What Version of Superman are we on?

[Jon-El]

There is a thread here asking about the Matrix / Supergirl from the John Byrne - Jurgens / Ordway period. Does she still exist it asks. This is just sloppy!! I don't read the current comics much. Still check in from time to time but haven't bought regularly since 2001 so I may not be clear on some things. I read IC and just assumed this is the same Superman that Byrne started in 86.

I read the pre-Byrne (:eek: this is ridiculous) version for 10 yrs. Loved that version. Then you had the Crisis and a new version. Clearly a different version! I missed the old version but got used to the newer one. Over time it seems like old concepts (Phantom Zone, Supergirl) have been re-introduced that make it hard to determine if this is the same Superman. I know there was Birthright but I dropped that after 2 issues. Didn't know if that was really important. So bottom line, what Superman are we on?

Really needs to be clear cut. KABAAM! Universe starts over and you have a different Superman. (I hate what they've done with Spider-man too. It should be company wide or not at all!) I hope this Final Crisis will clear this up. :)

[MaxofSteel]

At this point, the current Supes is a mish mash of (pretty much) all his older incarnations. Writers seems to be picking and choosing aspects of his origin they like best and are putting those into current continuity.

I've heard that there'll eventually be a new origin story made sometime in the future, but I may be wrong. Then again though, do we really need another origin story? :p

[HaroldAllnut]

Although I think that Supes' origin is now just a matter of common knowledge, it is now widely claimed that he doesn't have an actual origin story. :confused:

Quite honestly, I prefer the current Clark/Superman combo, in which Clark is a milquetoast while Superman is just that... a SUPER man.

[Choppa]

The Matrix supergirl is gone. This new one just showed up. It's all in one of the Superman/Batman arcs, I think the second one.

[Jon-El]

I guess it seems like everything is just blurring together. a mishmash as someone said. I'd like it more clear cut.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I like the Mix N' Match Superman they've got going on. It's a combination of everything that's come before, but with a few new elements like the new relationships between Jor-El & Zod...and Non. That still creeps me out what they did to him.

[NotSuper]

Last I heard (from Busiek himself at ComicBloc), Johns and Busiek are working on an origin and are just waiting for DC to say "go."

There's also a Lex Luthor mini coming out (and it will still happen, even though Busiek is writing TRINITY now), written by Busiek.

[Choppa]

I'm confused, why does there need to be a new origin? Was there some kind of reboot of Superman?

[MaxofSteel]

Was there some kind of reboot of Superman?

Basically, yeah. I have trouble right now remembering the specifics of the reboot, but for the most part, his origin isn't the same as it was before Infinite Crisis.

[4thHorseman]

Last I heard (from Busiek himself at ComicBloc), Johns and Busiek are working on an origin and are just waiting for DC to say "go."


Well last year at a convention, Busiek said that him and Johns have an origin somewhat worked out, but they are just looking for ways to present it to us. My guess is they don't want just another story talking about his origin, but put it in here and there into stories where readers can get each bit and connect it together without slowing down the pacing of the books.

[Kurt Busiek]

Well last year at a convention, Busiek said that him and Johns have an origin somewhat worked out, but they are just looking for ways to present it to us. My guess is they don't want just another story talking about his origin, but put it in here and there into stories where readers can get each bit and connect it together without slowing down the pacing of the books.

Geoff and I have worked out a lot of details for his new origin -- we have to understand where the character came from to write his stories, after all, even if you the reader don't know everything yet.

However, that's a long way from there being an actual origin project in the works. So far, DC's hasn't green-lighted anything.

kdb

[Lemurion]

Geoff and I have worked out a lot of details for his new origin -- we have to understand where the character came from to write his stories, after all, even if you the reader don't know everything yet.

However, that's a long way from there being an actual origin project in the works. So far, DC's hasn't green-lighted anything.

kdb

One thing I'm glad to see is that the current origin appears to show him manifesting his powers earlier than in the Byrne reboot and returned the LoSH to his personal continuity.

[niall mc cann]

Geoff and I have worked out a lot of details for his new origin -- we have to understand where the character came from to write his stories, after all, even if you the reader don't know everything yet.

However, that's a long way from there being an actual origin project in the works. So far, DC's hasn't green-lighted anything.

kdb

Isn't that enough, though?

No offense to yourself or Johns, you're both good writers and if you put an origin out there, I'd probably pick it up once it hit trade, but is another origin retelling necessary?

