issues. But taking that out of the equation and he did rake in a few more than Batman did. It only seems like Superman isn't as popular because of the long wait between films and the changing comic market. But as I also noted, "Smallville" has had a ten year run. Not a lot of shows make it that far and even if it isn't always consistently good enough for viewers, it's still a pretty big accomplishment. More so that it ran longer than the last three live action series did. Two of which ran for four seasons and the other for about seven. And every decade, with the exception of the 50's, there has always been either a solo series or a team series featuring Superman.

dumbstruck

04-05-2011, 01:27 PM

Geoff Johns' reinvention of Cat Grant was a terrible idea. Way to completely erase one of the strongest character arcs in Superman comics history.

Lord Bravery

04-05-2011, 02:38 PM

That's besides the point. If Superman wasn't still popular, WB wouldn't have made the kind of dough that they did on it. It would've bombed like "The Adventures Of Pluto Nash", a movie with a high budget and a very low domestic box office. Sure, "Batman Begins" made a more substantial profit than "Superman Returns" did because of the budget issues. But taking that out of the equation and he did rake in a few more than Batman did. It only seems like Superman isn't as popular because of the long wait between films and the changing comic market. But as I also noted, "Smallville" has had a ten year run. Not a lot of shows make it that far and even if it isn't always consistently good enough for viewers, it's still a pretty big accomplishment. More so that it ran longer than the last three live action series did. Two of which ran for four seasons and the other for about seven. And every decade, with the exception of the 50's, there has always been either a solo series or a team series featuring Superman.

It didn't make a lot of dough though, even if you ignore the budget.

This is Superman we're talking about. The most famous superhero ever. And the film made what? 400 million... world wide?!?

stk

04-05-2011, 02:59 PM

Geoff Johns' reinvention of Cat Grant was a terrible idea. Way to completely erase one of the strongest character arcs in Superman comics history.
How did it erase her arc? It's a different continuity.

Mayowa

04-05-2011, 03:27 PM

It didn't make a lot of dough though, even if you ignore the budget.

This is Superman we're talking about. The most famous superhero ever. And the film made what? 400 million... world wide?!?

...But it's also a so-so Superman movie that everyone says performed badly we're talking about. Which more people went to than. Batman Begins, apparently. $400 million isn't a lot these days? When did that happen? I know we got movies like Avatar making over 2.5 billion these days, but 390 million is still nothing to sneeze at.

The Batman

04-05-2011, 06:13 PM

The Batman

04-05-2011, 06:14 PM

Geoff Johns' reinvention of Cat Grant was a terrible idea. Way to completely erase one of the strongest character arcs in Superman comics history.

Those comics are still there. I can assure you that Johns' didn't break into our long boxes and tear them up.

NotSuper

04-05-2011, 07:35 PM

All of whom built very clearly on the Byrne foundation...
And the Byrne foundation built from other sources, does that make them the same as it? Every incarnation builds from other sources. It's still not the same. Period.

NotSuper

04-05-2011, 07:43 PM

In the years since the first film, the general public knows of Lex as a businessman and a scientist.
Actually, I've found that only people who are comic fans know about the businessman aspect. Most people I've encountered just know Luthor as "the smart guy who is Superman's enemy." Most don't know what he does.

Yet, he is.
I think you missed the point of stk's post. He was saying Superman isn't as popular now ass he was in the Silver Age. Do you agree or disagree with that? He's certainly not ANYWHERE near as popular in terms of sales.

By season four, Lex's motivations began to align when his quest for power surfaced in looking for the stones. And in season five, he feared an alien invasion. Both taken directly from the comics and cartoons. In seasons one, seven and nine we've seen that Lex longs to become President and rule over all. Willing to destroy the world in a nuclear holocaust. There are differences to be sure, but there are also simularities as well.
Byrne's Luthor is actually not always the same as "post-Crisis" Luthor. Byrne's Luthor hated Superman because he got Metropolis' love without having to buy it and because he wanted to prove that Superman was--deep down--just as corrupt as he was. Byrne's Luthor never saw himself as a hero, while other writers have him believing himself to be noble and altruistic. The only thing from Byrne's Luthor that's really stuck (remember that LexCorp and Lex being rich were NOT Byrne ideas) is his ruthlessness, but even the Golden Age Luthor and Bates Luthor had that.

dupersuper

04-05-2011, 08:18 PM

Superman Returns had a much bigger budget than Batman Begins though.

Partially because they keep including the cost of all the earlier scripts they started hiring for and never used...

Geoff Johns' reinvention of Cat Grant was a terrible idea. Way to completely erase one of the strongest character arcs in Superman comics history.

It wasn't a reinvention, it was a regression...but one Sterling Gates ran with nicely.

dumbstruck

04-06-2011, 06:38 AM

How did it erase her arc? It's a different continuity.

