Why are some fans so bitter about the Death of Superman?

[Shellhead]

There seems to be a popular misconception that DC somehow wimped out with the Death of Superman, like they meant to permanently kill him off but changed their minds along the way. And some of these readers are still bitter about it, I read it in CBR posts on a semi-regular basis.

But the Death of Superman storyline never read that way to me at all. Instead, it seemed like the entire story arc was carefully planned out in advance, with all the twists and turns and new characters, leading to the exciting return of the real Superman.

Am I wrong? It just seems like these bitter fans didn't even read the same comics that I did, or they were just giddy and irrational about the whole idea of Superman dying.

[Jake V]

Though I can't speak for everyone, my main point of contention was the way in which he died. Death by knockout? Come on, that's just lame.

While yes, I do see the "death" as part of a larger story, (the goal of which seemed to be to give Superman a mullet) one that was pretty cool as a whole, the death that the story centered around was just silly and nonsensical.

The Superman I know can't just get punched to death. Make it kryptonite poisoning, or some sort of noble sacrifice where he saves the planet from a villain who's main goal is MORE THAN breaking things and speaking in broken english.

I would have liked it more if Luthor killed him. But Luthor had flowing red hair at the time, so it would have made for a crappy visual.

[Arvandor]

I'm not bitter. In fact, I thought the Death of Superman was cool.


But that's because I read the Roger Stern novel first, before I ever read the comic book.

The Roger Stern novel is about 50,000 times better than the Jurgens crap, portraying Doomsday as the terrifying embodiment of war, instead of just another monster.

[Dhusk]

Who's bitter? I remember reading it when it first came out, and for the most part liked it. Remember, when this storyline started, Superman sales were only so-so and their were no major media tie-ins, so the writers had much more leeway with the character than they apparently do now. It allowed them to take much more chances and consequently led to some of the very best Superman stories, which the middle of the "Death of Superman" contained.

The Superman titles had just ended the year before this great year-long arc of Superman's self-imposed exile in space as he tried to deal with the guilt of executing the phantom zone villains (something I'm sure that's been retconned away by now by the current Silver-Age happy DC crew), and the writing for Superman in general had been excellent for a superhero book, so it was definitely something I was looking forward to. Of course no one believed they'd permanently kill off Superman, but like in the movie Titanic, just because you know the ship is going to sink doesn't mean the rest of the movie isn't worth watching.

The first part, Superman's battle with Doomsday, was probably the most lackluster part of the storyline. Doomsday was too much of a cipher to really understand the kind of threat he was besides just being an ugly powerhouse. Just a long, drawn-out sugfest, really, necessary to set up what came after. My rating: 5.5 out of 10

The second part of the arc was what made the whole storyline worth it: the nine-part "Funeral for a Friend," as Superman's loved ones, friends, and the world at large reacted to his death. Lots of great character-driven stuff, some real emotion amid all the superhero wrangling; Lois telling herself not to cry over and over as she rode the elevator up to Clark's apartment to clean it out; the Kents not being able to attend their own son's funeral, and so on. Some of what the Post-Crisis DC could do best. My rating: 8.5 out of 10.

The last part, "Reign of the Supermen" while not quite as good as part two, was still very enjoyable. It introduced three really good characters: Superboy, Steel, and the Cyborg Superman (the latter being one of Superman's best villains; wish they'd bring him back.) the plotlines got a little convoluted, but the climactic battle, with the destruction of Coast city, Superboy saving Metropolis from a nuclear missile, and the rest of the Super Crew confronting the Cyborg Superman in the heart of his new engine city was pretty cool. My rating: 7 out of 10

Personally, one of the better Superman stories, and light years beyond anything the current "silver age or nothing" DC crew is currently putting out with the character. I long for those Superman stories where his humanity was more important than his powers, and when writers could take risks and actually do something exciting with the character...

[Guts/Batman]

Heh. I liked it myself when I first read it. But looking back on it, how they arrived at the death "moment" amazes me. It seems so...quick. Too quick.

