The Pre-Crisis vs Post-Crisis argument

[Sean Whitmore]

Thread title says it all. Enjoy!


SEAN

[ManofTheAtom]

Not true.

1) We had the original superman from 1939 up until crisis on infinite earths.

1) We had the original Superman from 1939 to 1945 when Superboy made his first appearance in More Fun Comics. In the 1950's, after Barry Allen's debut, the character was "split" in two, with Kal-El as the Earth One Superman who was Superboy in his youth and Kal-L as the Earth Two Superman who was not Superboy.

That means that we had the original Pre Superboy/Pre Multiverse Superman for six years. For about a decade after that we had a Superman who was Superboy, which contradicted Action Comics #1. For about 30 years after that (1956 - 1986) we had two Supermen, one for each Earth.

2) Byrne revamped him after that crossover ended.

Byrne revamped the Silver Age Superman, whose story ended in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow since the Earth Two Superman left their reality with Lois, Superboy Prime and Alexander Luthor.

Byrne's Superman lasted from 1987 to about 2003 when Birthright came out and made an unnecessary mess of things.

3) mark waid's story was fun but very odd in parts, I view this as a separate graphic novel, A stand alone tale.

"This" means Secret Origin or Birthright?

4) Now johns is giving the new revamp after 20 years or so, Because that was when byrne did his story

There is no "reboot clock", that's a fable Waid made up in 1999 to try to justify the reboot he and Morrison wanted to convince DC to do.

Isn't it odd how their reboot clock only applies to Superman? Why doesn't the reboot clock apply to Batman or Wonder Woman?

It's weird... they're the only two writers to ever bring up the existence of a reboot clock, and only in reference to Superman.

The comment you replied to is probably in reference to the fact that so far this decade DC has rebooted or retconned Superman in one way or another every two years like clockwork.

He is expressing a very justifiable concern given that track record.

[Barrister]

Over the past five or so years I've watched DC add back elements to the Superman continuity that John Byrne and DC threw out the window with his reimagining of the Superman origin in Man of Steel and the other Superman books being put out at the time. Each time they reintroduce discarded Silver Age concepts back into current continuity, I can't help but shake my head, but I am even more amazed by how much people seem to approve of this.

Listen, I'm cool with them reintroducing Supergirl, the Phantom Zone villains, and Kandor, but when they start bringing back multi-colored kryptonite and Krypto the Super-Dog, then it just looks like either hacky marketing to get people interested in Superman again or misguided nostalgia because people think that's what made Superman great back in the day. I mean, really - a race of humanoids on another planet I can believe, but the fact that somehow Krypton was able to spawn not only humanoids, but dogs as well? I have no doubt they'll be introducing Streaky, Comet, and Beppo in no time, which would make the odds of both Earth and Krypton having evolved five of the same species astronomical.

Anyway, my biggest complaint is everything having to do with reestablishing that Clark was Superboy when he was a lad in Smallville, especially that Lex Luthor also grew up in Smallville as well. I'm sure this has everything to do with the TV show Smallville doing the same thing, in which case that is extremely short-sighted given that Smallville will be cancelled or conclude within a year or two and no one will care about it after another year or two. I love comic books and there are always cases where disbelief must be suspended, but I cannot believe that Lex Luthor would not be able to put two and two together that Clark Kent, who was never seen in the same company as Superboy of Smallville (and why was he always in Smallville?), was also never seen in the same company of Superman when he just happened to move to Metropolis when Superman just happened to base his superheroics there? I don't care how many years this was established continuity before it was dumped in the 1980's; comics are no longer campy enough where this could not be seen as anything other than ridiculous.

I realize Byrne is seen as callous with his approach to Superman's origin, but I really think just starting over with a clean break was great. Most of this Silver Age stuff was fun at the time, but it's 2009 and it's nonsense at this point.

This has probably been discussed ad nauseum, but I only come to rant every year or so, and now I'm done a while. Sorry if this has already been beaten to death.

[Duy]

Over the past five or so years I've watched DC add back elements to the Superman continuity that John Byrne and DC threw out the window with his reimagining of the Superman origin in Man of Steel and the other Superman books being put out at the time. Each time they reintroduce discarded Silver Age concepts back into current continuity, I can't help but shake my head, but I am even more amazed by how much people seem to approve of this.

Listen, I'm cool with them reintroducing Supergirl, the Phantom Zone villains, and Kandor, but when they start bringing back multi-colored kryptonite and Krypto the Super-Dog, then it just looks like either hacky marketing to get people interested in Superman again or misguided nostalgia because people think that's what made Superman great back in the day. I mean, really - a race of humanoids on another planet I can believe, but the fact that somehow Krypton was able to spawn not only humanoids, but dogs as well? I have no doubt they'll be introducing Streaky, Comet, and Beppo in no time, which would make the odds of both Earth and Krypton having evolved five of the same species astronomical.

Anyway, my biggest complaint is everything having to do with reestablishing that Clark was Superboy when he was a lad in Smallville, especially that Lex Luthor also grew up in Smallville as well. I'm sure this has everything to do with the TV show Smallville doing the same thing, in which case that is extremely short-sighted given that Smallville will be cancelled or conclude within a year or two and no one will care about it after another year or two. I love comic books and there are always cases where disbelief must be suspended, but I cannot believe that Lex Luthor would not be able to put two and two together that Clark Kent, who was never seen in the same company as Superboy of Smallville (and why was he always in Smallville?), was also never seen in the same company of Superman when he just happened to move to Metropolis when Superman just happened to base his superheroics there?

I realize Byrne is seen as callous with his approach to Superman's origin, but I really think just starting over with a clean break was great. Most of this Silver Age stuff was fun at the time, but it's 2009 and it's nonsense at this point.

This has probably been discussed ad nauseum, but I only come to rant every year or so, and now I'm done a while. Sorry if this has already been beaten to death.
While I get your point, I can't concede, just because John Byrne's version.... uh.... sucked.

[Duy]

The only thing John Byrne did right was give Lois Lane some personality.

Everything else? Bleh.

[LtMarvel]

The only thing John Byrne did right was give Lois Lane some personality.

Everything else? Bleh.
Post Byrne Luthor is a much better character.

Getting Kent off TV was great.

Leaving Ma and Pa alive was great, too.

[Duy]

Post Byrne Luthor is a much better character.

Getting Kent off TV was great.

Leaving Ma and Pa alive was great, too.

Post Byrne Luthor was Marv Wolfman's Luthor, but I like the thought that he and Clark were close in age.

I don't really see the need to make Kent be off TV or on TV; I think a shake up every now and then is fine if it can be made to work.

Last point conceded.

[kalorama]

Post Byrne Luthor is a much better character.

Getting Kent off TV was great.

Leaving Ma and Pa alive was great, too.

Dumping that ridiculous "Clark as bumbling fop" routine was a good move too. That was really an unfortunate side effect of the popularity of the Reeve Superman films. (Speaking of which, I have to say that I Gary Frank's Reeve-modeled Superman/Clark to be a bit creepy.)

There's plenty of weak spot's in the particular's of Byrne's Superman stories, but the biggest plus of Byrne's take was that it laid the groundwork for a much needed reconsideration of the character.

[WorstThingUS]

Dumping that ridiculous "Clark as bumbling fop" routine was a good move too. That was really an unfortunate side effect of the popularity of the Reeve Superman films. (Speaking of which, I have to say that I Gary Frank's Reeve-modeled Superman/Clark to be a bit creepy.)

Clark Kent was a "bumbling fop" for decades before the movie. It was actually George Reeves' portrayal of a more edgy Clark in the 50's that Byrne cited as his influence. It's really beginning to hit me just how many people think that Superman pretty much began with that film (which makes your comment about Gary Frank being overly influenced by it ironic).

[kalorama]

Clark Kent was a "bumbling fop" for decades before the movie. It was actually George Reeves' portrayal of a more edgy Clark in the 50's that Byrne cited as his influence. It's really beginning to hit me just how many people think that Superman pretty much began with that film (which makes your comment about Gary Frank being overly influenced by it ironic).

Who said anything about Superman "beginning" with that film? And I know full well about the influence of Reeves on Byrne's portrayal of Clark (given that I just finished complimenting him on it). My point about the film was that, because it reached such a large, noncomics audience, it passed along the idea of Clark as a whiny useless weakling to the larger cultural consciousness, essentially replacing the much more interesting portrayal of the character from the George Reeves TV show. (To say nothing of the fact that the portrayal of Clark by Christopher Reeves was a good deal more wimpy than what was going on in the comics up to that point.)

[dupersuper]

I liked Man of Steel, I liked For all Seasons, I liked the movies, Birthright was ok, even Smallville has its fun moments, and now I like Secret Origins to. When I picture Supermans first 3 or 4 weeks in Metropolis, I flash on Man of Steel AND reworked golden age stuff like in "Crisis at Hand", AND Birthright AND the 1st night in Metropolis montage in the 1st Reeve film AND the year 1 annuals AND flashbacks like Superman and Alan Scott vs. solomon Grundy and the woman in the Busiek story who thought he was an angel (among others) AND For all Seasons AND a few angel/blur sightings a'la Smallville and Superman Adventures AND the Ruby Spears cartoon AND World of Krypton/Smallville/Metropolis AND, I have little doubt, soon this will include stuff from Secret Origins. I fully intend to eat my cake and have it to.

[ManofTheAtom]

I knew this was going to happen and I'm surprised most of Byrne's Superman elements lasted as long as they did. Almost from the time Byrne left the book writers have been trying to move back to the original outdated version simply because that was the version they grew up with not because it was better.

It's true that during Byrne's run and after it writers brought back old concepts from the 60s, but they did it in modern ways that twisted them into a new context filtered through the MoS reboot.

It was when writers like Loeb, Waid, and others tried to bring back old ideas the same way they used to be that things started go wrong and requiering a reboot of the character every two years.

You're surprised that Byrnes' origin lasted as long?

I'm not surprised that Birthright only lasted two years. It went the way of Shazam! A New Beginning.

MoS was a quality story that provided a consistant foundation for Superman (something Waid admitted himself in Legend of the Green Flame), while Birthight was not and did not.

It's that bad combination of nostalgia and lack of creativity from many of the writers who wrote Superman stories after the Byrne version. Much of that silver age stuff was goofy and made no sense and that was the reason it was gotten rid of in the first place. Instead of moving foward and coming up with new stuff many writers kept going back to the old stories and rehashing stuff.

I think Byrne did away with lots of the unneccessary and silly elements of the Superman mythos and made the character stronger.

That's not completely accurate or fair to say about the post Byrne writers.

They were very creative in how they brought back Superboy, elastic Jimmy, and even an "evil Kryptonian" in the form of the Cyborg.

Their work didn't require a reboot every two years to be explained... the same can't be said of the current Supergirl, who every 12 issues or so gets a new origin.

I think this yet again new retelling of the origin is an okay read but it's just so totally unneccessary. I understand it's an easy sell to fans and it's fun for a writer to tell their version of a classic story but usually with the retelling of Superman's origin the changes are usually so small it's hardly worth telling over in the first place. Byrne's was easily the most radical, took the most chances and in many ways made the most sense. There isn't/wasn't really a need to mess with that version because DC should be more worried about moving foward with the character and getting past...the past.

I think that the main problem in the last decade is that the only story most writers who come on the Superman titles want to tell is the origin, either out of hatred for Byrne, like was the case with Waid, nostalgia for the past, as was the case with Loeb, or having absolutely nothing new to say about the character, as is the case with Busiek, Johns, and Robinson.

As well-told as Secret Origin seems to be, in the end it's not something new. It's just a puzzle made out of piezes culled from the different versions of Superman that already exist.

Love it or hate it, Man of Steel offered a lot of new stuff that had never been done before (i.e. matrix, Clark playing football, Lex as a mogul, Ma and Pa alive during Clark's adulthood, Clark as the primary identity).

Maybe that's why so many people hated MoS, because it was different, and people tend to hate that which is different.

[ManofTheAtom]

Mark Waid and Leinil Yu’s brilliant ‘Birthright’ is about as close to an ‘Ultimate’ take on Superman as anyone’s likely to need for the foreseeable future. I can’t see any pressing requirement for yet another iteration of the same material for at least 25 years.

http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/112602239631900.htm

2030 got here so fast that I barely noticed... :P

[Alex Dragon]

It was when writers like Loeb, Waid, and others tried to bring back old ideas the same way they used to be that things started go wrong and requiering a reboot of the character every two years.

I especially hated Loeb and crew bringing back the old 40s look for krypton and krypto. In my mind if a writer's going to undo something another writer did they should have a strong reason to do so or a story so good it really needs to be told. Loeb seemed to go through all that for one less than mediorce story and the excuse to bring Krypto back.

You're surprised that Byrnes' origin lasted as long?

I'm not surprised that Birthright only lasted two years. It went the way of Shazam! A New Beginning.

The problem was that BIRTHRIGHT didn't really say or do anything new (as I remember). It was just a slightly different version of Byrne's take with elements of SMALLVILLE thrown in. The story wasn't anything special and the few new elements introduced weren't really worth keeping.

That's not completely accurate or fair to say about the post Byrne writers.

They were very creative in how they brought back Superboy, elastic Jimmy, and even an "evil Kryptonian" in the form of the Cyborg.

Some things "yes", some things "no".


As well-told as Secret Origin seems to be, in the end it's not something new. It's just a puzzle made out of piezes culled from the different versions of Superman that already exist.

Love it or hate it, Man of Steel offered a lot of new stuff that had never been done before (i.e. matrix, Clark playing football, Lex as a mogul, Ma and Pa alive during Clark's adulthood, Clark as the primary identity).

MAN OF STEEL is still my fav take on the character because it actually did stuff that needed to be done instead of trying to make all the silly stuff work. Some people disagree but was a more logical take on the character. For example:

There's no reason to make Clark a clutz and bumbling person. There's no need to have the parents dead. It's silly to have a full powered baby Kal land on earth...How could anyone raise him? It made no sense that Superman was supposedly the "real" guy while Clark was the disguise. It made no sense that a young clark would suddenly embrace his kryptonian heritage after being raised on earth for so long. It made no sense to have so many kryptonians end up on earth or survive the planet's destruction. It made no sense that Superman and Batman would automatically be best buds when they first met (or even now). Why was it important that Lex and Clark be from the same town and even grow up together? It makes no sense that anyone could sew together a costume made of indestructable material.

All goofy stuff that other writers have pretty much done away with in the lame effort of getting the character back to what they remember from the silver age.

Maybe that's why so many people hated MoS, because it was different, and people tend to hate that which is different.

That's just how many comic fans are despite so many of them complaining about wanting something new. They want things to be familiar and comfortable.

[ManofTheAtom]

I especially hated Loeb and crew bringing back the old 40s look for krypton and krypto. In my mind if a writer's going to undo something another writer did they should have a strong reason to do so or a story so good it really needs to be told. Loeb seemed to go through all that for one less than mediorce story and the excuse to bring Krypto back.



The problem was that BIRTHRIGHT didn't really say or do anything new (as I remember). It was just a slightly different version of Byrne's take with elements of SMALLVILLE thrown in. The story wasn't anything special and the few new elements introduced weren't really worth keeping.



Some things "yes", some things "no".




MAN OF STEEL is still my fav take on the character because it actually did stuff that needed to be done instead of trying to make all the silly stuff work. Some people disagree but was a more logical take on the character. For example:

There's no reason to make Clark a clutz and bumbling person. There's no need to have the parents dead. It's silly to have a full powered baby Kal land on earth...How could anyone raise him? It made no sense that Superman was supposedly the "real" guy while Clark was the disguise. It made no sense that a young clark would suddenly embrace his kryptonian heritage after being raised on earth for so long. It made no sense to have so many kryptonians end up on earth or survive the planet's destruction. It made no sense that Superman and Batman would automatically be best buds when they first met (or even now). Why was it important that Lex and Clark be from the same town and even grow up together? It makes no sense that anyone could sew together a costume made of indestructable material.

All goofy stuff that other writers have pretty much done away with in the lame effort of getting the character back to what they remember from the silver age.



That's just how many comic fans are despite so many of them complaining about wanting something new. They want things to be familiar and comfortable.

No matter how long it lasts, Secret Origin will probably be the last hurrah for the Silver Age. As we move further and further away from it and current writers who grew up with it no longer write comics, new people will come in and will write stories that serve the characters instead of pander to nostalgia.

At least we can hope for that...

[dupersuper]

Almost from the time Byrne left the book writers have been trying to move back to the original outdated version

Huh? Stern, Jurgens, Perez, L.Simonson, Ordway, Kessel, Carlin and, to a lesser extent, Kelly and Loeb all built on and referenced the Byrne stuff constantly. It's only been silver age pushers like Jones, Waid etc. who have gone silver (I enjoy both writers, I just wish their love for the silver age didn't too often come across as hatred for the books I've been enjoying for 20 years).

It's true that during Byrne's run and after it writers brought back old concepts from the 60s, but they did it in modern ways that twisted them into a new context filtered through the MoS reboot.

MoS was a quality story that provided a consistant foundation for Superman


That's not completely accurate or fair to say about the post Byrne writers.

They were very creative in how they brought back Superboy, elastic Jimmy, and even an "evil Kryptonian" in the form of the Cyborg.



All true.

I'm enjoying Secret Origins, but I'm sticking with the Man of Steel framework for the most part, in the little version us continuity geeks all have in their head.

[Ilash]

Huh? Stern, Jurgens, Perez, L.Simonson, Ordway, Kessel, Carlin and, to a lesser extent, Kelly and Loeb all built on and referenced the Byrne stuff constantly. It's only been silver age pushers like Jones, Waid etc. who have gone silver (I enjoy both writers, I just wish their love for the silver age didn't too often come across as hatred for the books I've been enjoying for 20 years).


It's interesting that Waid actually seems to be perfectly OK with moving past the Silver Age with pretty much every character EXCEPT Superman.

[ManofTheAtom]

It's interesting that Waid actually seems to be perfectly OK with moving past the Silver Age with pretty much every character EXCEPT Superman.

When it comes to Superman he's driven by hatred of Man of Steel. He hates it and sees it as something to be destroyed.

His BR might not have become the origin, but he succeeded in his overall mission.

[Alex Dragon]

When it comes to Superman he's driven by hatred of Man of Steel. He hates it and sees it as something to be destroyed.

His BR might not have become the origin, but he succeeded in his overall mission.

I think a big part of that comes from the fact that Waid campaigned for the chance to reboot Superman and DC went with Byrne instead. I think it also was the reason he took on the REBIRTH assignment. I would imagine he hates the Byrne version because it changed so much. I'm sure if Waid had actually rebooted Superman back then it would've been much more of a "tweaking" of the silver age version and wouldn't have made the changes neccessary to successfully update the character for a modern audience.

[ManofTheAtom]

I think a big part of that comes from the fact that Waid campaigned for the chance to reboot Superman and DC went with Byrne instead. I think it also was the reason he took on the REBIRTH assignment. I would imagine he hates the Byrne version because it changed so much. I'm sure if Waid had actually rebooted Superman back then it would've been much more of a "tweaking" of the silver age version and wouldn't have made the changes neccessary to successfully update the character for a modern audience.

Indeed, though you're mixing your ages. I didn't know that Waid had campaigned for the reboot in 86. It's interesting that if he did he would be passed over only to get the assignement two decades later and completely f it up.

We agree that Waid is a Silver Age fanatic, but Birthright owes more to the Bronze Age version by Maggin than to the Silver Age version.

Like with Maggin, Waid's Lex was an astrophyicist and his Clark could see people's souls (the idea of soul vision seen in Birthright comes from an Elliot S! Maggin novel that came out in 78 or 79).

[superchick]

No matter how long it lasts, Secret Origin will probably be the last hurrah for the Silver Age. As we move further and further away from it and current writers who grew up with it no longer write comics, new people will come in and will write stories that serve the characters instead of pander to nostalgia.

At least we can hope for that...

where new writers come in after growing up with batman:TAS, Superman: TAS, Justice League and JLU created by someone enamoured with the golden and silver ages

[ManofTheAtom]

where new writers come in after growing up with batman:TAS, Superman: TAS, Justice League and JLU created by someone enamoured with the golden and silver ages

Yeah, that's the risk.

Due to the Nostalgia Age we are currently in, the risk is that we're become trapped in an endless loop with no way out, doomed to repeat the past ages forever.

Hopefully somehow someone or someones will break the circle before it forms.

[Alex Dragon]

Indeed, though you're mixing your ages. I didn't know that Waid had campaigned for the reboot in 86. It's interesting that if he did he would be passed over only to get the assignement two decades later and completely f it up

Someone help me with the details here because it's a foggy memory for me at this point.....

From what I remember Mark Waid, Frank Miller and some other writer went to DC with reboot/revamp concepts for the "Big Three" Superman Batman and Wonder Woman after CISIS ended. Miller's concept for Batman was called DARK KNIGHT, The concept for WW was called AMAZON and I can't remember Waid's title for his Superman concept.

Miller went on to do DKR and BATMAN: YEAR ONE. George Perez got the WW assignment. John Byrne went on to do MAN OF STEEL. If I recall correctly Waid was annoyed at DC for not getting to Revamp/reboot Superman.

[ManofTheAtom]

Someone help me with the details here because it's a foggy memory for me at this point.....

From what I remember Mark Waid, Frank Miller and some other writer went to DC with reboot/revamp concepts for the "Big Three" Superman Batman and Wonder Woman after CISIS ended. Miller's concept for Batman was called DARK KNIGHT, The concept for WW was called AMAZON and I can't remember Waid's title for his Superman concept.

Miller went on to do DKR and BATMAN: YEAR ONE. George Perez got the WW assignment. John Byrne went on to do MAN OF STEEL. If I recall correctly Waid was annoyed at DC for not getting to Revamp/reboot Superman.

I thought that was Maggin... though I can see why you would confuse him with Waid if indeed I'm right.

[Super Buddies Forever]

See, I don't agree with this idea that reboots are mandatory after twenty years. How many times has Batman been rebooted? Things are tweaked here and there, but they're all done so within the framework of what's come before. Or what about any of the Marvel properties? They seem to do just fine without reinventing the past of the character's with every new creative team (Spider-Man's recent issues notwithstanding).

I think the major problem is that there are just two significantly different takes on the Superman character that are both popular, and so we're getting this generational tug of war. It almost makes me wish DC would use their shiny new multiverse to put out a second Superman continuity to appeal to the pre-IC fanbase.

And I think the only purpose of Secret Origin (or rather the post-IC changes that necessitate the publishing of Secret Origin) is to put Superboy back in the Legion (which is a shame, because I think the Superman mythos work better without that stuff) and to load it up with Donner movie homages (crystal technology, Clark Kent acting like a doofus). Neither sit that well with me, especially the latter. It would be like if I, a huge Batman '89/Returns fan, rebooted Batman so the Joker could be the killer of the Waynes and Bruce Wayne could be drawn like Michael Keaton.

[Alex Dragon]

See, I don't agree with this idea that reboots are mandatory after twenty years. How many times has Batman been rebooted? Things are tweaked here and there, but they're all done so within the framework of what's come before. Or what about any of the Marvel properties? They seem to do just fine without reinventing the past of the character's with every new creative team (Spider-Man's recent issues notwithstanding).



The real problem is the overall way DC treats it's characters. If something isn't working/selling or if a big name writer wants to retell or change a character DC just goes along with it...over and over and over again.

If the LEGION OF SUPERHEROES sales start to slip and a hot writer comes to them says I got an idea for a new version, DC let's them do it. They toss out the old team and expect fans to act like they never existed. They've done it with the LEGION, SUPERGIRL, HAWKMAN, CAPTAIN MARVEL/SHAZAM, DOOM PATROL, CHALLANGERS, JSA, SUPERBOY, WONDER WOMAN, etc., etc...

[ManofTheAtom]

Stupid question

Since Superman's heat vision can burn his clothes, why don't they rip when other Kryptonians attack him with their heat vision?

According to this comic, the clothes are only impervious to metal.

If Darkseid shoots him, they'll rip.

If Zod shoots him, they'll rip.

If anyone with Kryptonian-level heat vision or energy blasts shoots him, they'll rip, therefore they are not really invulnerable.

Anyone wanna bet that this won't be followed up on and the suit will be presented as invulnerable despite this inconsistancy?

And this is better than the invulnerability aura... how?

[ManofTheAtom]

Stupid questions #2

If the costume was made to fit Clark when he was a boy, how is it that it still fits him when he's a grown man?

His height, weight, and musculature when he is a man is quite different from when he is a boy.

Does the costume stretch? Is it made of unstable molecules? No, wait, this is DC, not Marvel.

[ManofTheAtom]

During the Pre-Crisis years, his Superboy suit was made of a Kryptonian material that would grow with him as he grew into a man.

That's one of the many things I hate about the Silver Age version of Superman.

The writers and editors made it seem like Jor-El sent Kal-El to Earth to be a super hero and gave him all the tools he would need to accomplish that.

He sent Kal to Earth to escape Krypton's destruction and have a life, not put on a spandex suit made out of his baby blankets to fight crime.

That's where Byrne's version excelled. In that one Jor-El sent Kal to Earth to rediscover the humanity the Kryptonians had lost and have a life.

Why would baby blankets need to stretch as the child grows? Where's the logic in that? Were all Kryptonian's clothes made from their baby blankets?

At least Byrne offered a credible excuse for why his Kryptonian clothing stretch as the child grew.

***********************

On a different note, last night I read a summary of the issue at Wikipedia in which it says that Martha tells Clark that the glasses make him look smarter.

Is this a dig at the fans who prefer the assertive Clark? We already know that Johns' Clark grows up to be a pushover like the 60's version who lets Lombard hit him on the head with a football, so it's not like he is going to behave like he is smart while he is wearing them.

[Hullababy]

The Byrne origin was my first exposure to Superman and I liked it as a kid but now I am not too fond of it. I don't like Byrne's Krypton at all. I like the fact that Superman came from a world that he could be proud of. That actually makes the destruction of Krypton tragic. Some of the concepts from the silver age are laughable but you have to remember that those were simpler times and I think a modern take on those concepts isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[ManofTheAtom]

The Byrne origin was my first exposure to Superman and I liked it as a kid but now I am not too fond of it. I don't like Byrne's Krypton at all. I like the fact that Superman came from a world that he could be proud of. That actually makes the destruction of Krypton tragic. Some of the concepts from the silver age are laughable but you have to remember that those were simpler times and I think a modern take on those concepts isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I have to ask you, what exactly does he have to be proud of?

Kryptonians have always been depicted as pricks full of hubris. When Superman first visited Krypton in the Golden Age as a ghost he came across a couple of snoty Kryptonians who thought their son was an idiot because he wasn't super smart like they were.

When Jor-El speaks with the council their hubrids prevents them from accepting that they are not lords and masters of their world. Byrne just expanded on this and gave us a reason for why they were like they were.

I ask you, what have Kryptonians contributed to the universe as a race?

Art? Music? Philosophy?

No. In fact, most Kryptonians are criminals, murderers, or deranged psychopats regardless of what version of Krypton is used.

What does Superman have to be proud of? Their shopping malls and movie stars?

The island where they segregated everyone who was black?

[Hullababy]

I have to ask you, what exactly does he have to be proud of?

Kryptonians have always been depicted as pricks full of hubris. When Superman first visited Krypton in the Golden Age as a ghost he came across a couple of snoty Kryptonians who thought their son was an idiot because he wasn't super smart like they were.

When Jor-El speaks with the council their hubrids prevents them from accepting that they are not lords and masters of their world. Byrne just expanded on this and gave us a reason for why they were like they were.

I ask you, what have Kryptonians contributed to the universe as a race?

Art? Music? Philosophy?

No. In fact, most Kryptonians are criminals, murderers, or deranged psychopats regardless of what version of Krypton is used.

What does Superman have to be proud of? Their shopping malls and movie stars?

The island where they segregated everyone who was black?

I don't follow Superman and Secret Origin is the first Superman comic I've picked up in ages (barring All Star) so I don't really know much about the present portrayal of Krypton but as far as I know, the Pre-crisis Krypton wasn't a cold hearted place like the Byrne Krypton was. Byrne depicted Krypton as a place which deserved to blow up.

[ManofTheAtom]

I don't follow Superman and Secret Origin is the first Superman comic I've picked up in ages (barring All Star) so I don't really know much about the present portrayal of Krypton but as far as I know, the Pre-crisis Krypton wasn't a cold hearted place like the Byrne Krypton was.

The Pre Crisis Krypton had pretty colors that concealed the darkness of its inhabitants.

How else do you explain their sending anyone with black skin to a secluded island, or their hubris to believe that they were masters of a dying world?

Byrne's Krypton, as shown in World of Krypton, was a place of music, art, and philosophy that died out under the weight of its people's hubris. It was like Rome before the fall of the empire.

It had depth that the Pre Crisis Krypton lacked.

[Hullababy]

The Pre Crisis Krypton had pretty colors that concealed the darkness of its inhabitants.

How else do you explain their sending anyone with black skin to a secluded island, or their hubris to believe that they were masters of a dying world?

Byrne's Krypton, as shown in World of Krypton, was a place of music, art, and philosophy that died out under the weight of its people's hubris. It was like Rome before the fall of the empire.

It had depth that the Pre Crisis Krypton lacked.

I'm not saying that Pre Crisis version necessarily had more depth. I'm just saying that I don't want Superman to look back at his heritage and be rather happy and relieved that Krypton blew up.

[ManofTheAtom]

I'm not saying that Pre Crisis version necessarily had more depth. I'm just saying that I don't want Superman to look back at his heritage and be rather happy and relieved that Krypton blew up.

He never did that with Byrne's Krypton. I don't know who you been talking to or where you're getting your information from, but Superman never said he was happy that Krypton blew up... that's something that Wendy Pini claimed and people who hate Man of Steel say, but it's not true.

I suggest you consult the source material instead.

http://image2.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/97151130200.4.GIF

[Hullababy]

He never did that with Byrne's Krypton. I don't know who you been talking to or where you're getting your information from, but Superman never said he was happy that Krypton blew up... that's something that Wendy Pini claimed and people who hate Man of Steel say, but it's not true.



Ok you got me.

I have to go check this out now :tongue:

[Mat001]

MAN OF STEEL is still my fav take on the character because it actually did stuff that needed to be done instead of trying to make all the silly stuff work. Some people disagree but was a more logical take on the character. For example:

There's no reason to make Clark a clutz and bumbling person.

It drives home that he can hurt people with his powers. It also allows him to feel isolated and alone, because of it. It also makes it easier to distinguish between Clark Kent and Superman.

There's no need to have the parents dead.

Only Jonathan is dead and that's because it forces Clark to stand on his own, without having to keep going back to him for support. It also allows Martha to shine such as we see in "Blackest Night: Superman" #2.

It's silly to have a full powered baby Kal land on earth...How could anyone raise him?

Clark isn't fully powered as a baby. It's only when he's five and six that they start to appear, just as it was in "Man Of Steel". In fact, this is reiterated in Action Comics #850 when Martha sees Clark lift the fridge in a one panel flashback. It's only when he's fourteen, that Clark has all of his powers. Johns, Buisek and Nicieza retained the notion that his powers came to him slowly. Only instead of being eighteen, he's fourteen. Only a four year difference.

It made no sense that Superman was supposedly the "real" guy while Clark was the disguise. It made no sense that a young clark would suddenly embrace his kryptonian heritage after being raised on earth for so long.

Those aspects of MOS haven't changed. Clark still sees himself as Clark Kent first, Kal-El second and that Superman/Superboy is a means to an end. He also hasn't embraced his Kryptonian heritage full bore by issue one's end. Pre-Crisis, he accepted it right off because the Kents didn't withhold the fact that he was not human for as long as Byrne or Johns have. And Pre-Crisis, Clark was accepting that he was Kal-El first and foremost. That it is his heritage. Clark only became a disguise to cover his powers. Superman's persona is really his own.

It made no sense to have so many kryptonians end up on earth or survive the planet's destruction.

Sure it does. Kara was sent off, Zor-El saved Argo, Brainiac removed Kandor and we had the Phantom Zone. It made sense then and now.

It made no sense that Superman and Batman would automatically be best buds when they first met (or even now).

Pre-Crisis it made sense because they're fellow heroes, fighting for a common cause. Post-Crisis, Byrne was starting to have Superman and Batman becoming friends as shown in the Action Comics Annual that he did and when Clark went to Bruce for help with the Kent family album. They're friends in the present because they've grown close working together over time.

Why was it important that Lex and Clark be from the same town and even grow up together?

Because it made the war between them personal on a whole new level. Clark is fighting to redeem Lex, while Lex is trying to kill his former friend. Today, it's being used to show that Clark once believed and no longer does.

It makes no sense that anyone could sew together a costume made of indestructable material.

Unless they're super strong and thus can make alterations.

From what I remember Mark Waid, Frank Miller and some other writer went to DC with reboot/revamp concepts for the "Big Three" Superman Batman and Wonder Woman after CISIS ended. Miller's concept for Batman was called DARK KNIGHT, The concept for WW was called AMAZON and I can't remember Waid's title for his Superman concept.

Miller went on to do DKR and BATMAN: YEAR ONE. George Perez got the WW assignment. John Byrne went on to do MAN OF STEEL. If I recall correctly Waid was annoyed at DC for not getting to Revamp/reboot Superman.

Never heard that story about Waid. I've only heard that Waid, Morrison, Peyer and Millar were denied the chance in 1998-99. I've only heard that Byrne pitched the idea a couple of years after Wolfman made his pitch to change things, two years earlier.

Stupid question

Since Superman's heat vision can burn his clothes, why don't they rip when other Kryptonians attack him with their heat vision?

According to this comic, the clothes are only impervious to metal.

If Darkseid shoots him, they'll rip.

If Zod shoots him, they'll rip.

If anyone with Kryptonian-level heat vision or energy blasts shoots him, they'll rip, therefore they are not really invulnerable.

Anyone wanna bet that this won't be followed up on and the suit will be presented as invulnerable despite this inconsistancy?

And this is better than the invulnerability aura... how?

The suit can withstand most attacks, but it has its limits. This was a compromise Johns made between what Byrne did and what was done by Weisenger years ago. DC doesn't want the suit torn up as often as it was during the late 80's and much of the 90's.

If the costume was made to fit Clark when he was a boy, how is it that it still fits him when he's a grown man?

His height, weight, and musculature when he is a man is quite different from when he is a boy.

Does the costume stretch? Is it made of unstable molecules? No, wait, this is DC, not Marvel.

Clark and Martha made alterations to it. We have issue two with Clark as Superboy and issue with Superman. I'm sure it'll be covered there.

The writers and editors made it seem like Jor-El sent Kal-El to Earth to be a super hero and gave him all the tools he would need to accomplish that.