Ah yes. Retcons. Johns' storytelling stock and trade.

The point is, Cat had a fantastic character arc, what with her overcoming alcoholism, her reputation for sleeping her way to the top, and the death of her son. Bringing her back could have built on a character who already had a strong and inspiring back story. There was no reason to do away with it.

Instead, she's retconned into a bitter, scheming, and jealous witch who cares more about her new breast implants than anything else.

dumbstruck

04-06-2011, 06:39 AM

It wasn't a reinvention, it was a regression...but one Sterling Gates ran with nicely.

Whichever it was, it was still a bad idea. See my previous post as to why.

Mat001

04-06-2011, 02:03 PM

It didn't make a lot of dough though, even if you ignore the budget.

This is Superman we're talking about. The most famous superhero ever. And the film made what? 400 million... world wide?!?

As pointed out, "Batman Begins" made about the same when it came out the previous year. And unlike SR, it was not filled with mixed criticial reaction. It would not be until "The Dark Knight" that a Batman film made a billion overall. 19 years after the Burton film came out and 42 years since the 60's film. And that's if we leave out inflation. That's why when Singer's contract expired, WB moved over to Nolan to produce a new film series. The guy who just made a billion for the studio with one of their hottest properties.

I think you missed the point of stk's post. He was saying Superman isn't as popular now ass he was in the Silver Age. Do you agree or disagree with that? He's certainly not ANYWHERE near as popular in terms of sales.

In terms of comic sales, no comic book is as it was once upon a time. Most comics barely make it to one hundred thousand. And if a book is in the top slot, most often it's because of the creative team's brand name recognition. Superman right now isn't higher in sales due to storylines from the last few years that didn't sit well with fans and weren't executed to their fullest potential. Before then, the books were selling pretty well and even further back, had been much higher.

If in terms of the overall general merchendise, we do not know the numbers. We know that there's plenty of merchendise and when the new film comes out, just as we had with the last one, there will be an influx of new material. The general public still loves Superman. There's no way to really measure if he's as popular or not. But given what's been put out and what is known, it's obvious that he still is very popular.

The point is, Cat had a fantastic character arc, what with her overcoming alcoholism, her reputation for sleeping her way to the top, and the death of her son. Bringing her back could have built on a character who already had a strong and inspiring back story. There was no reason to do away with it.

Instead, she's retconned into a bitter, scheming, and jealous witch who cares more about her new breast implants than anything else.

Nothing's been done away with. If you read the last two issues of Gates run, you'd see that it is as Johns wrote in Action Comics #866. That Cat is just putting on an act to deal with the loss of Adam. And that part of the reason she was on Kara so much was revealed in issue #58.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pScx8BN4h3s/TOqYWiA3lHI/AAAAAAAAKrQ/2-X11gTqyGE/s1600/sg+58-05.jpg

By the end, she makes amends with Kara and voices a more fair and balanced opinion of Kara.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pScx8BN4h3s/TQn38Zxjo0I/AAAAAAAAK1E/o3WqNqkZozo/s1600/sg+59-09.jpg

So all Johns and Gates did was take an old plotline and work it in such a way that it doesn't diminish what Jurgens and Kessel did with Cat and tying it into NK and Supergirl's behavior under Loeb, Kelly, Palmotti and Gray. And lest we forget, Cat was starting to turn into a hardnosed bitch towards the end of the 90's, when she had Jimmy do questionable things as Mr. Action, ace television reporter.

dupersuper

04-06-2011, 08:02 PM

Nothing's been done away with. If you read the last two issues of Gates run, you'd see that it is as Johns wrote in Action Comics #866. That Cat is just putting on an act to deal with the loss of Adam. And that part of the reason she was on Kara so much was revealed in issue #58.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pScx8BN4h3s/TOqYWiA3lHI/AAAAAAAAKrQ/2-X11gTqyGE/s1600/sg+58-05.jpg

By the end, she makes amends with Kara and voices a more fair and balanced opinion of Kara.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pScx8BN4h3s/TQn38Zxjo0I/AAAAAAAAK1E/o3WqNqkZozo/s1600/sg+59-09.jpg

So all Johns and Gates did was take an old plotline and work it in such a way that it doesn't diminish what Jurgens and Kessel did with Cat and tying it into NK and Supergirl's behavior under Loeb, Kelly, Palmotti and Gray. And lest we forget, Cat was starting to turn into a hardnosed bitch towards the end of the 90's, when she had Jimmy do questionable things as Mr. Action, ace television reporter.

That wasn't my post...

stk

04-06-2011, 08:08 PM

That wasn't my post...

You just got retconned.

dupersuper

04-07-2011, 01:50 AM

You just got retconned.