[the_coldest_sun]

"The Death of Superman" is the event that got me into comics in the first place.

[Forsaken_One]

I'm bitter that DC decided to make all the Superman comics one storyline but then shipped them to me out of order and at least three weeks late back in the day. Man that pissed me off, what good is the savings of having them delivered to my home if they weren't even in the right order and I could get them much earlier from the store?

But really, that's about it. I learned from that too, never again will I try to get a comic via the mail. It's store or trades for me.

[Joker2503]

If I recall, The Death of Superman wasn't designed to be as big in the mainstream as it was. The writers intended it to be a big comic book story, but they weren't expecting 60 Minutes to do pieces on it. I believe it was supposed to be "just another story" and they planned for him to be back later on, but the media ran with it.

As a story, I like "The Death of Superman." I actually love the actual death. I like Superman being simply beat to death, rather than Kryptonite poisoning or jumping in front of a meteor or something. It made his death more emotional by "humanizing" Superman. The final shot of Superman and Doomsday punching each other on a mountain of rubble they caused as every window around them shattered is amazing. Superman did sacrifice himself to save others, but he did it in a more approachable way than some super-powered act of heroism.

[marshal99]

Which fans were bitter ? I never came across any bitter fans at all . I think anyone with a brain knew that superman would be back at some point , only time fans were bitter were when Hal became parallax or when Hal died in Final Night or when Guy Gardner got poked in the ribs and died in one panel in OWAW. Yes , those had fans in an uproar , death of superman was never perceived that way because everyone knows that superman is an DC icon , they will never going to permanently kill him.

[Xero Kaiser]

The Superman I know can't just get punched to death. Make it kryptonite poisoning, or some sort of noble sacrifice where he saves the planet from a villain who's main goal is MORE THAN breaking things and speaking in broken english.

death by kryptonite poisoning would be the lamest, most unexciting and anti-climatic way for him to go

[literally exaggerated]

I didn't mind that he died simply by being beaten to death. The best way IMO. Not through some weakness, simply by running up against someone who was far more powerful than he was.

What I minded was that Doomsday did it. A near mindless brute with strength comparable to, but not far greater than Superman's, yet far slower and with no other powers...wtf? Supes isn't Batman, but he should have been able to figure out that there are better ways to deal with a creature like that than standing there and punching it while it punched him.

Had they pitted him against a guy like classic Darkseid, or Imperiax (not as badly handled a character as Imperiax mind, but that sort of power level). Someone who clearly far outclassed Superman. And then had Superman just go all out. No holding bacck. No protecting metropolis. just out in space, moving at near lightspeed, punching with force capable of busting continents, keeping up the heat vision at maximum power. Fighting with all his skill and all his brains. Busting out every trick in the book, sun-dipping, everything. All against a foe far, far more powerful than he was. Finally to, in the end, impossibly, win, but even as he is doing so die in the attempt.

Thats a death worthy of Superman. But going down to a guy who he himself outclasses in virtually every area except for pure brute strength and invulnerability? Just punching each other? Lame.

[Deskad]

I didn't mind that he died simply by being beaten to death. The best way IMO. Not through some weakness, simply by running up against someone who was far more powerful than he was.

What I minded was that Doomsday did it. A near mindless brute with strength comparable to, but not far greater than Superman's, yet far slower and with no other powers...wtf? Supes isn't Batman, but he should have been able to figure out that there are better ways to deal with a creature like that than standing there and punching it while it punched him.

Had they pitted him against a guy like classic Darkseid, or Imperiax (not as badly handled a character as Imperiax mind, but that sort of power level). Someone who clearly far outclassed Superman. And then had Superman just go all out. No holding bacck. No protecting metropolis. just out in space, moving at near lightspeed, punching with force capable of busting continents, keeping up the heat vision at maximum power. Fighting with all his skill and all his brains. Busting out every trick in the book, sun-dipping, everything. All against a foe far, far more powerful than he was. Finally to, in the end, impossibly, win, but even as he is doing so die in the attempt.