He sent Kal to Earth to escape Krypton's destruction and have a life, not put on a spandex suit made out of his baby blankets to fight crime

Jor-El and Lara wrapped him in blankets so that he wouldn't be cold on his trip to Earth. As it turned out, the blankets would be like him on Earth.

I have to ask you, what exactly does he have to be proud of?

Kryptonians have always been depicted as pricks full of hubris. When Superman first visited Krypton in the Golden Age as a ghost he came across a couple of snoty Kryptonians who thought their son was an idiot because he wasn't super smart like they were.

When Jor-El speaks with the council their hubrids prevents them from accepting that they are not lords and masters of their world. Byrne just expanded on this and gave us a reason for why they were like they were.

I ask you, what have Kryptonians contributed to the universe as a race?

Art? Music? Philosophy?

No. In fact, most Kryptonians are criminals, murderers, or deranged psychopats regardless of what version of Krypton is used.

What does Superman have to be proud of? Their shopping malls and movie stars?

The island where they segregated everyone who was black?

Clark was proud of Krypton in the Pre-Crisis era because despite some of it's flaws, it was an advanced race and it was part of his heritage. There was no disease and suffering on his world. No poverty.

I ask you, what has Earth done that's so proud? You cite that Superman should be proud of Earth and only Earth, yet we're so ****** it's not even funny.

[ManofTheAtom]

Ok you got me.

I thnk there's a trade of Byrne's World of Krypton, not sure.

[ManofTheAtom]

The suit can withstand most attacks, but it has its limits. This was a compromise Johns made between what Byrne did and what was done by Weisenger years ago. DC doesn't want the suit torn up as often as it was during the late 80's and much of the 90's.

Clark and Martha made alterations to it. We have issue two with Clark as Superboy and issue with Superman. I'm sure it'll be covered there.

So Martha and Clark made it invulnerable to heat vision after they were done?

It's poor writing. One moment the fabric is vulnerable to heat vision and the next one it's not.

Jor-El and Lara wrapped him in blankets so that he wouldn't be cold on his trip to Earth. As it turned out, the blankets would be like him on Earth.

Convenient.

How did that one joke about Gilliagan's Island go? The Professor could build a radio out of a coconut but he could not fix a hole on a boat?

Jor-El could build a space ship that could send his son to a planet with a yellow sun that could make him and his clothes invulnerable but he could not build a yellow sun generator that could grant him powers he could use to save himself and his wife?

Didn't Zor-El in Loeb's Supergirl create a yellow sun generator that granted her super powers?

Any excuse that can be used to bring in other Kryptonians is one idea Jor-El could have used to save himself and Lara.

For how long did Jor-El know that Krypton was going to explode? That's how long he could have put the shower curtain under a yellow sun generator so that they could survive the explosion of the planet wrapped inside it... better yet, that's how long he could have exposed himself and Lara to the yellow sun radiation so they could survive the explosion.

Didn't Kristin Wells use a yellow sun grenade to escape Krypton's explosion?

Yet another idea that the Professor... er, Jor-El didn't consider.

What a moron...

Clark was proud of Krypton in the Pre-Crisis era because despite some of it's flaws, it was an advanced race and it was part of his heritage. There was no disease and suffering on his world. No poverty.

The Silver Age Krypton was definitely the ideal paradise for a 1950's American... no crime and no poverty because all the blacks lived on an island by themselves, and if anyone dared to speak against the state, like Zod, they would send them to the Phantom Zone where they couldn't bother anyone.

I ask you, what has Earth done that's so proud? You cite that Superman should be proud of Earth and only Earth, yet we're so ****** it's not even funny.

Within the DC Universe?

This is what Superman can be proud of...


http://image2.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/47824237274.38.GIF

[srhanson]

I thnk there's a trade of Byrne's World of Krypton, not sure.

Yep, Byrne's World of Krypton is collected here:

http://www.amazon.com/product/dp/1401217958/

It's also got a handful of stories from Pre-Crisis about The Fabulous World of Krypton.

[Mat001]

So Martha and Clark made it invulnerable to heat vision after they were done?

It's poor writing. One moment the fabric is vulnerable to heat vision and the next one it's not.

He hasn't been hit with heat vision all that often, now has he.

Convenient.

How did that one joke about Gilliagan's Island go? The Professor could build a radio out of a coconut but he could not fix a hole on a boat?

Jor-El could build a space ship that could send his son to a planet with a yellow sun that could make him and his clothes invulnerable but he could not build a yellow sun generator that could grant him powers he could use to save himself and his wife?

He could, but he didn't have the time. His first plan was to build a fleet of ships to get Kryptonians off world. The Ruling Council said no, so all he had was a couple of test rockets that were already made. One for Krypto and one for Kal-El. Action Comics #850 shows that Jor-El intended to send a pregnant Lara to Earth, but Kal came too soon and he didn't have the time to build a new ship. Much less yellow solar flash grenades.

Didn't Zor-El in Loeb's Supergirl create a yellow sun generator that granted her super powers?

Yes and no. That was changed in Supergirl #35, where it was revealed that Kara's memories were false. He built the ship on Argo, well after the fact and when he plenty of time to send the three of them to Earth to find Kal-El.

Any excuse that can be used to bring in other Kryptonians is one idea Jor-El could have used to save himself and Lara.

See Action Comics #850. He intended to save Lara, but not himself. That plan back fired and a couple of days later, Krypton exploded.

For how long did Jor-El know that Krypton was going to explode? That's how long he could have put the shower curtain under a yellow sun generator so that they could survive the explosion of the planet wrapped inside it... better yet, that's how long he could have exposed himself and Lara to the yellow sun radiation so they could survive the explosion.

A few weeks. His first plan was the Phantom Zone and that had flaws, so he went to plan B, which was a fleet of ships. That was rejected. There was no time for a plan C.

Didn't Kristin Wells use a yellow sun grenade to escape Krypton's explosion?

Flash grenades which were used up. The plans for that was then scrapped. Hence Jor-El went with ships.

The Silver Age Krypton was definitely the ideal paradise for a 1950's American... no crime and no poverty because all the blacks lived on an island by themselves, and if anyone dared to speak against the state, like Zod, they would send them to the Phantom Zone where they couldn't bother anyone.

Blacks on Vahlo Island were not criminals like on Earth. Zod, Jax-Ur and Faora were actual criminals. One was an ego maniac with delusions of granduer, a self ordained general and failed in his attempt to take over. One was a scientist who blew up the moon. And one killed 24 people, mainly men. That was all Pre-Crisis.

Within the DC Universe?

This is what Superman can be proud of...


http://image2.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/47824237274.38.GIF

Which is not within his lifetime. Right now, the Earth of the DCU is just as bad as our Earth in the real world.

[ManofTheAtom]

He hasn't been hit with heat vision all that often, now has he.

Only ever time he fights the Cyborg or other creatures who are more powerful than Kryptonians.

He was not hit with heat vision once during Last Son of Krypton?

He could, but he didn't have the time. His first plan was to build a fleet of ships to get Kryptonians off world. The Ruling Council said no, so all he had was a couple of test rockets that were already made. One for Krypto and one for Kal-El. Action Comics #850 shows that Jor-El intended to send a pregnant Lara to Earth, but Kal came too soon and he didn't have the time to build a new ship. Much less yellow solar flash grenades.

He didn't have to build the flash grenades, just aquire them.

Yes and no. That was changed in Supergirl #35, where it was revealed that Kara's memories were false. He built the ship on Argo, well after the fact and when he plenty of time to send the three of them to Earth to find Kal-El.

Convenient.

See Action Comics #850. He intended to save Lara, but not himself. That plan back fired and a couple of days later, Krypton exploded.

Do I have to? Wouln't they just change it later when it becomes convenenient like they did the first 34 issues of Supergirl?

A few weeks. His first plan was the Phantom Zone and that had flaws, so he went to plan B, which was a fleet of ships. That was rejected. There was no time for a plan C.

Again, convenient.

Flash grenades which were used up. The plans for that was then scrapped. Hence Jor-El went with ships.

Which apparently everyone had except him.

Kristin and the others didn't need ships, they had back packs.

Blacks on Vahlo Island were not criminals like on Earth. Zod, Jax-Ur and Faora were actual criminals. One was an ego maniac with delusions of granduer, a self ordained general and failed in his attempt to take over. One was a scientist who blew up the moon. And one killed 24 people, mainly men. That was all Pre-Crisis.

I didn't say that blacks were criminals. I said that the SA Krypton was a 1950s American's idea of paradise, with blacks away from whites and people who spoke against the state sent to prison.

Which is not within his lifetime. Right now, the Earth of the DCU is just as bad as our Earth in the real world.

That's irrelevant. He knows that it exists, that's all that matters.

[Alex Dragon]

It drives home that he can hurt people with his powers. It also allows him to feel isolated and alone, because of it. It also makes it easier to distinguish between Clark Kent and Superman.

?! I don't understand why any of that justifies Clark acting like a bumbling clutz. It's just a silly idea that would actually call more attention to yourself if you were trying to conceal that you were Superman.



Only Jonathan is dead and that's because it forces Clark to stand on his own, without having to keep going back to him for support. It also allows Martha to shine such as we see in "Blackest Night: Superman" #2.

What, Superman was slacking off and depending on Pa kent to get through life before Pa Kent died? So Superman finally started to "man up" after his dad died?


Never heard that story about Waid. I've only heard that Waid, Morrison, Peyer and Millar were denied the chance in 1998-99. I've only heard that Byrne pitched the idea a couple of years after Wolfman made his pitch to change things, two years earlier.

It was Morrison and not Frank Miller? Hmmm...You maybe right. Peyer was the name I couldn't remember. I don't remember Millar being involved at all.

If I remember the timeline correctly Wolfman was one of the writers who was pitching for the Superman revamp gig. According to Byrne after seeing the first Superman movie he fet that so much could be done with the character and DC wasn't living up to the potential. He started telling Dick Giordano if they ever decided to revamp Supes he'd like a shot. After Crisis was planned Giordano told Byrne to put his money where his mouth is and write up a proposal.
Wolfman was pitching for the revamp too and was a frontrunner before Byrne came on board. They went with Byrne and wanted Wolfman to write one of the Superman books but Wolfman said he'd only do it if Byrne went with his new take on Lex Luthor. Byrne liked Wolfman's take on Luthor and Byrne and Wolfman became the writers of the Superman books. After awhile Wolfman left his Superman book and Byrne was writing all 3 Superman books for awhile.

I'm not sure if Byrne got the job because because DC thought he had the best ideas or if it was because he was probably the hottest creator in comics at the time. In any case, whatever ideas Waid had, they weren't enough to beat out Byrne or Wolfman.

[ManofTheAtom]

If I remember the timeline correctly Wolfman was one of the writers who was pitching for the Superman revamp gig. According to Byrne after seeing the first Superman movie he fet that so much could be done with the character and DC wasn't living up to the potential. He started telling Dick Giordano if they ever decided to revamp Supes he'd like a shot. After Crisis was planned Giordano told Byrne to put his money where his mouth is and write up a proposal.
Wolfman was pitching for the revamp too and was a frontrunner before Byrne came on board. They went with Byrne and wanted Wolfman to write one of the Superman books but Wolfman said he'd only do it if Byrne went with his new take on Lex Luthor. Byrne liked Wolfman's take on Luthor and Byrne and Wolfman became the writers of the Superman books. After awhile Wolfman left his Superman book and Byrne was writing all 3 Superman books for awhile.

I'm not sure if Byrne got the job because because DC thought he had the best ideas or if it was because he was probably the hottest creator in comics at the time. In any case, whatever ideas Waid had, they weren't enough to beat out Byrne or Wolfman.

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=2&T1=Questions+about+Comic+Book+Projects#30

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=3&T1=Questions+about+Aborted+Storylines#66

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=4&T1=Byrnisms%3A+opinions+and+observations+of+JB#71

What is "Superboy syndrome"?

JB: Too many fans today consider themselves far too hip and a-go-go to ever go along with the most basic conceit of serial fiction: that the main characters will survive, but we will pretend, for the sake of this story, that that is not a given.

When I was a lad, I worried every time Superman fell into a kryptonite death trap. Usually I only had to wait four or five pages to find out that he was going to be okay, but it never occurred to me to shrug and flip to the next story to see if he survived. Only when reading SUPERBOY was I ever aware that there was no "tension", since we knew Superboy would become Superman. (I refer to this as "Superboy Syndrome", and caution writers to be very careful about it when doing flashbacks or, more significantly, flash forwards.)

If you reach a point at which you "know" no real harm can ever befall the main characters, and you are unable to simply accept that (without commenting that there is "no real tension") then you have crossed an important line, and there is no point in you continuing to follow this kind of fiction. Accept it for what it is, or move on -- but don't find fault with the ocean because it is too wet. (5/10/2004)

What is "Kandor syndrome"?

JB: Adding unnecessary details which complicate a character's backstory. This comes, of course, from the bottled city of Kandor, which used to reside in Superman's Fortress of Solitude, making it necessary, every time Superman visited the Fortress, to spend a coupe of panels explaining what Kandor was. Finally, a story was done in which Superman succeeded in restoring Kandor to its normal size, and also placing it on an alien world that "phased" out of our reality, Brigadoon-like, for 100 years at a time. Problem solved -- until another story was done in which it was decided that Superman "missed" having Kandor in its special place in the Fortress, so he created a perfect scale model of it, which had to be explained every time he went to the Fortress. And then, another story was done in which an alien race who were naturally that small moved into the model, so every time. . . . etc, etc. (11/02/04)

On DC's tendency to "de-unique" their characters

JB: As I have often noted, the one thing that most clearly defines DC is the "de-uniquing" of their characters.

I don't mean creating franchises. Superman and Batman, for instance, have always had multiple titles, at least from the point at which they got their own books. What I am referring to is the multiple iterations of characters with the same powers and abilities -- So for Superman we see Superboy, Supergirl, Krypto, Comet, Streaky, and all the inhabitants of Kandor. Batman gives us Batwoman, two Batgirls, Bat-Mite, Ace the Bat-Hound and several future Batman. Many of the characters had kid versions, as with Kid Flash, Aqualad, Wonder Girl, etc. And, of course, Green Lantern was the least unique character ever, with literally thousands of beings who could do exactly what he did.

Even when we were presented with a character who was effectively a "one of", like J'Onn J'Onzz, we had to have a whole race of beings to whom his abilities were just standard issue, like having brown eyes. As a kid, I enjoyed all the multiples of multiples, but as I got older, and especially after I got into the business, I got to really wishing there was some way every DC character could (much like their Marvel equivalents) be the only ones. Not surprising, is it, that once a generation of writers and artists raised on Silver Age DC started working at Marvel, we started seeing multiples of the characters -- multiple Captain Americas, for instance, or "parallel universe" versions of the FF. (5/09/04)

Now I'm curious to see what counterpoint fans of the SA like Waid and others would come up with counter Byrne's points. He's not wrong in what he says here.

[Inactiveman]

Stupid question

Since Superman's heat vision can burn his clothes, why don't they rip when other Kryptonians attack him with their heat vision?

According to this comic, the clothes are only impervious to metal.

If Darkseid shoots him, they'll rip.

If Zod shoots him, they'll rip.

If anyone with Kryptonian-level heat vision or energy blasts shoots him, they'll rip, therefore they are not really invulnerable.

Anyone wanna bet that this won't be followed up on and the suit will be presented as invulnerable despite this inconsistancy?

And this is better than the invulnerability aura... how?


I think he still has the invulnerability aura. Tactile kenesis (an extension of the aura) is still referenced in the books such as the latest issue of Supergirl.

[ManofTheAtom]

I think he still has the invulnerability aura. Tactile kenesis (an extension of the aura) is still referenced in the books such as the latest issue of Supergirl.

Then why the redundancy?

[Duy]

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=2&T1=Questions+about+Comic+Book+Projects#30

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=3&T1=Questions+about+Aborted+Storylines#66

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=4&T1=Byrnisms%3A+opinions+and+observations+of+JB#71







Now I'm curious to see what counterpoint fans of the SA like Waid and others would come up with counter Byrne's points. He's not wrong in what he says here.
John Byrne would like to (and did) do away with a lot of the small, tiny, imaginative things that added to Superman folklore; something that even Alan Moore commented on as having been a bad move, and something that Moore tried addressing in his Supreme run.

John Byrne or Alan Moore, I know which side of the fence I'm falling on, sir.

[Inactiveman]

I don't follow Superman and Secret Origin is the first Superman comic I've picked up in ages (barring All Star) so I don't really know much about the present portrayal of Krypton but as far as I know, the Pre-crisis Krypton wasn't a cold hearted place like the Byrne Krypton was. Byrne depicted Krypton as a place which deserved to blow up.

Pre-Crisis it was sometimes portrayed as cold-hearted, a "logic over emotion" place.

For example, in the pre-crisis mini-series (the first mini-series if I'm not mistaken) "World of Krypton" one of the plots involved computers deciding who was married to whom.

If I'm not mistaken the computers also decided what your field of study and career was.

One thing I liked about the Byrne version of Krypton is that other aliens feared/respected the planet. Due to this when aliens encountered Superman they were like "WTF? A Kryptonian? I'm screwed".

[ManofTheAtom]

John Byrne would like to (and did) do away with a lot of the small, tiny, imaginative things that added to Superman folklore; something that even Alan Moore commented on as having been a bad move, and something that Moore tried addressing in his Supreme run.

John Byrne or Alan Moore, I know which side of the fence I'm falling on, sir.

He did away with the clutter and things that watered down the character. Nothing wrong with that.

Miller did the same with Batman.

[Inactiveman]

Then why the redundancy?

Fanboys like it.

I think the "blankets to costume" idea has taken on an iconic quality which many, even those outside of comics, associate with the character.

It seems this whole series has a "get your cake and eat it too" quality to it. We've now got the baby blankets AND the aura explanation.

[ManofTheAtom]

Fanboys like it.

I think the "blankets to costume" idea has taken on an iconic quality which many, even those outside of comics, associate with the character.

It seems this whole series has a "get your cake and eat it too" quality to it. We've now got the baby blankets AND the aura explanation.

Blenderized pandering.

[Inactiveman]

Ha ha, probably.

Another thing about the Byrne "cold, emotionless Krypton" is that it touches on the "overman" master-race origins of Superman's creation.

[ManofTheAtom]

Ha ha, probably.

Another thing about the Byrne "cold, emotionless Krypton" is that it touches on the "overman" master-race origins of Superman's creation.

Interesting point, I hadn't considered that.

I think that above all else the most interesting aspect of MoS is that a quarter of a century later we are still talking about it.

The same can't be said of many other comics.

[Inactiveman]

Interesting point, I hadn't considered that.

I think that above all else the most interesting aspect of MoS is that a quarter of a century later we are still talking about it.

The same can't be said of many other comics.

The only time I emotionally connected with Superman was with MOS.

It was the first series I ever read completely and it's what brought me into my first comic shop looking for back issues.

MOS turned me from a kid who reads comics into a comic reader.

[ManofTheAtom]

The only time I emotionally connected with Superman was with MOS.

It was the first series I ever read completely and it's what brought me into my first comic shop looking for back issues.

MOS turned me from a kid who reads comics into a comic reader.

I'm sure the same is true for a lot of people.

The point of MoS was to get people interested in Superman again, and it succeeded.

That's why compared to Birthright and even Secret Origin it will continue to stand as the best version of the character's origin, because no matter how well-told the latter one might be, the reasoning behind it, the justification behind it, is more interesting.

MoS came about at a time when people lost interest in Superman and it managed to bring a ton of new readers in it, while Secret Origin is a Band-Aid that is trying to fix a decade's worth of screw ups.

[Duy]

That's why compared to Birthright and even Secret Origin it will continue to stand as the best version of the character's origin, because no matter how well-told the latter one might be, the reasoning behind it, the justification behind it, is more interesting.

EHHHHHH!!! WRONG!!!!

The first Superman story I EVER read was Man of Steel.

And then as I grew older I read more of the older stuff and thought "WHAT? They got rid of THESE??"

Two of the most critically acclaimed Superman stories are All-Star Superman and Supreme, a Superman analogue, which both draw heavily from pre-MOS elements.

And were written by Alan Moore and Grant Morrison.

Between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, or John Byrne, I know which side of the fence I stand on, every single time, and it's NOT the guy who thinks that deploying away with all of the small imaginative things in the mythos makes him "more interesting."

[Duy]

He did away with the clutter and things that watered down the character. Nothing wrong with that.

Miller did the same with Batman.
No. He just watered down the character with his own idea of what the character was supposed to be.

Know what the difference was with Miller? His vision of Batman and his version of streamlining fit with Batman's persona and his myth.

Everything Byrne did away with was the small things that were VERY consistent with Superman.

But hey, if you'd rather have Krypton as a cold, emotionless place than one that would be cool to explore and view in a comic book, or if you'd rather have Superman born in a birthing matrix in Kansas just so he can say he's an American, or if you'd rather have a Superman who "moves things when he's flying due to some form of telekinesis," then sure, enjoy your MoS Superman.

[ManofTheAtom]

No. He just watered down the character with his own idea of what the character was supposed to be.

EHHHHHH!!! WRONG!!!!

The first Superman story I EVER read was Man of Steel.

And then as I grew older I read more of the older stuff and thought "WHAT? They got rid of THESE??"

Two of the most critically acclaimed Superman stories are All-Star Superman and Supreme, a Superman analogue, which both draw heavily from pre-MOS elements.

And were written by Alan Moore and Grant Morrison.

Between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, or John Byrne, I know which side of the fence I stand on, every single time, and it's NOT the guy who thinks that deploying away with all of the small imaginative things in the mythos makes him "more interesting."

Those ideas are so important, than repetitive attempts to bring them back into continuity has resulted in a continuous screwing up of the character.

Just look at Supergirl. How many origins has she had in 40 issues, like five? At one point versions of Jor-El and Zor-El from conflicting origins appeared in the same issue.

[Duy]

Those ideas are so important, than repetitive attempts to bring them back into continuity has resulted in a continuous screwing up of the character.

Just look at Supergirl. How many origins has she had in 40 issues, like five? At one point versions of Jor-El and Zor-El from conflicting origins appeared in the same issue.
That's more a direction of bad editing than bad writing. There's nothing wrong with those ideas, they've been known to work, they CAN work, they DO work. A talented writer is good enough to make it work.

But you know, if Byrne would rather put Superman and Barda in a porno, well, by all means, he must be a great writer.

[ManofTheAtom]

That's more a direction of bad editing than bad writing. There's nothing wrong with those ideas, they've been known to work, they CAN work, they DO work. A talented writer is good enough to make it work.

But you know, if Byrne would rather put Superman and Barda in a porno, well, by all means, he must be a great writer.

He might be. His stuff was not only relevant in the comics for 20 years but it was also carried over into multiple versions of the story in other media like toons, movies, and TV shows, as well as remains a topic of debate and analysis 25 years after the fact.

No writer in the last decade can say the same thing, can they?

I don't think we have to worry about seeing Cor-El or whatever her name was in a Superman toon any time soon, or see Superman fight a giant spider.

[Duy]

He might be. His stuff was not only relevant in the comics for 20 years but it was also carried over into multiple versions of the story in other media like toons, movies, and TV shows, as well as remains a topic of debate and analysis 25 years after the fact.

No writer in the last decade can say the same thing, can they?

I don't think we have to worry about seeing Cor-El or whatever her name was in a Superman toon any time soon, or see Superman fight a giant spider.
How can any writer in the last DECADE boast that they're still talking about his work 25 years after the fact??

There was ONE Superman movie since the time of the Byrne reboot, and it was very heavily influenced by the Donner films, not the Byrne reboot.

The animated series? The portrayal of Clark Kent was influenced by the Max Fleischer cartoons. The portrayal of Luthor was from the Byrne series, but, again, Marv Wolfman came up with that. Their portrayals of Bizarro and Mxyzptlk, among others, were clearly pre-Byrne. Power level wise, you've got Superman running around in a space suit, while others around him were flying around without any accoutrements. This was a holdover of the editorial power levels due to what Byrne did. Super, indeed.

And TV? Do you mean Lois and Clark or Smallville? Because Smallville sure has Clark in that geeky, outsider clique role, while Byrne's high school version of Clark was clearly a jock. I never watched Lois and Clark, so I'll probably concede that point, though.

[ManofTheAtom]

How can any writer in the last DECADE boast that they're still talking about his work 25 years after the fact??

How about the simple fact that most of everything done in the last decade has been either forgotten or replaced with a different version?

Or how about the fact that due to those constant revisions it is near impossible to have a discussion about any one character or story arc without dismissing it as fleeting?

Do you honestly thing that 20 years from now people will argue over the merits of Waid's Kryptonian spider as they do over Byrne's Krypton?

[Duy]

How about the simple fact that most of everything done in the last decade has been either forgotten or replaced with a different version?

Or how about the fact that due to those constant revisions it is near impossible to have a discussion about any one character or story arc without dismissing it as fleeting?

Do you honestly thing that 20 years from now people will argue over the merits of Waid's Kryptonian spider as they do over Byrne's Krypton?

No, of course not. Birthright was bad.

And we're talking about two different things. You're defending Byrne on the basis that everything that came after him was fleeting. I'm bashing him on the basis that not everything that came before him needed trashing.

[Duy]

How about the simple fact that most of everything done in the last decade has been either forgotten or replaced with a different version?

Or how about the fact that due to those constant revisions it is near impossible to have a discussion about any one character or story arc without dismissing it as fleeting?

Do you honestly thing that 20 years from now people will argue over the merits of Waid's Kryptonian spider as they do over Byrne's Krypton?
20 years from now, people will be talking about Kingdom Come, All-Star Superman, Alan Moore's Supreme, and Superman: Red Son, three of which draw quite heavily on pre-Crisis elements, one of them being Kandor, which, by the way, Morrison proved could be writte without succumbing to Byrne's stifling view of it.

And all of these will be judged on their quality, not controversy.

[Duy]

Also, one last thing?

Secret Origin's art is better.

[Will.S]

Only Jonathan is dead and that's because it forces Clark to stand on his own, without having to keep going back to him for support. It also allows Martha to shine such as we see in "Blackest Night: Superman" #2.
I wouldn't exactly use Blackest Night Superman #2 as the greatest example....

[srhanson]

MoS came about at a time when people lost interest in Superman and it managed to bring a ton of new readers in it, while Secret Origin is a Band-Aid that is trying to fix a decade's worth of screw ups.

I personally think that Byrne's origin is more interesting and had the most to say. But I gotta disagree about Secret Origins just being a bandaid. It's more than that. In making it a greatest hits of Superman's origin stories told over the years, he's making it accessible to the casual reader.

I think that a year from now, if a new reader were to flip through collected editions of MOS and SSO at a bookstore, they'd go for SSO. It's designed to be more accessible.

[srhanson]

It seems this whole series has a "get your cake and eat it too" quality to it. We've now got the baby blankets AND the aura explanation.

Is that true? Did Johns' include the aura thing in SSO #1? I don't remember that, but I would love it if he did.

Maybe the aura will develop later in Clark's life and will be used to explain the "no damage" adult costume.

[Inactiveman]

Is that true? Did Johns' include the aura thing in SSO #1? I don't remember that, but I would love it if he did.

Maybe the aura will develop later in Clark's life and will be used to explain the "no damage" adult costume.

The concept of tactile kenesis which Kon-El has is still around. Chris/Nightwing just mentioned in in the last issue of Supergirl.

Tactile kenesis is just an extension of the aura.

Personally I like the aura/tactile kenesis explanation as to why his costume doesn't get damaged and why he can lift a plane at it's middle-section belly without it breaking in two.

[Duy]

The concept of tactile kenesis which Kon-El has is still around. Chris/Nightwing just mentioned in in the last issue of Supergirl.

Tactile kenesis is just an extension of the aura.

Personally I like the aura/tactile kenesis explanation as to why his costume doesn't get damaged and why he can lift a plane at it's middle-section belly without it breaking in two.

I think the aura thing is ridiculous and just another attempt to anally explain away things that don't make sense in reality. He's Superman, he's invulnerable, let's let the magic stay and move on.

Another thought:

Traditionally Lana replaced Lois as the inquisitive lady trying to learn his secret identity.

However in Secret Origins this Lana knows he has powers.

Seeing as how it has been hinted that Chloe Sullivan exists in SO, will she replace Lana as the inquisitive girl trying to prove that the mysterious "flying boy" urban legend is true?

Considering that post-Byrne Lana had no such role as the inquisitive lady and always knew Clark had powers since graduation, I don't think this'll be a problem.


Also, I showed both Secret Origin and Man of Steel to my 10 year old nephew, and he prefers Secret Origin by far, and he also loved Superman and the Legion of Superheroes and Legion of Three Worlds, so don't even tell me that Man of Steel is more accessible because it cuts through the side elements. If a ten-year-old boy can figure it out without any effort, adults shouldn't have anything resembling an excuse.

[Duy]

I personally think that Byrne's origin is more interesting and had the most to say.

What did it say, honestly?

"Superman is being held back by side elements like the Legion, the fortress, Kandor, Supergirl, a fun planet Krypton, his being Superboy, etc." Sure, okay, until Alan Moore and Grant Morrison disproved that 10 and 20 years later.

"Superman is better when he's powered down." Says who? Like Gail Simone says, how anyone could complain about Superman being tough to write because he's too powerful is mind-blowing, because how can you NOT have the imagination to make that work?

"Superman and Batman are better when they work at odds." That's a fun idea, but it has limited mileage. Eventually these two will come to trust each other; it's just the nature state of maturity and is also the most marketable move for DC in the long-term.

"Lex Luthor is better when he's a ruthless businessman." Sure, I'll give Marv Wolfman the proper credit for that.

"Ma and Pa Kent are better alive." Yes, I'll concede that.

"Lois Lane is better when she has a personality." Well, duh, anyone would have made this work. I'll concede that, too.

"Bizarro is better as a tragic figure." Sure, let's remove all the things that made Bizarro fun and amusing, and just squeeze the tragedy out of him.

"Krypton is better if it's cold and sterile." No, it's not. Maybe it is for a while, but you get zero mileage out of this in future stories eventually. Pre-Crisis Krypton could hold a back-up feature, post-Byrne Krypton cannot.

"It's better if Superman is in a birthing matrix and is born in Kansas instead of on Krypton, because Superman being born in Kansas makes him more human." No, it doesn't. Superman being raised in Kansas makes him more human. The last two pages of Man of Steel just showed that "Hey, Krypton is IRRELEVANT. Superman is human. (and damned if there weren't some pro-American immigrant messages in that intepretation)" Also, you want to talk about accessibility, I know that I'd rather say "baby gets put in rocket, gets sent to earth" rather than "little fetus gets put in birthing matrix, get sent to earth, actually is born on earth."

[Alex Dragon]

John Byrne would like to (and did) do away with a lot of the small, tiny, imaginative things that added to Superman folklore; something that even Alan Moore commented on as having been a bad move, and something that Moore tried addressing in his Supreme run.

John Byrne or Alan Moore, I know which side of the fence I'm falling on, sir.

Well yeah, Moore is a great writer and was able to make all that goofy stuff seem fun and charming. But other writers had years to do the same and only made the goofy stuff seem...goofy.

It may be fun to read that Silver Age stuff when it's done for a limited run by it's self out of conituity but it's not the Superman I'd want to see on a regular basis done by lesser writers. Moore and Morrison can do that type of stuff and make it work but I think it fails when others try to pull it off. Plus I think that version of Superman really doesn't work or fit in the current DC U. In order for that Silver Age stuff to work today and fit in the rest of the DC U. needs to be portrayed in a somewhat similar fashion and it isn't.

[ManofTheAtom]

How can any writer in the last DECADE boast that they're still talking about his work 25 years after the fact??

There was ONE Superman movie since the time of the Byrne reboot, and it was very heavily influenced by the Donner films, not the Byrne reboot.

The animated series? The portrayal of Clark Kent was influenced by the Max Fleischer cartoons. The portrayal of Luthor was from the Byrne series, but, again, Marv Wolfman came up with that. Their portrayals of Bizarro and Mxyzptlk, among others, were clearly pre-Byrne. Power level wise, you've got Superman running around in a space suit, while others around him were flying around without any accoutrements. This was a holdover of the editorial power levels due to what Byrne did. Super, indeed.

And TV? Do you mean Lois and Clark or Smallville? Because Smallville sure has Clark in that geeky, outsider clique role, while Byrne's high school version of Clark was clearly a jock. I never watched Lois and Clark, so I'll probably concede that point, though.

Clark in Smallville played football in high school and college like Byrne's Clark did. Clark in Smallville is hardly the geeky dork from the 60s

[ManofTheAtom]

No, of course not. Birthright was bad.

And we're talking about two different things. You're defending Byrne on the basis that everything that came after him was fleeting. I'm bashing him on the basis that not everything that came before him needed trashing.

What he trashed were things that watered down the concept, like super pets, Kryptonian survivors, God-like powers, coming to Earth with the tools to become a hero, Krypton as a futuristic version of 1960s paranoid America - with an island where they sent all blacks, a phantom realm to send anyone who speaks against the state, shopping malls, and movie stars -, Dr. Doom in college with Reed... I mean, Lex Luthor in Smallville with Clark, and other moronic ideas.

[ManofTheAtom]

20 years from now, people will be talking about Kingdom Come, All-Star Superman, Alan Moore's Supreme, and Superman: Red Son, three of which draw quite heavily on pre-Crisis elements, one of them being Kandor, which, by the way, Morrison proved could be writte without succumbing to Byrne's stifling view of it.

And all of these will be judged on their quality, not controversy.

Byrne never wrote Kandor, Jurgens did.

100,003 Kryptonian survivors don't add anything of worth to Superman, they only diminish him and Jor-El.

[ManofTheAtom]

Also, one last thing?

Secret Origin's art is better.

It looks better, sure, but I'm sure you've seen that some people have some problems with it.

[ManofTheAtom]

"Krypton is better if it's cold and sterile." No, it's not. Maybe it is for a while, but you get zero mileage out of this in future stories eventually. Pre-Crisis Krypton could hold a back-up feature, post-Byrne Krypton cannot.

They got 20 years of mileage from it.

Loeb got two years of mileage out of his Silver Age rehash, while Waid got no mileage out of his Birthright crap, which stalled at every turn.

"It's better if Superman is in a birthing matrix and is born in Kansas instead of on Krypton, because Superman being born in Kansas makes him more human." No, it doesn't. Superman being raised in Kansas makes him more human. The last two pages of Man of Steel just showed that "Hey, Krypton is IRRELEVANT. Superman is human. (and damned if there weren't some pro-American immigrant messages in that intepretation)" Also, you want to talk about accessibility, I know that I'd rather say "baby gets put in rocket, gets sent to earth" rather than "little fetus gets put in birthing matrix, get sent to earth, actually is born on earth."