Who knew Johns posted here?

dumbstruck

04-07-2011, 07:06 AM

As pointed out, "Batman Begins" made about the same when it came out the previous year. And unlike SR, it was not filled with mixed criticial reaction. It would not be until "The Dark Knight" that a Batman film made a billion overall. 19 years after the Burton film came out and 42 years since the 60's film. And that's if we leave out inflation. That's why when Singer's contract expired, WB moved over to Nolan to produce a new film series. The guy who just made a billion for the studio with one of their hottest properties.

In terms of comic sales, no comic book is as it was once upon a time. Most comics barely make it to one hundred thousand. And if a book is in the top slot, most often it's because of the creative team's brand name recognition. Superman right now isn't higher in sales due to storylines from the last few years that didn't sit well with fans and weren't executed to their fullest potential. Before then, the books were selling pretty well and even further back, had been much higher.

If in terms of the overall general merchendise, we do not know the numbers. We know that there's plenty of merchendise and when the new film comes out, just as we had with the last one, there will be an influx of new material. The general public still loves Superman. There's no way to really measure if he's as popular or not. But given what's been put out and what is known, it's obvious that he still is very popular.

Nothing's been done away with. If you read the last two issues of Gates run, you'd see that it is as Johns wrote in Action Comics #866. That Cat is just putting on an act to deal with the loss of Adam. And that part of the reason she was on Kara so much was revealed in issue #58.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pScx8BN4h3s/TOqYWiA3lHI/AAAAAAAAKrQ/2-X11gTqyGE/s1600/sg+58-05.jpg

By the end, she makes amends with Kara and voices a more fair and balanced opinion of Kara.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pScx8BN4h3s/TQn38Zxjo0I/AAAAAAAAK1E/o3WqNqkZozo/s1600/sg+59-09.jpg

So all Johns and Gates did was take an old plotline and work it in such a way that it doesn't diminish what Jurgens and Kessel did with Cat and tying it into NK and Supergirl's behavior under Loeb, Kelly, Palmotti and Gray. And lest we forget, Cat was starting to turn into a hardnosed bitch towards the end of the 90's, when she had Jimmy do questionable things as Mr. Action, ace television reporter.

I don't read Supergirl, so I wasn't aware the retcon had been retconned. If this had been the plan all along, it shouldn't have taken years for this to be explained.

Jody Garland

04-07-2011, 07:32 AM

I thought it was pretty clear from Geoff's run, honestly. I think he might have mentioned it in an interview or something.

If it wasn't directly in his run, though, it should have been.

ForeverYoung8

04-07-2011, 09:19 AM

I've been reading Superman since '87, but have gone back over the years to read some of the silver-age stuff. In my opinion, the worst idea I've specifically seen with Superman was "Birthright".

I can hear the anger building already...lol

But to be more specific, it's not the story that I see as a mistake (I thought much of it was quite good, some parts were meh...but pretty solid overall) but rather the way DC handled it. Wasn't it originally supposed to be just a stand-alone story, and not part of canon? I thought I read a quote from Waid about that somewhere.

Anyway, the way DC shoehorned it in was the problem, and the lack of a "what's still in / what's now out" of the character history. Obviously, you can go with the idea of "if it hasn't specifically been mentioned as a retcon, it's still in"...but that doesn't work for everything.

Anyway, no morning coffee yet so I'm kind of rambling. I think one of the greatest Superman comic mistakes was the bad handling of Birthright. It wasn't about replacing the Byrne/Jurgens stuff, that didnt bother me. But the bad transition did.

Sorry for the rant

Mat001

04-07-2011, 01:30 PM

Who knew Johns posted here?

My appologies.

I don't read Supergirl, so I wasn't aware the retcon had been retconned. If this had been the plan all along, it shouldn't have taken years for this to be explained.

No, it's not a retcon of a retcon. It was fleshing out the story. Johns, Gates and Robinson worked up the template for the characters that would be focused on during "New Krypton" and beyond. Johns wrote in Action #866 that Clark suspects that Cat's attitude was all an act. The reason it took three years to reach this conclusion is because NK got away from Gates, Rucka and Robinson. They had so many plotlines going, that certain ones were getting short changed. Once "War Of The Supermen" was over, Gates began picking up the pieces of the Cat/Lana/Kara relationship and bringing it to a head, before he went off Supergirl.

But to be more specific, it's not the story that I see as a mistake (I thought much of it was quite good, some parts were meh...but pretty solid overall) but rather the way DC handled it. Wasn't it originally supposed to be just a stand-alone story, and not part of canon? I thought I read a quote from Waid about that somewhere.

Anyway, the way DC shoehorned it in was the problem, and the lack of a "what's still in / what's now out" of the character history. Obviously, you can go with the idea of "if it hasn't specifically been mentioned as a retcon, it's still in"...but that doesn't work for everything.