Thats a death worthy of Superman. But going down to a guy who he himself outclasses in virtually every area except for pure brute strength and invulnerability? Just punching each other? Lame.


words can't describe ow much I agree with this.

[LibrarianThorne]

I didn't mind that he died simply by being beaten to death. The best way IMO. Not through some weakness, simply by running up against someone who was far more powerful than he was.

What I minded was that Doomsday did it. A near mindless brute with strength comparable to, but not far greater than Superman's, yet far slower and with no other powers...wtf? Supes isn't Batman, but he should have been able to figure out that there are better ways to deal with a creature like that than standing there and punching it while it punched him.

Had they pitted him against a guy like classic Darkseid, or Imperiax (not as badly handled a character as Imperiax mind, but that sort of power level). Someone who clearly far outclassed Superman. And then had Superman just go all out. No holding bacck. No protecting metropolis. just out in space, moving at near lightspeed, punching with force capable of busting continents, keeping up the heat vision at maximum power. Fighting with all his skill and all his brains. Busting out every trick in the book, sun-dipping, everything. All against a foe far, far more powerful than he was. Finally to, in the end, impossibly, win, but even as he is doing so die in the attempt.

Thats a death worthy of Superman. But going down to a guy who he himself outclasses in virtually every area except for pure brute strength and invulnerability? Just punching each other? Lame.

Doomsday was actually pretty intelligent, and Superman does try his bag of tricks on Doomsday and it doesn't work. If you'll notice, he pounds him into sediment, uses full bore heat vision on him twice, aids the Justice League against him, tries to fly him out of Metropolis, chucks him into a forest made of trees that are like tensile steel, the whole bit. Doomsday just didn't go down, and beyond that, ripped apart the Justice League. Superman is, if you'll note, a hero first and foremost. He was more worried about the people that Doomsday's rampage was affecting, and whenever he could (and at several points in the story, you'll notice), he runs off to save innocent people. To me, that was a defining element of the story. Superman knew what Doomsday was capable of, but he simply couldn't let innocent people suffer and die when he could do something about it. That is a defining element of Big Blue.

Also, never mention sun-dipping again. Can we say plot device, kids?

[The Mirrorball Man]

What I liked the most about the Death of Superman arc is how the panels kept getting larger and larger until the "death" issue, which was almost entirely made of splash pages. I thought it was a nice artistic decision.

[Shellhead]

Reading the posts in this thread, I think that the only people truly bitter about this great storyline were the Marvel Zombies who were hoping that Superman would stay dead. I'm not big fan of Superman, but I do like the character well enough to want to see him from time to time. So far, the only version of Superman that I've consistently enjoyed was the Dini/Timm cartoon version.

[Guts/Batman]

What I liked the most about the Death of Superman arc is how the panels kept getting larger and larger until the "death" issue, which was almost entirely made of splash pages. I thought it was a nice artistic decision.

Agreed. That page with Lois holding Superman's dead body was freakin awesome...

As I said before, the ending just seemed...too quick.

"It seems I've finally hurt him."

"Now, we're both going for a kill shot."

Looking back on it, it doesn't seem to make a ton of sense how the fight ended that quickly.

[Mike Smith]

Death by punchout totally changed my perception of Superman. I still think it was a lame way to go...

[Guts/Batman]

I think Superman should be able to be killed though fighting and not just Green K or magic.

Superman should be otherworldly being more powerful than him. Beings capable of killing him without using K or magic. I just think that Superman should be the most powerful of the Earth's heroes.

[Lorendiac]

There seems to be a popular misconception that DC somehow wimped out with the Death of Superman, like they meant to permanently kill him off but changed their minds along the way. And some of these readers are still bitter about it, I read it in CBR posts on a semi-regular basis.

A couple of times in the last few months I've seen such an attitude come up. The conversation may have turned to letting people stay dead once they clearly die in a comic book "in continuity," and then someone says, "I wish DC did it that way - Superman would still be dead after his fight with Doomsday!" My attitude, of course, is more along the lines of, "No, that doesn't follow! If DC editors and writers knew they were going to be chained down with a 'dead means permanently dead' rule, then they simply never would have let Doomsday kill him in the first place!"