He wasn't a fetus, he was a baby that hadn't been born.

You can see him in one of the early pages of MoS when Jor-El looks in on his matrix.

[ManofTheAtom]

Well yeah, Moore is a great writer and was able to make all that goofy stuff seem fun and charming. But other writers had years to do the same and only made the goofy stuff seem...goofy.

It may be fun to read that Silver Age stuff when it's done for a limited run by it's self out of conituity but it's not the Superman I'd want to see on a regular basis done by lesser writers. Moore and Morrison can do that type of stuff and make it work but I think it fails when others try to pull it off. Plus I think that version of Superman really doesn't work or fit in the current DC U. In order for that Silver Age stuff to work today and fit in the rest of the DC U. needs to be portrayed in a somewhat similar fashion and it isn't.

What did it say, honestly?

"Superman is being held back by side elements like the Legion, the fortress, Kandor, Supergirl, a fun planet Krypton, his being Superboy, etc." Sure, okay, until Alan Moore and Grant Morrison disproved that 10 and 20 years later.

"Superman is better when he's powered down." Says who? Like Gail Simone says, how anyone could complain about Superman being tough to write because he's too powerful is mind-blowing, because how can you NOT have the imagination to make that work?

"Superman and Batman are better when they work at odds." That's a fun idea, but it has limited mileage. Eventually these two will come to trust each other; it's just the nature state of maturity and is also the most marketable move for DC in the long-term.

"Lex Luthor is better when he's a ruthless businessman." Sure, I'll give Marv Wolfman the proper credit for that.

"Ma and Pa Kent are better alive." Yes, I'll concede that.

"Lois Lane is better when she has a personality." Well, duh, anyone would have made this work. I'll concede that, too.

"Bizarro is better as a tragic figure." Sure, let's remove all the things that made Bizarro fun and amusing, and just squeeze the tragedy out of him.

"Krypton is better if it's cold and sterile." No, it's not. Maybe it is for a while, but you get zero mileage out of this in future stories eventually. Pre-Crisis Krypton could hold a back-up feature, post-Byrne Krypton cannot.

"It's better if Superman is in a birthing matrix and is born in Kansas instead of on Krypton, because Superman being born in Kansas makes him more human." No, it doesn't. Superman being raised in Kansas makes him more human. The last two pages of Man of Steel just showed that "Hey, Krypton is IRRELEVANT. Superman is human. (and damned if there weren't some pro-American immigrant messages in that intepretation)" Also, you want to talk about accessibility, I know that I'd rather say "baby gets put in rocket, gets sent to earth" rather than "little fetus gets put in birthing matrix, get sent to earth, actually is born on earth."

Funny thing about Moore and Morrison is that they proved an ability to write the Silver Age Superman but an inability to write either Supreme or the Modern Age Superman.

It's like asking a chef to make you Ratatouille and getting canned Spam because he doesn't know how to prepare Ratatouille.

[Jorriss]

Also, you want to talk about accessibility, I know that I'd rather say "baby gets put in rocket, gets sent to earth" rather than "little fetus gets put in birthing matrix, get sent to earth, actually is born on earth."
lol, this. This is very true.

[ManofTheAtom]

lol, this. This is very true.

But it's not true since Kal-El wasn't a fetus. He was a baby inside an artificial womb.

[Jorriss]

But it's not true since Kal-El wasn't a fetus. He was a baby inside an artificial womb.
I think he was being facetious, you don't need to look at it that literally. Fetus and baby in an artificial womb have the same effect in this case anyhow.

[ManofTheAtom]

I think he was being facetious, you don't need to look at it that literally. Fetus and baby in an artificial womb have the same effect in this case anyhow.

Irk Silver Age fans? :tongue:

"It's different, change it back, change it back!!"

What's funny is that some people earlier on this thread had said "when I was a kid I liked MoS, but as I grew up I came to appreciate the 60s more".

I have to wonder, would hangmanjury's 10 year old kid grow up to appreciate MoS?

"When I was a kid I liked Secret Origin, but as I grew up I came to appreciate MoS more".

[Jorriss]

Irk Silver Age fans? :tongue:.
unfortunately, no =(

I've been reading Batman comics for about a year and Superman comics since World of New Krypton =/

I read birthright before man of steel and I don't think I've read any other origin? Sadly I don't have much experience with superman comics yet.

[ManofTheAtom]

unfortunately, no =(

I've been reading Batman comics for about a year and Superman comics since World of New Krypton =/

I read birthright before man of steel and I don't think I've read any other origin? Sadly I don't have much experience with superman comics yet.

I've asked if the Silver Age Superman has an origin story a la Action Comics #1, Man of Steel, and Birthright and have never been given an answer, so if you've only read MoS, BR, and now Secret Origin, you're okay.

[Duy]

Clark in Smallville played football in high school and college like Byrne's Clark did. Clark in Smallville is hardly the geeky dork from the 60s

I dunno about later seasons, sir, but he definitely did NOT play football except in ONE episode when he realized that football wasn't for him in the first three season.

What he trashed were things that watered down the concept, like super pets, Kryptonian survivors, God-like powers, coming to Earth with the tools to become a hero, Krypton as a futuristic version of 1960s paranoid America - with an island where they sent all blacks, a phantom realm to send anyone who speaks against the state, shopping malls, and movie stars -, Dr. Doom in college with Reed... I mean, Lex Luthor in Smallville with Clark, and other moronic ideas.

You call it watering down the concept; I call it enriching the concept.

That said, it's a matter of taste; I'm sorry yours lacks imagination.

I've asked if the Silver Age Superman has an origin story a la Action Comics #1, Man of Steel, and Birthright and have never been given an answer, so if you've only read MoS, BR, and now Secret Origin, you're okay.

There have been many versions of this origin story, many of them reprinted in small paperback.


I have to wonder, would hangmanjury's 10 year old kid grow up to appreciate MoS?

"When I was a kid I liked Secret Origin, but as I grew up I came to appreciate MoS more".

No.

He appreciates imagination.

Funny thing about Moore and Morrison is that they proved an ability to write the Silver Age Superman but an inability to write either Supreme or the Modern Age Superman.

It's like asking a chef to make you Ratatouille and getting canned Spam because he doesn't know how to prepare Ratatouille.

Or like someone saying "Well, why should I write THAT? THIS is better and I'll prove it."

By the way, Morrison wrote Modern Age Superman wonderfully in JLA.

They got 20 years of mileage from it.

Loeb got two years of mileage out of his Silver Age rehash, while Waid got no mileage out of his Birthright crap, which stalled at every turn.



He wasn't a fetus, he was a baby that hadn't been born.

You can see him in one of the early pages of MoS when Jor-El looks in on his matrix.

Sure, 20 years of mileage; that's why in less than 10 years there was a Superboy, a Supergirl, Steel, and later on even we were back to Krypto and Kandor and Superman was constantly being powered up again, because there's nothing super about a powered-down Superman.

Let's also not forget that a lot of Byrne's mileage came out of publicity and editorial drive - his version was supposed to be THE definitive version and of course they stuck with it. Birthright was advertised as an Elseworlds and the fact that it even got reflected in the mainstream is a testament to how many people liked it (though I didn't).


It looks better, sure, but I'm sure you've seen that some people have some problems with it.

Yes.

And those people would be wrong.

Byrne never wrote Kandor, Jurgens did.

100,003 Kryptonian survivors don't add anything of worth to Superman, they only diminish him and Jor-El.

I was referring to Byrne's "Kandor syndrome" that he explained.

And WRONG WRONG WRONG. A bunch of Kryptonian survivors around just enhance Superman because it's NOT the powers that make the character. It's the powers that make him AWESOME to watch in fights and watch in epic battles and pull epic feats, but just because someone else can do it doesn't make him less special. That he has a whole society around him that's like him and he still holds on to his ideals and is still the pinnacle of those ideals makes him more special.

[srhanson]

Tactile kenesis is just an extension of the aura.

Oh cool, I didn't know that! Do you happen to know what issues they explain that in? I'd like to go back and read those.

[ManofTheAtom]

I dunno about later seasons, sir, but he definitely did NOT play football except in ONE episode when he realized that football wasn't for him in the first three season.

Clark got a football scholarship to college. He joined the football team while in high school. In college, he fought a meteor freak called Geoff Johns who played for the same team he did.

He only played football once in the first season, but by season 4 or 5 he was a member of the football team.

You call it watering down the concept; I call it enriching the concept.

Yet multiple attempts to "enrich" the concept keep failing again and again and again, requiring multiple explanations and retcons and reboots to make them work.

Those elements haven't enriched the concept, they have only watered it down, again.

That said, it's a matter of taste; I'm sorry yours lacks imagination.

I have a rich imagination, I jusst have a greater taste for stories that make sense over stories that are dumbed down to pander to simple minded readers, like those told in the 60s.

There have been many versions of this origin story, many of them reprinted in small paperback.

Which one has the origin of the SA Superman?

No.

He appreciates imagination.

There's no imagination or innovation in redoing ideas from the 60s. A monkey can do that.

Or like someone saying "Well, why should I write THAT? THIS is better and I'll prove it."

By the way, Morrison wrote Modern Age Superman wonderfully in JLA.

But it's not better. It's not only outdated but it is repetitive. If it were better then writers wouldn't have so much trouble making it part of continuity again without requiring multiple origin stories in the span of three-four years.

Sure, 20 years of mileage; that's why in less than 10 years there was a Superboy, a Supergirl, Steel, and later on even we were back to Krypto and Kandor and Superman was constantly being powered up again, because there's nothing super about a powered-down Superman.

We had a Superboy, Supergirl, Krypto, and Kandor who were different from the ones that existed before the reboot. Steel was a new character that never existed before John Henry Irons.

The powered up versions of Superman you're talking aboout were part of stories that had a conclusion at which he already returned to the power down level from the Byrne reboot.

Let's also not forget that a lot of Byrne's mileage came out of publicity and editorial drive - his version was supposed to be THE definitive version and of course they stuck with it. Birthright was advertised as an Elseworlds and the fact that it even got reflected in the mainstream is a testament to how many people liked it (though I didn't).

No, Birthright was NEVER advertised as an Elseworlds.

Initially Mark Waid said it was a Year One project, but by the ninth issue he said it was a new version of the origin from the start, but that DC didn't admit it publicly so as to not steal the thunder away from Jim Lee's For Tomorrow.

Yes.

And those people would be wrong.

No one can be wrong about their taste in art. Art is subjective, NOT a standard.

I was referring to Byrne's "Kandor syndrome" that he explained.

And WRONG WRONG WRONG. A bunch of Kryptonian survivors around just enhance Superman because it's NOT the powers that make the character. It's the powers that make him AWESOME to watch in fights and watch in epic battles and pull epic feats, but just because someone else can do it doesn't make him less special. That he has a whole society around him that's like him and he still holds on to his ideals and is still the pinnacle of those ideals makes him more special.

It waters him down. It goes against the character that Siegel and Shuster created, period

[Will.S]

It waters him down. It goes against the character that Siegel and Shuster created, period
I certainly think that the New Krypton stuff is a cool idea worth exploring but I don't know if that can be sustained for a long period of time without it being a problem for Superman.

[Duy]

Clark got a football scholarship to college. He joined the football team while in high school. In college, he fought a meteor freak called Geoff Johns who played for the same team he did.

He only played football once in the first season, but by season 4 or 5 he was a member of the football team.

Sure, but during the formative years of Smallville (i.e. when people were actually watching), he was an outsider. You can't tell me that they put him on the football team with the Byrne reboot in mind. Even if that were true, it's clearly not their first instinct.




Yet multiple attempts to "enrich" the concept keep failing again and again and again, requiring multiple explanations and retcons and reboots to make them work.

Those elements haven't enriched the concept, they have only watered it down, again.

The only reason it fails to work at times is due to the fact that DC continually hires class-B writers to work on Superman. Geoff Johns can make it work.


I have a rich imagination, I jusst have a greater taste for stories that make sense over stories that are dumbed down to pander to simple minded readers, like those told in the 60s.


Yeah, I'm sorry if your "imagination" fails to see the potential of rich concepts when they're in good hands. I have a rich imagination; I like to see ideas that tickle my brain and watch them make it work instead of just turning Superman into yet another superhero with yet another standard set of supporting cast members with yet another standard set of problems.


Which one has the origin of the SA Superman?

There's a bunch of them, including "The Superman Story." Most if not all of them have a Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez cover.


There's no imagination or innovation in redoing ideas from the 60s. A monkey can do that.

There's no imagination in just scrapping those ideas just because you can't make it work. A grasshopper can do that.

And really? You can make ideas from the 60s work? Okay, I'd like you to turn me something in the next year that's on the same level as All-Star Superman. Go, hop to it.


But it's not better. It's not only outdated but it is repetitive. If it were better then writers wouldn't have so much trouble making it part of continuity again without requiring multiple origin stories in the span of three-four years.

It's not the ideas that have the problems; it's the quality of writers they hire. Period.

I'm sorry, but if you can't make Superman elements work, you SHOULDN'T BE WRITING SUPERMAN.


We had a Superboy, Supergirl, Krypto, and Kandor who were different from the ones that existed before the reboot. Steel was a new character that never existed before John Henry Irons.

Sure, but they all wore the S and by that logic it makes Superman less unique and therefore makes them redundant.



The powered up versions of Superman you're talking aboout were part of stories that had a conclusion at which he already returned to the power down level from the Byrne reboot.

There's something very wrong with your syntax here, because I'm not sure if you're saying his powered up versions were powered down again, or if he got powered up as a logical conclusion to stories.

In which case, if you're talking about the first: well, you'd be wrong, because Byrne's version couldn't have him breathe in space, and about 12 years later, he was doing it.

If you're talking about the second, well, that'd be irrelevant, because the whole point was just to power him up again, thus exclaiming that the power down is ridiculous.

Because, once again, there's nothing Super bout a not-so-super Superman.


No, Birthright was NEVER advertised as an Elseworlds.

From Wikipedia: Originally, this was meant to be more of an "ultimate" version of Superman, showcasing his origin and updating him for the 21st Century. Soon after, it was decided to make the series canon, and thus it replaced John Byrne's The Man of Steel series as Superman's canonical origin story.

Hm, so if it was decided soon after to make the series canon, what's the thing it could have been right before?


Initially Mark Waid said it was a Year One project, but by the ninth issue he said it was a new version of the origin from the start, but that DC didn't admit it publicly so as to not steal the thunder away from Jim Lee's For Tomorrow.

Again, it was originally not supposed to be canon.
.

No one can be wrong about their taste in art. Art is subjective, NOT a standard.

Yes, I was being facetious, Solar.


It waters him down. It goes against the character that Siegel and Shuster created, period

And sure, you'd be right. It does water him down from the character that Siegel and Shuster created.

It does not, however, water him down from the version that Mort Weisinger, Curt Swan, Julie Schwartz, Elliot S! Maggin, and a host of others - INCLUDING Jerry Siegel himself - had a hand in immortalizing.

Add to that, Byrne's version is nowhere near Siegel and Shuster's version, too, so you'd either be making a point that is irrelevant or just wrong (again).

[ManofTheAtom]

I certainly think that the New Krypton stuff is a cool idea worth exploring but I don't know if that can be sustained for a long period of time without it being a problem for Superman.

Definitely.

Eventually we'll go back to the same problem we had in 85, too many damn Kryptonians.

Superman going to Kandor to have dinner with Aura and Kara (and now Chris and other friends he might make).

If Siegel had wanted more than one Kryptonian he would have made his story an allegory of Noah's Ark, with Jor-El as Noah with his wife, their son, their brothers, their sisters, their children, and a slew of animals... but he didn't. He made an allegory of Moses.

[Mat001]

Only ever time he fights the Cyborg or other creatures who are more powerful than Kryptonians.

I'm talking about the last three years. Not the years before. Those stories with Henshaw was mainly a laser canon and not heat vision. And those stories had a suit made of cloth.

He was not hit with heat vision once during Last Son of Krypton?

IIRC, he wasn't. He was just punched and kicked a lot.

He didn't have to build the flash grenades, just aquire them.

There were none to aquire. They were all used up and new ones needed to be built.

Convenient.

Zor-El had his own plan, which was using Brainiac's probe to create the dome. And it was experimental. Very slim chance of it working.

Do I have to? Wouln't they just change it later when it becomes convenenient like they did the first 34 issues of Supergirl?

No reason to change it on Johns part. He helped set it up and is sticking with it. Loeb's story was based on "Birthright" and does not fit with what Johns and company are doing. Hence he and Gates changed Kara's origin.

Again, convenient.

How is that convenient?

Which apparently everyone had except him.

Kristin and the others didn't need ships, they had back packs.

Both of which were over a few hundred years ago. The Eradicator Squads destroyed all of Krypton's ships, jet packs and flash grenades to keep the people on the planet. By order of the Ruling Council and it's leader, Bav Sor-El. I should remind you that only a few of Karsta's soldiers made it away from the red sun of Krypton. The rest either died enroute or returned to face their punishment for attempted desertion.

I didn't say that blacks were criminals. I said that the SA Krypton was a 1950s American's idea of paradise, with blacks away from whites and people who spoke against the state sent to prison.

Vathlo was created in the 70's and meant to be more like Africa. Not a racist white man's idea of paradise. It was a lame attempt at dealing with a nagging bit of continuity.

That's irrelevant. He knows that it exists, that's all that matters.

It's also a possible future, which he has seen different versions of in his lifetime. He knows that history can change based on what happened with the Legion and what happened with Monarch and Waverider.

?! I don't understand why any of that justifies Clark acting like a bumbling clutz. It's just a silly idea that would actually call more attention to yourself if you were trying to conceal that you were Superman.

It draws attention to Clark Kent being inept. We're all clumsy at some point. And it also keeps Clark from hurting people like he did with Pete.

What, Superman was slacking off and depending on Pa kent to get through life before Pa Kent died? So Superman finally started to "man up" after his dad died?

There comes a point where your parents die and you have to go it alone. It's the same reason May Parker should've died in 2007 and why she was killed in 1994.

It was Morrison and not Frank Miller? Hmmm...You maybe right. Peyer was the name I couldn't remember. I don't remember Millar being involved at all.

Not Frank Miller. He's not a big fan of Superman. Grant Morrison took his pitch and used it to create All-Star Superman. Waid did his part with "Birthright", but he still has more to tell. Peyer hasn't said much on the subject. Millar said that if DC ever wised up and let him write, he'd use his stuff. He also said that he'd use it in a reboot film trilogy.

If I remember the timeline correctly Wolfman was one of the writers who was pitching for the Superman revamp gig. According to Byrne after seeing the first Superman movie he fet that so much could be done with the character and DC wasn't living up to the potential. He started telling Dick Giordano if they ever decided to revamp Supes he'd like a shot. After Crisis was planned Giordano told Byrne to put his money where his mouth is and write up a proposal.
Wolfman was pitching for the revamp too and was a frontrunner before Byrne came on board. They went with Byrne and wanted Wolfman to write one of the Superman books but Wolfman said he'd only do it if Byrne went with his new take on Lex Luthor. Byrne liked Wolfman's take on Luthor and Byrne and Wolfman became the writers of the Superman books. After awhile Wolfman left his Superman book and Byrne was writing all 3 Superman books for awhile.

I'm not sure if Byrne got the job because because DC thought he had the best ideas or if it was because he was probably the hottest creator in comics at the time. In any case, whatever ideas Waid had, they weren't enough to beat out Byrne or Wolfman.

I'm not denying the story of how Byrne and Wolfman got involved. What's called into question was that Waid had a pitch in 1984 or 85. I and I know a few others haven't heard that story about Waid during this period. We only know of Waid in the late 90's.

[ManofTheAtom]

Sure, but during the formative years of Smallville (i.e. when people were actually watching), he was an outsider. You can't tell me that they put him on the football team with the Byrne reboot in mind. Even if that were true, it's clearly not their first instinct.

Why wouldn't it have been done with Byrrne's reboot in mind? He's the one who put him there. No one else did it.

You're reaching, just throwing wild attacks at Smallville and Byrne.

The only reason it fails to work at times is due to the fact that DC continually hires class-B writers to work on Superman. Geoff Johns can make it work.

Excuse me, but Mark Waid in his prime was hardly a class-B writer. He was class-A.

Yeah, I'm sorry if your "imagination" fails to see the potential of rich concepts when they're in good hands. I have a rich imagination; I like to see ideas that tickle my brain and watch them make it work instead of just turning Superman into yet another superhero with yet another standard set of supporting cast members with yet another standard set of problems.

Right now he is just another Kryptonian with yet another standard set of supporting cast members with yet another standard set of problems.

I bet that your list of writers who qualify as being "good hands" are another reader's list of hacks... again, you're trying to apply a standard of quality to something that is subjective.

You remind me of a friend I have who told me that Jeph Loeb assured him that Supergirl would be done "right" when he brought her back.

Flash forward five years and the character has gone through four or five reboots and retcons from where she started with Loeb, who promised to get her "right".

There's a bunch of them, including "The Superman Story." Most if not all of them have a Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez cover.

Issue number, please.

I can say Man of Steel #1 and Action Comics #1 are the origins of the modern age and golden age versions.

Which issue has an origin story of the SA Superman that compares to those two?

There's no imagination in just scrapping those ideas just because you can't make it work. A grasshopper can do that.

There is plenty of imagination in coming up with ideas that didn't exist before you came up with it.

I prefer writers who can create new stuff, not writers who need to regurgitate ideas that didn't work the first time because they want to pander to fans of a dead age.

And really? You can make ideas from the 60s work? Okay, I'd like you to turn me something in the next year that's on the same level as All-Star Superman. Go, hop to it.

Frak, did you just call me a monkey?

It's not the ideas that have the problems; it's the quality of writers they hire. Period.

I'm sorry, but if you can't make Superman elements work, you SHOULDN'T BE WRITING SUPERMAN.

The writers who followed Byrne made the ideas work for 20 years. The writers who replace them could not make them work for more than two years at a time, and those writers were supposed to be Class-A talent.

Sure, but they all wore the S and by that logic it makes Superman less unique and therefore makes them redundant.

No it doesn't. The symbol doesn't make them the same anymore than 11 members of a basketball team are not the same just because the wear the same uniform.

There's something very wrong with your syntax here, because I'm not sure if you're saying his powered up versions were powered down again, or if he got powered up as a logical conclusion to stories.

Just remove the word already...

In which case, if you're talking about the first: well, you'd be wrong, because Byrne's version couldn't have him breathe in space, and about 12 years later, he was doing it.

Because he was exposed to Kryptonite X, which overpowered his cells.

If you're talking about the second, well, that'd be irrelevant, because the whole point was just to power him up again, thus exclaiming that the power down is ridiculous.

No it's not.

Because, once again, there's nothing Super bout a not-so-super Superman.

Let's see... for 20 years groups of writers were able to tell great consistant stories with a powered down Superman.

For the last decade, groups of writers have not been able to escape the drain and keep having to reboot the character to make the elements you want back work in a modern context, and keep failing again and again and again.

From Wikipedia: Originally, this was meant to be more of an "ultimate" version of Superman, showcasing his origin and updating him for the 21st Century. Soon after, it was decided to make the series canon, and thus it replaced John Byrne's The Man of Steel series as Superman's canonical origin story.Hm, so if it was decided soon after to make the series canon, what's the thing it could have been right before?
Again, it was originally not supposed to be canon.

Dude, it was never advertised as an Elseworlds, it was originally advertised as a year one project which Waid later claimed was always meant to be canon. Get over that train of thought.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=3256

The one thing that hasn't been clear to fans, new and old, is the place of "Birthright" in the Superman mythos. DC has never commented publicly on whether or not this 12-issue series is the new Superman origin or just a new take to see if readers enjoy it. Ponder this no longer, as Waid himself admits that "Superman: Birthright" is the new official origin of Superman and a "calculated" reboot. "If by 'calculated' we mean 'thought out in great detail to the Nth degree by creators who love the character,' then yes. Accept no substitutes-'Birthright' is officially the DC Comics Origin of Superman. I wish we could have simply said that up front nine months ago when the series began, but overall plans for Superman in 2003 were still somewhat in flux, so DC decided to be a little more circumspect about it and instead surprise fans with the building falllout to 'Birthright' as it pops up in the regular ongoing Superman monthlies. Readers seem very surprised, in a very good way. 'Birthright' is very much the foundation of everything DC's planning for Superman in the future. It was our job to pave the way, it is essential Superman reading, and it's an honor to present it."

And sure, you'd be right. It does water him down from the character that Siegel and Shuster created.

It does not, however, water him down from the version that Mort Weisinger, Curt Swan, Julie Schwartz, Elliot S! Maggin, and a host of others - INCLUDING Jerry Siegel himself - had a hand in immortalizing.

Add to that, Byrne's version is nowhere near Siegel and Shuster's version, too, so you'd either be making a point that is irrelevant or just wrong (again).

Actually Byrne is quoted as saying that his Superman is a cross between the Siegel/Shuster version, the Fleisher version, and the George Reeves version in a modern context.

[Will.S]

The only reason it fails to work at times is due to the fact that DC continually hires class-B writers to work on Superman. Geoff Johns can make it work.
As much as I like Geoff Johns work on Superman, I think that speaks more of DC's failings with regards to their talent if the only person that they can get to make Superman "work" is Geoff Johns.

There's no imagination in just scrapping those ideas just because you can't make it work. A grasshopper can do that.

And really? You can make ideas from the 60s work? Okay, I'd like you to turn me something in the next year that's on the same level as All-Star Superman. Go, hop to it.
Well, All Star Superman in a way set a new standard for the Superman books. In fact I noticed quite a bit of similarities between Grant's work and Geoff's work such as bringing back the supporting cast, the Bizarro stuff with the JLA, and Luthor's being a prisoner and using his brain a lot more.

From Wikipedia: Originally, this was meant to be more of an "ultimate" version of Superman, showcasing his origin and updating him for the 21st Century. Soon after, it was decided to make the series canon, and thus it replaced John Byrne's The Man of Steel series as Superman's canonical origin story.

Hm, so if it was decided soon after to make the series canon, what's the thing it could have been right before?
I never got the impression when DC first released it that it wasn't supposed to be canon. It seemed exactly like it was trying to update Superman's origin by implementing the Smallville stuff (which was really popular at the time) and some elements of the movies. They've since discarded it though so it's almost a moot point.

[ManofTheAtom]

I'm talking about the last three years. Not the years before. Those stories with Henshaw was mainly a laser canon and not heat vision. And those stories had a suit made of cloth

IIRC, he wasn't. He was just punched and kicked a lot. .

So no Kryptonian has shot Supermann with heat vision?

Conveniently lame.

There were none to aquire. They were all used up and new ones needed to be built.

Ah.

Zor-El had his own plan, which was using Brainiac's probe to create the dome. And it was experimental. Very slim chance of it working.

Still, convenient.

No reason to change it on Johns part. He helped set it up and is sticking with it. Loeb's story was based on "Birthright" and does not fit with what Johns and company are doing. Hence he and Gates changed Kara's origin.

They gave up tryingto modernize Kara and regurgitated the SA origin.

How is that convenient?

You're gonna have to quote what I said convenient to, heh

Both of which were over a few hundred years ago. The Eradicator Squads destroyed all of Krypton's ships, jet packs and flash grenades to keep the people on the planet. By order of the Ruling Council and it's leader, Bav Sor-El. I should remind you that only a few of Karsta's soldiers made it away from the red sun of Krypton. The rest either died enroute or returned to face their punishment for attempted desertion.

What makes all of this convenient is that it works to bring in other Kryptonians EXCEPT for Jor-El and Lara.

We've gone back to the crappy 60s and 70s in which the only Kryptonians that died were Superman's parents.

Vathlo was created in the 70's and meant to be more like Africa. Not a racist white man's idea of paradise. It was a lame attempt at dealing with a nagging bit of continuity.

What continuity, lack of black people on Krypton?

Would there even be black people on a planet with a red sun?

It's also a possible future, which he has seen different versions of in his lifetime. He knows that history can change based on what happened with the Legion and what happened with Monarch and Waverider.

Regardless of how many times the future has changed, the Legion has remained a constant

[The Batman]

Funny thing about Moore and Morrison is that they proved an ability to write the Silver Age Superman but an inability to write either Supreme or the Modern Age Superman.

It's like asking a chef to make you Ratatouille and getting canned Spam because he doesn't know how to prepare Ratatouille.

No, both Moore and Morrison showed that those old concepts, so hastily cast off to the dust bin, just might have some value left to them. They showed that a thoroughly modern Superman might still retain those elements.


I've asked if the Silver Age Superman has an origin story a la Action Comics #1, Man of Steel, and Birthright and have never been given an answer, so if you've only read MoS, BR, and now Secret Origin, you're okay.

Try this (http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/pre-crisis-reviews/pre-crisis-mmrs-intro.php?topic=c-review-pc-supstory).

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/superman-books/141-7.jpg

They reprinted it around the time of Superman Returns so it shouldn't be too hard to find a copy.

[ManofTheAtom]

No, both Moore and Morrison showed that those old concepts, so hastily cast off to the dust bin, just might have some value left to them. They showed that a thoroughly modern Superman might still retain those elements.

At the cost of modern concepts that replaced other ideas or were added to the concept. They couldn't find a way to make all of them work together. They had to sacrifice concepts that were modernized in order to make those that were thrown out work again.

That doesn't prove that they could make the old concepts work, it proves that they couldn't work with the modern concepts.

In contrast, writers like Stern, Jurgens, Byrne, Simonson, Ordway, Kesel, and others found ways to continue modernizing old concepts without sacrificing the new ones.

Try this (http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/pre-crisis-reviews/pre-crisis-mmrs-intro.php?topic=c-review-pc-supstory).

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/superman-books/141-7.jpg

They reprinted it around the time of Superman Returns so it shouldn't be too hard to find a copy

That's from 79 according to the review, though, so wouldn't that make it more of an origin for the Bronze Age DemiGod version of Superman?

[Mat001]

Clark got a football scholarship to college. He joined the football team while in high school. In college, he fought a meteor freak called Geoff Johns who played for the same team he did.

He only played football once in the first season, but by season 4 or 5 he was a member of the football team.

You should remember that "Smallville" is a combination of all eras of Superman. It uses the Silver Age, the Bronze Age, a bit of the Golden Age and a lot of the Post-Crisis era. This is evident by the fact that Lex is in Smallville and friends with Clark, which comes from the 1960's. Clark not wearing the suit and glasses comes from "Man Of Steel". Clark playing football comes from there. Not playing comes from the Silver and Bronze Age stories. Clark fighting Bizarro and meeting Lois before moving to Metropolis comes from the Silver Age. Metropolis and Smallville being close to each other comes from the early Golden Age stories where that occured.

All Johns is doing is what "Smallville" and the DCAU have done. Combine the best elements from each era into one origin.


Yet multiple attempts to "enrich" the concept keep failing again and again and again, requiring multiple explanations and retcons and reboots to make them work.

Only because some of the attempts were too complex, rather than just doing what needed to be done. Hence Supergirl, Krypto and Kandor are what they were and not what they had become. If a person becomes cross-eyed by Supergirl and Krypto's origin, as told before 2006, then you're doing it wrong.

Those elements haven't enriched the concept, they have only watered it down, again.

No, it hasn't. Kara gives him family. Krypto gives him a pet. Kandor is giving him an understanding of his people that he's never had.

I have a rich imagination, I jusst have a greater taste for stories that make sense over stories that are dumbed down to pander to simple minded readers, like those told in the 60s

Except that's not what this is. All of these stories make sense. You actually think Byrne's stuff makes more sense? You're deluding yourself. You have to remember, Supergirl for instance, existed long before Byrne. People know that she's his cousin. They don't know that she's an inanimate object from a parallel world designed to kill the Legion, who gains a soul and becomes an Earth bound angel.

Take note that all versions of Superman since then rely on the Pre-Crisis elements.

Which one has the origin of the SA Superman?

You've got "The Greatest Superboy Stories Ever Told" coming up. You've got "Showcase Presents: Superman". The Superboy archives. They all have the Silver Age origin.

There's no imagination or innovation in redoing ideas from the 60s. A monkey can do that.

Sure there is. Every version of Superman has revisited stuff from the 60's. Comics, film and television.

But it's not better. It's not only outdated but it is repetitive. If it were better then writers wouldn't have so much trouble making it part of continuity again without requiring multiple origin stories in the span of three-four years.

We don't know what "Return To Krypton" was. "Birthright" failed because it was done half-assed and lies were told about it. "Secret Origin" has been honest from day one. And unlike BR, SO actually blends in with all versions of the origin, including MOS. It changes them, but also keeps it consitant.

We had a Superboy, Supergirl, Krypto, and Kandor who were different from the ones that existed before the reboot. Steel was a new character that never existed before John Henry Irons.

And save for Steel, they were far too different from what people knew them as. And too complicated to understand because of a mandate that forced it to be mind bending. Go out and ask who is Supergirl. Go out and ask about Krypto. Ask about Superboy.

The powered up versions of Superman you're talking aboout were part of stories that had a conclusion at which he already returned to the power down level from the Byrne reboot.

No, he didn't. He was still stronger in the 90's, than he was in the late 80's.

No, Birthright was NEVER advertised as an Elseworlds.

No, but it was never said to be the origin until midway through. That's when sales on it dropped and fans had a fit.

Initially Mark Waid said it was a Year One project, but by the ninth issue he said it was a new version of the origin from the start, but that DC didn't admit it publicly so as to not steal the thunder away from Jim Lee's For Tomorrow.

And that's why it failed. Fans were lied to from the start. Johns and Didio didn't lie about SO.


I was referring to Byrne's "Kandor syndrome" that he explained.

Byrne's opinion was only based on his own and it's not always right. Hence the creative teams in the years since brought back those things that he got rid of.

It waters him down. It goes against the character that Siegel and Shuster created, period

Siegel and Shuster created Superboy. Siegel worked on the book when some of these changes occured and he helped usher them in. All characters and concepts evolve beyond what the creator(s) intend. Hell, even Byrne diverged from what Siegel and Shuster did. Lex Luthor wasn't a corperate business man, he was an evil scientist working for a foregin power. Clark didn't play football in high school. The Kents were dead by the time Clark was an adult and ten times older. Krypton was far different from what Byrne gave us, including the birthing matrix.

So tell me another story.

[The Batman]

At the cost of modern concepts that replaced other ideas or were added to the concept. They couldn't find a way to make all of them work together. They had to sacrifice concepts that were modernized in order to make those that were thrown out work again.

That doesn't prove that they could make the old concepts work, it proves that they couldn't work with the modern concepts.