It's a bit muddy given that a first set of interviews and announcements indicated one direction and then afterwards, additional ones told a different story. But the gist of it seems to be that it was going to be continuity, but it was billed as a standalone to serve as misdirection. Segeal, Kelly, Casey and Schulz had been given a holding pattern while this was being set up. So to help it along, the Futuresmiths story was created with the intent of handling the shuffling when the time came.

dupersuper

04-07-2011, 08:55 PM

My appologies.

Not needed; I was just kidding. See; here's a smiley face: :cool:

stk

04-07-2011, 09:02 PM

I don't read Supergirl, so I wasn't aware the retcon had been retconned. If this had been the plan all along, it shouldn't have taken years for this to be explained.Johns mentioned there was more to it right when he first brought the character back. He said there was a reason for her attitude and that it was masking something deeper. It didn't take years; it took days.

Mr. Holmes

04-07-2011, 09:09 PM

Yeah I remember Jamal Igle posted on the forums a few times before, explicitly stating that there's a reason Cat is acting the way she is.

dumbstruck

04-08-2011, 06:51 AM

No, it's not a retcon of a retcon. It was fleshing out the story. Johns, Gates and Robinson worked up the template for the characters that would be focused on during "New Krypton" and beyond. Johns wrote in Action #866 that Clark suspects that Cat's attitude was all an act. The reason it took three years to reach this conclusion is because NK got away from Gates, Rucka and Robinson. They had so many plotlines going, that certain ones were getting short changed. Once "War Of The Supermen" was over, Gates began picking up the pieces of the Cat/Lana/Kara relationship and bringing it to a head, before he went off Supergirl.
.

If it's a plotpoint that was so important Johns had to give readers a heads up, and then it's lost in the shuffle, that's poor story planning. In the end, it was a plot point that took way too long to be addressed, and did nothing but disconnect the character from her previous depictions. It amounts to the same thing. Whether or not it was a bad idea from the outset, or one that "got away" from the writers, it amounted to a poorly executed plot point that was apparently supposed to be important. To me, this is the problem when you have one guy basically mapping out the entire character's universe, but have other writers trying to execute that map. To paraphrase a colloquialism, there's no "Geoff Johns" in TEAM.

I do want to reiterate, I don't want to come off as Johns bashing. He's a competent writer who I think could be great if he got away from his current story template. I just think it's a mistake to have him be the architect of so much. Especially if he's working in a part of the DCU where there's multiple titles, like Superman.

dumbstruck

04-08-2011, 06:54 AM

Yeah I remember Jamal Igle posted on the forums a few times before, explicitly stating that there's a reason Cat is acting the way she is.

Writers shouldn't have to provide hints on internet forums or interviews in order for plot points to be understood. It needs to be alluded to within the story, and in such a way the readers can pick up on it. One casual comment from Clark, and then never mentioning it again for two years is not the way to do that. We had the same problem with Grant Morrison with RIP and FC. Too many of the plot points for those stories had to be explained or alluded to by GM himself in interviews. Not the way to tell a story.

Mat001

04-08-2011, 01:46 PM

If it's a plotpoint that was so important Johns had to give readers a heads up, and then it's lost in the shuffle, that's poor story planning. In the end, it was a plot point that took way too long to be addressed, and did nothing but disconnect the character from her previous depictions. It amounts to the same thing. Whether or not it was a bad idea from the outset, or one that "got away" from the writers, it amounted to a poorly executed plot point that was apparently supposed to be important. To me, this is the problem when you have one guy basically mapping out the entire character's universe, but have other writers trying to execute that map. To paraphrase a colloquialism, there's no "Geoff Johns" in TEAM.

Johns doesn't just map out everything by himself. Like other writers working on multiple books, he works with his fellow writers. When he was first coming onto the Superman books, he and Kurt Busiek both mapped out the stuff that they were going to deal with both together and separately. And when Robinson, Rucka, Gates and for a short time Kriesberg mapped out NK, they all worked together with Johns. It should also be noted that by Busiek's own admission, some stories did take longer to get through than others during his run. Afterall, "The Third Kryptonian" storyline was going to be addressed much sooner, but "Camelot Falls" took longer to get done. It took him a year to resolve that mystery. Not to mention that this type of work was done before Johns. See all of the previous runs.

dumbstruck

04-08-2011, 01:54 PM

Johns doesn't just map out everything by himself. Like other writers working on multiple books, he works with his fellow writers. When he was first coming onto the Superman books, he and Kurt Busiek both mapped out the stuff that they were going to deal with both together and separately. And when Robinson, Rucka, Gates and for a short time Kriesberg mapped out NK, they all worked together with Johns. It should also be noted that by Busiek's own admission, some stories did take longer to get through than others during his run. Afterall, "The Third Kryptonian" storyline was going to be addressed much sooner, but "Camelot Falls" took longer to get done. It took him a year to resolve that mystery. Not to mention that this type of work was done before Johns. See all of the previous runs.