He was born on Krypton, it blew up, he was sent here and raised by a farming couple. That's his origin. There's only so many ways of telling the same story. I liked Man of Steel. I liked Birthrite too. I liked the Donner films and I even liked the Nineties Warner Brothers cartoon (and the eighties one). Supes origin is not hard to find out there... and the number of those that (to me) are really essential reading (or viewing) is few.

I mean, if someone really feels they have something new to say about the story that's fair enough, but is it really necessary to dust what's basically the same story out again simply as an excercise in continuity housekeeping?

[Kurt Busiek]

Isn't that enough, though?

Beats me. People have been saying online that Geoff and I are working on an origin project -- it's certainly not enough to say that.


No offense to yourself or Johns, you're both good writers and if you put an origin out there, I'd probably pick it up once it hit trade, but is another origin retelling necessary?

Nothing fictional is necessary. If all we do is what's necessary, we'll all focus on food and shelter.

That's not said as an argument for an origin project, just to point out that "Is ________ Necessary?" isn't an argument that holds up. Nobody reads any comic book because it's necessary.

The fact is, we create and publish and (hopefully) sell what's interesting and theoretically profitable. So the question, really, would be whether an origin project is interesting and theoretically profitable.

And different people have different viewpoints -- there are certainly many, many Superman readers who are incensed that they don't have a published, detailed origin of Superman in the current continuity.

Me, I'm not arguing one way or the other. I think I could write a good and involving Superman origin that would be a pleasure to read, and I expect it would make money, but that's not why I posted. I posted to point out that there isn't one, so when someone posts online that Geoff and I are working on one based on reading posts somewhere where I said that Geoff and I have talked stuff out but DC hasn't approved any such project, they're actually getting it backwards. There is no such project in the works; DC hasn't approved one.

No offense meant, NotSuper -- but if DC hasn't greenlighted a project, it's not in the works.

kdb

[BYC]

I think a bigger question is that is a new origins story necessary when Final Crisis is just a few months down the line. I suppose if it got greenlighted now, it'll explain things post-FC.

[dupersuper]

I liked Man of Steel. I liked Birthrite too. I liked the Donner films and I liked the Nineties Warner Brothers cartoon (and the eighties one). Supes origin is not hard to find out there

Agreed. The All-Star Superman origin and Dini/Ross tabloid size origin (complete with blurry ship rocketing from Krypton so you can imagine youe fave) are the best.

[NotSuper]

No offense meant, NotSuper -- but if DC hasn't greenlighted a project, it's not inthe works.
Ah. Sorry about that.

[NotSuper]

I think a bigger question is that is a new origins story necessary when Final Crisis is just a few months down the line. I suppose if it got greenlighted now, it'll explain things post-FC.
I think it's kind of cool to NOT know what's going to happen with FINAL CRISIS. I'm intrigued by how often it's been said that this event will literally be doomsday and that evil will finally win. I think this is one event that will live up to its hype and deliver what it promises.

[niall mc cann]

Nothing fictional is necessary. If all we do is what's necessary, we'll all focus on food and shelter.

This is textbook definition "discussion for another time" :D , but I very strongly disagree. We've all always had stories. There's some kind of biological imperative there.

My father wouldn't sit and read John Grisham, let alone Kurt Busiek, but he'll relate Ali vs. Foreman or any number of All-Ireland Finals as fantastical, in their own way. They're his stories, like Superman is mine.


That's not said as an argument for an origin project, just to point out that "Is ________ Necessary?" isn't an argument that holds up. Nobody reads any comic book because it's necessary.

The fact is, we create and publish and (hopefully) sell what's interesting and theoretically profitable. So the question, really, would be whether an origin project is interesting and theoretically profitable.

Yup, that's fair enough.

I shouldn't have used the word "necessary" in this case. My only concern is whether something can be interesting the nth time it's related. I agree with Dupersuper, Morrison's origin in All-Star absolutely was, but it was also three pages long (and two of those pages was one splash panel). I think that was wise on Morrison's part.

If what you're telling me is that only reason another Superman origin would be out there is that someone somwhere thought it would sell... that's not inherently a recipe for disaster, but I would be much more interested in a story that came from one of you guys having woken up one morning thinking "You know what's interesting about Supes that I never thought about before..?".

Call me a romantic.:o

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I think the reason for constantly delving back into Superman's origin is that is spans an incredibly long period of time. There's a 20 year span between when baby Kal-El landed on Earth (to say nothing of Jor-El & Zod and Krypton) and when young Clark Kent became Superman (to say nothing of Superboy & The Legion of Super-Heroes).