In contrast, writers like Stern, Jurgens, Byrne, Simonson, Ordway, Kesel, and others found ways to continue modernizing old concepts without sacrificing the new ones.


Exactly which modern concepts were sacrificed? Exactly what couldn't have fit into Morrison's All-Star Superman world had he chosen to put it here?

That Morrison didn't use Steel, Conner, corrupt businessman Lex Luthor, or the Eradicator doesn't mean they wouldn't have been able to fit right into the story if he'd chosen to use them.


EDIT: Also, Morrison was able to make the modern, mainstream continuity Superman work just fine when writing him in JLA, DC: One Million, and Final Crisis.



That's from 79 according to the review, though, so wouldn't that make it more of an origin for the Bronze Age DemiGod version of Superman?

It retains elements to the origin that had been around for decades by that point and offers a pretty good primer for the Pre-Crisis Superman. Otherwise, start digging through the Showcase volumes. The Man of Steel's origin was told often enough.

[ManofTheAtom]

You should remember that "Smallville" is a combination of all eras of Superman. It uses the Silver Age, the Bronze Age, a bit of the Golden Age and a lot of the Post-Crisis era. This is evident by the fact that Lex is in Smallville and friends with Clark, which comes from the 1960's. Clark not wearing the suit and glasses comes from "Man Of Steel". Clark playing football comes from there. Not playing comes from the Silver and Bronze Age stories. Clark fighting Bizarro and meeting Lois before moving to Metropolis comes from the Silver Age. Metropolis and Smallville being close to each other comes from the early Golden Age stories where that occured.

No one has disputed what you say.. the point of contention is whether or not Clark is a geeky, outsider, cliche role and not a jock like in MoS.

And TV? Do you mean Lois and Clark or Smallville? Because Smallville sure has Clark in that geeky, outsider clique role, while Byrne's high school version of Clark was clearly a jock. I never watched Lois and Clark, so I'll probably concede that point, though.

Clark in Smallville played football in high school and college like Byrne's Clark did. Clark in Smallville is hardly the geeky dork from the 60s

I dunno about later seasons, sir, but he definitely did NOT play football except in ONE episode when he realized that football wasn't for him in the first three season..

Clark got a football scholarship to college. He joined the football team while in high school. In college, he fought a meteor freak called Geoff Johns who played for the same team he did.

He only played football once in the first season, but by season 4 or 5 he was a member of the football team..

All Johns is doing is what "Smallville" and the DCAU have done. Combine the best elements from each era into one origin.

Sure, again, something no one has contended :)

Only because some of the attempts were too complex, rather than just doing what needed to be done. Hence Supergirl, Krypto and Kandor are what they were and not what they had become. If a person becomes cross-eyed by Supergirl and Krypto's origin, as told before 2006, then you're doing it wrong.

Krypto is a dog who Bibbo rescues from drowning.

Simple, to the point, and it doesn't water down Superman.

Krypto is a creatur from an alien planet who Brainic altered to resemble a dog from Krypton.

That's not complex, that's stupid and unnecessary.

Krypto is a dog who Jor-El sent to Earth in a test rocket.

That's dumb (there were dogs on Krypton???), and it makes Jor-El look stupid (he wasted a rocket on a dog instead of use it to save his wife or himself?!?)

It's not that the current explanation is better or less complex, it's that it's the same damn explanation from the 60s, and that relaxes people who fear change.

No, it hasn't. Kara gives him family. Krypto gives him a pet. Kandor is giving him an understanding of his people that he's never had.

Really?

Could you tell me in which issue of either of their comics Kara and Clark have sat down to discuss what Krypton was like?

In which comic have they done anything other than punch each other senseless?

Additionaly, which comics have Kara behaving like an alien in a strange land as opposed to say an average American girl raised on Earth? What makes Kara an alien in the true sense of the word? Not extraterrestrial, but alien, to contrast with Clark's human upbringing.

How is she different from him that she can trully be said to enrich the concept?

Except that's not what this is. All of these stories make sense. You actually think Byrne's stuff makes more sense? You're deluding yourself. You have to remember, Supergirl for instance, existed long before Byrne. People know that she's his cousin. They don't know that she's an inanimate object from a parallel world designed to kill the Legion, who gains a soul and becomes an Earth bound angel.

So people who DON'T read the comics should be the ones who dictate what happens in them... that's logical to you?

Do you think that's going to make them magically start buying the comics?

Take note that all versions of Superman since then rely on the Pre-Crisis elements.

Which above all else that can be said about it, came to a proper end in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, yet that hasn't stopped fanboys of that era from whinning that hey want him back.

The same (at least the first part of that sentence) cannot be said of the modern age Superman, who was not given a proper ending.

You've got "The Greatest Superboy Stories Ever Told" coming up. You've got "Showcase Presents: Superman". The Superboy archives. They all have the Silver Age origin.

Which appears in which individual issue? What number? What title?

Sure there is. Every version of Superman has revisited stuff from the 60's. Comics, film and television.

Sure, as did the modern age version, yet that didn't really stop fans from complaining that it wasn't the same as before, did it?

We don't know what "Return To Krypton" was. "Birthright" failed because it was done half-assed and lies were told about it. "Secret Origin" has been honest from day one. And unlike BR, SO actually blends in with all versions of the origin, including MOS. It changes them, but also keeps it consitant.

Sure

And save for Steel, they were far too different from what people knew them as. And too complicated to understand because of a mandate that forced it to be mind bending. Go out and ask who is Supergirl. Go out and ask about Krypto. Ask about Superboy.

Despite those differences that people who don't read the comics found so confusing, the comics of that era were successful enough to generate a franchise made up of eight interconnected titles that told a consistant story between them and featured consistant versions of the characters that starred in them.

Despite those differences that people who don't read the comics found so confusing, MANY news readers who did NOT get confused became fans of the comics in the 80s and 90s

Despite those differences that people who don't read the comics found so confusing, Byrne, and those that followed him, succeed in accomplishing what the reboot set out to do in the first place, increase the lagging sales of the Superman comics of the early 80s and bring a new audience to them who has grown up with those confusing versions of the characters.

If I asked a man in his 50s who has not read the comics in a quarter century or seen any of the toons, TV shows, or movies, who Lex Luthor is, he might tell me that he is a fan of Superboy who blames him for loosing his hair.

If I asked a man in his 20s who has read the comics in the last quarter century and has seen the toons, TV shows, and movies, he might tell me that Lex Luthor is the richest man in Metropolis and that he hates Superman because he overshadows him.. or he might give me the Smallville version, or the one from Superman Returns... it really depends on WHO you ask more than it does on WHAT you ask.

No, he didn't. He was still stronger in the 90's, than he was in the late 80's.

Not as strong as he was in the 60s.

No, but it was never said to be the origin until midway through. That's when sales on it dropped and fans had a fit.

And that's why it failed. Fans were lied to from the start. Johns and Didio didn't lie about SO.

Sure.

Byrne's opinion was only based on his own and it's not always right. Hence the creative teams in the years since brought back those things that he got rid of.

They still brought them back in a modernized way. They never brougth them back EXACTLY as they wer ebefore.

Siegel and Shuster created Superboy. Siegel worked on the book when some of these changes occured and he helped usher them in. All characters and concepts evolve beyond what the creator(s) intend. Hell, even Byrne diverged from what Siegel and Shuster did. Lex Luthor wasn't a corperate business man, he was an evil scientist working for a foregin power. Clark didn't play football in high school. The Kents were dead by the time Clark was an adult and ten times older. Krypton was far different from what Byrne gave us, including the birthing matrix.

The argument is that Siegel created Superboy as work for hire, which DC denies. The argument also is that the Superboy who DC published varies slightly from the one Siegel created...

It's been said that Siegel's Superboy was going to be a prankster, not a junior version of Superman.

And of course Byrne added new ideas to his reboot. He didn't ape what came before. He used what came before as a basis and he, with Wolfman, modernized the concept, which required new ideas, like Clark being the assertive personality.

[ManofTheAtom]

Exactly which modern concepts were sacrificed? Exactly what couldn't have fit into Morrison's All-Star Superman world had he chosen to put it here?

Clark as the assertive personality, Krypton as an alien world instead of a 1960s utopia, Clark and Lois married, Lex as a rich businessman, Superman with limits, etc, etc, etc.

That Morrison didn't use Steel, Conner, corrupt businessman Lex Luthor, or the Eradicator doesn't mean they wouldn't have been able to fit right into the story if he'd chosen to use them.

Yet he chose not to use them and instead chose to use the 60s version.

It retains elements to the origin that had been around for decades by that point and offers a pretty good primer for the Pre-Crisis Superman. Otherwise, start digging through the Showcase volumes. The Man of Steel's origin was told often enough.

The problem with saying Pre Crisis Superman is that there were three of them, so you don't know which one you're talking about.

Is it the Golden Age version whose origin was told in Action Comics #1?

The Silver Age version whose origin people say appears in multiple comics but haven't been able to nail down a comic title and issue number?

The Bronze Age version whose story ended in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow

[Mat001]

So no Kryptonian has shot Supermann with heat vision?

Conveniently lame.

No one has used it on him. The only time his suit was damaged was when it was hit with Kryptonite, red sun energy or Darkseid's Omega Effect.

Ah.

You should re-read Superman #669. Kurt Buisek laid it out for us how Krypton wound up in it's state during it's final days.

Still, convenient.

Try using a new word other than convenient. Convenient isn't an argument.

They gave up tryingto modernize Kara and regurgitated the SA origin.

Because a) no one liked it and b) it was still too confusing, especially since she was being done better under Johns, Busiek and Waid.

What makes all of this convenient is that it works to bring in other Kryptonians EXCEPT for Jor-El and Lara.

Because the story is that they died. It's been that way since 1938. Zor-El and Alura surviving has been that way since 1958. All writers have maintained that bit of continuity. That Jor-El and Zor-El had different methods for surviving. Jor-El chose his son over himself and his wife. Zor-El chose to save a city with his family in it.

We've gone back to the crappy 60s and 70s in which the only Kryptonians that died were Superman's parents.

How is that crappy? Again, it's continuity.

What continuity, lack of black people on Krypton?

Yes. It was based on the way society treated people of color. Hell, Superman is even partially based on the Jewish community in the 30's, right before WWII.

Would there even be black people on a planet with a red sun?

Why not? It's science fiction, not science fact.

Regardless of how many times the future has changed, the Legion has remained a constant

And recently revealed to be due to the Multiverse.

In contrast, writers like Stern, Jurgens, Byrne, Simonson, Ordway, Kesel, and others found ways to continue modernizing old concepts without sacrificing the new ones.

Only because they were told to leave it this way. When that changed, everything changed.

[ManofTheAtom]

No one has used it on him. The only time his suit was damaged was when it was hit with Kryptonite, red sun energy or Darkseid's Omega Effect.

Ah

You should re-read Superman #669. Kurt Buisek laid it out for us how Krypton wound up in it's state during it's final days.

Meh... the story doesn't inspire me to re-read it. It is a great example of Busiek's hypocrasy as it shows how he could have had his Kristin Wells Kryptonian without undoing the Kryptonian's planetary link from MoS.

Try using a new word other than convenient. Convenient isn't an argument.

It's an accurate remark.

Because a) no one liked it and b) it was still too confusing, especially since she was being done better under Johns, Busiek and Waid.

When did Waid write Supergirl?

No one liked the confusing Supergirl for 12 issues a time, while people loved PAD's Supergirl, which remained consistant for over 80 issues... yet DC chooses to continue concepts that have proven to be unsustainable just to pander to fans of the 60s and people who don't even read the comics.

Because the story is that they died. It's been that way since 1938. Zor-El and Alura surviving has been that way since 1958. All writers have maintained that bit of continuity. That Jor-El and Zor-El had different methods for surviving. Jor-El chose his son over himself and his wife. Zor-El chose to save a city with his family in it.

The story is that no Kryptonian survived other than Kal-El. That's what Siegel created.

How is that crappy? Again, it's continuity.

It's "a" continuity that ended in 85.

Yes. It was based on the way society treated people of color. Hell, Superman is even partially based on the Jewish community in the 30's, right before WWII.

Siegel's Superman is an allegory of a Golem and Moses, that doesn't mean that he has to be a true reflection of either one.

He's not made of clay and he's not the Prince of Egypt, he just shares commun elements with them.

There's no reason for him to have a supporting cast made up of Kryptonian survivors to make him "more Jewish".

Why not? It's science fiction, not science fact.

It's poor writing.

Superman: The Movie is fiction as well, yet their Krypton is a world of ice, not a futuristic utopia with shopping malls, in all likelihood because plant life would not be able to exist under a red sun.

Donner has been quoted as saying that the one thing they strove for during the production of the movie was verisimilitude, which has been sorely lacking in the Superman comics over the last decade and is nonexistant in the Pre Crisis comics.

Well, Siegel did make the effort to ground the Golden Age Superman in reality with his diagrams and contrasts with ants and other insects and animals.

And recently revealed to be due to the Multiverse.

Another crappy Silver Age idea that doesn't work (see Countdown and Final Crisis)

Only because they were told to leave it this way. When that changed, everything changed.

Or maybe they actually enjoyed working on the modern age Superman.

Have you noticed that when Ordway and Jurgens use Superman or any of his characters in other comics they invariable use their versions and seldom use the ones that resemble the 60s versions?

[ManofTheAtom]

It also bother's me when artists draw character's to resemble their film version. Don't you guys think it would be weird if Batman was drawn to look like Bale or Spidey was drawn to look like Maguire?

In BR they drew Superman to look like Welling...

I would have rather have seen something dramatically different than Secret Origin. It seems like it is a rehash of ideas we've seen many times before. It would have been cool to see a new series that was based on Siegel and Shuster's version but with a modern update.

That's what MoS did.

[Vigilante Man]

I don't think Supes in Birthright looks much like Welling. I got more of a Ben Browder vibe, especially as the series progressed. Superman in Birthright looks too masculine to look like Welling.

I think it would of been cool to see a new series where Supes is a bit more rough and tumble and possesing his original set of powers.

[Will.S]

In BR they drew Superman to look like Welling...
Eh, that's debatable.

[ManofTheAtom]

Eh, that's debatable.

I don't think Supes in Birthright looks much like Welling. I got more of a Ben Browder vibe, especially as the series progressed. Superman in Birthright looks too masculine to look like Welling.

I think it would of been cool to see a new series where Supes is a bit more rough and tumble and possesing his original set of powers.

You're right.

Correcting myself

CLARK KENT in BR 1-3 looked like Welling. Superman looked quite different.

[Mat001]

No one has disputed what you say.. the point of contention is whether or not Clark is a geeky, outsider, cliche role and not a jock like in MoS.

He was all of those in each season.

Sure, again, something no one has contended :)


Krypto is a dog who Bibbo rescues from drowning.

Simple, to the point, and it doesn't water down Superman.

How does it water him down? Krypto has always been Superman's pet dog from Krypton. That's what people know outside of the comics know.

Krypto is a creatur from an alien planet who Brainic altered to resemble a dog from Krypton.

That's not complex, that's stupid and unnecessary.

Which is why Krypto is the family pet that Jor-El got for Kal-El and sent to Earth in a test rocket. This was changed in Action Comics Annual #10 and reaffirmed in Adventure Comics #1.

Krypto is a dog who Jor-El sent to Earth in a test rocket.

That's dumb (there were dogs on Krypton???), and it makes Jor-El look stupid (he wasted a rocket on a dog instead of use it to save his wife or himself?!?)

1. Yes, there were dogs on Krypton. Just as Kryptonians look like humans.

2. Humans wasted rockets on monkeys to test in the race to space. Look up the history of NASA. Jor-El used a dog since that was the most simple animal to send off into space and possibly to Earth. Thought Beasts and Flamebirds don't fit in on Earth. Jor-El was going to stay behind and send his wife and child, as per Action Comics #850. Pre-Crisis, the ships were test models. Big enough for a dog and a child, not for two grown adults.

It's not that the current explanation is better or less complex, it's that it's the same damn explanation from the 60s, and that relaxes people who fear change.

It's not about fearing change. It's about tradition.

Really?

Could you tell me in which issue of either of their comics Kara and Clark have sat down to discuss what Krypton was like?

Clark already knows about Krypton from the Jor-El A.I. and the Eradicator. And he's learning more by being on New Krypton.

In which comic have they done anything other than punch each other senseless?

They've done a lot. Clark had Kara serve in his stead in "Up, Up & Away". They fought against Amalak together ("The Third Kryptonian"), fought Blackhole (Action Comics #850), Superboy-Prime ("Sinestro Corps War"), Zod and his crew ("Last Son"), Brainiac ("Brainiac"), Atlas ("The Coming Of Atlas"), Doomsday ("New Krypton") and Darkseid ("The Supergirl From Krypton", "Final Crisis") She backed him up while he defused the Labor Guild riots in WONK #3.

Additionaly, which comics have Kara behaving like an alien in a strange land as opposed to say an average American girl raised on Earth? What makes Kara an alien in the true sense of the word? Not extraterrestrial, but alien, to contrast with Clark's human upbringing.

"The Supergirl From Krypton".

How is she different from him that she can trully be said to enrich the concept?

She wasn't raised by the Kents. She was raised in Argo by her parents. She sees herself as Kryptonian, whereas Clark sees himself as human/Kryptonian. Clark knows where his loyalties lie, whereas Kara is struggling. Clark's relationship with Martha is a good one. Kara has conflict with Alura and is strained at times.

So people who DON'T read the comics should be the ones who dictate what happens in them... that's logical to you?

That and what readers and the writers want to do.

Do you think that's going to make them magically start buying the comics?

Doesn't matter. If they choose to read, it's best if it is a version that they know of. You think the other way gained new readers?

Which above all else that can be said about it, came to a proper end in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, yet that hasn't stopped fanboys of that era from whinning that hey want him back.

Just like you are whining about Byrne's Superman. :wink:

The same (at least the first part of that sentence) cannot be said of the modern age Superman, who was not given a proper ending.

That's because his story is still being told. He is the modern Superman, only with a few cosmetic changes. He still died at Doomsday's hands. He's still married to Lois. All those stories still happened, whereas when MOS began, none of those stories happened.

Which appears in which individual issue? What number? What title?

I don't know, read it.

Sure, as did the modern age version, yet that didn't really stop fans from complaining that it wasn't the same as before, did it?

Nope.

Despite those differences that people who don't read the comics found so confusing, the comics of that era were successful enough to generate a franchise made up of eight interconnected titles that told a consistant story between them and featured consistant versions of the characters that starred in them.

All of those books were cancelled due to poor sales.

Despite those differences that people who don't read the comics found so confusing, MANY news readers who did NOT get confused became fans of the comics in the 80s and 90s

And many new fans of this last decade are getting see it in either "Birthright" or "Secret Origin". It's cyclic.

Despite those differences that people who don't read the comics found so confusing, Byrne, and those that followed him, succeed in accomplishing what the reboot set out to do in the first place, increase the lagging sales of the Superman comics of the early 80s and bring a new audience to them who has grown up with those confusing versions of the characters.

And then the sales lagged and new writers came in and brought back more of the familiar elements, stuff which was popping up in other media.

If I asked a man in his 50s who has not read the comics in a quarter century or seen any of the toons, TV shows, or movies, who Lex Luthor is, he might tell me that he is a fan of Superboy who blames him for loosing his hair.

If I asked a man in his 20s who has read the comics in the last quarter century and has seen the toons, TV shows, and movies, he might tell me that Lex Luthor is the richest man in Metropolis and that he hates Superman because he overshadows him.. or he might give me the Smallville version, or the one from Superman Returns... it really depends on WHO you ask more than it does on WHAT you ask.

But nine times out of ten, people will remember that Lex and Superman were friends. Regardless of age.

Not as strong as he was in the 60s.

But still stronger than what Byrne did.

They still brought them back in a modernized way. They never brougth them back EXACTLY as they wer ebefore.

Kara, Kandor and Krypto are not the same as before. Kara was not raised in Midville by the Danvers. She was sent to Earth to raise Clark, not live with him. Loeb's Krypto wasn't the same as the original. He came from a world created by Brainiac 13. He's not super intelligent. Kandor was restored right away. It was merged with Argo. Kandor wasn't shuttled to another dimension right away. It was on Earth and now in the solar system.

The argument is that Siegel created Superboy as work for hire, which DC denies. The argument also is that the Superboy who DC published varies slightly from the one Siegel created...

Doesn't matter. They created Superboy. Ergo, that's not watering down.

It's been said that Siegel's Superboy was going to be a prankster, not a junior version of Superman.

Same deal.

And of course Byrne added new ideas to his reboot. He didn't ape what came before. He used what came before as a basis and he, with Wolfman, modernized the concept, which required new ideas, like Clark being the assertive personality.

And Johns, Robinson, Rucka, Buisek, Gates and the rest have done the same thing.

[ManofTheAtom]

Hey, Matt.

I wanted to thank you for taking the time to offer such extensive replies but I've decided to bow out from this argument.

I've been through them before and it's clear that you've made up your mind, so it's pointless to continue.

Thanks again, though.

[Mat001]

Meh... the story doesn't inspire me to re-read it. It is a great example of Busiek's hypocrasy as it shows how he could have had his Kristin Wells Kryptonian without undoing the Kryptonian's planetary link from MoS.

Waid undid that long before Busiek.

It's an accurate remark.

But not a debate. Not a real response.

When did Waid write Supergirl?

Supergirl & The Legion Of Super-Heroes and The Brave & The Bold.

No one liked the confusing Supergirl for 12 issues a time, while people loved PAD's Supergirl, which remained consistant for over 80 issues... yet DC chooses to continue concepts that have proven to be unsustainable just to pander to fans of the 60s and people who don't even read the comics.

Everyone loves Supergirl now, as opposed to Kelly's run.

The story is that no Kryptonian survived other than Kal-El. That's what Siegel created.

Evolution. You do know what that word means. In ongoing fiction, the creator's creation changes with new creators.

It's "a" continuity that ended in 85.

Only as DC defines it. Continuity is 71 years worth of stories and concepts.

Siegel's Superman is an allegory of a Golem and Moses, that doesn't mean that he has to be a true reflection of either one.

Doesn't mean that he cannot be either. He's whatever the writers want him to be.

He's not made of clay and he's not the Prince of Egypt, he just shares commun elements with them.

See above.

There's no reason for him to have a supporting cast made up of Kryptonian survivors to make him "more Jewish".

That's not my point. My point is that Superman's origins were that. The dual identity. The strength and conviction. All that was from two Jews trying to make it in 1930's USA.

It's poor writing.

In your opinion. I guess you have low opinions of Star Trek, Star Wars, Star Gate, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers which take liberties with the characters.

Superman: The Movie is fiction as well, yet their Krypton is a world of ice, not a futuristic utopia with shopping malls, in all likelihood because plant life would not be able to exist under a red sun.

It's not ice, but crystal. It's also what could be afforded based on limited budget and no CGI. Look at "Smallville". The best of both. And if a reboot happens, guess what, they can have Krypton look like the Silver Age.

Donner has been quoted as saying that the one thing they strove for during the production of the movie was verisimilitude, which has been sorely lacking in the Superman comics over the last decade and is nonexistant in the Pre Crisis comics.

That's characterisation, not design. This was going on before Donner came on board.

Well, Siegel did make the effort to ground the Golden Age Superman in reality with his diagrams and contrasts with ants and other insects and animals.

And then Superman changed past what he did, when he started flying and seeing through objects.

Another crappy Silver Age idea that doesn't work (see Countdown and Final Crisis)

Funny, it's still around. It's still working. See "Thy Kingdom Come", "Legion Of 3 Worlds", the forthcoming "Multiversity" and so on.

Or maybe they actually enjoyed working on the modern age Superman.

I didn't say they did. But they were also under restrictions of what editiorial wanted. When that changed, Superman changed.

Have you noticed that when Ordway and Jurgens use Superman or any of his characters in other comics they invariable use their versions and seldom use the ones that resemble the 60s versions?

That's because they were forced to change it based on a dictate from high up. When that stopped, we've seen the return of the classic elements, but still done in a modern way.

[The Batman]

Clark as the assertive personality, Krypton as an alien world instead of a 1960s utopia, Clark and Lois married, Lex as a rich businessman, Superman with limits, etc, etc, etc.


All things Morrison's has worked with, and worked well with, before. See his JLA book, JLA: Earth 2, DC: One Million, and Final Crisis for examples. Let's not confuse "can't work with the modern concepts" with "chooses not to work with just the modern concepts."

And that choice, given the mission statement of the All-Star line, was entirely his prerogative.


Yet he chose not to use them and instead chose to use the 60s version.


Except he's not using the 60's Superman at all. Morrison's Superman isn't some throwback, he was thoroughly modern and so was his world. He included all those old Silver Age ideas that Byrne and the writers that followed him eventually included, he just did it with a little less hand-waiving and while keeping them closer to the way they've always been.

And it worked wonderfully. A modern Superman can have a Krypto. A modern Luthor doesn't need to run a multi-national (he IS a multi-national and too arrogant to ever pretend to be a philanthropist). A modern Fortress of Solitude can still have a key and Superman Robots and a Science Room. And none of needs to come across as stupid, just fresh and awesome and fun.


The problem with saying Pre Crisis Superman is that there were three of them, so you don't know which one you're talking about.

Is it the Golden Age version whose origin was told in Action Comics #1?

The Silver Age version whose origin people say appears in multiple comics but haven't been able to nail down a comic title and issue number?

The Bronze Age version whose story ended in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow


I know, but each dovetailed into the next without a real hard and fast break meaning this one should still give you an idea of the general contours of the Silver Age origin.

[Retro315]

Kandor is wonderful. It's the ultimate reality check for Superman - and by the end of it, he'll be asking himself "Wasn't it better when Krypton was just a memory? Because now that it's back, I have all this politics, guilds, clannishness, paranoia and guilt to deal with."

There's another thread: "Is New Krypton living on borrowed time?" or whatever ... that definitely brings into mind the question of whether or not New Krypton will last. I mean, they already offed Zor-El (which I actually thought was a bad move and I wish Blackest Night would reverse). How long until Alura bites it to add MORE tragedy for Supergirl? Zod, on the other hand ... is insanely different than he would be if there was just Phantom Zone criminals and no New Krypton.

But for me, Zor-El was why it was going to be cool. Obviously for Supergirl it's a dream come true, but the main thought was - there's nobody better to talk to Superman about Jor-El or Lara. The flashback in the Supergirl Secret Files, to Supergirl's birthday or whatever - we saw Zor and Jor sitting next to each other, proud of daughter/niece, and little baby Supes was there, too. And I thought it would be cool for Superman to lose his human father, but to suddenly have this uncle in his life (they could kill Zor-El off eventually, but give him a little time to get to know his nephew, right?)

I haven't read Man of Steel yet, but I fully intend to just to find out what all the fuss is about. But I like classic concepts, feel the Donner version works best in reconciling Silver Age cheese with Modern emotional storytelling with Norman Rockwell scenery.

At any rate ... I like my Superboy as an outsider. Because outsider is such a relative description. It's not like other kids at school hate him and he's forced into some awkward sub-culture - being that it's small town, even when he gets picked on, he's forced to get over it. Somebody was a bully in fifth grade? There's a really limited number of kids, they'll all get over it, and by high school, they'll get along. And so, he's an outsider purely because of his own awkward development, not because everyone he grew up with is an asshole.

I'm a little surprised. We got Pete Ross (future President), Kenny Braverman (Conduit), but we didn't see young, awkward Carl Draper (Master Jailer). Maybe next issue.

[Duy]

Why wouldn't it have been done with Byrrne's reboot in mind? He's the one who put him there. No one else did it.

You're reaching, just throwing wild attacks at Smallville and Byrne.



EHHH. Wrong again. All I was saying was that in the first season, Clark found out football wasn't for him, and that the football thing didn't happen till the fourth season, meaning that it was more a logical extension of the storyline rather than them thinking "Hey, we have to work in this Byrne thing" right from the CONCEPTION of the series.


Excuse me, but Mark Waid in his prime was hardly a class-B writer. He was class-A.


Yeah, I don't know what happened that made Birthright suck so much.



Right now he is just another Kryptonian with yet another standard set of supporting cast members with yet another standard set of problems.


Except he's not "just another Kryptonian," is he? He's not only the Kryptonian who knows how to use his powers to maximum effect with the most awesome results, he's also the Kryptonian who is the pinnacle of principles and ideals.


I bet that your list of writers who qualify as being "good hands" are another reader's list of hacks... again, you're trying to apply a standard of quality to something that is subjective.


I know that Chuck Austen isn't on my list.


You remind me of a friend I have who told me that Jeph Loeb assured him that Supergirl would be done "right" when he brought her back.

Flash forward five years and the character has gone through four or five reboots and retcons from where she started with Loeb, who promised to get her "right".


You remind me of the people who are all "Things are better in my day," except instead of the Silver Age, you're talking about the 80s.



There is plenty of imagination in coming up with ideas that didn't exist before you came up with it.

I prefer writers who can create new stuff, not writers who need to regurgitate ideas that didn't work the first time because they want to pander to fans of a dead age.


Except Byrne didn't do any of that. He scrapped away with stuff and took elements of Superman that he's comfortable with. He provided, as you say, a synthesis of the original Superman, the Fleischer version, and George Reeves' version. And in theory, there's nothing wrong with that.

So what's wrong with expanding it to encompass ALL the versions of Superman?


Frak, did you just call me a monkey?


So if a monkey can do it... and you're taking offense... does that mean a monkey is smarter than you?


The writers who followed Byrne made the ideas work for 20 years. The writers who replace them could not make them work for more than two years at a time, and those writers were supposed to be Class-A talent.


If the writers who followed Byrne made the ideas work for 20 years, and the writers who replaced them could not make them work for more than two years at a time, you're implying that there have been 30 years of work. Do your math.


No it doesn't. The symbol doesn't make them the same anymore than 11 members of a basketball team are not the same just because the wear the same uniform.


And it's not the same just because they come from the same planet.


Just remove the word already...


Again, I had no idea which word you're referring to, because your syntax was bad.



Because he was exposed to Kryptonite X, which overpowered his cells.



No it's not.

Okay. Noted.




Let's see... for 20 years groups of writers were able to tell great consistant stories with a powered down Superman.

For the last decade, groups of writers have not been able to escape the drain and keep having to reboot the character to make the elements you want back work in a modern context, and keep failing again and again and again.


Your math REALLY sucks.

"Every time someone says Superman is too powerful and too boring to write, my head practically explodes, because I don't understand how you can not have the imagination to make that interesting." ~Gail Simone

And that's all I need.


Dude, it was never advertised as an Elseworlds, it was originally advertised as a year one project which Waid later claimed was always meant to be canon. Get over that train of thought.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=3256

Different sources say different things. Get over yourself.





Actually Byrne is quoted as saying that his Superman is a cross between the Siegel/Shuster version, the Fleisher version, and the George Reeves version in a modern context.

Yep, and completely scraps everything else that came after? Yep. Really imaginative. A monkey couldn't do that, no.

[Duy]

Might I add that this argument started when you said this:


That's why compared to Birthright and even Secret Origin it will continue to stand as the best version of the character's origin, because no matter how well-told the latter one might be, the reasoning behind it, the justification behind it, is more interesting.

Talk about objectifying a subjective view!!

[Alex Dragon]

Too many posts to go back over to respond to certain things specifically so I'll just toss them out...

Superman's strength. Superman's has almost always been a problem when he was shown to be over-the-top powerful. Forget about Byrne, even way back in the 60s this was a problem. When DC decided Superman needed to be overhauled and tapped Julie Schwartz to update the character one of the first things addressed was Supes power level.
The thing is that early in the Silver Age it didn't really matter that Superman was so powerful because Superman didn't really fight is villains with his super strength. Most of those stories had Superman out thinking his foes. He used his strength in very non-violent ways. Mostly moving things around.

Someone named a writer that says if they can't deal with the power they shouldn't write Superman. Well there's a long list of great writers who feel Superman shouldn't have "god like" strength/powers. The reason for that is incredibly simple: It's boring having a hero who has it too easy and doesn't break a sweat. Hard to feel a sense of danger for a guy who can do practically anything and can't be hurt. You can get away with that type of thing in the early Silver Age when the stories were clearly meant for kids and logic was something that was often ignored.

Superboy, Suprgirl, Super pets etc... It seems that some of you defending this stuff are doing so because you see them as great concepts but really all of that didn't come about because it was a great idea, they came about because they were a chance to milk the Superman brand. Superman sold so they came up with knockoffs to sell more comics. What happened to "THE LAST SON OF KRYPTION" "SOLE SURVIVOR OF A DOOMED RACE" and all that stuff...you know..the original concept.

Most of that goofy stuff were just gimmicks that most time started with a cover idea and a story had to be built around the cover. If that issue sold they'd use the idea again..and again. And it seems very obvious that some of those concepts/ideas weren't well thought out and later writers have spent waaaay too much time and efforts trying to make them sense of them. many of them were fazed out or ignored over the years which shows that they weren't well conceived and often silly.

If a person truly likes those ideas and concepts they can rationalize their existance as some of you are doing. But that doesn't mean those concepts/ideas/characters were a good thing or even makes the Superman character better it just means you like them and are willing to accept any rationalization to justify their existance.

Krypton Does it really matter if Krypton was a race of "cold" people or some sort of utopia of happy campers? The planet blew up long ago and there isn't much reason to spend so much time revisiting it at this point. I thought Byrne wrote a very interesting and entertaining tale explaining how it got that way. In fact, a better tale than anyone who tackled a Silver Age type Krytonian story in my opinion. Byrne put a lot of thought into his version of Krypton and made it far interesting than what went before (even the current stuff). The writers who tried to change it back into what it was before did fans a disservice by trying to change it back to the dull 50s bad sci-fi for the sake of nostalgia.

We'll see more revamping/rebooting/restarting of Superman because writers like to put their own spin on it and they usually sell well. But they simply aren't needed. Nothing was broken until they started to try and shoehorn in all the stuff that really wasn't needed.

[Duy]

Too many posts to go back over to respond to certain things specifically so I'll just toss them out...

Superman's strength. Superman's has almost always been a problem when he was shown to be over-the-top powerful. Forget about Byrne, even way back in the 60s this was a problem. When DC decided Superman needed to be overhauled and tapped Julie Schwartz to update the character one of the first things addressed was Supes power level.
The thing is that early in the Silver Age it didn't really matter that Superman was so powerful because Superman didn't really fight is villains with his super strength. Most of those stories had Superman out thinking his foes. He used his strength in very non-violent ways. Mostly moving things around.