I recall DC touting the fact that Geoff Johns was the "architect" for the Superman books at the time. That tells me he's the guy in charge. The previous Super-summits between writers were always described as a group. Dan Jurgens wasn't announced as the architect. Or Jeph Loeb.

Doesn't change the fact I think it was a bad idea that was poorly planned and executed.

Mat001

04-08-2011, 03:59 PM

I don't know about you, but I tend to believe the writers who said that it was a group effort. You can ask Busiek himself.

OldSchoolfan

04-08-2011, 04:04 PM

To paraphrase a colloquialism, there's no "Geoff Johns" in TEAM.

I do want to reiterate, I don't want to come off as Johns bashing. He's a competent writer who I think could be great if he got away from his current story template. I just think it's a mistake to have him be the architect of so much. Especially if he's working in a part of the DCU where there's multiple titles, like Superman.

I think you are being overly generous in your critique of Johns writing capabilities. He "fixes" stuff that doesn't need fixing and then gets a toy contract built up around it, or a Hollywood Notable to sign on to a story and all of a sudden he's a genius!

To top it off, he is the Cheif Creative Officer of the DCU but has no responsibility or input into "Grounded". Now I am sure that if "Grounded" was selling out and it was the greatest thing since "The Death of Superman" Johns would be all over getting credit for it.

NotSuper

04-08-2011, 04:11 PM

I think you are being overly generous in your critique of Johns writing capabilities. He "fixes" stuff that doesn't need fixing and then gets a toy contract built up around it, or a Hollywood Notable to sign on to a story and all of a sudden he's a genius!
I thought he was a genius because his stories usually get good to great reviews and sell much higher than his peers.

But seriously, this crab mentality approach to writers who succeed really bugs me about fandom. It's the same old "bash what's popular to stand-out from the crowd" take.

Kurt Busiek

04-08-2011, 04:23 PM

I recall DC touting the fact that Geoff Johns was the "architect" for the Superman books at the time. That tells me he's the guy in charge.

Not while I was on SUPERMAN, at least.

We were in contact a lot, but we talked things over equally. If someone was "the guy in charge," it was Matt Idelson, with Dan Didio overseeing him.

kdb

Petes12

04-08-2011, 04:42 PM

I do want to reiterate, I don't want to come off as Johns bashing. He's a competent writer who I think could be great if he got away from his current story template. I just think it's a mistake to have him be the architect of so much. Especially if he's working in a part of the DCU where there's multiple titles, like Superman.

Honestly I think architect is a good place for him. He generally has a good sense of how to get to what makes a character interesting, and put that hook out there in a way that gets readers on board with it.

Sometimes though, when he's writing dialog, he has a tendency to really overdo it and ram it down your throat. Like when he just spells out the relationship between Hal and Green Arrow via Barry Allen's commentary, that's a little annoying.

Mr. Holmes

04-08-2011, 06:22 PM

Writers shouldn't have to provide hints on internet forums or interviews in order for plot points to be understood.

Seeing that it was clearly understood by Matt, stk, myself, and others, the writers didn't need to do it at all. That's just proof that the creators intended it that way all along, contrary to what you tried to assert earlier.

Mat001

04-09-2011, 12:04 PM

I think you are being overly generous in your critique of Johns writing capabilities. He "fixes" stuff that doesn't need fixing and then gets a toy contract built up around it, or a Hollywood Notable to sign on to a story and all of a sudden he's a genius!

Superman really didn't need fixing under Byrne. All that he did could've been done with existing continuity and talented writers willing to go beyond where the character was at. Alan Moore proved in two issues that there was nothing wrong with the Silver and Bronze age concepts, other than being shackled to a style which most of the writers in the 80's were no longer comfortable with.

That said, what Johns and Busiek did at the start of their run was a back to basics approach. And any changes to continuity that they instituted was either a build up of what previous writers like Loeb and Waid had started, or was designed to set up future arcs. In the case of Krypton and the technology, finding a happy medium that would work.

In the case of Cat Grant, nothing was broken with the character. But she had reached a stagnant point when she was written out. All Johns and Gates did was come up with a new direction. Just as Jurgens and Kessel had when they came up with the revamp of Toyman and sacrficing Adam to push Cat along.

And if he manages to get toy deals for Green Lantern, all the more better since the only toys that existed were part of the team lines like "Super Powers", "Total Justice" and "Justice League"/"Justice League Unlimited". It gets the character out there and shows that there's more to DC than Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

To top it off, he is the Cheif Creative Officer of the DCU but has no responsibility or input into "Grounded". Now I am sure that if "Grounded" was selling out and it was the greatest thing since "The Death of Superman" Johns would be all over getting credit for it.