There's just so many great stories to be told during this period, writers should constantly be going back there to find new angles and perspectives. Superman becoming Superman is one of the best Superman stories out there.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Even though there's no project in the works, I kinda doubt the material that Busiek and Johns have come up with will go unnoticed... Or unpublished.

[NotSuper]

Even though there's no project in the works, I kinda doubt the material that Busiek and Johns have come up with will go unnoticed... Or unpublished.
I'd love to see it myself. Busiek and Johns are two of my favorite writers. I loved the work they did together on "Up, Up, and Away."

Plus, I'm a mark for Superman origin stories.

[niall mc cann]

There's just so many great stories to be told during this period, writers should constantly be going back there to find new angles and perspectives. Superman becoming Superman is one of the best Superman stories out there.

Yeah, it's mythic and it pushes all the buttons. I'm just interested in how many of the origin retellings really do find new angles and perspectives, rather than rehash the story for the sake of continuity.

For example, in my lifetime: The Donner film version almost acted as a summing up of the concept of Superman; it was about establishing an awesome, mythic vision of a man ordained by the stars to be the greatest champion, protector and servant of justice, freedom and hope. In some ways, Byrne's origin was the antithesis of that, showing an ordinary man in an extraordinary situation doing the best he can for all of us. Morrison's latest version was almost a mission statement for A-SS; lean, no-nonsense, stripped down to the basics and absolutely magical.

His other origin retellings? Within that timeframe, there've been a few, but I wonder if any of them have anything particularly different to say about that story? Those origins mostly picked-and-chose from the best existing versions to produce something convenient that suited the purpose at hand, rather than really setting out to be their own thing.

[lazlo_toth]

Although I think that Supes' origin is now just a matter of common knowledge, it is now widely claimed that he doesn't have an actual origin story. :confused:

Quite honestly, I prefer the current Clark/Superman combo, in which Clark is a milquetoast while Superman is just that... a SUPER man.

Actually, the thing about the Byrne reboot that I did appreciate was that Clark Kent was a normal guy, he was self-confident, and while he was still something of an overgrown boy scout, he was NOT a clumsy wuss. That aspect of the silver age Clark Kent was something I could never relate to, either as a teen or an adult. That for the past twenty years Clark Kent has exhibited a modicum of backbone is one of the reasons I've kept reading the Superman titles for twenty+ years now. As much as I love having Geoff Johns writing Action Comics, I am not at all pleased to see him portraying Clark Kent as a graceless boob. It's not quite as big a letdown as, say, Spider-Man's marriage all of a sudden being retroactively wiped out, but it's definitely something that will interfere with my ability to enjoy future stories if it continues. Clark Kent as a bumbling twit is clearly a retcon, albeit a minor one, and it calls into question how such an oaf could have ever won the affection of Lois Lane, which then to my paranoid mind begs the question of "should they even be married in the first place?" which then will lead to some grand scheme to have Lois wake up one morning and NOT be married to Clark Kent anymore, in which case it's time for me to give up comics and start collecting stamps or something, because goddammit, I will not go through something like that twice.

[BYC]

Actually, the thing about the Byrne reboot that I did appreciate was that Clark Kent was a normal guy, he was self-confident, and while he was still something of an overgrown boy scout, he was NOT a clumsy wuss. That aspect of the silver age Clark Kent was something I could never relate to, either as a teen or an adult. That for the past twenty years Clark Kent has exhibited a modicum of backbone is one of the reasons I've kept reading the Superman titles for twenty+ years now. As much as I love having Geoff Johns writing Action Comics, I am not at all pleased to see him portraying Clark Kent as a graceless boob. It's not quite as big a letdown as, say, Spider-Man's marriage all of a sudden being retroactively wiped out, but it's definitely something that will interfere with my ability to enjoy future stories if it continues. Clark Kent as a bumbling twit is clearly a retcon, albeit a minor one, and it calls into question how such an oaf could have ever won the affection of Lois Lane, which then to my paranoid mind begs the question of "should they even be married in the first place?" which then will lead to some grand scheme to have Lois wake up one morning and NOT be married to Clark Kent anymore, in which case it's time for me to give up comics and start collecting stamps or something, because goddammit, I will not go through something like that twice.
That's odd...cause OYL Clark Kent was the aggressive reporter that Luthor cursed at, as well as liking cause Kent finally reached the level of Lois.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Yeah, it's mythic and it pushes all the buttons. I'm just interested in how many of the origin retellings really do find new angles and perspectives, rather than rehash the story for the sake of continuity.