Someone named a writer that says if they can't deal with the power they shouldn't write Superman. Well there's a long list of great writers who feel Superman shouldn't have "god like" strength/powers. The reason for that is incredibly simple: It's boring having a hero who has it too easy and doesn't break a sweat. Hard to feel a sense of danger for a guy who can do practically anything and can't be hurt. You can get away with that type of thing in the early Silver Age when the stories were clearly meant for kids and logic was something that was often ignored.

This is an excuse, and not a very good one. As you've said, in the Silver Age, Superman was out-thinking his foes. In All-Star Superman, Superman thought his way out of every single situation, and when he used his strength, it was in the awesome, mythic way.

I once told my nephew that they powered down Superman because they found it hard to write threats for him. His response was, without missing a beat, "Why didn't they just make his villains stronger?" It's a simple response, and a simple solution, but hey, if you'd rather turn Bizarro into a tragic figure, thinking it makes the concept more "adult", then what the hey.

And Superman should be written for kids as much if not moreso for adults. Especially if you want to throw "original concept" around.


Superboy, Suprgirl, Super pets etc... It seems that some of you defending this stuff are doing so because you see them as great concepts but really all of that didn't come about because it was a great idea, they came about because they were a chance to milk the Superman brand. Superman sold so they came up with knockoffs to sell more comics. What happened to "THE LAST SON OF KRYPTION" "SOLE SURVIVOR OF A DOOMED RACE" and all that stuff...you know..the original concept.

Except that's NOT the original concept. You Man of Steel defenders keep going back to the original concept as if it were a safeguard, but you're wrong. There is nothing in Action Comics #1 that says Kal-El is the sole survivor of a doomed race, or the last son of krypton. He was just a survivor of Krypton.

Also, the very basic core of the concept of Superman - the very core of his character, without the trappings - is that he was a two-fisted champion of the oppressed, working outside the law. And John Byrne made him a police deputy, so you can't throw "original concept" around.

And as for the list you mentioned, Superboy was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.


Most of that goofy stuff were just gimmicks that most time started with a cover idea and a story had to be built around the cover. If that issue sold they'd use the idea again..and again. And it seems very obvious that some of those concepts/ideas weren't well thought out and later writers have spent waaaay too much time and efforts trying to make them sense of them. many of them were fazed out or ignored over the years which shows that they weren't well conceived and often silly.


You're clearly more versed in this argument than some other people in this thread, because I can't argue with most of what you said; I just think that most of those ideas could be made to work and strike a perfect balance between marketability and logic.

Just because not everyone's a Morrison or a Moore doesn't mean they should stop trying to be better.


If a person truly likes those ideas and concepts they can rationalize their existance as some of you are doing. But that doesn't mean those concepts/ideas/characters were a good thing or even makes the Superman character better it just means you like them and are willing to accept any rationalization to justify their existance.

By contrast, it doesn't mean that the concepts/ideas/characters were a bad thing and even makes the Superman character worse; it just means you don't like them and are willing to accept any rationale to justify their non-existence.


Krypton Does it really matter if Krypton was a race of "cold" people or some sort of utopia of happy campers? The planet blew up long ago and there isn't much reason to spend so much time revisiting it at this point. I thought Byrne wrote a very interesting and entertaining tale explaining how it got that way. In fact, a better tale than anyone who tackled a Silver Age type Krytonian story in my opinion. Byrne put a lot of thought into his version of Krypton and made it far interesting than what went before (even the current stuff). The writers who tried to change it back into what it was before did fans a disservice by trying to change it back to the dull 50s bad sci-fi for the sake of nostalgia.

Whereas I thought Byrne's version was depressing, cold, and inappropriate for a character who's supposed to give off a feeling of joy. No one's said Krypton should be happy; I haven't, for sure, but it shouldn't be the complete other extreme either.

And also, classic Krypton is prettier and that matters in a comic book.


We'll see more revamping/rebooting/restarting of Superman because writers like to put their own spin on it and they usually sell well. But they simply aren't needed. Nothing was broken until they started to try and shoehorn in all the stuff that really wasn't needed.

And again, all the stuff that you deemed was "not really needed" - sure, they may not be needed, but in the eyes of many fans they add to the myth and grandeur of the Superman mythos. It's definitely something I like sharing with my nephew, and would like to show my kids someday. I still can't wait for Neil Gaiman's eventual prose description of Kandor.

But Byrne's ultra-depressing, not-so-powerful, doesn't-look-back-toward-his-heritage, porn star Superman? No, thanks.

[Inactiveman]

The problem with saying Pre Crisis Superman is that there were three of them, so you don't know which one you're talking about.

Is it the Golden Age version whose origin was told in Action Comics #1?

The Silver Age version whose origin people say appears in multiple comics but haven't been able to nail down a comic title and issue number?

The Bronze Age version whose story ended in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow

The ages refer to periods in comic publishing, not necessarily the versions of the character. However, the character could be interpreted differently in those different ages leading to a "bronze age version" for example.

Some characters have no clear delineation between ages. In fact, its actually pretty rare for a character to have a whole new origin/identity which corresponds with a new age.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow is not meant to be taken as cannon. It was presented as a possible final story for fans of that version of the character. In fact, Moore himself references this in the story when the narrator says "This is an imaginary tale...but in the end aren't they all?" (or something like that).

[dupersuper]

It drives home that he can hurt people with his powers. It also allows him to feel isolated and alone, because of it. It also makes it easier to distinguish between Clark Kent and Superman.

It also allows Martha to shine such as we see in "Blackest Night: Superman" #2.



Distinguishing them is what the glasses are for. :cool: Also, Jonathan doesn't have to be dead in order for Martha to shout some lame catchphrase while fighting a zombie (I liked the issue, but, come on, "old woman yells silly catcphrase/battlecry" is tired).



Clark isn't fully powered as a baby. It's only when he's five and six that they start to appear, just as it was in "Man Of Steel". In fact, this is reiterated in Action Comics #850 when Martha sees Clark lift the fridge in a one panel flashback. It's only when he's fourteen, that Clark has all of his powers. Johns, Buisek and Nicieza retained the notion that his powers came to him slowly. Only instead of being eighteen, he's fourteen. Only a four year difference.


I agree; I do like giving Clark more time as a teen trying to cope with his powers and alien heritage with his parents help.



Sure it does. Kara was sent off, Zor-El saved Argo, Brainiac removed Kandor and we had the Phantom Zone. It made sense then and now.


Those reasons, whether you think they make sense or not, have nothing to do with how, in the silver age, they, along with a dog, monkey, phantom zone criminals etc. etc. kept ending up on Earth.


Because it made the war between them personal on a whole new level. Clark is fighting to redeem Lex, while Lex is trying to kill his former friend. Today, it's being used to show that Clark once believed and no longer does.


The redemption angle can still be played out without Lex in Smallville (see Morrisons JLA and possibly All-Star ;did that ever say whether Luthor was supposed to have met Clark in Smallville, I don't remember off hand and I'm at work now).


Jor-El and Lara wrapped him in blankets so that he wouldn't be cold on his trip to Earth. As it turned out, the blankets would be like him on Earth.


Yes...the blankets cells absorbed solar radiation while the blankets muscles were strengthened by our lesser gravity... :rolleyes:

He hasn't been hit with heat vision all that often, now has he.


Only any time he's faught Zod (including the at least 3 faux Zods), other Kryptonian villians like Ursa and Non, Dev-em, the 1st 2 Bizzaros (the 3rd has fire breath), Eclipsed Valor, Cyborg Superman, both Ultramen...


Which is not within his lifetime. Right now, the Earth of the DCU is just as bad as our Earth in the real world.

Well, for every Superman, Batman, GL, etc., there ARE, like, dozens of Luthors, Zods, Darkseids, Jokers, Scarecrows, Poison Iveys, Circes, Psimons, Brainiacs, Al Ghuls, General Lanes, Conduits, Mad Hatters, Time Trappers, Eclipsos, Wotans, Doomsdays, Mr. Orrs, Queen Bees, President Marlos, Shrapnels, Morgane Le Feys, Nerons, Felix Fausts, Vandal Savages, Dominouses, Imperiexes, Prometheuseses...

[dupersuper]

Oh cool, I didn't know that! Do you happen to know what issues they explain that in? I'd like to go back and read those.

Kessels Adventures of Superman issues during "Reign of the Supermen" arc and shortly after; 501-510 or so.

[dupersuper]

Yeah, I'm sorry if your "imagination" fails to see the potential of rich concepts when they're in good hands. I have a rich imagination; I like to see ideas that tickle my brain and watch them make it work instead of just turning Superman into yet another superhero with yet another standard set of supporting cast members with yet another standard set of problems.


I have no problem with people who prefer Secret Origins to Man of Steel, but I do have a problem with people who rudely dismiss any one whose taste differs from them as simply not having the "great, rich imagination" they do.:rolleyes: You're coming off as a defensive d-bag.




Try this (http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/pre-crisis-reviews/pre-crisis-mmrs-intro.php?topic=c-review-pc-supstory).

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/superman-books/141-7.jpg

They reprinted it around the time of Superman Returns so it shouldn't be too hard to find a copy.

Gotta' love Lopeez art.



When did Waid write Supergirl?

No one liked the confusing Supergirl for 12 issues a time, while people loved PAD's Supergirl, which remained consistant for over 80 issues... yet DC chooses to continue concepts that have proven to be unsustainable just to pander to fans of the 60s and people who don't even read the comics.


Waid wrote her in The Brave and the Bold...and yes, Davids Supergirl series was excellent.


1. Yes, there were dogs on Krypton. Just as Kryptonians look like humans.

2. Humans wasted rockets on monkeys to test in the race to space.

1. Dogs on Krypton makes it much harder to suspend disbelief

2. Yes, but our planet wasn't about to explode.


It's not about fearing change. It's about tradition.


Which is what people who fear change say...


Doesn't matter. If they choose to read, it's best if it is a version that they know of. You think the other way gained new readers?


Man of Steel gained A LOT of new readers.


But nine times out of ten, people will remember that Lex and Superman were friends. Regardless of age.


Since Smallville's been going for 9 years, MAYBE 6 or 7 out of 10. I think you're under-estimating the impact of the Reeve movies, Superman Returns, Lois& Clark and the Timmverse on non-comic readers.



But still stronger than what Byrne did.


The nice thing about Byrnes reboot was it left the future open to the possibility that Supermans powers would continue to grow as he absorbed more solar power, and left a 5-7 year gap to fit in modern versions of golden silver and bronze age stories.


And Johns, Robinson, Rucka, Buisek, Gates and the rest have done the same thing.

Both true (though Robinson took 5 or 6 issues to get on track)...it's almost like the setting is secondary to just getting good writers...:cool:

EHHH. Wrong again. All I was saying was that in the first season, Clark found out football wasn't for him, and that the football thing didn't happen till the fourth season, meaning that it was more a logical extension of the storyline rather than them thinking "Hey, we have to work in this Byrne thing" right from the CONCEPTION of the series.


But the football player concept was only ever on the radar in the 1st place because Byrne made him 1.

But Byrne's ultra-depressing, doesn't-look-back-toward-his-heritage...Superman

I can see finding his Krypton depressing, but how was his Superman depressing? As for looking back at his heritage, I mostly agree with Tommy (Hitman) on that front.

[dupersuper]

EHHHHHH!!! WRONG!!!!

The first Superman story I EVER read was Man of Steel.

And then as I grew older I read more of the older stuff and thought "WHAT? They got rid of THESE??"

Two of the most critically acclaimed Superman stories are All-Star Superman and Supreme, a Superman analogue, which both draw heavily from pre-MOS elements.

And were written by Alan Moore and Grant Morrison.

Between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, or John Byrne, I know which side of the fence I stand on, every single time, and it's NOT the guy who thinks that deploying away with all of the small imaginative things in the mythos makes him "more interesting."


I love Morrison and Moore, and their writing is certainly richer than Byrnes, whose writing I mostly just like. That being said, he DID make it more interesting to new readers, not fans already invested in the minutia. Man of Steel did this in spades, and the silly stuff got reintroduced with modern spins over the years long before the current nostalgia era WITHOUT contradicting the foundation it laid.

Also, one last thing?

Secret Origin's art is better.

Whatever you can say about the writing, I find the art from both to be top notch. The COLOURING on this is better though, due to better proccess and paper stock.

I dunno about later seasons, sir, but he definitely did NOT play football except in ONE episode when he realized that football wasn't for him in the first three season.


He was the star quaterback in his senior year and almost accepted a college football scholarship (deciding not to at the end because as careful as he was not to use his powers and as much as he wanted to feel normal, it still felt like cheating.

[Duy]

I love Morrison and Moore, and their writing is certainly richer than Byrnes, whose writing I mostly just like. That being said, he DID make it more interesting to new readers, not fans already invested in the minutia. Man of Steel did this in spades, and the silly stuff got reintroduced with modern spins over the years long before the current nostalgia era WITHOUT contradicting the foundation it laid.

And he did that and was able to do that in large part because of the very high publicity that the project got; Man of Atom was talking about the QUALITY of his work, as if it were some objective thing, so I only responded in kind.

The silly stuff got reintroduced with modern spins in spite of Byrne's intent, which was to get rid of all that stuff.



Whatever you can say about the writing, I find the art from both to be top notch. The COLOURING on this is better though, due to better proccess and paper stock.

Sure, once again, I was being facetious (though I like SO's art better)




He was the star quaterback in his senior year and almost accepted a college football scholarship (deciding not to at the end because as careful as he was not to use his powers and as much as he wanted to feel normal, it still felt like cheating.

So noted, but that still wasn't Byrne's intention at all.

I have no problem with people who prefer Secret Origins to Man of Steel, but I do have a problem with people who rudely dismiss any one whose taste differs from them as simply not having the "great, rich imagination" they do.:rolleyes: You're coming off as a defensive d-bag.

Once again, the argument only started because Man of Atom made an objective claim on a subjective matter. I only responded in kind.

But yes, I do believe that the pre-Crisis concepts and ideas were so much more imaginative than anything Byrne brought to the dance, which really just turned Superman into a standard superhero.



Gotta' love Lopeez art.


He's incomparable, isn't he?



Which is what people who fear change say...

Which is funny, because the only people fearing change are the people who like the Byrne version; those of us who like the pre-Crisis version and are liking this new synthesis have had to live with the Byrne version and have accepted it for 20 years.



Man of Steel gained A LOT of new readers.

Of course. It was heavily publicized.



Since Smallville's been going for 9 years, MAYBE 6 or 7 out of 10. I think you're under-estimating the impact of the Reeve movies, Superman Returns, Lois& Clark and the Timmverse on non-comic readers.


And again, barely any of that has anything to do with what Byrne did.



The nice thing about Byrnes reboot was it left the future open to the possibility that Supermans powers would continue to grow as he absorbed more solar power, and left a 5-7 year gap to fit in modern versions of golden silver and bronze age stories.


The crappy thing about Byrne's reboot is that Superman, in comparison to the rest of the DC Universe, was barely super.


But the football player concept was only ever on the radar in the 1st place because Byrne made him 1.

I'm not doubting that; I'm just saying it wasn't a priority. If it didn't happen till the fourth season and the only instance of football being in there in the first season was to make Clark decide how it wasn't for him, then the initial concept must have been that Clark decided football wasn't for him, contradicting the Byrne version. Unless they planned the show out four seasons in advance with the explicit goal to "make him more like Byrne's version as time grew by."

Which, considering the existence of multi-colored kryptonite, among other things, is unlikely. So yes, it's on the map because Byrne put it there; I'm just saying it wasn't a priority.



I can see finding his Krypton depressing, but how was his Superman depressing? As for looking back at his heritage, I mostly agree with Tommy (Hitman) on that front.

Byrne's Superman moped and was barely super, and had little to none of the elements that made him mythic.

As far as looking back on heritage, I take it you're an American, then?

[Mon-el]

Wow!

Thanks Sean for putting this in just one thread. I was kinda tired of reading the bile in the Secret Origin thread.

[Duy]

Alan Moore: "At the time, I remember thinking that the regular Superman book was as much of a lame Superman knock-off as Supreme was. This wasn't the character I'd grown up with, or that I was familiar with. It seemed like most of the more enduring parts of the Superman mythology had been carted away, or changed into something more synthetic and less appealing. So I decided that I'd rather liked the old Superman, that I'd rather enjoyed that rich mythology and continuity, all those kind of stupid but enduring elements, you know? Krypto the Super-dog, all of the old-fashioned stuff that had so much more charm than the modern incarnation of the character."

So yeah, when Grant Morrison and Alan Moore side on something that I was already standing on to begin with, I'm sorry, Byrne-nites, but I know which side of the fence I'm going to keep standing on, every single time.

[dupersuper]

Which is funny, because the only people fearing change are the people who like the Byrne version; those of us who like the pre-Crisis version and are liking this new synthesis have had to live with the Byrne version and have accepted it for 20 years.


I don't fear it, I've said several times that I'm enjoying Secret Origins, but I also like Man of Steel and don't enjoy seeing fans of it dismissed as unimaginative.


And again, barely any of that has anything to do with what Byrne did.


I never said it did, (though I'd say at least Lois&Clark did) I'm just saying that many mass media offerings don't include Lex in Smallville, so I doubt it's as widespread as you think, and only is now thanks to Smallville.


The crappy thing about Byrne's reboot is that Superman, in comparison to the rest of the DC Universe, was barely super.


He seemed plenty super to me...


Byrne's Superman moped


Other than just after he had to kill the 3 phantom zone criminals (and that was certainly an understandable mope), I honestly can't think of a single issue of Byrnes Superman run in which he moped. Maybe the last issue of World of Krypton...:confused:


As far as looking back on heritage, I take it you're an American, then?

Canadian, you guys aren't the only melting pot, y'know. :cool:

[dupersuper]

Alan Moore: "At the time, I remember thinking that the regular Superman book was as much of a lame Superman knock-off as Supreme was. This wasn't the character I'd grown up with, or that I was familiar with. It seemed like most of the more enduring parts of the Superman mythology had been carted away, or changed into something more synthetic and less appealing. So I decided that I'd rather liked the old Superman, that I'd rather enjoyed that rich mythology and continuity, all those kind of stupid but enduring elements, you know? Krypto the Super-dog, all of the old-fashioned stuff that had so much more charm than the modern incarnation of the character."

So yeah, when Grant Morrison and Alan Moore side on something that I was already standing on to begin with, I'm sorry, Byrne-nites, but I know which side of the fence I'm going to keep standing on, every single time.

What fence? Am I really not allowed to like both?

[Duy]

I don't fear it, I've said several times that I'm enjoying Secret Origins, but I also like Man of Steel and don't enjoy seeing fans of it dismissed as unimaginative.


Oh.

See, I wasn't reading your posts; I was responding very specifically to one poster, who was making blanket statements like "Man of Steel will be seen as the best years from now because it's more interesting" or whatnot, so I was just fighting back in kind.



I never said it did, (though I'd say at least Lois&Clark did) I'm just saying that many mass media offerings don't include Lex in Smallville, so I doubt it's as widespread as you think, and only is now thanks to Smallville.

I would actually agree with this. Totally.

He seemed plenty super to me...

Byrne's Man of Steel Superman feels to me like Justice League season one Superman.

Since we're all Superfans, I'm going to hope that explains itself.



Other than just after he had to kill the 3 phantom zone criminals (and that was certainly an understandable mope), I honestly can't think of a single issue of Byrnes Superman run in which he moped. Maybe the last issue of World of Krypton...:confused:

The last issue of Man of Steel had him cowering in his room, sulking in the shadows, and would even be mentioned in World Without Superman as if it were some defining moment. There is that last issue of World of Krypton, and of course, the moment when he killed the phantom zoners, which was, in fact, an understandable mope, but they really managed to squeeze the self-pity out of that one, didn't they? And if there's one thing I don't like in Superman, it's probably self-pity. (Though I did enjoy seeing Gangbuster so much)

Morrison and Johns' self-confident Superman are so much more appealing in my opinion.


Canadian, you guys aren't the only melting pot, y'know. :cool:

I'm not a North American, so we probably have very different views on this, so let's agree to disagree here.

What fence? Am I really not allowed to like both?

Yeah, you are. Once again, I was referring to a poster who was making blanket statements.

[srhanson]

Kessels Adventures of Superman issues during "Reign of the Supermen" arc and shortly after; 501-510 or so.

Sweet! Thanks, dupersuper. I have those issues. I'll have to go back and read them for the first time in 15 years :smile:

[Mat001]

First, I want to say, I like MOS. I haven't really read BR. I'll pick up SO this weekend. This isn't a pro vs against debate for me. All I'm saying, at least, is that the Silver Age stuff can work if done well. And so far, I've found it to be working. I once said on another board that Superman's origin can be updated, so long as it's done well. BR did some good, but some of it wasn't so good. Right now, SO is trying to do a better job. Also, the DCAU and "Smallville" have done a good job blending the different concepts together to create a vision that works. Fans of both cannot tell me that they haven't appreciated what's come out of there.


Distinguishing them is what the glasses are for. :cool:

But what also helps is different personalities. Look at the films where a truly distinct version of Clark and Superman exist. Reeve, Routh, Newton and Christopher made you believe that Superman and Clark were two different guys.

Also, Jonathan doesn't have to be dead in order for Martha to shout some lame catchphrase while fighting a zombie (I liked the issue, but, come on, "old woman yells silly catcphrase/battlecry" is tired).

It's not just that one time. Sooner or later one or both will have to die. It's nature. It moves his story forward in having to deal with something that in this verison, has never dealt with. It creates a new status quo, just like getting married did.

I agree; I do like giving Clark more time as a teen trying to cope with his powers and alien heritage with his parents help.

Exactly. The Pre-Crisis stories glazed over this. Byrne didn't go as in-depth. Ordway did the drunk driver story. The 90's team took a shot with "Peer Pressure" and Jurgens did the flashback in "The Doomsday Wars". BR and SO are the first to really get beneath the surface and look at what made Clark into Superman. Much like "Smallville" and regardless of the show's quality or your opinion of it, you have to admit that it's explored ground seldomly seen.


Those reasons, whether you think they make sense or not, have nothing to do with how, in the silver age, they, along with a dog, monkey, phantom zone criminals etc. etc. kept ending up on Earth.

And there really wasn't anything wrong with it. Only one writer thought so and he basically forced his opinion on others. That's why so many writers brought these things back, because they weren't the problem. It was the stories being told, regardless of their presence, that was the problem.

The redemption angle can still be played out without Lex in Smallville (see Morrisons JLA and possibly All-Star ;did that ever say whether Luthor was supposed to have met Clark in Smallville, I don't remember off hand and I'm at work now).

Morrison was making a nod towards it in his JLA run and was probably thinking about adding it in when he and the others did their proposal not long afterwards. All-Star didn't say if Lex was in Smallville, but there's a strong belief in Clark for Lex. It also makes the situation more personal if they are friends who became enemies. It becomes heart breaking for Clark. Imagine if you had to fight your friend.

Yes...the blankets cells absorbed solar radiation while the blankets muscles were strengthened by our lesser gravity... :rolleyes:

And yet you don't roll your eyes at the notion that a man can do this simply because he gets a tan. Or that the metal in his ship couldn't melt from heat vision blasts. No, it doesn't have solar cells. But the materials that make up the fabric and the properties of the metal are affected by the sunlight.

Only any time he's faught Zod (including the at least 3 faux Zods), other Kryptonian villians like Ursa and Non, Dev-em, the 1st 2 Bizzaros (the 3rd has fire breath), Eclipsed Valor, Cyborg Superman, both Ultramen...

What was done before 2006 doesn't matter. Those stories won't be 100 percent the same. See the Regeneration Matrix in "Legion Of 3 Worlds". Clark has not fought three versions of Zod, as per Matt Idelson in 2007. This Zod is the first time. Henshaw only fired heat vision on Clark while he was wearing the regeneration suit. In fact, he relied on it less and his laser canons more. We'll probably see the retelling of the first Bizarro fight.

That said, in the last three years, his suit was only torn due to Kryptonite and the red sun.

Well, for every Superman, Batman, GL, etc., there ARE, like, dozens of Luthors, Zods, Darkseids, Jokers, Scarecrows, Poison Iveys, Circes, Psimons, Brainiacs, Al Ghuls, General Lanes, Conduits, Mad Hatters, Time Trappers, Eclipsos, Wotans, Doomsdays, Mr. Orrs, Queen Bees, President Marlos, Shrapnels, Morgane Le Feys, Nerons, Felix Fausts, Vandal Savages, Dominouses, Imperiexes, Prometheuseses...

That, but there are others. Such as what happened in Quarc. Hunger. Greed. Racial intollerance. Prejudice. Corruption. War. I mean, Earth isn't exactly all that great. And look at the 31st century. There's massive anti-alien sentiment, the kind that has gone way past just plain human racial issue.

1. Dogs on Krypton makes it much harder to suspend disbelief

The whole thing is hard to believe? What's wrong with having dogs?

2. Yes, but our planet wasn't about to explode.

No, but Jor-El wasn't going to send his pregnant wife to Earth in a ship that was untested either. Remember all the failed attempts made by the US and Russia to launch a shuttle into space, before they got it right.

Which is what people who fear change say...

So why not make Superman black? Or homosexual. Why not give him different powers? You say change things, then let's change everything.

Man of Steel gained A LOT of new readers.

And then lost them ten years later.

Since Smallville's been going for 9 years, MAYBE 6 or 7 out of 10. I think you're under-estimating the impact of the Reeve movies, Superman Returns, Lois& Clark and the Timmverse on non-comic readers

I didn't say that. I said that it is right now one of the most known media versions and has been a success inspite of what fans dislike about the show. Everything has an impact in one way or another. "Smallville" has had an impact putting Lex back in Clark's youth.

The nice thing about Byrnes reboot was it left the future open to the possibility that Supermans powers would continue to grow as he absorbed more solar power, and left a 5-7 year gap to fit in modern versions of golden silver and bronze age stories.

Except that those stories were never meant to be included. Except no one has done so until Johns and Tomasi. At least in the Superman books. Only the JLA stories remained in continuity.

But the football player concept was only ever on the radar in the 1st place because Byrne made him 1.

No one is denying that. Season one was similar to the Pre-Crisis elements where Clark wanted to do things that other kids were capable of, but couldn't becaue of his powers. Hence the whole Mon-El storyline where he could play baseball and wrestle around like boys that age do, in the comics. In season four, we were given the football angle to match up with MOS #1.

[lawman]

Wow... talk about a debate that makes you want to disagree with both sides. One is so stubborn he can't recognize anything good that's not rooted in the 1980s; the other cites "tradition" as a basis for storytelling and yet simultaneously insists the character is "whatever the writers say he is." Dupersuper, thanks for weighing in to insert a more conciliatory note to things.

FWIW, personally? I liked the pre-Crisis Superman... but I only ever read the Schwartz/Maggin/Bates version, which played down a lot of the silliness from the '50s and '60s. When I've gone back to read the Weisinger-era stuff in later years, I frankly find most of it ranges from goofy to downright surreal, and is of limited appeal to anyone older than eight.

I liked the 1986 Man of Steel reboot overall, though not in every detail. Clark as high-school jock and confident yuppie? Lois as abrasive bitch? Krypton as cold and sterile? Superman killing the Phantom Zone villains? These aspects, I didn't like so much. But Krypton as convincingly alien? The Kents surviving? Luthor as a ruthless billionaire? Very limited quantities of Kryptonite? Superman as the sole surviving Kryptonian? IMHO these were all good, sensible changes.

And the stories that were built on that foundation we enjoyable for many years... although they definitely began to suffer in the late Jurgens era, and more so after Loeb came aboard. (Not universally: I enjoyed Rucka's run. The man seems incapable of bad writing.) IMHO the new Supergirl has been a consistent disaster; I much preferred PAD's version.

Birthright I didn't care for much at all, although I usually enjoy Waid's work. In particular, I maintain that having Luthor in Smallville as a contemporary of Clark is a terrible idea, in the comics or on TV (even though Michael Rosenbaum's acting talent was one of the only things that made Smallville watchable).

Since then, the main problem has been confusion, as Superman had no clear origin and thus no clear place in DCU continuity. (E.g., when and how did "sunstone crystal" first pop up?) This only got worse after Infinite Crisis, as the new writers made it clear they had another new backstory in mind, but they weren't revealing more than bits and pieces, and moreover that different past was somehow supposed to have led up to the same present. And again, some details were better than others. Clark as a movie-esque bumbler makes me wince, and a redo of Mon-El's origin I could have done without. Ditto multicolored Kryptonite, and 100,000 Kryptonians on Earth. OTOH, Busiek's run introduced some genuinely new elements, and he also managed to make Lois actually likable for the first time in years.

Now? Even though most of the stuff I just expressed skepticism about came from Johns, I have to say that S:SO seems to be off to a good start. At least, it has good pacing and atmosphere and characterization (Lex aside)... although the plot feels like pure contrivance. It's definitely a remix of almost every version that has gone before, and seems to retain much (but not all) of what made the Byrne version enjoyable. But there's really not much new in it.

And the thing is, I wish another retelling wasn't necessary at all. (And it wouldn't have been, but for prior mishandlings over the past handful of years.) I'd much prefer to see DC leave its past alone rather than revisiting it over and over, and instead focus on building on the foundation that past provided in order to move forward.

---
Oh, BTW...
He wasn't a fetus, he was a baby that hadn't been born.Umm... that's what a fetus is.

I've asked if the Silver Age Superman has an origin story a la Action Comics #1, Man of Steel, and Birthright and have never been given an answer, so if you've only read MoS, BR, and now Secret Origin, you're okay.
Never been given an answer? Okay... how about Superman #146 (http://www.comics.org/details.lasso?id=16333), July 1961? It's not the only version in print, but it's pretty close to being the definitive one. Most recently reprinted in Showcase Presents Superman vol. 3.

(The longer 1979 recounting for which the reprint cover was shown, BTW, first appeared in Action #500 (http://www.comics.org/details.lasso?id=33724), Oct 1979. A thoroughly enjoyable story, IMHO.)

[Duy]

Wow... talk about a debate that makes you want to disagree with both sides. One is so stubborn he can't recognize anything good that's not rooted in the 1980s; the other cites "tradition" as a basis for storytelling and yet simultaneously insists the character is "whatever the writers say he is." Dupersuper, thanks for weighing in to insert a more conciliatory note to things.

Rereading Man of Steel last night, I noticed two things that I REALLY don't like now that I'm older, and it's from both the first and last issues. There's just such a pro-American slant given to the whole thing, and I get that Superman fights for the "American way", but it's just the kind of "pro-American" slant that I don't like and what irks me and I'm sure irks most of the international community as well. Pa Kent telling Clark "We don't know where you came from and maybe we never will; you're an American and that means you have responsibilities." Wha? Like being a citizen of another country means you don't have responsibilities? Like the only reason Superman has a responsibility to use his powers for good is because he's an American?

And then later on in the sixth issue when things are all revealed to him, and he starts thinking about the possibilities of where he came from, and says, very hesitantly, "I thought I might be .... Russian." And while I get that that's appropriate for the time period, it really is just appropriate for the TIME period.

Then Superman proceeds to name all the things that Jor-El uploaded into his brain, all the cultures and languages of Krypton, all its history, etc etc etc. And then he says it's MEANINGLESS because he's an earthman now, which is just, to me, rather offensive allegory for immigrants.

I'm sorry, but if I have kids and I decide to raise them elsewhere for the purposes of whatever -- money, a bad government, etc., etc., he's going to know where he comes from, he's going to know the history of the Philippines, he's going to speak its language, and he's going to embrace his roots.



FWIW, personally? I liked the pre-Crisis Superman... but I only ever read the Schwartz/Maggin/Bates version, which played down a lot of the silliness from the '50s and '60s. When I've gone back to read the Weisinger-era stuff in later years, I frankly find most of it ranges from goofy to downright surreal, and is of limited appeal to anyone older than eight.

And while I agree that the execution of those ideas was weak from a contemporary and adult perspective, I think those ideas in themselves mare strong and could be well done in the right hands, as has been proven by Moore and Morrison. For my part, like I said, I'm still waiting for Neil Gaiman to write a prose description of Kandor.


I liked the 1986 Man of Steel reboot overall, though not in every detail. Clark as high-school jock and confident yuppie? Lois as abrasive bitch? Krypton as cold and sterile? Superman killing the Phantom Zone villains? These aspects, I didn't like so much. But Krypton as convincingly alien? The Kents surviving? Luthor as a ruthless billionaire? Very limited quantities of Kryptonite? Superman as the sole surviving Kryptonian? IMHO these were all good, sensible changes.

I don't see why we had to limit the kryptonite to just green, though. Red K is a very serviceable plot device. I can understand getting rid of like, silver and jewel and blue kryptonite, though.

I'm with you on the Kents surviving and Luthor as a billionaire, thought I like JLU's "Luthor as a billionaire AND scientific genius" approach more.

I think Lois could have been toned down from being an abrasive bitch, but I think the intent was right there; she definitely needed to stop playing damsel in distress, and I think recent writers have done wonders with her, especially Busiek.

Like I've said before, I don't see why Superman has to be the sole surviving Kryptonian; he's unique and stands out because he's Superman and he stands for values and ideals better than anyone else, not because he's the ONLY Kryptonian on earth. Wonder Woman's no less special because she's surrounded by Amazons.


And the stories that were built on that foundation we enjoyable for many years... although they definitely began to suffer in the late Jurgens era, and more so after Loeb came aboard. (Not universally: I enjoyed Rucka's run. The man seems incapable of bad writing.) IMHO the new Supergirl has been a consistent disaster; I much preferred PAD's version.

I think there's room for both Linda Danvers and Linda Lang in the comics.



Birthright I didn't care for much at all, although I usually enjoy Waid's work. In particular, I maintain that having Luthor in Smallville as a contemporary of Clark is a terrible idea, in the comics or on TV (even though Michael Rosenbaum's acting talent was one of the only things that made Smallville watchable).

I'm perfectly fine with Luthor and Clark having grown up together and I'd be perfectly fine if they didn't. I didn't really like Birthright, and I'm just going to blame it on the art. (Sorry Nil)


Since then, the main problem has been confusion, as Superman had no clear origin and thus no clear place in DCU continuity. (E.g., when and how did "sunstone crystal" first pop up?) This only got worse after Infinite Crisis, as the new writers made it clear they had another new backstory in mind, but they weren't revealing more than bits and pieces, and moreover that different past was somehow supposed to have led up to the same present. And again, some details were better than others. Clark as a movie-esque bumbler makes me wince, and a redo of Mon-El's origin I could have done without. Ditto multicolored Kryptonite, and 100,000 Kryptonians on Earth. OTOH, Busiek's run introduced some genuinely new elements, and he also managed to make Lois actually likable for the first time in years.