Dan DiDio was the one who approached JMS about doing "Grounded" and he was the one who encouraged him along with Matt Idelson. Johns has been concentrating on his books and his work as COO. Note that he hasn't said anything about the Batman books or JSA.

stk

04-09-2011, 03:16 PM

Superman really didn't need fixing under Byrne. All that he did could've been done with existing continuity and talented writers willing to go beyond where the character was at. Alan Moore proved in two issues that there was nothing wrong with the Silver and Bronze age concepts, other than being shackled to a style which most of the writers in the 80's were no longer comfortable with.

I don't think most of that is necessarily true, even with as much as I prefer the pre-Crisis Superman to MoS Superman. First off, I think the drastic increase in numbers and excitement generated around the character due to the reboot proves it was the right move for the time (my 'baby with the bathwater' complaint aside).

As far as Moore goes, I don't think you can apply that to any other writer, or even to himself if he was to become the regular writer. I don't think 'Whatever Happened To the Man of Tomorrow' is proof of anything. He did his normal trick of deconstructing everything, which really isn't conducive to an ongoing series that's supposed to go on indefinitely. It's EASY to create a powerful and moving story if you are prepared to kill off 80% of the cast other writers have spent the past half-century building up and fans have grown to care about. But where would he go from there? He wrote himself into a corner. And as much as I love his Supreme run, he did the same thing there, although it took him a couple years to deconstruct everything to the point he had nowhere left to go.

And as far as there being nothing wrong with the Silver and Bronze Age concepts... I like a lot of them... maybe most of them... but the first one that sticks out to me as being completely unacceptable to a modern audience is the Superboy story of how Ma and Pa Kent died. Did their death really have to be so wacky? They died because Superboy took them back through time to an island to go on a buried treasure hunt in the distant past? That story was like a chain around the necks of Bronze Age writers. You could see them try not to reference it or show just enough not to contradict the in-continuity story, but also not to remind readers what a crazy affair their deaths were. No wonder Saturn Girl had to wipe Superboy's memory of it in LSH #259. And there are other things like that.

And if you are going to ask what was wrong with the Silver and Bronze Age concepts, the great unasked question there is, what then was wrong with the Golden Age concepts? When it comes to Superman, I myself prefer Silver/Bronze over Golden, but Byrne shifted a lot off of Silver/Bronze back to Golden, and it worked for him and the mid-1980s audience. Worked extremely well. Maybe partly because they didn't have an internet to complain about it on, the way some people complain about the supposed "return of the Silver Age" now.

NotSuper

04-09-2011, 03:55 PM

Using Alan Moore to support the Byrne revamp is a little nuts, especially since Moore (rightly) finds most of the changes made to Superman after Crisis to be huge mistakes. Just like Neil Gaiman.

As it is, MOS at times feels much more dated (with its Cold War setting and parade of 1980s tropes) than many of the Silver and Bronze Age stories it replaced. Nothing about it really feels timeless, as Superman always should feel.

Mat001

04-10-2011, 12:55 PM

I don't think most of that is necessarily true, even with as much as I prefer the pre-Crisis Superman to MoS Superman. First off, I think the drastic increase in numbers and excitement generated around the character due to the reboot proves it was the right move for the time (my 'baby with the bathwater' complaint aside).

Yes, but it could've still been done without changing history. Any changes made could've been done without tossing everything out. The Flash, Green Lantern and Green Arrow proved that.

As far as Moore goes, I don't think you can apply that to any other writer, or even to himself if he was to become the regular writer. I don't think 'Whatever Happened To the Man of Tomorrow' is proof of anything. He did his normal trick of deconstructing everything, which really isn't conducive to an ongoing series that's supposed to go on indefinitely. It's EASY to create a powerful and moving story if you are prepared to kill off 80% of the cast other writers have spent the past half-century building up and fans have grown to care about. But where would he go from there? He wrote himself into a corner. And as much as I love his Supreme run, he did the same thing there, although it took him a couple years to deconstruct everything to the point he had nowhere left to go.

You're missing my point. Bryne and Wolfman could've easily made do with the material that was in existence, without changing the history. Just focus on telling good stories with things that they wanted to touch on. Moore chose to deconstruct, yes. But he's also capable of reconstructing as well. Look at his Swamp Thing run.

And as far as there being nothing wrong with the Silver and Bronze Age concepts... I like a lot of them... maybe most of them... but the first one that sticks out to me as being completely unacceptable to a modern audience is the Superboy story of how Ma and Pa Kent died. Did their death really have to be so wacky? They died because Superboy took them back through time to an island to go on a buried treasure hunt in the distant past? That story was like a chain around the necks of Bronze Age writers. You could see them try not to reference it or show just enough not to contradict the in-continuity story, but also not to remind readers what a crazy affair their deaths were. No wonder Saturn Girl had to wipe Superboy's memory of it in LSH #259. And there are other things like that.