For example, in my lifetime: The Donner film version almost acted as a summing up of the concept of Superman; it was about establishing an awesome, mythic vision of a man ordained by the stars to be the greatest champion, protector and servant of justice, freedom and hope. In some ways, Byrne's origin was the antithesis of that, showing an ordinary man in an extraordinary situation doing the best he can for all of us. Morrison's latest version was almost a mission statement for A-SS; lean, no-nonsense, stripped down to the basics and absolutely magical.

His other origin retellings? Within that timeframe, there've been a few, but I wonder if any of them have anything particularly different to say about that story? Those origins mostly picked-and-chose from the best existing versions to produce something convenient that suited the purpose at hand, rather than really setting out to be their own thing.

I think Birthright brought something new to the table in how it portrayed Lex Luthor in Smallville. We've never seen that side of Luthor before. Even in the Silver Age, we never saw him protrayed that way, as this socially awkward genius savant, desperately afraid of being rejected by others, while feeling above everyone due to his intellect. As flawed and ultimately disappointing Birthright was, I still think it was a worthwhile story to tell.

And despite how f***ing wretched I think TV's "Smallville" became, I think it had some interesting things to add to the origin story in the first couple seasons.

I don't think creators should ever be affraid to delve back into Superman's origin. It's too large a canvas to ever be over-done. That said, Morrison's work on All Star Superman is a bitchslap to all those creators like Joe Casey who claimed that the only good Superman story is his origin. Which probably explains why Joe Casey's Superman stories were so forgettable.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Actually, the thing about the Byrne reboot that I did appreciate was that Clark Kent was a normal guy, he was self-confident, and while he was still something of an overgrown boy scout, he was NOT a clumsy wuss. That aspect of the silver age Clark Kent was something I could never relate to, either as a teen or an adult. That for the past twenty years Clark Kent has exhibited a modicum of backbone is one of the reasons I've kept reading the Superman titles for twenty+ years now. As much as I love having Geoff Johns writing Action Comics, I am not at all pleased to see him portraying Clark Kent as a graceless boob. It's not quite as big a letdown as, say, Spider-Man's marriage all of a sudden being retroactively wiped out, but it's definitely something that will interfere with my ability to enjoy future stories if it continues. Clark Kent as a bumbling twit is clearly a retcon, albeit a minor one, and it calls into question how such an oaf could have ever won the affection of Lois Lane, which then to my paranoid mind begs the question of "should they even be married in the first place?" which then will lead to some grand scheme to have Lois wake up one morning and NOT be married to Clark Kent anymore, in which case it's time for me to give up comics and start collecting stamps or something, because goddammit, I will not go through something like that twice.

Then I would stop reading comic books if I were you. It sounds like you're taking them a tad too seriously. Relax, it's just entertainment.

And Clark Kent acting like a bumbling twit again is as much a retcon as Byrne making him a Uber-Yuppie Football Jock was. Regardless, his relationship with Lois Lane clearly went beyond the goofy persona Clark adopted to protect his secret. Lois is too good a reporter to be fooled for long. They're married, they're going to continue to stay married until the readers & creators get really, really sick of it. And they aren't, so no worries.

The kid? I dunno how long the kid will stick around though....

[NotSuper]

And Clark Kent acting like a bumbling twit again is as much a retcon as Byrne making him a Uber-Yuppie Football Jock was. Regardless, his relationship with Lois Lane clearly went beyond the goofy persona Clark adopted to protect his secret. Lois is too good a reporter to be fooled for long. They're married, they're going to continue to stay married until the readers & creators get really, really sick of it. And they aren't, so no worries.
To be honest, it's easier for me to see Lois marrying a smart, if mild-mannered and slightly clumsy, Clark over a yuppie jock. I'd like to believe that Lois isn't a shallow person.

[niall mc cann]

I think Birthright brought something new to the table in how it portrayed Lex Luthor in Smallville. We've never seen that side of Luthor before. Even in the Silver Age, we never saw him protrayed that way, as this socially awkward genius savant, desperately afraid of being rejected by others, while feeling above everyone due to his intellect. As flawed and ultimately disappointing Birthright was, I still think it was a worthwhile story to tell.

Actually, I'm the guy that liked Birthright.:o

I've wasted unfeasibly large amounts of my time and energy defending the story, and I basically agree with everything you say there (up to the "flawed and disappointing" part, anyway).