I'm honestly perfectly fine with either portrayal of Clark, and think that the bumbling aspect adds a certain charm to it. If they could find a balance between the two, I'd like it.

I like Mon-El and I like multicolored kryptonite and while I'm not particularly impressed with New Krypton, like I said, I have no problem with Superman not being the solo Kryptonian.


Now? Even though most of the stuff I just expressed skepticism about came from Johns, I have to say that S:SO seems to be off to a good start. At least, it has good pacing and atmosphere and characterization (Lex aside)... although the plot feels like pure contrivance. It's definitely a remix of almost every version that has gone before, and seems to retain much (but not all) of what made the Byrne version enjoyable. But there's really not much new in it.

Of all the things I read for, plot comes last, so again, this didn't matter to me. While everything must serve the plot, the story is made by all of the other aspects that you named.

Pa Kent hugging Clark in the field is a really touching scene.


And the thing is, I wish another retelling wasn't necessary at all. (And it wouldn't have been, but for prior mishandlings over the past handful of years.) I'd much prefer to see DC leave its past alone rather than revisiting it over and over, and instead focus on building on the foundation that past provided in order to move forward.

I don't think it would've been necessary if Man of Steel holds up; and I don't think it holds up. I honestly think it's a product of its time, post-Cold War America.

---


Oh, BTW...
Umm... that's what a fetus is.

Yes. Yes it is.


Never been given an answer? Okay... how about Superman #146 (http://www.comics.org/details.lasso?id=16333), July 1961? It's not the only version in print, but it's pretty close to being the definitive one. Most recently reprinted in Showcase Presents Superman vol. 3.

(The longer 1979 recounting for which the reprint cover was shown, BTW, first appeared in Action #500 (http://www.comics.org/details.lasso?id=33724), Oct 1979. A thoroughly enjoyable story, IMHO.)

Thanks for that, I was wondering which issues those were.

[dupersuper]

like Justice League season one Superman.


In Justice League season 1 Superman got knocked out by a depth charge; in Byrnes run it still took a small nuke (and he was out for what seemed like less time).


The last issue of Man of Steel had him cowering in his room, sulking in the shadows, and would even be mentioned in World Without Superman as if it were some defining moment. There is that last issue of World of Krypton, and of course, the moment when he killed the phantom zoners, which was, in fact, an understandable mope, but they really managed to squeeze the self-pity out of that one, didn't they? And if there's one thing I don't like in Superman, it's probably self-pity. (Though I did enjoy seeing Gangbuster so much)


Byrne did a 6 issue mini, 3 4 issue minis, 1 special, 22 Superman issues, 16 Action issues and about 12 Adventures. 3 mopes in 69 or so issues seems like an acceptable ratio, especially when 1 was when he 1st started, 1 was when he was remembering his lost home planet, and 1 was after he'd ha to kill for the only time.


Yeah, you are. Once again, I was referring to a poster who was making blanket statements.

Fair enough.


It's not just that one time. Sooner or later one or both will have to die. It's nature. It moves his story forward in having to deal with something that in this verison, has never dealt with. It creates a new status quo, just like getting married did.


These are comics where people age not at all, or at least incredibly slowly. his parents no more "have to" die than Calvin has to outgrow Hobbes or Bart and Lisa Simpson have to start jr high. For that matter, they didn't have to get married. I like that story and the status quo it led to, but it was a story choice, not an innevitability.


Exactly. The Pre-Crisis stories glazed over this. Byrne didn't go as in-depth. Ordway did the drunk driver story. The 90's team took a shot with "Peer Pressure" and Jurgens did the flashback in "The Doomsday Wars". BR and SO are the first to really get beneath the surface and look at what made Clark into Superman. Much like "Smallville" and regardless of the show's quality or your opinion of it, you have to admit that it's explored ground seldomly seen.


Jurgens did the drunk driving story, and yes, flashbacks to his youth abound.


And there really wasn't anything wrong with it. Only one writer thought so and he basically forced his opinion on others. That's why so many writers brought these things back, because they weren't the problem. It was the stories being told, regardless of their presence, that was the problem.


He didn't force anything on any one; he was hired to write a story and did so.


Morrison was making a nod towards it in his JLA run and was probably thinking about adding it in when he and the others did their proposal not long afterwards. All-Star didn't say if Lex was in Smallville, but there's a strong belief in Clark for Lex. It also makes the situation more personal if they are friends who became enemies. It becomes heart breaking for Clark. Imagine if you had to fight your friend.


Or if Joker killed the Waynes, or Sandman killed Uncle Ben and Green Goblin slept with Gwen Stacey...there are a gazillion other heroes who were friends with their arch enemies. It can add drama and pathos, but for that reason it's very overdone.


And yet you don't roll your eyes at the notion that a man can do this simply because he gets a tan. Or that the metal in his ship couldn't melt from heat vision blasts. No, it doesn't have solar cells. But the materials that make up the fabric and the properties of the metal are affected by the sunlight.


I can accept Superman getting the powers because that's the basic concept and if you are going to poke holes in that like it's a serious scientific theory you may as well go home. I can accept the ship being able to resist at least low level heat vision because it's a spaceship from a very advanced race, not because it's been in the sun. The blankets being affected by sunlight goes against not just known science, but the internal logic established in the story.


What was done before 2006 doesn't matter. Those stories won't be 100 percent the same. See the Regeneration Matrix in "Legion Of 3 Worlds". Clark has not fought three versions of Zod, as per Matt Idelson in 2007. This Zod is the first time. Henshaw only fired heat vision on Clark while he was wearing the regeneration suit. In fact, he relied on it less and his laser canons more. We'll probably see the retelling of the first Bizarro fight.

That said, in the last three years, his suit was only torn due to Kryptonite and the red sun.


A) those stories still matter to me, I'm not dismissing them at DC's editorial whim
B) the post IC origins in 52 and countdown, plus the end teaser in the post IC Alan Scott flashback issue of Superman clearly showed him fighting the 1st Bizarros
C) That still wouldn't explain the actual Zod, his Zoner army, Eclipsed Valor, Dev-em, Cyborg Superman, both Ultramen...


The whole thing is hard to believe? What's wrong with having dogs?


Humanoids that can pass for us are a staple of sci-fi, despite the astronomical odds. Also, Jor-el presumably scoured the cosmos for a planet where Clark could fit in. Having the planet also produce animals identical to dogs, monkeys, etc. spits in the face of evolutionary theory a little too blatantly for most readers past grade school to not take them out of the story.


No, but Jor-El wasn't going to send his pregnant wife to Earth in a ship that was untested either. Remember all the failed attempts made by the US and Russia to launch a shuttle into space, before they got it right.


One would think Krypton had these things pretty well figured out by then, especially considering the space empire they had however many thousands of years ago.


So why not make Superman black? Or homosexual. Why not give him different powers? You say change things, then let's change everything.


Holy slippery slope falacy, Robin!


And then lost them ten years later.


Are you seriously blaming a mini series for not being able to keep its' entire fanbase buying a book over 8 years after the writer left?? If no one's reading Beau Smith, Devin Grayson and Joe Schmoe Newguy on the Superman books in 2020, will Secret Origins be considered a flop?


Except that those stories were never meant to be included. Except no one has done so until Johns and Tomasi. At least in the Superman books. Only the JLA stories remained in continuity.


I apologise in advance for not having a link or any idea where at all, but I do recall an interview with Byrne where he said that was 1 of the points of the several year gaps between MoS issues. Just because it wasn't followed up on doesn't mean that wasn't allowed for in his plan.

Dupersuper, thanks for weighing in to insert a more conciliatory note to things.


Thanks for saying so. It's not the pro Secret Origins, pro Man of Steel or even pro Birthright stances I have a problem with, it's attempting to invalidate the other posters opinion just for daring to say he liked a book that you didn't.

[Duy]

In Justice League season 1 Superman got knocked out by a depth charge; in Byrnes run it still took a small nuke (and he was out for what seemed like less time).

It's still - and I'm sorry for repeating this - not super enough to be Superman. If you power him down to that level, the magic is weakened. And that may be fine for adults, but kids tend to veer toward the awesome, and I want Superman to be accessible to kids.



Byrne did a 6 issue mini, 3 4 issue minis, 1 special, 22 Superman issues, 16 Action issues and about 12 Adventures. 3 mopes in 69 or so issues seems like an acceptable ratio, especially when 1 was when he 1st started, 1 was when he was remembering his lost home planet, and 1 was after he'd ha to kill for the only time.

Sitting in his room waiting for his parents to come out and skulking in the dark seems a tad...

...emoish, don't you think?

I'll give you the ratio thing, but I'll also cite that John Byrne as a Superman writer is mostly known for rebooting the franchise, getting rid of all the stuff he deemed "extraneous" in the process, having Superman kill criminals, and, to a lesser extent, he also put Superman in a scenario where he would make a porno. Such things are controversial; they're not necessarily "good."




Thanks for saying so. It's not the pro Secret Origins, pro Man of Steel or even pro Birthright stances I have a problem with, it's attempting to invalidate the other posters opinion just for daring to say he liked a book that you didn't.

And once again, I'd like to apologize for coming off as a d-bag; I was arguing with a poster who was making blanket statements and talking about subjective things as if they were factual, so I fought back in kind.

[dupersuper]

It's still - and I'm sorry for repeating this - not super enough to be Superman. If you power him down to that level, the magic is weakened. And that may be fine for adults, but kids tend to veer toward the awesome, and I want Superman to be accessible to kids.


Batman has no powers and kids think he's awesome...


And once again, I'd like to apologize for coming off as a d-bag; I was arguing with a poster who was making blanket statements and talking about subjective things as if they were factual, so I fought back in kind.

Understood.

[Duy]

Batman has no powers and kids think he's awesome...

Batman isn't Superman.

Superman should be able to pull off mythical feats and should flat out be the most powerful man in the universe. Not saying that Superman should move planets all the time, but he should be able to make you believe he can.

That's what I gather from talking to kids anyway, and also what I prefer to appeal to my kid side.

You can inject Superman with pathos all you want, but you're never gonna get any kids reading it unless he's flat out awesome, much like you're never gonna get anyone interested in a Flash that can't outrun a truck.

[The Batman]

Batman has no powers and kids think he's awesome...



Sure, but that might be less to do with the no powers than it is to do with the fact that Batman, even without powers, is played as the best, smartest, fastest, most capable guy in the room. He's the guy with the cool toys and the plans and mastery of some 127 martial arts disciplines and the back up personality and so on and so forth.

What I'm getting at is, I'm just not sure that Batman, who seems to have become the guy that can do most anything and hand wave it away with "prep time," is the guy to point to as proof that people want their superheroes limited.

[Mat001]

In Justice League season 1 Superman got knocked out by a depth charge; in Byrnes run it still took a small nuke (and he was out for what seemed like less time).

And fans complained about it because Superman kept getting knocked around and taking a while to get back into the fight. Hence in season two, that changed. Timm and company were still working on the dynamics of doing the JLA, since one of the issues he had early on was that Superman and the Flash could take care of a lot of things on their own.

These are comics where people age not at all, or at least incredibly slowly. his parents no more "have to" die than Calvin has to outgrow Hobbes or Bart and Lisa Simpson have to start jr high. For that matter, they didn't have to get married. I like that story and the status quo it led to, but it was a story choice, not an innevitability.

Part of it was to have Clark move on with his life without Jonathan and the other is to get him out of Metropolis. However, it is innevitable despite comic book logic, that Jonathan and Martha will die. Johns was the first to go ahead with it and get permission to do so. The guys working on Superman: The Animated Series wanted to kill the Kents off, but were told no by DC. Loeb almost got away with it, before being told no.

Jurgens did the drunk driving story, and yes, flashbacks to his youth abound.

But not to the same degree that SO #1 and previous issues have shown. We've seen more of Clark as a teen without the suit, than ever before.

He didn't force anything on any one; he was hired to write a story and did so.

And he made changes that other writers have had to undo, because of his one-sided view. He took away the stories that Jurgens, Ordway, Stern, Simonson and all the rest could've done with those elements. All under his own misguided beliefs that they needed to go away. Had Alan Moore or J.M. DeMatties wrote MOS, none of those things would've gone away.

Or if Joker killed the Waynes, or Sandman killed Uncle Ben and Green Goblin slept with Gwen Stacey...there are a gazillion other heroes who were friends with their arch enemies. It can add drama and pathos, but for that reason it's very overdone.

Is it wrong to have pathos and drama? The essence of drama is conflict and a conflict between two friends turned enemies creates great drama.

I can accept Superman getting the powers because that's the basic concept and if you are going to poke holes in that like it's a serious scientific theory you may as well go home. I can accept the ship being able to resist at least low level heat vision because it's a spaceship from a very advanced race, not because it's been in the sun. The blankets being affected by sunlight goes against not just known science, but the internal logic established in the story.

It's fiction. You don't need logic for it anymore than sound and fire in space, faster than light travel that defies the laws of physics and alien worlds with humans on it.

Besides, Johns and Frank said that this will be addressed in future issues.

Nrama: Just to clarify, does the indestructible material still exist on Superman's costume today? Is that canon for his current costume?

Frank: I guess this is a Geoff question but, if I may, don't forget that Superman will eventually learn a lot about Krytonian technology and will eventually be able to recreate those materials. The costume isn't, of course, literally indestructable and, besides, he's a growing lad...

Johns: It’s strong. As you can see by the broken scissors and sewing machine. But, as Gary says, that doesn’t mean it’s completely indestructible. More on this later.

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/090930-Superman-Secret-Origin.html

So you can calm down about it.

A) those stories still matter to me, I'm not dismissing them at DC's editorial whim

Nobody said that. Just that they're not that important at the moment. And as the link and quotes I posted, those issues will be dealt with.

B) the post IC origins in 52 and countdown, plus the end teaser in the post IC Alan Scott flashback issue of Superman clearly showed him fighting the 1st Bizarros

I never said that. I said that those Bizarro stories. I said that since 2006, Clark's suit hasn't been damaged in a fight.

C) That still wouldn't explain the actual Zod, his Zoner army, Eclipsed Valor, Dev-em, Cyborg Superman, both Ultramen...

See above.

Humanoids that can pass for us are a staple of sci-fi, despite the astronomical odds. Also, Jor-el presumably scoured the cosmos for a planet where Clark could fit in.

Starman Jack Knight told him about Earth when he visited during a time travel adventure, around issue 78 of his series. That story isn't contradicted and Robinson himself would vouch for it being in continuity.

Having the planet also produce animals identical to dogs, monkeys, etc. spits in the face of evolutionary theory a little too blatantly for most readers past grade school to not take them out of the story.

Only dogs have appeared on Krypton and we don't know if that's natural or a product of Kryptonians bioenginering them on Krypton, after visiting Earth. There's no Beppo the Super Monkey. And evolutionay theory doesn't take other worlds into account, only our world. Besides, it's still a theory since we haven't made contact with other worlds. For all we know, there could be worlds identical to ours. And you cannot excuse humans over dogs. It's either both or none at all.

One would think Krypton had these things pretty well figured out by then, especially considering the space empire they had however many thousands of years ago.

Except as Jor-El indicated in Action Comics #850, the Eradicator Squads had done nearly a thorough job of destroying all text on space travel. He was having to work it as he went. Pre-Crisis, Kryptonians never went on a long distance journey.

Holy slippery slope falacy, Robin!

I'm just going by your assertion that things should change from how it was done before.

Are you seriously blaming a mini series for not being able to keep its' entire fanbase buying a book over 8 years after the writer left?? If no one's reading Beau Smith, Devin Grayson and Joe Schmoe Newguy on the Superman books in 2020, will Secret Origins be considered a flop?

No, I'm not blaming a mini-series for it. I'm just saying that the Superman books went downhill in spite of gaining new readers with MOS. Hence the writers since then have gone out of their way to update and make Superman fresh, in part by revisiting elements that haven't been used in the comics, but still appear in other media. "Lois & Clark", "Smallville" and "Last Son Of Krypton" do not depict all elements from MOS. They change things and maintain a consistancy from established lore. SO and all the other stuff is in keeping with that.

I apologise in advance for not having a link or any idea where at all, but I do recall an interview with Byrne where he said that was 1 of the points of the several year gaps between MoS issues. Just because it wasn't followed up on doesn't mean that wasn't allowed for in his plan.

Okay, but given how he himself didn't even follow up on that during his run, is indicitive that he wasn't totally serious. He didn't have an issue where Clark refers to his time at WGBS and how the Daily Planet was independent of Morgan Edge again. Lana hasn't left Smallville and worked at WGBS. Clark didn't even fight Brainiac until well into his and Wolfman's run.

Sure, but that might be less to do with the no powers than it is to do with the fact that Batman, even without powers, is played as the best, smartest, fastest, most capable guy in the room. He's the guy with the cool toys and the plans and mastery of some 127 martial arts disciplines and the back up personality and so on and so forth.

What I'm getting at is, I'm just not sure that Batman, who seems to have become the guy that can do most anything and hand wave it away with "prep time," is the guy to point to as proof that people want their superheroes limited.

Bingo. Or to quote John Stweart, "The Bat God has spoken." If Batman can be better than everyone, shouldn't Superman be better than even Batman? He doesn't have to move planets, but he should be able to fight powerful beings. Look at Superman wrestling Asmodel or throwing down on Darkseid. That's power. Morrison writes Superman as being Super, without sacrificing the Man. It's both to him, rather than either/or as it was Pre and Post Crisis. When Superman fights, it should be like he's fighting God and giving Him the finger. If his foes are on his level without using his weaknesses, then it's all good.

[Slaughter]

View Post
In Justice League season 1 Superman got knocked out by a depth charge; in Byrnes run it still took a small nuke (and he was out for what seemed like less time).

It's still - and I'm sorry for repeating this - not super enough to be Superman. If you power him down to that level, the magic is weakened. And that may be fine for adults, but kids tend to veer toward the awesome, and I want Superman to be accessible to kids.



That wans't a small nuke, that was a 40-megaton nuke. That exploded right in his face. Surviving that is the very ephitome of awesome.

There was a pretty good history shortly before Death of Superman that explored the use of nukes against Superman. Thaddeus Killgrave managed to take out Superman at night with a combination of a nuke + multiple direct hits from very powerful missiles + a lot of exploding armors discarded by Hi-Tech + a very big rock + A really powerful eletric pulse shot by Hi-Tech. Then he almost killed him with a second nuke, but Hi-Tech had a change of heart after she realized she too would die because she was trapped in a cave due to the giant rock.

I like the idea of using nukes against Superman. Man's Most Powerful Weapon against the Most Powerful Man. The method used in the issue was very interesting. Its refreshing to see someone attack Superman with something other than ye olde weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

[lawman]

Rereading Man of Steel last night, I noticed two things that I REALLY don't like now that I'm older, and it's from both the first and last issues. There's just such a pro-American slant given to the whole thing, and I get that Superman fights for the "American way", but it's just the kind of "pro-American" slant that I don't like and what irks me and I'm sure irks most of the international community as well.
I remember noticing that at the time. On the one hand, it bugged me (as did so much of the casual jingoism of the Reagan era)... and seemed all the stranger given that Byrne's Canadian. I had always enjoyed thinking of Superman as a citizen of Earth, above national loyalties. OTOH, the politically conservative aspects of it really weren't carried forward into the ongoing series, thankfully (aside from that early issue where Wolfman had Supes demolish the Quraci military). And I appreciate the need to set aside the "Kryptonian heritage" stuff as much as possible... IMHO Clark works best as a human, with contemporary human values, who just happens to have an exotic background -- not as an alien to our culture who's perpetually a "stranger in a strange land," which seemed to be the case on occasion in the pre-Crisis era, at least in some writers' hands.

I'm with you on the Kents surviving and Luthor as a billionaire, thought I like JLU's "Luthor as a billionaire AND scientific genius" approach more.
There was always a subtext of that even in the Byrne era. The guy made his fortune by inventing his own supersonic jet, after all. But what made Luthor really interesting wasn't that he could invent frammijammitzes, it was his overwhelming ego and drive for power... and the fact that it was wrapped in a socially acceptable package. The whole implicit critique of corporate dominance was an added bonus, which has now unfortunately been mostly lost.

I think Lois could have been toned down from being an abrasive bitch, but I think the intent was right there; she definitely needed to stop playing damsel in distress, and I think recent writers have done wonders with her, especially Busiek.

I'll agree here. I do like the marriage, too... although it's better when we get to see why Clark likes her.

I think there's room for both Linda Danvers and Linda Lang in the comics.
Unfortunately, DC doesn't seem to agree.

I'm perfectly fine with Luthor and Clark having grown up together and I'd be perfectly fine if they didn't.
It just complicates things tremendously... it's an obvious contrivance that they meet as teens in Kansas, then again as adults in Metropolis, and moreover it makes it far less plausible that Lex never suspects Clark's secret. Plus, I really really liked the "Suicide Slum" version of Lex's backstory. I hope we at least retain the aspect where he got the seed money for his company from the life insurance on his parents.

I'm honestly perfectly fine with either portrayal of Clark, and think that the bumbling aspect adds a certain charm to it. If they could find a balance between the two, I'd like it.
The best version I've seen recently, hands down, was in the JLA/Hitman crossover, of all places. Garth Ennis wrote Clark as someone who was modest and low-key, yet also serious and competent. He was a believable character, rather than a caricature.

---
These are comics where people age not at all, or at least incredibly slowly. his parents no more "have to" die than Calvin has to outgrow Hobbes or Bart and Lisa Simpson have to start jr high. For that matter, they didn't have to get married. I like that story and the status quo it led to, but it was a story choice, not an innevitability.
I liked having Clark's parents alive. That said, I don't necessarily mind that Pa Kent died... what bothers me is the sense that it was done to make the comics more like the movie version. (And yet... if it were to be done, I'd have rather had it be from a simple heart attack, as on film, rather than the side-effect of a plot by Brainiac.)

Or if Joker killed the Waynes, or Sandman killed Uncle Ben and Green Goblin slept with Gwen Stacey...there are a gazillion other heroes who were friends with their arch enemies. It can add drama and pathos, but for that reason it's very overdone.
Yeah... the "Lex was once Clark's friend" thing really doesn't do much for me. Especially if Lex is such a jackass from his very first appearance, as depicted in S:SO; it just forces one to wonder why Clark had such bad taste in friends.

I can accept Superman getting the powers because that's the basic concept and if you are going to poke holes in that like it's a serious scientific theory you may as well go home. I can accept the ship being able to resist at least low level heat vision because it's a spaceship from a very advanced race, not because it's been in the sun. The blankets being affected by sunlight goes against not just known science, but the internal logic established in the story.

Hear, hear. We can perhaps fanwank that the fabric wasn't "super" thanks to the yellow sun, it was just extremely durable high-tech Kryptonian fabric... thus impervious to routine Earth scissors, but still susceptible to damage from high-powered weapons and such. That still doesn't quite account for the lenses from the rocket, though...

Humanoids that can pass for us are a staple of sci-fi, despite the astronomical odds. Also, Jor-el presumably scoured the cosmos for a planet where Clark could fit in. Having the planet also produce animals identical to dogs, monkeys, etc. spits in the face of evolutionary theory a little too blatantly for most readers past grade school to not take them out of the story.
Again, I'm with you here. That's one of the things I appreciated about the post-Crisis revamp... it did as much as possible to bring the Superman mythos in line with SF levels of plausibility. I love the way telekinesis explained so many of Supes' powers, for instance.

I apologise in advance for not having a link or any idea where at all, but I do recall an interview with Byrne where he said that was 1 of the points of the several year gaps between MoS issues. Just because it wasn't followed up on doesn't mean that wasn't allowed for in his plan.
Yeah, my take on it at the time was that any past stories not contradicted by MoS could still implicitly be part of the backstory. Of course, as it stood, most past Superman stories were contradicted by MoS... even the JLA ones. But a few managed to sneak in here and there, and the span of years left room for them... as well as for new flashbacks.

---
It's still - and I'm sorry for repeating this - not super enough to be Superman. If you power him down to that level, the magic is weakened. And that may be fine for adults, but kids tend to veer toward the awesome, and I want Superman to be accessible to kids. ... Superman should be able to pull off mythical feats and should flat out be the most powerful man in the universe.
Just can't agree with you here. Surviving a nuke isn't powerful enough? Sorry, but I don't want "magic"... as just described, I prefer some degree of plausibility and consistency (at least within the bounds of typical comic-book rubber science). And there are plenty of versions of Superman aimed explicitly at kids, in comics and out... so while I don't mind the "core" books being written to be widely accessible (although that hasn't really been the case for years, IMHO), I would mind if it means limiting their appeal to intelligent adults.

Sitting in his room waiting for his parents to come out and skulking in the dark seems a tad...

...emoish, don't you think?
Now, there's an overused adjective. Personally, I thought that scene was one of the most powerful parts of MoS. Sure, Clark had come to terms with his powers and traveled the world doing good deeds... but until then, it had been mostly on his own terms, and he still had a normal private life. Suddenly he'd been thrust into the spotlight, and realized that from then on he was going to be a major celebrity, like it or not. "They all wanted a piece of me"... seemed like a very honest and evocative scene to me. You don't take to that sort of thing without reservations... and thus it also provided a very rational excuse for adopting the colorful costume.

Sure, but that might be less to do with the no powers than it is to do with the fact that Batman, even without powers, is played as the best, smartest, fastest, most capable guy in the room. He's the guy with the cool toys and the plans and mastery of some 127 martial arts disciplines and the back up personality and so on and so forth.

What I'm getting at is, I'm just not sure that Batman, who seems to have become the guy that can do most anything and hand wave it away with "prep time," is the guy to point to as proof that people want their superheroes limited.
Well, that's more the Grant Morrison version of Batman than a general status quo, IMHO. Most writers treat him as a bit less, y'know, superhuman.

[lawman]

And made changes that other writers have had to undo, because of his one-sided view. He took away the stories that Jurgens, Ordway, Stern, Simonson and all the rest could've done with those elements. All under his own misguided beliefs that they needed to go away.
C'mon, you make it sound like those writers worked on Superman against their will. IMHO all of them (Stern especially) did some wonderful work on the foundation Byrne and Wolfman set up. They weren't chafing against it. That only started (at least in a way noticeable to readers) once Jeph Loeb and editor Eddie Berganza came on board in '99.

[B]It's fiction. You don't need logic for it anymore than sound and fire in space, faster than light travel that defies the laws of physics and alien worlds with humans on it.
What? What? Did you really write that? Seriously? Of course you need logic for fiction. When anything can happen, nothing is interesting. When dealing with SF (of which comics are kind of a subset) internal logic is more important than real-world logic, and as I noted earlier a certain level of "rubber science" is expected... but even so, you don't want to defy science except as absolutely necessary for the story. (E.g., sound in space is never a good idea.) You can't maintain an audience's willing suspension of disbelief if you don't at least attempt to keep things plausible.


Besides, Johns and Frank said that [the fabric] will be addressed in future issues.
Glad to hear it.

Starman Jack Knight told him about Earth when he visited during a time travel adventure, around issue 78 of his series. That story isn't contradicted and Robinson himself would vouch for it being in continuity.
Actually, that story is contradicted, in the sense that it could not possibly have happened as written on the current version of Krypton. And that's a shame, as it was a great story. Presumably some alternate version of Jack meeting Jor-El could still have happened, but we haven't seen it yet.

Only dogs have appeared on Krypton and we don't know if that's natural or a product of Kryptonians bioenginering them on Krypton, after visiting Earth. ... And evolutionay theory doesn't take other worlds into account, only our world.
C'mon, it's a stretch and you know it. It can be rationalized away after the fact, but on the surface it really comes across as implausible.

Look at Superman wrestling Asmodel or throwing down on Darkseid. That's power. Morrison writes Superman as being Super, without sacrificing the Man. It's both to him, rather than either/or as it was Pre and Post Crisis. When Superman fights, it should be like he's fighting God and giving Him the finger. If his foes are on his level without using his weaknesses, then it's all good.
I don't really care much for Morrison's version of Superman, at least not as seen in Final Crisis and Superman Beyond. He's more interested in him as a mythical embodiment than as an actual character, IMHO.

[Mat001]

C'mon, you make it sound like those writers worked on Superman against their will. IMHO all of them (Stern especially) did some wonderful work on the foundation Byrne and Wolfman set up. They weren't chafing against it. That only started (at least in a way noticeable to readers) once Jeph Loeb and editor Eddie Berganza came on board in '99.

I didn't say that it was against their will. But if they wanted Supergirl to be from Krypton, Carlin and the higher ups said no. In fact, Carlin didn't even want Supergirl/Matrix/Linda/Earth Angel. When that restriction passed, we had writers free to do what they wanted.

What? What? Did you really write that? Seriously? Of course you need logic for fiction. When anything can happen, nothing is interesting. When dealing with SF (of which comics are kind of a subset) internal logic is more important than real-world logic, and as I noted earlier a certain level of "rubber science" is expected... but even so, you don't want to defy science except as absolutely necessary for the story. (E.g., sound in space is never a good idea.) You can't maintain an audience's willing suspension of disbelief if you don't at least attempt to keep things plausible.

Just because it isn't a good idea, doesn't mean that it cannot be used. Like I said, there's a lot of things that aren't plausible that people will just ignore for the sake of entertainment.

Actually, that story is contradicted, in the sense that it could not possibly have happened as written on the current version of Krypton. And that's a shame, as it was a great story. Presumably some alternate version of Jack meeting Jor-El could still have happened, but we haven't seen it yet.

Just because it won't be shown, doesn't mean that it cannot happen. And with the Krypton that exists today, it can still happen. I don't see why it could not happen.

C'mon, it's a stretch and you know it. It can be rationalized away after the fact, but on the surface it really comes across as implausible.

Yet Superman is plausible? Please. It's not a stretch for Kryptonians to create canines or for them to exist naturally on another world. No more than Kryptonians looking like humans and you know it.

I don't really care much for Morrison's version of Superman, at least not as seen in Final Crisis and Superman Beyond. He's more interested in him as a mythical embodiment than as an actual character, IMHO.

And yet that's what people like. They like the mythical as well as the mortal aspects. Superman is a god amongest men.

[dupersuper]

And fans complained about it because Superman kept getting knocked around and taking a while to get back into the fight. Hence in season two, that changed. Timm and company were still working on the dynamics of doing the JLA, since one of the issues he had early on was that Superman and the Flash could take care of a lot of things on their own.


I understand, I'm saying Byrnes run was much better in that regard. He occasionally grunted when lifting massive things, he wasn't knocked silly every issue by lame crap.


However, it is innevitable despite comic book logic, that Jonathan and Martha will die.


It's really really not.


But not to the same degree that SO #1 and previous issues have shown. We've seen more of Clark as a teen without the suit, than ever before.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say or respond to here.


And he made changes that other writers have had to undo, because of his one-sided view. He took away the stories that Jurgens, Ordway, Stern, Simonson and all the rest could've done with those elements. All under his own misguided beliefs that they needed to go away. Had Alan Moore or J.M. DeMatties wrote MOS, none of those things would've gone away.


What 1 sided view? He was hired to write a reboot and did, anything Jurgens et all wanted to put back they worked into that fromework. Also, though you may be glad they have, no one "had" to undo anything...including, I concede, Byrne and DC at that time; it's all story choice.


Is it wrong to have pathos and drama? The essence of drama is conflict and a conflict between two friends turned enemies creates great drama.


Not at all, that's just a cheap and easy route to get it, and people who say it's important to the characters or important to return to the "original" story forget it was a retcon in the silver age, and Luthor had nothing to do with young Clark for the 1st decade or 2 he was around.


It's fiction. You don't need logic for it anymore than sound and fire in space, faster than light travel that defies the laws of physics and alien worlds with humans on it.


You don't necessarily need hard science, but you need decent logic for a good story, unless you're going for a comedy...


Frank: I guess this is a Geoff question but, if I may, don't forget that Superman will eventually learn a lot about Krytonian technology and will eventually be able to recreate those materials. The costume isn't, of course, literally indestructable and, besides, he's a growing lad...

Johns: It’s strong. As you can see by the broken scissors and sewing machine. But, as Gary says, that doesn’t mean it’s completely indestructible. More on this later.[/b]

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/090930-Superman-Secret-Origin.html


None of which has anything to do with the idea the fabric was strengthened by the yellow sun, which is what I was responding to in the 1st place.


So you can calm down about it.


What gave you the idea I was excited? Did I capitalize or bold something?


I never said that. I said that those Bizarro stories. I said that since 2006, Clark's suit hasn't been damaged in a fight.


I don't know if it was you, but a poster had implied or said that the 1st Bizarro fights were out of continuity since IC.


And you cannot excuse humans over dogs. It's either both or none at all.


This binary logic may be why we're not seeing eye-to-eye...


I'm just going by your assertion that things should change from how it was done before.


My assertion was that change wasn't necessarily bad. It's not autimatically good either. Going back to internal story logic...



I'm just saying that the Superman books went downhill in spite of gaining new readers with MOS.


See, as a fan of the Superbooks during the late 80's-mid 90's triangle era, I don't buy the "downhill" premise of your argument.


Okay, but given how he himself didn't even follow up on that during his run, is indicitive that he wasn't totally serious. He didn't have an issue where Clark refers to his time at WGBS and how the Daily Planet was independent of Morgan Edge again. Lana hasn't left Smallville and worked at WGBS. Clark didn't even fight Brainiac until well into his and Wolfman's run.


I was reffering more to Justice League adventures and such. He did rework Lori Lemaris in, and reffered to Supermans past meetings with the Doom Patrol and even Superboy Prime.


Bingo. Or to quote John Stweart, "The Bat God has spoken." If Batman can be better than everyone, shouldn't Superman be better than even Batman? He doesn't have to move planets, but he should be able to fight powerful beings. Look at Superman wrestling Asmodel or throwing down on Darkseid. That's power. Morrison writes Superman as being Super, without sacrificing the Man. It's both to him, rather than either/or as it was Pre and Post Crisis. When Superman fights, it should be like he's fighting God and giving Him the finger. If his foes are on his level without using his weaknesses, then it's all good.

I agree he should get in epic struggles somewhat often, but since Morrison did this using Byrne Superman (during the electric blue story to boot), I'm not sure how this proves your point.

[dupersuper]

That wans't a small nuke, that was a 40-megaton nuke. That exploded right in his face. Surviving that is the very ephitome of awesome.


It's small compared to later nukes he'd survive (up to and including flying through stars)


Unfortunately, DC doesn't seem to agree.


Fortunately Geoff Jones does, and he's their golden boy right now.


moreover it makes it far less plausible that Lex never suspects Clark's secret.

Very true.


Hear, hear. We can perhaps fanwank that the fabric wasn't "super" thanks to the yellow sun, it was just extremely durable high-tech Kryptonian fabric... thus impervious to routine Earth scissors, but still susceptible to damage from high-powered weapons and such.