I wouldn't call that wacky and even so, it's not that big of a deal breaker.

And if you are going to ask what was wrong with the Silver and Bronze Age concepts, the great unasked question there is, what then was wrong with the Golden Age concepts? When it comes to Superman, I myself prefer Silver/Bronze over Golden, but Byrne shifted a lot off of Silver/Bronze back to Golden, and it worked for him and the mid-1980s audience. Worked extremely well. Maybe partly because they didn't have an internet to complain about it on, the way some people complain about the supposed "return of the Silver Age" now.

The Golden Age concepts just morphed into the Silver Age or was simply abandoned whole sale to match up with the other media. That's why George Taylor was replaced with Perry White. And even the stuff that Byrne and Wolfman came up isn't even Golden Age. Otherwise it'd be like it was in 1945, not a combination of every decade. But people did complain about the stuff DC changed in the 80's. We just didn't see enough of those letters in print. Hell, as soon as Byrne was gone, DC began bringing a lot of that stuff back.

Using Alan Moore to support the Byrne revamp is a little nuts, especially since Moore (rightly) finds most of the changes made to Superman after Crisis to be huge mistakes. Just like Neil Gaiman.

No, that's not my point. My point is that someone like Moore could've told interesting stories without tossing out thirty years worth of development. Grant Morrison has proved that with his Batman run and "All Star Superman". I guarantee that if Morrison had the creative freedom and reputation that he has now back in 1986, he would've been able to make the Superman books soar the same way that Byrne and Wolfman had, only without changing history to get it done.

Kurt Busiek

04-10-2011, 01:35 PM

I like a lot of them... maybe most of them... but the first one that sticks out to me as being completely unacceptable to a modern audience is the Superboy story of how Ma and Pa Kent died. Did their death really have to be so wacky? They died because Superboy took them back through time to an island to go on a buried treasure hunt in the distant past?

I just read that story a week or so ago, as it happens.

They died because they contracted a disease while on an anniversary cruise.

Part of that cruise involved Superboy taking them back in time, and he felt guilty over having caused their deaths, but by story's end, he'd discovered that they contracted the disease in the present, before the time-trip.* So the time trip isn't involved in their deaths, and doesn't need to be referenced.

Which is probably why Bronze Age writers rarely mentioned the time trip -- they just said that they contracted a rare tropical disease and even Superboy's brilliant mind wasn't able to come up with a cure in time. That's not terribly goofy, and it's got an "even Superman can't do everything" message that works nicely.

Cary Bates got a very nice emotional story out of it when Lois and Lana contracted the same disease. [Best bit: Luthor refuses to help find a cure, but points out that Superman could force him to, by exposing him to the same virus. He even throws a vil of the virus at the wall, and Superman catches it at superspeed, showing that his code against killing is so strong he can't risk letting a villain like Lex die even as a way of saving his loved ones. Because that's what Superman does.]

kdb

*though that news doesn't exactly get Superboy off the hook for guilt -- he not only arranged for the cruise as a gift to them, he built the freakin' ship single-handedly. So they wouldn't have been there at all to get the disease if not for him.

stk

04-10-2011, 01:45 PM

You're missing my point. Bryne and Wolfman could've easily made do with the material that was in existence, without changing the history. Just focus on telling good stories with things that they wanted to touch on. Moore chose to deconstruct, yes. But he's also capable of reconstructing as well. Look at his Swamp Thing run.
I can't understand why you'd want to use Moore's Swamp Thing as an example of anything. He demolished the entire original premise of the character and "reconstructed" him and the series into something completely unrecognizable. Was it cool and interesting? Yes. Did I enjoy it? Yes. But his fundamental changes to the main character and core concept were a hundred times more sweeping and extreme than anything Byrne did on Superman.

stk

04-10-2011, 01:54 PM

but by story's end, he'd discovered that they contracted the disease in the present, before the time-trip.* So the time trip isn't involved in their deaths, and doesn't need to be referenced.Ah, thanks for the clarification. It's been a few years for me...

Cary Bates got a very nice emotional story out of it when Lois and Lana contracted the same disease.Do you happen to remember the issue number of this one off-hand? I'd like to track this one down. Your recent posts have made me want to read more Bates, and I'm always a sucker for a good Luthor bit.

Kurt Busiek

04-10-2011, 02:33 PM

Do you happen to remember the issue number of this one off-hand? I'd like to track this one down. Your recent posts have made me want to read more Bates, and I'm always a sucker for a good Luthor bit.

SUPERMAN #362-363.