And despite how f***ing wretched I think TV's "Smallville" became, I think it had some interesting things to add to the origin story in the first couple seasons.

Eh... I watched and enjoyed it for a while. It basically seemed like a Buffy rip-off to me, in the end.


I don't think creators should ever be affraid to delve back into Superman's origin. It's too large a canvas to ever be over-done.

Possibly. I'm not convinced of that.

Which is not to say I want creators to be afraid of it, just that I'd question what exactly people are asking for at the minute... Supes doesn't have an origin? That's not true. Any four-year old'll tell you it.


That said, Morrison's work on All Star Superman is a bitchslap to all those creators like Joe Casey who claimed that the only good Superman story is his origin. Which probably explains why Joe Casey's Superman stories were so forgettable.

Hey, no arguement. All-Star Superman is my favourite comic out there right now.

Only time judges classics, but I have every confidence that in a hundred years, somebody somewhere'll be reading it for the first time.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Actually, I'm the guy that liked Birthright.:o

You're wrong. Cuz I'm that guy. :)

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Which is not to say I want creators to be afraid of it, just that I'd question what exactly people are asking for at the minute... Supes doesn't have an origin? That's not true. Any four-year old'll tell you it.


There will always be continuity fanboys who desperately need to have every aspect of the character's history laid out for them so they can bitch and moan about what has and hasn't been retconned on the internet. Luckily, DC doesn't appear to be listening to that particular obsessive-compulsive sect of fanboys at the moment.

Personally, I prefer the approach they're taking now. Superman's history is, more or less, the same as it was before, but smooshed together with elements from all the various versions of Superman that have existed throughout the years. Kinda like what they've done with Batman for decades now. The exact specifics of Superman's past doesn't really matter unless it's pertinent to the current stories. The broad strokes are all there and the specifics can be filled in as they come up.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

And Clark Kent acting like a bumbling twit again is as much a retcon as Byrne making him a Uber-Yuppie Football Jock was.

Uh...no.

Byrne's Superman wasn't a retcon, it was a complete reboot of the character and the entire mythos.

But the modern Superman ISN'T a reboot. It's the same Superman that Byrne was writing 20 years ago.

Writing THIS Clark Kent as a buffoon IS a retcon, and ignoring a LOT of storylines.

Leave the clumsy oaf Clark kent back in the silver age where he belongs.

[NotSuper]

But the modern Superman ISN'T a reboot. It's the same Superman that Byrne was writing 20 years ago.
No it's not. New Earth is not the post-Crisis DCU. It's a completely new universe that only has elements of the post-Crisis universe.

This article explains things well: http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/comics.php?topic=articles/continuity-bbr142

[Super Buddies Forever]

Well, it's semantics. It seems that less has been thrown out this time around, and that Superman's Post-Crisis adventures more or less happened how we read them, minus some additions and subtractions along the way.

Of course, if you want to get technical about it, New Earth Superman is the same guy as Pre-Crisis Earth-One Superman and Post-Crisis Superman (and Birthright Superman), just with his history radically changed several times. Prior incarnations of Superman didn't just vanish or die, they became the guy starring in the books right now.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

That's retarded. Either go clean-slate or keep what you have, none of this "well it's KIND OF the same characters you've been reading for 20+ years but it's not!" BS.

[niall mc cann]

That's retarded. Either go clean-slate or keep what you have, none of this "well it's KIND OF the same characters you've been reading for 20+ years but it's not!" BS.

Yup it's very confusing. Who's the guy with the red cape, for example? And why's he fighting the bald guy, don't they get along? What, are they fighting over the blonde girl or the older chick? What's the name of this damn book?

Gah! You're right, it's all too much! It's just retarded.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Maybe I actually like being able to read some back issues from a couple years ago without wondering whether or not the events even happened in continuity anymore?

It's like the One More Day nonsense over at Marvel. They don't reboot the characters, but instead take the existing character and muck around with their history so SOME things happened and SOME things didn't and some things still happened but must have happened in a different way because this thing or that thing has been retconned...and so on...and so on...

It's frustrating because I LIKE continuity and I don't like feeling that the money I've invested following these characters as they grow and change was wasted.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Maybe I actually like being able to read some back issues from a couple years ago without wondering whether or not the events even happened in continuity anymore?

It's like the One More Day nonsense over at Marvel. They don't reboot the characters, but instead take the existing character and muck around with their history so SOME things happened and SOME things didn't and some things still happened but must have happened in a different way because this thing or that thing has been retconned...and so on...and so on...