That seems to be the direction they're headed from the interview posted earlier.


Yeah, my take on it at the time was that any past stories not contradicted by MoS could still implicitly be part of the backstory. Of course, as it stood, most past Superman stories were contradicted by MoS... even the JLA ones. But a few managed to sneak in here and there, and the span of years left room for them... as well as for new flashbacks.


I think a lot of the contradictions were minor and could have been streamlined easily, such as he could have encountered kryptonite in Justice League stories and just not known what exactly it was.


Just can't agree with you here. Surviving a nuke isn't powerful enough? Sorry, but I don't want "magic"... as just described, I prefer some degree of plausibility and consistency (at least within the bounds of typical comic-book rubber science). And there are plenty of versions of Superman aimed explicitly at kids, in comics and out... so while I don't mind the "core" books being written to be widely accessible (although that hasn't really been the case for years, IMHO), I would mind if it means limiting their appeal to intelligent adults.


The Superman in Superman Adventures was powered down majorly, and kids liked that...


C'mon, you make it sound like those writers worked on Superman against their will. IMHO all of them (Stern especially) did some wonderful work on the foundation Byrne and Wolfman set up. They weren't chafing against it.

Agreed.


Actually, that story is contradicted, in the sense that it could not possibly have happened as written on the current version of Krypton. And that's a shame, as it was a great story. Presumably some alternate version of Jack meeting Jor-El could still have happened, but we haven't seen it yet.


Sure it could; just make the science guild as isolationist as all of Krypton was supposed to be and it works fine; it's not like Jack & company got out of the "house of el" to look around a lot.


C'mon, it's a stretch and you know it. It can be rationalized away after the fact, but on the surface it really comes across as implausible.


Also, what was wrong with Brainiac making him as part of his Phantom Zone Krypton he designed to trap Supes? If you're afraid that backstory is too complicated, just don't mention it often and new readers can assume what they will...just don't contradict the earlier story.


I don't really care much for Morrison's version of Superman, at least not as seen in Final Crisis and Superman Beyond. He's more interested in him as a mythical embodiment than as an actual character, IMHO.

To be fair, that really fits considering he was using him in a big crossover, as it worked very well in JLA. His All-Star Superman is a rather more personal look.



Just because it isn't a good idea, doesn't mean that it cannot be used.


No, it means it SHOULDN'T be used.


Yet Superman is plausible? Please. It's not a stretch for Kryptonians to create canines or for them to exist naturally on another world. No more than Kryptonians looking like humans and you know it.


Sorry, I don't buy it. I love Krypto, but I'd much rather he have a not-directly-Kryptonian origin. I have no idea why super advanced aliens light years away would bio-engineer a terran dog (especially if the science guild retains the isolationist aspect of Byrnes Krypton).

[Duy]

Just can't agree with you here. Surviving a nuke isn't powerful enough? Sorry, but I don't want "magic"... as just described, I prefer some degree of plausibility and consistency (at least within the bounds of typical comic-book rubber science). And there are plenty of versions of Superman aimed explicitly at kids, in comics and out... so while I don't mind the "core" books being written to be widely accessible (although that hasn't really been the case for years, IMHO), I would mind if it means limiting their appeal to intelligent adults.


Just can't agree with you either. Surviving a nuke is fine, but considering the type of crap Superman SHOULD be able to go through, nukes should be easy to him. All-Star Superman had a Superman that was RIDICULOUSLY powerful, and it was still very interesting and quite probably my favorite Superman story ever.

I'm not saying he should develop things like a super-kiss, super-ventriloquism, or super-cellophane from his insignia, but I just want his stories to be mythic. He should be able to carry a mountain without any effort - what should take effort is something like moving a planet.

And if a writer can't come up with threats for Superman and chooses to power him down as a solution, well, I think that's just really uncreative. Come up with something new; don't downgrade.

[Duy]

The Superman in Superman Adventures was powered down majorly, and kids liked that...

Kids like it; they don't love it. I've never heard any kids say that animated Superman was awesome, until we got to season two of Justice League.

[lawman]

I didn't say that it was against their will. But if they wanted Supergirl to be from Krypton, Carlin and the higher ups said no. In fact, Carlin didn't even want Supergirl/Matrix/Linda/Earth Angel. When that restriction passed, we had writers free to do what they wanted.
There's always editorial direction... writers on franchise characters are never just "free to do what they want." The editorial direction under Carlin may have been different than in later years, but that doesn't mean (as you're arguing) that it was worse. (Or better, for that matter.) What I've been trying to point out is that the post-Crisis Superman has had both good and bad ideas imposed on him... both originally and recently.

Just because it isn't a good idea, doesn't mean that it cannot be used. Like I said, there's a lot of things that aren't plausible that people will just ignore for the sake of entertainment.
Anything that gets past an editor "can" be used, but that doesn't mean it should. (Oh, wait, somebody already pointed that out.) If you avoid flagrant implausibilities, then you'll have a story people won't have to "just ignore" part of in order to enjoy it. Honestly, I can't believe you're arguing against consistent story logic and plausibility...

Just because it won't be shown, doesn't mean that it cannot happen. And with the Krypton that exists today, it can still happen. I don't see why it could not happen.
I didn't say otherwise. Robinson's Jack-Knight-meets-Jor-El story could still have happened... differently. Unless and until it's retold or flashed back to or some such, though, we won't know the details.

Yet Superman is plausible? Please. It's not a stretch for Kryptonians to create canines or for them to exist naturally on another world. No more than Kryptonians looking like humans and you know it.
SF in general, and comics in particular, are chock-full of human-like aliens. It's an accepted trope, unlikely as it may be in evolutionary terms. Duplicating other species as well, though, just underscores the unlikelihood. IMHO it really ought to be avoided, unless there's a really strong story reason for it and no more plausible alternative available.

Krypto was originally created in an era when (A) the comics were read predominantly by kids unlikely to be concerned with this kind of implausibility, and (B) the U.S. space program was routinely sending small animals into space in test rockets, so the story idea was was culturally familiar. Today, neither of these things is true, and his existence just detracts from Krypton's overall plausibility as an alien culture (which was never terribly high to begin with, honestly... Byrne probably nailed that aspect best). And if one really wants Krypto around, there are alternative explanations for him available; in fact we had one just a few years ago when he was reintroduced. Why anyone felt the need to retcon that is beyond me.

And yet that's what people like. They like the mythical as well as the mortal aspects. Superman is a god amongest men.
I'm trying hard to express my opinions as my opinions here. It's fallacious to argue that unspecified "people" allegedly agree with you. Sure, some people are really into the "mythical" aspects of Superman (and the DCU overall... just visit any thread debating the merits of Final Crisis). Other people, not so much. We could debate the relative quantities of these groups, I suppose, but there's no real data available, and anyway it wouldn't really prove anything in terms of which approach is more effective on its artistic merits.

Not at all, that's just a cheap and easy route to get it, and people who say it's important to the characters or important to return to the "original" story forget it was a retcon in the silver age, and Luthor had nothing to do with young Clark for the 1st decade or 2 he was around.
Quite so. It's not that there's no drama you can milk from this approach to Luthor; it's just that (IMHO) the drawbacks outnumber the benefits. To my mind the post-Crisis Luthor was hands down the most interesting version of the character.

(Not that he was perfect, though. I thought they dragged out his legal "untouchability" for a few too many years, for one thing. I also disliked it when Jurgens turned Luthor into a hands-on killer; IMHO he was arrogant enough to be above that sort of thing. I actually did like having him elected president... but unfortunately they didn't really play that out to its full potential, just wrote themselves into a corner that led to a very disappointing climax... and Lex has never been the same since.)

You don't necessarily need hard science, but you need decent logic for a good story, unless you're going for a comedy...
Absolutely. For instance, Lobo can have space dolphins and a space motorcycle: he's a satirical character. Superman operates under different rules.

I was reffering more to Justice League adventures and such. He did rework Lori Lemaris in, and reffered to Supermans past meetings with the Doom Patrol and even Superboy Prime.
Don't forget the Kirby-era stuff, too -- the Forever People, etc. All that was reincorporated into his backstory. Heck, so was the whole "sand creature" saga.

The Superman in Superman Adventures was powered down majorly, and kids liked that...
No doubt.

Also, what was wrong with Brainiac making [Krypto] as part of his Phantom Zone Krypton he designed to trap Supes? If you're afraid that backstory is too complicated, just don't mention it often and new readers can assume what they will...just don't contradict the earlier story.
I agree. There was really no need for a retcon back to the Silver Age origin.

Just can't agree with you either. Surviving a nuke is fine, but considering the type of crap Superman SHOULD be able to go through, nukes should be easy to him.
Okay, what sort of thing (specifically) do you have in mind with that "should"?

...I just want his stories to be mythic.
Yeah, that keeps coming up, from both Mat and you. I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by the term. Real myths, after all, (A) develop over vast spans of time -- generations or centuries, (B) tend to be believed (at least initially) by the cultures who dream them up as true explanations of the world they live in, and (C) don't remotely adhere to the dramatic requirements of modern storytelling. Symbolic, I can deal with... lots of comics stories use symbolism well. Larger-than-life... well, hey, that comes with the territory for any super-hero at all. "Sense of wonder"? Sure, I love me some good SF.

...But "mythic" is what Morrison was trying for with Final Crisis and Superman Beyond, and the result was (IMHO) incoherent crap. You can't just make a story or a character mythic by creative fiat. It doesn't work.

Maybe you have some other meaning in mind. If so, it'd help if you spelled it out.

Kids like it; they don't love it. I've never heard any kids say that animated Superman was awesome, until we got to season two of Justice League.
Is it by any chance possible that there are other kids in the world beyond the ones with whom you have discussed the show?

[Duy]

Okay, what sort of thing (specifically) do you have in mind with that "should"?


Yeah, that keeps coming up, from both Mat and you. I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by the term. Real myths, after all, (A) develop over vast spans of time -- generations or centuries, (B) tend to be believed (at least initially) by the cultures who dream them up as true explanations of the world they live in, and (C) don't remotely adhere to the dramatic requirements of modern storytelling. Symbolic, I can deal with... lots of comics stories use symbolism well. Larger-than-life... well, hey, that comes with the territory for any super-hero at all. "Sense of wonder"? Sure, I love me some good SF.

...But "mythic" is what Morrison was trying for with Final Crisis and Superman Beyond, and the result was (IMHO) incoherent crap. You can't just make a story or a character mythic by creative fiat. It doesn't work.

Maybe you have some other meaning in mind. If so, it'd help if you spelled it out.

Superman should be THE STRONGEST HERO in his universe. Period. If Green Lantern can move a planet with his ring, Superman should be able to move it with his strength. If Kyle Rayner can contain a supernova by, well, containing it, Superman should be able to contain it with a combination if his skills.

No doubt that execution matters, and I'll agree Final Crisis and Superman Beyond was bad, but Superman should have a charming quality that comes with what SHOULD be silly. Except it's NOT silly, because he's Superman, and amazing things are just normal around him.

Superman should be mythic in the sense that there should be out of this world, surrealistic elements just flat out surrounding him. Like I keep saying, I'm still waiting for Neil Gaiman's prose description of Kandor - he would be able to make it sound really magical, and whatnot.


Is it by any chance possible that there are other kids in the world beyond the ones with whom you have discussed the show?

No.

In all seriousness, though, I don't think it can be doubted that Superman was the least popular of all the animated DC shows. DC even put it out on DVD on double-sided discs to make it cheaper -- a treatment even Batman Beyond didn't get. And the most common complaint about Justice League season one was how weak Superman was, how slow Flash was, how uncreative Green Lantern was. Fans still like sheer, godlike awesomeness.

[dupersuper]

Just can't agree with you either. Surviving a nuke is fine, but considering the type of crap Superman SHOULD be able to go through, nukes should be easy to him. All-Star Superman had a Superman that was RIDICULOUSLY powerful, and it was still very interesting and quite probably my favorite Superman story ever.


Fine, I'm not saying he has to be depowered, just that good writing is more important than power level

Kids like it; they don't love it. I've never heard any kids say that animated Superman was awesome, until we got to season two of Justice League.

You polled this often...?


I agree. There was really no need for a retcon back to the Silver Age origin.


We seem to agree a lot.

Superman should be THE STRONGEST HERO in his universe. Period. If Green Lantern can move a planet with his ring, Superman should be able to move it with his strength. If Kyle Rayner can contain a supernova by, well, containing it, Superman should be able to contain it with a combination if his skills.


Physically strongest; MAYBE, most invulnerable; probably, but I'd REALLY rather he not move planets (the line from Peter Davids Supergirl comes to mind: "Is there any power she doesn't have?" "Yeah, the power of an 8th grade science education."), and containing supernovas makes no sense at all, unless by "skills" you maybe mean Kryptonian tech. I really think it should be Clarks attitude/determination/inspirational presence that makes him stand apart from other heroes, rather than having to have the best stats in every single area...

[Duy]

Fine, I'm not saying he has to be depowered, just that good writing is more important than power level

And I agree with you.

The BUT is coming at the end of this post.


You polled this often...?


My nephew and his playmates in the neighborhood aren't impressed, and, in fact, I notice that a lot of kids tend toward things like Dragonball because of the RIDICULOUS power levels. This is in the Philippines.

I lived in the States for five years and I babysat once in a while and I pretty much got the same response. One kid even said, "You know, Superman seems to be the most powerful guy because of his name, but then you watch and he's really not. I like these other guys better--" and then would proceed to name a bunch of people (Green Lantern being chief among them, and the Flash).

I cannot at all tell you how many times I've heard kids complain about that episode where Superman lost to Wonder Woman. Handily.



Physically strongest; MAYBE, most invulnerable; probably, but I'd REALLY rather he not move planets (the line from Peter Davids Supergirl comes to mind: "Is there any power she doesn't have?" "Yeah, the power of an 8th grade science education."), and containing supernovas makes no sense at all, unless by "skills" you maybe mean Kryptonian tech. I really think it should be Clarks attitude/determination/inspirational presence that makes him stand apart from other heroes, rather than having to have the best stats in every single area...

Yes. I agree with you. Character, attitude, determination, inspirational presence, all that is more important.

BUT for one thing, I don't ever get that impression from Byrne's Superman.

AND for another thing, I think in a visual medium, it's just more visually appealing to see Superman do all of these ridiculously powerful things. Superman moving a planet, Superman wrestling an angel, Superman towing a bunch of planets with a chain; I just think they're great visuals, and I can forgive a comics story for being mediocre if the visuals are great. I'm not saying this should be done haphazardly; I'm just saying that I would like it for these visuals to possibly exist.

Mark Waid: "Gods achieve their power by encouraging us to believe in them.
Superman achieves his power by believing in us."

Which I will agree is the most important part of the character (although, again, I NEVER got this from Byrne).

BUT, this helps too:

Time Magazine: "Grant Morrison gets what fun about Superman: he's ridiculously powerful, and therefore just sees and does and has lots of incredibly cool, totally bizarre stuff. The sky isn't even close to the limit."

[Mat001]

Yeah... the "Lex was once Clark's friend" thing really doesn't do much for me. Especially if Lex is such a jackass from his very first appearance, as depicted in S:SO; it just forces one to wonder why Clark had such bad taste in friends.

Because he didn't have that many friends. He mainly had Pete Ross and Lana Lang. Occassionally Kenny Braverman. Otherwise, he was rather limited in his friendships as Clark Kent. That's why when the Legion came into his life, he found people that he could identify with and hang out, while using his powers openly. This is illustrated in Action Comics #862 and 864.

It's really really not.

I'm sorry, people don't die? I must've missed something. No, the Kents were always subject to dying. It just took someone willing to go forward and do that story. And given that they're often portrayed as dying, it's not a stretch of the imagination.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say or respond to here.

What I'm saying is that Pre-Crisis, we saw Superboy. But we never got to look too deeply into his life. The writers just scratched the surface of potential. Byrne and the 90's team only explored the surface areas up until college. Only scattered bits were ever shown. Waid just skipped to Clark's going out of school and touched upon the time period with Lex. There was still a lot that wasn't fully covered by him. SO is now exploring that. What it meant to be Clark Kent who found out he wasn't normal. Other flashbacks by Johns, Busiek and Nicieza have gone further than the previous writers.

What 1 sided view? He was hired to write a reboot and did, anything Jurgens et all wanted to put back they worked into that fromework. Also, though you may be glad they have, no one "had" to undo anything...including, I concede, Byrne and DC at that time; it's all story choice.

Yes, but Byrne was the one who pitched that these things had to go away and not be used in the same context as before. DC then turned that into an editoral mandate until 2001 and even then, it wasn't until "Birthright" and "The Supergirl From Krypton" full on changes happened. The one sided view is that he prefered the Golden Age style without all that stuff, whereas someone like Moore or more currently Johns, would rely on a lot of different angles.

Not at all, that's just a cheap and easy route to get it, and people who say it's important to the characters or important to return to the "original" story forget it was a retcon in the silver age, and Luthor had nothing to do with young Clark for the 1st decade or 2 he was around.

I haven't forgotten any of that. But in terms of the original story of the Silver Age Superman, later defined as Earth-1, it was part of that original story.

You don't necessarily need hard science, but you need decent logic for a good story, unless you're going for a comedy...

So then those stories I mentioned were comedies? No, they weren't. They tossed logic like that out the window and told a story. So how is something like dogs on another world comedy?

None of which has anything to do with the idea the fabric was strengthened by the yellow sun, which is what I was responding to in the 1st place.

That's only a supposition that it was because of the sun. It's quite possible that it is. That said, the idea is that the suit has an invulnerability due to it being away from Krypton. And given it tears more easily under a red sun, it looks likely to be the case.

What gave you the idea I was excited? Did I capitalize or bold something?

Just a figure of expression on my part.

I don't know if it was you, but a poster had implied or said that the 1st Bizarro fights were out of continuity since IC.

No, not me. All Bizarro stories are still in continuity. If I implied anything, it was a mistyping.

This binary logic may be why we're not seeing eye-to-eye...

But you do admit I have a point.

My assertion was that change wasn't necessarily bad. It's not autimatically good either. Going back to internal story logic...

Given the right creative team, it can be good to excellent. Let me put it to you this way, I wasn't a big fan of Krypto. Johns, Busiek and Robinson changed my view.

See, as a fan of the Superbooks during the late 80's-mid 90's triangle era, I don't buy the "downhill" premise of your argument.

Not right away. But it did happen. Some will cite the death and return as either the end of the road or the last good one, before it went to crap. Personally, I've enjoyed the books right up to when I had to stop due to financial reasons in 1998. But I know quite a number of others began to lose faith way before then.

I was reffering more to Justice League adventures and such. He did rework Lori Lemaris in, and reffered to Supermans past meetings with the Doom Patrol and even Superboy Prime.

In that regard, yes. But within the framework of the stories within the Superman titles, not so much. And Byrne or one of the editors admitted that Superboy-Prime wasn't even supposed to have been mentioned, but they still hadn't worked out what everyone remembered.

I agree he should get in epic struggles somewhat often, but since Morrison did this using Byrne Superman (during the electric blue story to boot), I'm not sure how this proves your point.

All I'm saying is that Superman can be powerful without having to move planets like he would furniture. He doesn't have to be depowered. And while Morrison did use Byrne Superman, he was playing very fast and loose.


No, it means it SHOULDN'T be used.

Not necessarily. That comes down to opinion. There have been stories that were or are considered bad, yet they get told and sometimes, they're well liked and accepted.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I love Krypto, but I'd much rather he have a not-directly-Kryptonian origin. I have no idea why super advanced aliens light years away would bio-engineer a terran dog (especially if the science guild retains the isolationist aspect of Byrnes Krypton).

Dogs have been around for a long time on Earth. Who is to say that Krypton's Star Empire hadn't come to Earth briefly, saw a terran dog and decided to recreate it on Krypton using the Science Guild?

There's always editorial direction... writers on franchise characters are never just "free to do what they want." The editorial direction under Carlin may have been different than in later years, but that doesn't mean (as you're arguing) that it was worse. (Or better, for that matter.) What I've been trying to point out is that the post-Crisis Superman has had both good and bad ideas imposed on him... both originally and recently.

Fair enough.

[lawman]

AND for another thing, I think in a visual medium, it's just more visually appealing to see Superman do all of these ridiculously powerful things. Superman moving a planet, Superman wrestling an angel, Superman towing a bunch of planets with a chain; I just think they're great visuals, and I can forgive a comics story for being mediocre if the visuals are great.
Well, we just have very different aesthetic sensibilities. Seeing things like that makes me wince (and did when I was a kid, too, BTW). The adjective you used sums it up: they are indeed ridiculously powerful.

Moreover, while comics are indeed a visual medium, I've always put the story first (as also with TV and film): I can forgive the art for being mediocre if the story is great, but not the other way around.

[Duy]

Well, we just have very different aesthetic sensibilities. Seeing things like that makes me wince (and did when I was a kid, too, BTW). The adjective you used sums it up: they are indeed ridiculously powerful.

Moreover, while comics are indeed a visual medium, I've always put the story first (as also with TV and film): I can forgive the art for being mediocre if the story is great, but not the other way around.
Agree to disagree then.

Here's a beer.

[dupersuper]

And I I cannot at all tell you how many times I've heard kids complain about that episode where Superman lost to Wonder Woman. Handily.


I can understand kids missing this, but he didn't loose; he realized what was happening and stopped fighting.



Yes. I agree with you. Character, attitude, determination, inspirational presence, all that is more important.

BUT for one thing, I don't ever get that impression from Byrne's Superman.

AND for another thing, I think in a visual medium, it's just more visually appealing to see Superman do all of these ridiculously powerful things. Superman moving a planet, Superman wrestling an angel, Superman towing a bunch of planets with a chain; I just think they're great visuals, and I can forgive a comics story for being mediocre if the visuals are great. I'm not saying this should be done haphazardly; I'm just saying that I would like it for these visuals to possibly exist.


This might be an agree to disagree thing; I found early Byrne Superman art quite appealing, particularly all of his flying shots. Also, Byrne wrote (though didn't draw) Superman: The Earth Stealers, and that had Superman towing Earth through hyperspace.


Mark Waid: "Gods achieve their power by encouraging us to believe in them.
Superman achieves his power by believing in us."

Which I will agree is the most important part of the character (although, again, I NEVER got this from Byrne).


That's a great quote, but I'm not sure why you think Byrne didn't get it...he's the 1 who kept the Kents alive, providing more human touchstones for adult Clark, focused on Clarks feelings for Lois instead of the other way around, and shifted focus away from Clarks alien heritage...


BUT, this helps too:

Time Magazine: "Grant Morrison gets what's fun about Superman: he's ridiculously powerful, and therefore just sees and does and has lots of incredibly cool, totally bizarre stuff. The sky isn't even close to the limit."

I loved All-Star, but I don't think it's the only valid take on the character.

Because he didn't have that many friends. He mainly had Pete Ross and Lana Lang. Occassionally Kenny Braverman. Otherwise, he was rather limited in his friendships as Clark Kent. That's why when the Legion came into his life, he found people that he could identify with and hang out, while using his powers openly. This is illustrated in Action Comics #862 and 864.


Which is another reason Lex as Clarks childhood friendship isn't needed; Kenny already fills the childhood friend gone bad role.


I'm sorry, people don't die? I must've missed something. No, the Kents were always subject to dying. It just took someone willing to go forward and do that story. And given that they're often portrayed as dying, it's not a stretch of the imagination.


Ageless comic characters never HAVE to die; subjectability does not equal innevitability.


What I'm saying is that Pre-Crisis, we saw Superboy. But we never got to look too deeply into his life. The writers just scratched the surface of potential. Byrne and the 90's team only explored the surface areas up until college. Only scattered bits were ever shown. Waid just skipped to Clark's going out of school and touched upon the time period with Lex. There was still a lot that wasn't fully covered by him. SO is now exploring that. What it meant to be Clark Kent who found out he wasn't normal. Other flashbacks by Johns, Busiek and Nicieza have gone further than the previous writers.


How do you figure that? Pre-crisis Superboy had his own series, plus Legion appearances, Superman flashbacks...even his own cartoon. 1986-2007 we had the 1st issue of Man of Steel, World of Smallville/Metropolis/Krypton, For all Seasons, Birthright, Byrnes Lori Lemaris flashback, Jurgens drunk driving flashback (plus his his 2 Doomsday series had flashbacks), Superman Strength, the flashbacks in Funeral for a Friend, 4 0 issues, 4 year 1 annuals, Superman: Odyssey, Superman Confidential, the Action comics flashbacks to prom and Clark fearing the JSA would hunt him down, Kellys flashbacks to Clark and Pa watching sunsets and Clark meeting a villian in Asia, Clark in Bhutran learning to still his heartbeat and saving a pickpocket, Action 650 and 800, he showed up in the Legion fighting Darkseid, the Loeb/Sale story of his young friends death, Martian Manhunter meeting young Clark in his series, flashbacks to he and Lana meeting, their 1st kiss, him attending a teachers funeral in elementary school, his leaving Krypton, Ma Kents family albulm...etc, etc...



Yes, but Byrne was the one who pitched that these things had to go away and not be used in the same context as before. DC then turned that into an editoral mandate until 2001 and even then, it wasn't until "Birthright" and "The Supergirl From Krypton" full on changes happened. The one sided view is that he prefered the Golden Age style without all that stuff, whereas someone like Moore or more currently Johns, would rely on a lot of different angles.


Yes, the silver age. It's almost like he's a character with a rich history to draw from, able to work with several different takes...


So then those stories I mentioned were comedies? No, they weren't. They tossed logic like that out the window and told a story. So how is something like dogs on another world comedy?


If you don't get a joke, explaining never helps. What stories did you mention that told a good story with no internal logic???


But you do admit I have a point.


Not a very good 1...


Not right away. But it did happen. Some will cite the death and return as either the end of the road or the last good one, before it went to crap. Personally, I've enjoyed the books right up to when I had to stop due to financial reasons in 1998. But I know quite a number of others began to lose faith way before then.


They did start to go downhill about a year or more after the Death/Return, but that had nothing to do with Byrne and everything to do with them doing a huge event every 6 months in an attempt to recapture the success of "Death", plus just burn out for several writers who'd been on the books for almost 10 years.


All I'm saying is that Superman can be powerful without having to move planets like he would furniture. He doesn't have to be depowered.


But if he can't move planets then he HAS been depowered, because he used to be able to...though I prefer the explanation that he's still strong enough, it's just impossible to due to obvious laws of physics...


Not necessarily. That comes down to opinion. There have been stories that were or are considered bad, yet they get told and sometimes, they're well liked and accepted.


"Just because it isn't a good idea, doesn't mean that it cannot be used. ""No, it means it SHOULDN'T be used." So whether or not something that's not a good idea is used comes down to opinion...?


Dogs have been around for a long time on Earth. Who is to say that Krypton's Star Empire hadn't come to Earth briefly, saw a terran dog and decided to recreate it on Krypton using the Science Guild?


If you want that in the story, you should have a REASON for them to. Preferably 1 other than "puppies are adorable".

Moreover, while comics are indeed a visual medium, I've always put the story first (as also with TV and film): I can forgive the art for being mediocre if the story is great, but not the other way around.

Ditto.

[dupersuper]

Agree to disagree then.

Here's a beer.

Cool, the President posts here. I knew you were a comic fan sir, but this is an honour. :wink:

[Duy]

Cool, the President posts here. I knew you were a comic fan sir, but this is an honour. :wink:

A comparison to Obama. What a compliment!

I can understand kids missing this, but he didn't loose; he realized what was happening and stopped fighting.

I've seen this episode three times, and Superman lost every single time -- and even if your interpretation were correct, and I'd be happy to concede that it is, Superman was HANDILY losing.


This might be an agree to disagree thing; I found early Byrne Superman art quite appealing, particularly all of his flying shots. Also, Byrne wrote (though didn't draw) Superman: The Earth Stealers, and that had Superman towing Earth through hyperspace.


Beer.


That's a great quote, but I'm not sure why you think Byrne didn't get it...he's the 1 who kept the Kents alive, providing more human touchstones for adult Clark, focused on Clarks feelings for Lois instead of the other way around, and shifted focus away from Clarks alien heritage...


Keeping the Kents alive and Lois is a great thing; shifting the focus away from Clark's alien heritage is fine if he made Superman a citizen of earth, instead of a citizen of 1980s Ah-Meh-Rih-Kah.

And even then, it's FINE to focus AWAY from your heritage, as long as you don't FORGET and DISREGARD your heritage.



I loved All-Star, but I don't think it's the only valid take on the character.


While I agree, I definitely think it's the BEST take.

If you're going to go with original concept Superman, then go all the way with original concept Superman. Take away his flight and make him a two-fisted champion of the oppressed. Make him a badass who doesn't give a shit, who goes to warring nations and ends wars without any thought to the consequences.

That's much more interesting than Byrne's diluted version, I think.

[dupersuper]

A comparison to Obama. What a compliment!


It was. I like Obama (though not as much now as when he was elected...democrats just seem incapable of getting things done...).


And even then, it's FINE to focus AWAY from your heritage, as long as you don't FORGET and DISREGARD your heritage.


I don't think he did, in the long run.


While I agree, I definitely think it's the BEST take.


Certainly 1 of the best, but that won't stop me from enjoying others on their own merits.

[Duy]

It was. I like Obama (though not as much now as when he was elected...democrats just seem incapable of getting things done...).


While I'm not going to get into a political debate here, I think that's more to do with other people explicitly going out of their way to stifle what he's doing.


I don't think he did, in the long run.


Sure, but that wasn't Byrne "in the long run."

All I know is I wouldn't want to give "Man of Steel" to any new reader, especially those who aren't Americans.


Certainly 1 of the best, but that won't stop me from enjoying others on their own merits.

Sure, but you won't ever convince me that the "others" are better than the classic take when the classic take still has a lot of mileage.

[lawman]

...the Action comics flashbacks to prom and Clark fearing the JSA would hunt him down...
Bit of an aside here, but I'm pretty sure I remember all of the young-Clark flashbacks you mention, except this one. When/where did it appear?...

[dupersuper]

Sure, but you won't ever convince me that the "others" are better than the classic take when the classic take still has a lot of mileage.


Classic being golden age? :tongue:

Bit of an aside here, but I'm pretty sure I remember all of the young-Clark flashbacks you mention, except this one. When/where did it appear?...

I'm at work now so I can't dig through my books, but it was a stand-alone issue of Action Comics, I believe it was a guest writer, it was published in the early-mid 2000's, had a cover that pictured Clark on a slab about to get disected (vivisected, really), and the story featured him watching a movie with evil attacking aliens in it, then freaking out, and the Quintescence from "Kingdom Come" giving him visions to test him.

[Mat001]

I loved All-Star, but I don't think it's the only valid take on the character.

No, but is one of the most revered in years. It's been talked about more than most Superman takes over the years.

Which is another reason Lex as Clarks childhood friendship isn't needed; Kenny already fills the childhood friend gone bad role.

But then they killed him off. And to some, he was seen as a poor substitute for the real deal.

Ageless comic characters never HAVE to die; subjectability does not equal innevitability.

But in-universe, that innevitability is true. They don't see it as we do. And it was innevitable based on past history.

How do you figure that? Pre-crisis Superboy had his own series, plus Legion appearances, Superman flashbacks...even his own cartoon. 1986-2007 we had the 1st issue of Man of Steel, World of Smallville/Metropolis/Krypton, For all Seasons, Birthright, Byrnes Lori Lemaris flashback, Jurgens drunk driving flashback (plus his his 2 Doomsday series had flashbacks), Superman Strength, the flashbacks in Funeral for a Friend, 4 0 issues, 4 year 1 annuals, Superman: Odyssey, Superman Confidential, the Action comics flashbacks to prom and Clark fearing the JSA would hunt him down, Kellys flashbacks to Clark and Pa watching sunsets and Clark meeting a villian in Asia, Clark in Bhutran learning to still his heartbeat and saving a pickpocket, Action 650 and 800, he showed up in the Legion fighting Darkseid, the Loeb/Sale story of his young friends death, Martian Manhunter meeting young Clark in his series, flashbacks to he and Lana meeting, their 1st kiss, him attending a teachers funeral in elementary school, his leaving Krypton, Ma Kents family albulm...etc, etc...


Yes, but the Superboy stories only focused on his adventures as Superboy. There was no real depth to Clark's interaction with his friends. There was trying to keep Lana at arm's length, while pining for her. There was Pete keeping the secret, but Clark not knowing. There was no sit down Clark Kent story where he had to deal with who he is and what his life will be. Post-Crisis, the flashbacks were to Clark between 18 and 25. We almost never got to see him at 10 or 14. And when we did see him at a young age, most of the time it was from someone else's point of view. And when it was his own, we only got the surface of it. "Peer Pressure" parts one and two gave us some glimpses and what was shown in "Millennium", but nothing like in SO or the Legion arc or Action Annual #10. We get to see Clark at fourteen longing to be able to play with his friends, but fearful of hurting them like he did with Pete. We saw Clark attend Lana's family reunion get together and see how big a family could be. We see him understanding the different versions of the family unit. We see him and Lana interact.

I never said that there weren't flashbacks, but they've never gone as deep.

Yes, the silver age. It's almost like he's a character with a rich history to draw from, able to work with several different takes...

I never said otherwise, but stuff that was taken out didn't have to be taken out for him to be enjoyed once again.

If you don't get a joke, explaining never helps. What stories did you mention that told a good story with no internal logic???

I didn't even realize it was a joke. Anyway, it's not so much internal logic, but basic logic. Meaning that while logic says something is impossible, that doesn't mean that a story teller cannot bend the logic and still make it entertaining. The most common is stuff like fire and sound in space. Or humans on alien worlds that are not Earth. That sorta thing. I mean, saying it's a staple of fiction to have humans evolving on other worlds is acceptable, but dogs and cats aren't. I just cannot understand that, even despite what the theory of evolution means.

Not a very good 1...

Why?

They did start to go downhill about a year or more after the Death/Return, but that had nothing to do with Byrne and everything to do with them doing a huge event every 6 months in an attempt to recapture the success of "Death", plus just burn out for several writers who'd been on the books for almost 10 years.

My point is that even in spite of it all, the character has gone downhill regardless of what is and isn't in the books. Kryptonians, dogs that fly and so on. So having or not having them isn't the problem and never was, despite what Byrne and Wolfman believed. Good stories can be told with or without them. And having them in the books doesn't automatically mean it sucks.

But if he can't move planets then he HAS been depowered, because he used to be able to...though I prefer the explanation that he's still strong enough, it's just impossible to due to obvious laws of physics...

Well, he has moved them, just not on his own. But he's always been shown at the forefront.