Another good Bates Luthor story is ACTION #510-512, in which Luthor fights for the good guys...for a while.

kdb

Kurt Busiek

04-10-2011, 02:36 PM

I can't understand why you'd want to use Moore's Swamp Thing as an example of anything. He demolished the entire original premise of the character and "reconstructed" him and the series into something completely unrecognizable. Was it cool and interesting? Yes. Did I enjoy it? Yes. But his fundamental changes to the main character and core concept were a hundred times more sweeping and extreme than anything Byrne did on Superman.

To be fair, he did it while respecting the original continuity in most cases (there were some minor contradictions, but they were the sort of thing that happens), and with the character's original creator overseeing and editing him.

It was a "We're going to reveal the secret history that puts a new spin on earlier stories" thing, more than a "We're erasing those past stories and starting over" thing. The character's history had still happened -- but with one major new revelation altering our understanding of it.

kdb

stk

04-10-2011, 03:16 PM

SUPERMAN #362-363.

Another good Bates Luthor story is ACTION #510-512, in which Luthor fights for the good guys...for a while.

kdbAwesome, thanks!

To be fair, he did it while respecting the original continuity in most cases (there were some minor contradictions, but they were the sort of thing that happens), and with the character's original creator overseeing and editing him.

It was a "We're going to reveal the secret history that puts a new spin on earlier stories" thing, more than a "We're erasing those past stories and starting over" thing. The character's history had still happened -- but with one major new revelation altering our understanding of it.

kdbTo me, it seemed like another example of, "Everything you knew about character X is WRONG!!!" I'll agree with everyone that the execution was handled very well (a couple of my favorite issues being the Adam Strange story, where it ironically could be argued Moore did the same thing to Adam and the Rannians), but that's an approach to comics I'm not always a huge fan of.

Kurt Busiek

04-10-2011, 03:44 PM

To me, it seemed like another example of, "Everything you knew about character X is WRONG!!!"

It seemed more a case of, "ONE THING you thought you knew about the character (and that the characters thought themselves) was APPARENTLY TRUE, but there's a DIFFERENT EXPLANATION!" to me.

The Swamp Thing thought he was Alec Holland, and so did everyone else. But he and they were mistaken. But he still met who he'd met, loved who he'd loved, experienced what he'd experienced.

but that's an approach to comics I'm not always a huge fan of.

I like it when done well and I like the results.

But then, that's true of almost any approach to comics. It's not the tools, it's what you do with the tools.

The revelation that Captain America was frozen in ice and Bucky had died was a flat-out contradiction of what had gone before, but I liked the results -- and as time went on, I mostly liked the ways they explained what had "really" happened, converting it from "what had been published was WRONG" to "what had been published was mostly right, but there was more going on than what met the eye."

The revelation that Professor X hadn't died, it was actually the Changeling, was dumb, but I liked the result.

It varies -- if you get good comics out of it, I'm usually fine with it.

I like the Swamp Thing change. And I like the fact that Swamp Thing's co-creator, when the change was pitched, was the one to say, "That's a great idea! I'm hiring this guy to write it!"

I'm not fond of that Adam Strange story, on the other hand. I don't mind the principle of it -- I mind the effect, that the Rannians looked down on Adam and only pretended to revere him as a hero. Had the twist been that they'd brought him in as a breeding experiment and then discovered he was a great hero, that'd have been fine.

But so it goes. It ain't the technique, for me, it's what results you get from applying it.

kdb

Free-Man

04-10-2011, 03:49 PM

I like it when done well and I like the results.

But then, that's true of almost any approach to comics. It's not the tools, it's what you do with the tools.

The revelation that Captain America was frozen in ice and Bucky had died was a flat-out contradiction of what had gone before, but I liked the results -- and as time went on, I mostly liked the ways they explained what had "really" happened, converting it from "what had been published was WRONG" to "what had been published was mostly right, but there was more going on than what met the eye."

The revelation that Professor X hadn't died, it was actually the Changeling, was dumb, but I liked the result.

It varies -- if you get good comics out of it, I'm usually fine with it.

I like the Swamp Thing change. And I like the fact that Swamp Thing's co-creator, when the change was pitched, was the one to say, "That's a great idea! I'm hiring this guy to write it!"

I'm not fond of that Adam Strange story, on the other hand. I don't mind the principle of it -- I mind the effect, that the Rannians looked down on Adam and only pretended to revere him as a hero. Had the twist been that they'd brought him in as a breeding experiment and then discovered he was a great hero, that'd have been fine.

But so it goes. It ain't the technique, for me, it's what results you get from applying it.

kdb

Seriously, ALL OF THIS, but especially the bolded portion.

Like, no offense to anyone else, but I couldn't care less if a story contradicted an off-handed statement about someone's mother in an obscure 90's issue of JLI (and yes, I've seen that argument used) if the end result is a genuinely compelling story.