It's frustrating because I LIKE continuity and I don't like feeling that the money I've invested following these characters as they grow and change was wasted.

Like it or not, this is a New Superman, on a New Earth with a New History. That history just happens to include elements from every version of Superman thus far, including the Byrne reboot (which was a retcon, by the way, since Supes still existed in a DCU that had kept most of its Pre-Crisis history).

If the fact that 70+ year old characters have to refresh their continuity every few years bothers you so much, I suggest you find another hobby or only read creator-owned comics like Ex Machina, where the character's history is crafted by a single creative team instead of dozens of different creators over the span of several decades.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

The problem is that they didn't really bother explaining things properly to fans. What's stayed? What's changed? It's been what, 2 or 3 years now? It's like they're just using this as an excuse to randomly change things when they feel like it instead of a focused new direction.

Let me put it this way, if after IC, DC made it CLEAR to fans that they were starting over, and then showed us: "this is Superman now. Here's all the important details about him. Here are the major changes that we've made. This is our new direction for the character"...I would be fine with that.

Instead, they kind of just half-assed it and basically continued storylines that were going on before IC, making it seem like we were still reading the same characters, then later they feel like changing stuff so they're all like "oh yeah, this is a brand new continuity now, BTW".

I fail to see how this is any better than the "retcon punch" or One More Day.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

That I agree with. It'd be nice if we got something that cleared things up.

However, I try to not pay too much atention to that. Otherwise, I'd go nuts.

[Choppa]

Basically, yeah. I have trouble right now remembering the specifics of the reboot, but for the most part, his origin isn't the same as it was before Infinite Crisis.

Huh? Why is it not the same as pre-IC? Everything pre-IC still happened, there were just some retcons here and there. It wasn't an actual reboot.

[NotSuper]

Huh? Why is it not the same as pre-IC? Everything pre-IC still happened, there were just some retcons here and there. It wasn't an actual reboot.
No, it wasn't a retcon. New Earth was created when all the other Earths were created and then combined together. It's not the post-Crisis Earth any more than it's Earth-S. It just has elements from that continuity.

Kind of like how the Teen Titans still had much of their pre-Crisis history intact, even though it was post-Crisis.

[NotSuper]

Like it or not, this is a New Superman, on a New Earth with a New History. That history just happens to include elements from every version of Superman thus far, including the Byrne reboot (which was a retcon, by the way, since Supes still existed in a DCU that had kept most of its Pre-Crisis history).
Yep. The Teen Titans are merely one example of that. Most of the DCU didn't have a hard reboot after Crisis.

My issue with saying one "likes continuity" is that the continuity they like has probably already been altered from ANOTHER continuity. This is true whether you're a pre-Crisis or post-Crisis fan, as the Crisis drastically changed the DCU and even before that the Silver Age characters replaced their Golden Age counterparts and it wasn't until later that they were placed on Earth-Two. The only real exception to this is the Golden Age.

[niall mc cann]

Let me put it this way, if after IC, DC made it CLEAR to fans that they were starting over, and then showed us: "this is Superman now. Here's all the important details about him. Here are the major changes that we've made. This is our new direction for the character"...I would be fine with that.

So, who wrote the press-release the last time you learned the continuity? Because I picked it up by reading the stories.

On balance, it seems like I got the better deal.

[Jon-El]

The nerdy Kent thing I think went out because audience taste changed. I remember being a nerdy 4 eyed kid reading Superman with my nerdy friends. We liked that aspect of the comic. The cool guys who played sports read X-Men. :) Much much older and I think more balanced readers today. I'm cool with any version I think.

[NotSuper]

I don't think it's necessarily "nerdy" Clark that people want, but instead a clear dichotomy between Superman and Clark. If the only difference is that one is a yuppie and the other a super-yuppie, it doesn't really work.

[Super Buddies Forever]

Well, the cynic in me says its less of what people want and more an attempt to emulate the Reeve films.

In my opinion, Nerdy Clark is one of the more jarring throwbacks of the New Earth continuity, whereas many other elements (such as the concept of a "Superboy") seem to be built on careful compromise between the different eras.

[NotSuper]

Well, the cynic in me says its less of what people want and more an attempt to emulate the Reeve films.
Maybe. But it was the original Clark Kent that portrayal was based upon. Although the Clark in the Donner movie seemed more like a "stranger in a strange land" than the original Clark (who seemed more adapted to big city life). One could argue that the idea of Clark as a Mid-West guy with a different set of values came from the Donner movie.