"Just because it isn't a good idea, doesn't mean that it cannot be used. ""No, it means it SHOULDN'T be used." So whether or not something that's not a good idea is used comes down to opinion...?

Pretty much how I see it.

If you want that in the story, you should have a REASON for them to. Preferably 1 other than "puppies are adorable".

There are reasons for Krypto since his return. On several occassions he's acted as the back up weapon to attacks upon Superman. Before Conner's resurrection, he was sent to protect Martha. He not only fought Atlas, but proved immune to 7734's attacks. Issue two of SO will probably explore his arrival on Earth and what role he has.

[Phaedrusnyc]

That's more a direction of bad editing than bad writing. There's nothing wrong with those ideas, they've been known to work, they CAN work, they DO work. A talented writer is good enough to make it work.

But you know, if Byrne would rather put Superman and Barda in a porno, well, by all means, he must be a great writer.

With all due respect to your snark, I'm wondering which time Supergirl-as-Superman's-Cousin "worked" for you. Would that be her first series, which lasted less than a year? Or her second one, which choked along for 23 issues? Was she working for you when the only truly memorable or interesting story that featured her was the one where she died? Or is it the current one, which is critically reviled and completely incoherent, but which is limping along on the strength of the sexual objectification of a sixteen-year-old?

The Supergirl series that seemed to "work" the best was the one that lasted seven years, and which featured a character who was more than simply a knockoff. The fact is, Kara DOESN'T "work." As so-easy-to-kick-around John Byrne pointed out, she's completely redundant. She's even borderline offensive in nature- here's a character who has ALL the power of Superman with only ONE difference- she's female. And yet, she's completely ineffective. Even IN continuity she's always been treated as an also-ran.Yet another example of how, historically, DC has been reluctant to create any sort of female character that wasn't just a sidekick or clone of a male one.

Count me with those who will take Byrne's "uniqueness" over the Silver Age's (and "Silver Age II's") "extra details" any day.

[Duy]

With all due respect to your snark, I'm wondering which time Supergirl-as-Superman's-Cousin "worked" for you. Would that be her first series, which lasted less than a year? Or her second one, which choked along for 23 issues? Was she working for you when the only truly memorable or interesting story that featured her was the one where she died? Or is it the current one, which is critically reviled and completely incoherent, but which is limping along on the strength of the sexual objectification of a sixteen-year-old?

The Supergirl series that seemed to "work" the best was the one that lasted seven years, and which featured a character who was more than simply a knockoff. The fact is, Kara DOESN'T "work." As so-easy-to-kick-around John Byrne pointed out, she's completely redundant. She's even borderline offensive in nature- here's a character who has ALL the power of Superman with only ONE difference- she's female. And yet, she's completely ineffective. Even IN continuity she's always been treated as an also-ran.Yet another example of how, historically, DC has been reluctant to create any sort of female character that wasn't just a sidekick or clone of a male one.

Count me with those who will take Byrne's "uniqueness" over the Silver Age's (and "Silver Age II's") "extra details" any day.
First of all, the reason for my snark has already been explained, and I won't apologize for it again. That said poster I was using the snark against got banned eventually I think says more than any explanation for it I can give.

Look, there's one thing you pro-Byrne folks are missing, and that's the fact that I'm NOT saying that the pre-Byrne stories COULDN'T have been better done and that some things, like, as you say, Supergirl (an aspect I wasn't even specifically harping on) that DEFINITELY couldn't have been better done.

But let's get this straight - Supergirl IS iconic, she has been known to work in the context of Superman stories, to the point where at one point in time, she was being tagged as DC's "greatest heroine." That her individual series have failed time and time again isn't a testament to how bad she is as a CONCEPT, because she HAS worked as a concept within the Superman stories, Alan Moore even brought in a Supergirl analogue and made it work; it's a testament to - as you say - DC (and superhero comics in general)'s inability to produce a comic with a female lead

That having been said, Sterling Gates is doing wonders with Supergirl right now. Go check it out.

I'll always stand by the assertion that Byrne's Superman may be unique in that he's the only Kryptonian (though I don't think Superman stops being unique even if Krypton were still around), but he's not unique at all in terms of being a superhero. He could've been just anyone else. There's nothing really "super" about him.

Superman looked more super in George Perez's Wonder Woman run than he did in Byrne's Superman run.



One last thing, as someone who deals with kids quite often, I've found that explaining Supergirl as Superman's cousin is so much more accessible than giving the whole Matrix explanation. But that's just me.

[Phaedrusnyc]

But let's get this straight - Supergirl IS iconic, she has been known to work in the context of Superman stories, to the point where at one point in time, she was being tagged as DC's "greatest heroine." That her individual series have failed time and time again isn't a testament to how bad she is as a CONCEPT, because she HAS worked as a concept within the Superman stories, Alan Moore even brought in a Supergirl analogue and made it work; it's a testament to - as you say - DC (and superhero comics in general)'s inability to produce a comic with a female lead

The issue is not that DC has an "inability to produce a comic with a female lead," as is evidenced by the fact that the last Supergirl comic book ran for a very healthy period. For that matter, Birds of Prey and Catwoman have both also had perfectly respectable runs. I would say that DC (and any other company) has a difficult time producing a (successful) comic book where the character is completely derivative. Is it really necessary for me to point out what others have before me- namely, that the "Superman's Less Effective Cousin" angle has been revamped several times just since the character was reintroduced, let alone since her Silver Age debut? (BTW, the fact that a character has been referred to as "DC's greatest heroine" in ads doesn't really mean a whole lot. DC markets its comics- it doesn't critique them.)

While the press for Sterling Gates's run has not been as hideous as in the past, it is not so unequivocal that it makes me want to run out and buy a comic I have utterly no affinity for. I'll have to take your word that the comic is finally being written decently. That it has taken this long for such a thing to occur says more about TPTB's editorial stubbornness than it does for the character.

I'll always stand by the assertion that Byrne's Superman may be unique in that he's the only Kryptonian (though I don't think Superman stops being unique even if Krypton were still around), but he's not unique at all in terms of being a superhero. He could've been just anyone else. There's nothing really "super" about him.

Clearly you will. But we also very clearly have different priorities in our comic books, as do (I suspect) most of the other people who came of age as comics readers in the 80s. I frankly don't care whether a character can push planets around- I care that his psychological motivations for doing so make some sense. I care about dramatic tension. I care that his relationships with his supporting cast, enemies, and the outer world seem realistic. I got all of that in the post-Byrner/Wolfman era. If a character who can shrug off a nuke isn't "super" enough for you, there really IS no point in arguing with you. Since, even depowered, Superman was set up as the most powerful hero in the DCU (with the exception of the Spectre and a couple of other godlike beings), I don't have any idea what you're referring to when you say he "could have been anybody." I personally prefer to read stories about people rather than ones about gods, and I like my allegory under the surface rather than hammered over my head. Morrison's All-Star Superman was great- I concede that- but it was a story about Superman as a concept, not as a character. There's no way that sort of approach can be sustained beyond self-contained stories.

One last thing, as someone who deals with kids quite often, I've found that explaining Supergirl as Superman's cousin is so much more accessible than giving the whole Matrix explanation. But that's just me.

I think the days when the main criterion for a good comic book story was that it should be accessible to a child are long gone. I appreciate your trying to get children interested in comic books, but I would prefer that you do so with Johnny DC or the excellent Muppet books rather than insisting that books being primarily read by adults retreat to a simplistic, childish, and outdated formula.

[Duy]

Double Post

[Duy]

The issue is not that DC has an "inability to produce a comic with a female lead," as is evidenced by the fact that the last Supergirl comic book ran for a very healthy period. For that matter, Birds of Prey and Catwoman have both also had perfectly respectable runs. I would say that DC (and any other company) has a difficult time producing a (successful) comic book where the character is completely derivative. Is it really necessary for me to point out what others have before me- namely, that the "Superman's Less Effective Cousin" angle has been revamped several times just since the character was reintroduced, let alone since her Silver Age debut? (BTW, the fact that a character has been referred to as "DC's greatest heroine" in ads doesn't really mean a whole lot. DC markets its comics- it doesn't critique them.)


I'm sorry, but you were the one who brought up the idea that DC has a hard time creating female characters. I just rode with that, but I agree with everything you said up there.


While the press for Sterling Gates's run has not been as hideous as in the past, it is not so unequivocal that it makes me want to run out and buy a comic I have utterly no affinity for. I'll have to take your word that the comic is finally being written decently. That it has taken this long for such a thing to occur says more about TPTB's editorial stubbornness than it does for the character.

Which is what I was trying to say all along.


Clearly you will. But we also very clearly have different priorities in our comic books, as do (I suspect) most of the other people who came of age as comics readers in the 80s. I frankly don't care whether a character can push planets around- I care that his psychological motivations for doing so make some sense. I care about dramatic tension. I care that his relationships with his supporting cast, enemies, and the outer world seem realistic. I got all of that in the post-Byrner/Wolfman era. If a character who can shrug off a nuke isn't "super" enough for you, there really IS no point in arguing with you. Since, even depowered, Superman was set up as the most powerful hero in the DCU (with the exception of the Spectre and a couple of other godlike beings), I don't have any idea what you're referring to when you say he "could have been anybody." I personally prefer to read stories about people rather than ones about gods, and I like my allegory under the surface rather than hammered over my head.

And here's where you guys who are arguing with me seem to miss my point -- I am NOT arguing that psychological motivations, dramatic tension, realistic relationships, all that, is NOT important. I have continually said that all that is the MOST important thing. But when you get to the extra stuff, the superficial trappings, I much prefer the magic of the pre-Crisis version than the "realistic" Byrne version. There's a quote from Moore I used a few pages back that I completely agree with; that all that silly stuff has a charm and magic that I think really helps the case of Superman. You guys keep talking about the "extra stuff" as if it has ANYTHING to do with the character and personality of Superman, as if him having another Kryptonian on earth dramatically changes who and what he is, but it doesn't. He's STILL Superman, he's still the world's greatest hero, he's still the guy to look up to. Whether or not he's surrounded by the extra stuff, his character should remain the same in the hands of competent writers and editors (which, again, may be the issue). All I am saying is that when it comes to "extra stuff" or "no extra stuff", I much prefer the extra stuff because it adds a magic and charm to the character. There's nothing wrong with bottled cities.

Let's not even get into the part where I don't even think Byrne's Superman is well-written; I don't think his run was all that good-- though I WILL CONCEDE IT WAS BETTER THAN THE STUFF THAT CAME IMMEDIATELY BEFORE IT, WHICH ISN'T SAYING MUCH. I honestly don't think there's anything in Byrne's run that made Superman have the grandeur of Superman. I felt more of that in Perez's Wonder Woman, when he would show how Diana would react to Superman.


Morrison's All-Star Superman was great- I concede that- but it was a story about Superman as a concept, not as a character. There's no way that sort of approach can be sustained beyond self-contained stories.

Morrison could have kept that going for a hundred issues if he wanted to.

Hell, Moore's Supreme went unfinished!

Yes, All-Star Superman was about the concept; it also showcased archetypal takes on the character that I think exemplifies Superman more than Byrne ever did.



I think the days when the main criterion for a good comic book story was that it should be accessible to a child are long gone. I appreciate your trying to get children interested in comic books, but I would prefer that you do so with Johnny DC or the excellent Muppet books rather than insisting that books being primarily read by adults retreat to a simplistic, childish, and outdated formula.

You have any kids? Maybe when you do, you'll understand.

Kids don't like being "targeted". That's why the Johnny DC books - or any other kids' comics - barely work.

I have a nephew and a niece and I want them to experience the magic of these characters growing up as I did. This is NOT TO SAY that I don't want adults reading comics; something like the DCAU has proven that you CAN create something that appeals to all ages, and I think that's the key and is the most important. To say that making it accessible to kids instantly dumbs it down for adults is kind of myopic.

And I have zero issue with making some comics suitable only for adults, such as Secret Six, but I don't think Superman should be one of them.

I keep going back to All-Star Superman, and I'll do it again. You can give All-Star Superman to just about any age group, male or female. It's instantly accessible and really showcases what's special about Superman.

Which, again, I did not feel in Byrne's run AT ALL. To me, Superman in Byrne's run could have been just anyone else really, most of the time; plus there's all that Reagan-era mentality in Man of Steel that REALLY turns me off.

[Duy]

Classic being golden age? :tongue:

You know, I can't believe I missed this.

But jokes aside, let me just say, I would love to see a series featuring Golden Age Superman. Not Byrne Superman, which some people here are saying tried going back to the original concept. It didn't, because it wasn't the ORIGINAL concept.

I'm talking original, Action Comics #1 Superman. I would love a comic with him in it. Even as an Elseworlds. Even as a mini-series. With THAT costume. With THOSE powers. Maybe even with THAT dialogue.

Essentially, what I thought It's Superman was going to be before it turned into a "edgier, darker version of Smallville... in the 30s." (Blech)

And you know what I'd love to see more than a comic featuring original Superman?

A MOVIE featuring original Superman. I think that would be awesome.








And on a little bit of an off-tangent note, you know what I would love to see more than a movie featuring original Superman?

A movie featuring an updated Adam West Batman.

[Duy]

One more thing, since you keep implying that power levels automatically detract from the character:

Jesse Custer
The Silver Surfer
The Mighty Thor
Swamp Thing
Morpheus
Death



Thank you.

[Buried Alien]

A movie featuring an updated Adam West Batman.

I once had a crazy thought: which interpretation of Batman in his prime would most likely evolve into Frank Miller's older Batman in THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS?

My conclusion shocked me: Adam West's Batman.

I can almost see West playing Miller's Batman in an adaptation of THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS...moreso than I can see any of the other actors who've depicted Batman in the various movies of the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Duy]

...Wow.

Now that you mention it, it makes a whole lot of sense!

[Mat001]

With all due respect to your snark, I'm wondering which time Supergirl-as-Superman's-Cousin "worked" for you. Would that be her first series, which lasted less than a year? Or her second one, which choked along for 23 issues? Was she working for you when the only truly memorable or interesting story that featured her was the one where she died? Or is it the current one, which is critically reviled and completely incoherent, but which is limping along on the strength of the sexual objectification of a sixteen-year-old?

The Supergirl series that seemed to "work" the best was the one that lasted seven years, and which featured a character who was more than simply a knockoff. The fact is, Kara DOESN'T "work." As so-easy-to-kick-around John Byrne pointed out, she's completely redundant. She's even borderline offensive in nature- here's a character who has ALL the power of Superman with only ONE difference- she's female. And yet, she's completely ineffective. Even IN continuity she's always been treated as an also-ran.Yet another example of how, historically, DC has been reluctant to create any sort of female character that wasn't just a sidekick or clone of a male one.

Count me with those who will take Byrne's "uniqueness" over the Silver Age's (and "Silver Age II's") "extra details" any day.

The reason the earlier Supergirl comics failed was in how she was written. The writers of that day couldn't write her well in a solo series. There might have been a few gems in there, but by and large it didn't work based on it. Sterling Gates, Greg Rucka or Gail Simone can make it work. David's series also had trouble staying afloat after fifty issues and started to sink. David just happens to be good at writing female characters, which is why his series lasted longer. It had nothing to do with the fact that his Supergirl wasn't Kryptonian, but because he came up with compelling stories for Linda. When Loeb was writing the current series, sales were high. They dropped off based on bad writing that followed with Kelly and Puckett. Had Rucka been able to stay on the title, he would've done a whole lot better and the title wouldn't have fallen as far. With "New Krypton", he's proven that he can handle the character. The title is doing better because the writing is better than it has been.

[The Batman]

I once had a crazy thought: which interpretation of Batman in his prime would most likely evolve into Frank Miller's older Batman in THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS?

My conclusion shocked me: Adam West's Batman.

I can almost see West playing Miller's Batman in an adaptation of THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS...moreso than I can see any of the other actors who've depicted Batman in the various movies of the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)


You're not alone.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1256/1468816451_134f685f9b.jpg


http://bifsniff.com/wp-content/files/2007/10/west_dkr_7.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1350/1468551191_c9b7cf423f_o.jpg

http://www.logicalcreativity.com/jon/west_dkr_4.jpg

[Duy]

The reason the earlier Supergirl comics failed was in how she was written. The writers of that day couldn't write her well in a solo series. There might have been a few gems in there, but by and large it didn't work based on it. Sterling Gates, Greg Rucka or Gail Simone can make it work. David's series also had trouble staying afloat after fifty issues and started to sink. David just happens to be good at writing female characters, which is why his series lasted longer. It had nothing to do with the fact that his Supergirl wasn't Kryptonian, but because he came up with compelling stories for Linda. When Loeb was writing the current series, sales were high. They dropped off based on bad writing that followed with Kelly and Puckett. Had Rucka been able to stay on the title, he would've done a whole lot better and the title wouldn't have fallen as far. With "New Krypton", he's proven that he can handle the character. The title is doing better because the writing is better than it has been.
I gotta say the art is pretty cool, too. I don't think Jamal igle (is that him?) will ever be a superstar, but I can see myself thinking "Hey, that's a good choice" if he's ever announced as an artist for any other upcoming series!

[dupersuper]

But then they killed him off. And to some, he was seen as a poor substitute for the real deal.


Actually, I'm pretty sure he was seen as a tragic character whose obsession proved his own undoing...though I say he fills the role, he was never intended as a Lex substitute.


But in-universe, that innevitability is true. They don't see it as we do. And it was innevitable based on past history.


In-universe it's inevitable that they WILL die, sure, but that doesn't mean it HAS to happen in continuity any more than Lois or Perry HAVE to be killed off. They certainly don't have to be just because it was done in other stories.


Yes, but the Superboy stories only focused on his adventures as Superboy. There was no real depth to Clark's interaction with his friends. There was trying to keep Lana at arm's length, while pining for her. There was Pete keeping the secret, but Clark not knowing. There was no sit down Clark Kent story where he had to deal with who he is and what his life will be. Post-Crisis, the flashbacks were to Clark between 18 and 25. We almost never got to see him at 10 or 14. And when we did see him at a young age, most of the time it was from someone else's point of view. And when it was his own, we only got the surface of it. "Peer Pressure" parts one and two gave us some glimpses and what was shown in "Millennium", but nothing like in SO or the Legion arc or Action Annual #10. We get to see Clark at fourteen longing to be able to play with his friends, but fearful of hurting them like he did with Pete. We saw Clark attend Lana's family reunion get together and see how big a family could be. We see him understanding the different versions of the family unit. We see him and Lana interact.

I never said that there weren't flashbacks, but they've never gone as deep.


I saw A LOT of depth in most of the post-crisis stuff. The pre-crisis stuff had no less depth than most pre-crisis stuff, ad I'm sure there was a gem or 2 in there.


I never said otherwise, but stuff that was taken out didn't have to be taken out for him to be enjoyed once again.


No, but it was, and many people did.


I didn't even realize it was a joke. Anyway, it's not so much internal logic, but basic logic. Meaning that while logic says something is impossible, that doesn't mean that a story teller cannot bend the logic and still make it entertaining. The most common is stuff like fire and sound in space. Or humans on alien worlds that are not Earth. That sorta thing. I mean, saying it's a staple of fiction to have humans evolving on other worlds is acceptable, but dogs and cats aren't. I just cannot understand that, even despite what the theory of evolution means.


A) that sounds more like straight science than logic
B) I was only talking about internal story logic (ie: keeping the science fiction explanations you give consistent throughout the story)



Why?


Just way too either/or for my tastes. With a character that has Supermans rich history to draw from, there should be room to enjoy several retellings, even the ones that contradict each other.


My point is that even in spite of it all, the character has gone downhill regardless of what is and isn't in the books. Kryptonians, dogs that fly and so on. So having or not having them isn't the problem and never was, despite what Byrne and Wolfman believed. Good stories can be told with or without them. And having them in the books doesn't automatically mean it sucks.


I never said it did, I'm saying NOT having them ALSO doesn't automatically mean it sucks.


Well, he has moved them, just not on his own. But he's always been shown at the forefront.


Exactly. I never said he doesn't have the raw strength, just that he needs engines or force fields or a GL or a magic lasso or Dr. Fate or some such plot device to explain why the word doesn't break into pieces.



Pretty much how I see it.


I'd say whether it's a good idea or not can come down to opinion, but if you use a bad idea...it's a bad idea....to use that bad idea...


There are reasons for Krypto since his return. On several occassions he's acted as the back up weapon to attacks upon Superman. Before Conner's resurrection, he was sent to protect Martha. He not only fought Atlas, but proved immune to 7734's attacks. Issue two of SO will probably explore his arrival on Earth and what role he has.

A REASON, not a USE. I'm sure a kindly super powerful dog can be handy, but that doesn't explain WHY a planet of extremely advanced aliens light years away would devote 1 iota of their resources to genetically engineer a pet from some backwater world they may have visited thousands of years ago.

The issue is not that DC has an "inability to produce a comic with a female lead," as is evidenced by the fact that the last Supergirl comic book ran for a very healthy period. For that matter, Birds of Prey and Catwoman have both also had perfectly respectable runs. I would say that DC (and any other company) has a difficult time producing a (successful) comic book where the character is completely derivative. Is it really necessary for me to point out what others have before me- namely, that the "Superman's Less Effective Cousin" angle has been revamped several times just since the character was reintroduced, let alone since her Silver Age debut? (BTW, the fact that a character has been referred to as "DC's greatest heroine" in ads doesn't really mean a whole lot. DC markets its comics- it doesn't critique them.)

While the press for Sterling Gates's run has not been as hideous as in the past, it is not so unequivocal that it makes me want to run out and buy a comic I have utterly no affinity for. I'll have to take your word that the comic is finally being written decently. That it has taken this long for such a thing to occur says more about TPTB's editorial stubbornness than it does for the character.



Clearly you will. But we also very clearly have different priorities in our comic books, as do (I suspect) most of the other people who came of age as comics readers in the 80s. I frankly don't care whether a character can push planets around- I care that his psychological motivations for doing so make some sense. I care about dramatic tension. I care that his relationships with his supporting cast, enemies, and the outer world seem realistic. I got all of that in the post-Byrner/Wolfman era. If a character who can shrug off a nuke isn't "super" enough for you, there really IS no point in arguing with you. Since, even depowered, Superman was set up as the most powerful hero in the DCU (with the exception of the Spectre and a couple of other godlike beings), I don't have any idea what you're referring to when you say he "could have been anybody." I personally prefer to read stories about people rather than ones about gods, and I like my allegory under the surface rather than hammered over my head. Morrison's All-Star Superman was great- I concede that- but it was a story about Superman as a concept, not as a character. There's no way that sort of approach can be sustained beyond self-contained stories.



I think the days when the main criterion for a good comic book story was that it should be accessible to a child are long gone. I appreciate your trying to get children interested in comic books, but I would prefer that you do so with Johnny DC or the excellent Muppet books rather than insisting that books being primarily read by adults retreat to a simplistic, childish, and outdated formula.

Agreed, though on the last point, I do certainly want Superman books to always be all-ages friendly, they don't have to do that by removing all complicated backstories, thus abandoning long term plot development and character growth. Even back during the triangle era when I got hooked on Superman comics, they were clearly not being written as simple kids comics. Still, at 12 years old, I found in story flashbacks and asterix boxes with back issue #'s more than sufficient to follow the story.


I'm talking original, Action Comics #1 Superman. I would love a comic with him in it. Even as an Elseworlds. Even as a mini-series. With THAT costume. With THOSE powers. Maybe even with THAT dialogue.


That'd be cool. You may want to check out the Adventures of Superman story that ran about the same time as Action was doing the Russian Zod story, it had something a little like that. Also the Dominous arc spinning out of Superman Forever that set him in the 30's, and the Crisis at Hand story that put a modern version of the wife-beater section of Action #1 in continuity. Though, of course, those are all in the Byrne framework, so you may just keep saying how it pales in comparison to All-Star (which I really don't find a fair comparison), and it should have Supergirl and more bottled cities...:wink:


A MOVIE featuring original Superman. I think that would be awesome.


Sadly, because it lacks so many of the "iconic extra stuff" that you feel defines Superman and are the sole charming elements in the story, you'd hate it. Though, come to think about it, I don't remember Kandor or Krypto showing up in his very non-comics looking fortress in the Reeve movies...

[dupersuper]

You're not alone.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1256/1468816451_134f685f9b.jpg


http://bifsniff.com/wp-content/files/2007/10/west_dkr_7.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1350/1468551191_c9b7cf423f_o.jpg

http://www.logicalcreativity.com/jon/west_dkr_4.jpg

Bwaa-hahahaha!!!

[dupersuper]

One more thing, since you keep implying that power levels automatically detract from the character:

Jesse Custer
The Silver Surfer
The Mighty Thor
Swamp Thing
Morpheus
Death

Thank you.

True, but then I never said that, so I'm guessing this comment isn't for me. Besides, Superman BEAT Thor PRE-IC. :biggrin:

[Duy]

That'd be cool. You may want to check out the Adventures of Superman story that ran about the same time as Action was doing the Russian Zod story, it had something a little like that. Also the Dominous arc spinning out of Superman Forever that set him in the 30's, and the Crisis at Hand story that put a modern version of the wife-beater section of Action #1 in continuity. Though, of course, those are all in the Byrne framework, so you may just keep saying how it pales in comparison to All-Star (which I really don't find a fair comparison), and it should have Supergirl and more bottled cities...:wink:

I never said I hated all the stories in the Byrne framework; I just really didn't like Byrne's run and prefer the classic framework.

There were some good stories told in that framework; I just think the framework itself could have been better.



Sadly, because it lacks so many of the "iconic extra stuff" that you feel defines Superman and are the sole charming elements in the story, you'd hate it. Though, come to think about it, I don't remember Kandor or Krypto showing up in his very non-comics looking fortress in the Reeve movies...

Dude, I actually LOVE original Superman. Yes, I prefer classic Weisinger-era Superman, but I LOVE original Superman, who is pretty much a completely different character.

The thing you guys keep missing is that I'm not - never have - saying that those extra things are absolutely essential to a Superman story; I just want them there so stories CAN be told with them, the possibility is there instead of not there, AND because I think Superman's world should be filled with all sorts of weird, sci-fi stuff, just because he's that awesome. I never once said you can't tell a Superman story without them.

[dupersuper]

I never said I hated all the stories in the Byrne framework; I just really didn't like Byrne's run and prefer the classic framework.

There were some good stories told in that framework; I just think the framework itself could have been better.




Dude, I actually LOVE original Superman. Yes, I prefer classic Weisinger-era Superman, but I LOVE original Superman, who is pretty much a completely different character.

The thing you guys keep missing is that I'm not - never have - saying that those extra things are absolutely essential to a Superman story; I just want them there so stories CAN be told with them, the possibility is there instead of not there, AND because I think Superman's world should be filled with all sorts of weird, sci-fi stuff, just because he's that awesome. I never once said you can't tell a Superman story without them.

Fair enough. What people keep missing about me is that I DO enjoy all the silly stuff, I just ALSO enjoyed the Byrne era and the triangle era that followed, and I get defensive with all the ill-conceived hits it takes on these boards since the nouveau silver age started.

[Duy]

Fair enough. What people keep missing about me is that I DO enjoy all the silly stuff, I just ALSO enjoyed the Byrne era and the triangle era that followed, and I get defensive with all the ill-conceived hits it takes on these boards since the nouveau silver age started.
Fair enough. And while I don't like the Byrne era, I think I've made my stance clear on why I don't.

Drink your beer.

[Mat001]

Actually, I'm pretty sure he was seen as a tragic character whose obsession proved his own undoing...though I say he fills the role, he was never intended as a Lex substitute.

But he came across as one given the similarities between the two.

In-universe it's inevitable that they WILL die, sure, but that doesn't mean it HAS to happen in continuity any more than Lois or Perry HAVE to be killed off. They certainly don't have to be just because it was done in other stories.

1. Well, for Johns, it was going to happen. Hence he, McDuffie and Busiek set it up. There's a story to tell there and they wanted to tell it.

2. But it is something that is common practice with DC.

I saw A LOT of depth in most of the post-crisis stuff. The pre-crisis stuff had no less depth than most pre-crisis stuff, ad I'm sure there was a gem or 2 in there.

Not so much when Clark's a boy versus being a man. The majority of what you mentioned in that list was Clark as an adult. Different from Clark as a boy.

No, but it was, and many people did.

And now that it's back, there shouldn't be as many complaints that it is back.

A) that sounds more like straight science than logic
B) I was only talking about internal story logic (ie: keeping the science fiction explanations you give consistent throughout the story)

Maybe it is straight science more than logic. But still, there's nothing that disproves my original point.

Just way too either/or for my tastes. With a character that has Supermans rich history to draw from, there should be room to enjoy several retellings, even the ones that contradict each other.

No one is saying that one cannot enjoy what one likes.

I never said it did, I'm saying NOT having them ALSO doesn't automatically mean it sucks.

I never said that either. My contention is that people get freaked out because these things are back.

Exactly. I never said he doesn't have the raw strength, just that he needs engines or force fields or a GL or a magic lasso or Dr. Fate or some such plot device to explain why the word doesn't break into pieces.

I think part of the problem is that the writers and certain fans feel that the magic and wonder is more important than the practical science of the whole thing. And that's why Superman's power levels have gone down.

A REASON, not a USE. I'm sure a kindly super powerful dog can be handy, but that doesn't explain WHY a planet of extremely advanced aliens light years away would devote 1 iota of their resources to genetically engineer a pet from some backwater world they may have visited thousands of years ago.

Because they were intrigued by the idea of such an animal that could be a domestic pet. Far less dangerous than a thought beast. Because it was a test for cloning purposes. To understand DNA from other worlds. I'm not a writer so that's the best I can do. I'm sure if there's an origin explaination, it'll come.

Fair enough. What people keep missing about me is that I DO enjoy all the silly stuff, I just ALSO enjoyed the Byrne era and the triangle era that followed, and I get defensive with all the ill-conceived hits it takes on these boards since the nouveau silver age started.

So by that rationale, don't be surprised when fans of said Silver Age elements get defensive about it either. I mean, fair is fair.

[dupersuper]

1. Well, for Johns, it was going to happen. Hence he, McDuffie and Busiek set it up. There's a story to tell there and they wanted to tell it.


McDuffie?? :confused:


2. But it is something that is common practice with DC.


Which is a whole other problem...


Not so much when Clark's a boy versus being a man. The majority of what you mentioned in that list was Clark as an adult. Different from Clark as a boy.


The majority of what I listed is Clark from 5-20, especially 10-18. SO is him at 14, right in that range.


And now that it's back, there shouldn't be as many complaints that it is back.


Huh?


Maybe it is straight science more than logic. But still, there's nothing that disproves my original point.


Not if you replace logic with science, no.


No one is saying that one cannot enjoy what one likes.

I never said that either. My contention is that people get freaked out because these things are back.


I'm not freaked, though some are better handled than others, I've only ever said that I liked MoS and the Byrne/triangle era.


So by that rationale, don't be surprised when fans of said Silver Age elements get defensive about it either. I mean, fair is fair.

But I never attacked the silver age. The worst thing I've said about the silver age is that it's possible to tell good Superman stories without all the SA trappings.

[Duy]

But I never attacked the silver age. The worst thing I've said about the silver age is that it's possible to tell good Superman stories without all the SA trappings.

DRINK YOUR BEER!

[dupersuper]

DRINK YOUR BEER!

I don't drink. :redface:

[Mat001]

McDuffie?? :confused:

McDuffie wrote Action Comics #847, which takes place during "Last Son". In it, he has Jonathan and Martha talking about the events in Metropolis and Jonathan relates to Martha about a trip he took with Clark into outer space. Towards the end of the issue, Jonathan talks about how he and Clark made peace with each other about certain arguements they had and Jonathan told Clark that he was very proud of him. Looking at it, it highlights what was to come.

Huh?

I was saying that the things that didn't have to go away are back now. They were never that bad in the first place, so really, there shouldn't be that many complaints about them.

Not if you replace logic with science, no.

There is no logic that says dogs cannot exist on another planet.

But I never attacked the silver age. The worst thing I've said about the silver age is that it's possible to tell good Superman stories without all the SA trappings.

I wasn't saying that you were attacking the Silver Age trappings. I was saying that it is only fair that if the Silver Age stuff is attacked, then the Byrne stuff should be fair game.

[dupersuper]

McDuffie wrote Action Comics #847, which takes place during "Last Son". In it, he has Jonathan and Martha talking about the events in Metropolis and Jonathan relates to Martha about a trip he took with Clark into outer space. Towards the end of the issue, Jonathan talks about how he and Clark made peace with each other about certain arguements they had and Jonathan told Clark that he was very proud of him. Looking at it, it highlights what was to come.


Huh, I'd forgotten he wrote that. It was a filler issue though, so I wouldn't say he was likely 1 of the plotters of these developments, he was just likely aware of what Jones et al planned.


I was saying that the things that didn't have to go away are back now. They were never that bad in the first place, so really, there shouldn't be that many complaints about them.


Unless they're retconned or shoehorned clumsily in, needlessly dismissing all the stories since they were taken out that I and many others quite enjoyed.


There is no logic that says dogs cannot exist on another planet.


There's 1 HELL of a lot of science, though...


I wasn't saying that you were attacking the Silver Age trappings. I was saying that it is only fair that if the Silver Age stuff is attacked, then the Byrne stuff should be fair game.

I don't like either attacked; they're just 2 different approaches to a character I love reading about.

[Mat001]

Huh, I'd forgotten he wrote that. It was a filler issue though, so I wouldn't say he was likely 1 of the plotters of these developments, he was just likely aware of what Jones et al planned.

I didn't say he was one of the plotters. I was saying that he was one of the ones who helped set it up.

Unless they're retconned or shoehorned clumsily in, needlessly dismissing all the stories since they were taken out that I and many others quite enjoyed.

I wasn't talking about the stories. I was refering to Krypto, Kara Zor-El, the Phantom Zone villains and Kandor. So far only the stories from the Silver and Bronze Age that are in continuity are some of Superboy stories, mainly with the Legion and "For The Man Who Has Everything". The latter was confirmed in GLC when Kyle and Guy were showing the file on Mongul to the newcommers.

There's 1 HELL of a lot of science, though...

As opposed to everything else?

I don't like either attacked; they're just 2 different approaches to a character I love reading about.

Indeed and that's how I feel as well.

[dupersuper]

Indeed and that's how I feel as well.

So why the long thread...? :confused:

[Duy]

So why the long thread...? :confused:
Because some other poster started saying something stupid and it snowballed from there.

And now he's not even here.

[Mat001]

So why the long thread...? :confused:

Because we were discussing other areas. I've never attacked MOS. The only thing I've said was about the fact that elements that were deemed unnecessary weren't really unnecessary. Plus what hangmanjury said.