But the Death of Superman storyline never read that way to me at all. Instead, it seemed like the entire story arc was carefully planned out in advance, with all the twists and turns and new characters, leading to the exciting return of the real Superman.

Am I wrong? It just seems like these bitter fans didn't even read the same comics that I did, or they were just giddy and irrational about the whole idea of Superman dying.

I'm absolutely, positively certain that DC never intended to leave Superman dead "permanently," to answer that part of what you're asking.

I was already absolutely, positively certain of it, when I first heard in 1992 that his death was scheduled to happen in the near future. What amazed me was that some of the media coverage I saw took it much more "seriously" than that, as if DC were really likely to kill off one of their biggest cash cows and leave him dead for the next few decades!

I have heard rumors that the folks at DC were flabbergasted by how much media hype they got after announcing the upcoming death, and also by how many people started buying copies of the relevant comic books (mostly people who honestly thought Superman was going to stay dead and his Death would be a huge collector's item for future generations, I strongly suspect).

On a similar note - while I never particularly liked Jean Paul Valley, when he took over as Batman around the summer of '93, I didn't feel my blood pressure shooting through the roof over it, because I was absolutely, positively certain that it was only a temporary substitution.

Eventually this attitude led me astray - a few months later, I believe, when - shortly after helping the true Superman defeat Mongul and the Cyborg Superman impostor - Hal Jordan appeared to go mad with power and was "replaced" by Kyle Rayner, I didn't find Kyle very interesting, but I wasn't as upset as I could have been over the clumsy way they had just butchered Hal's heroic personality - because I was absolutely, positively certain that it would all get undone in a year or two and Hal would revert back to his Sacred Status Quo as a hero, somehow, after DC had played a few mind games with us!

It never seriously occurred to me at the time that the editorial team in charge of the Green Lantern title might really intend to junk Hal forever and bring in a new guy we'd never heard of before as THE Official Green Lantern! After the false alarms we had just had with Superman and Batman, I figured "Emerald Twilight" was just more of the same old, same old! Only years later did I realize I had been wrong - and that instead of being the setup for a fancy false alarm, Emerald Twilight really was just as lousy a piece of storytelling as it looked like, with the only motive behind it being the "obvious" or "face value" motive - "Hey! Let's get rid of Hal Jordan in some quick and dirty fashion so we can replace him with a younger face!"

I guess in a way that made me the polar opposite of any readers who actually wanted Clark Kent, the original Superman, to stay dead - and were shocked when they realized he had really come back from the dead.

P.S. On the other hand, when I finally got around to reading the "Death of Superman" TPB, I was astounded at how disappointing the writing was compared to what I had expected in a story about the Man of Steel getting killed in battle. I think the follow-up stories collected in "World Without a Superman" and "The Return of Superman" were generally much better done, however.

[Zeta]

I actually had two major problems with it:

A) Superman should've been taken out by one of his pre-existing rogue's gallery, but not Luthor. Someone totally unexpected like Toyman or Prankster. Doomsday is the most boring villain ever. I'd take Kangarooman over him.

B) He should've stayed dead a little longer. Seriously. At least kinda make them suspect that it MIGHT be a death that stuck for a little while.

[Guts/Batman]

I actually had two major problems with it:

A) Superman should've been taken out by one of his pre-existing rogue's gallery, but not Luthor. Someone totally unexpected like Toyman or Prankster. Doomsday is the most boring villain ever. I'd take Kangarooman over him.

B) He should've stayed dead a little longer. Seriously. At least kinda make them suspect that it MIGHT be a death that stuck for a little while.

A) I loved it when the writers of Batman pulled a Bane. Same deal with Superman when they pulled a Doomsday. Superman should have beings equally as powerful as he is. Someone who can kill him without K and magic (as I have on this thread a few times).

B) Everyone and their mother knew that Superman would come back to the land of the living. You can't permanently kill Superman.

That said, I think he was gone long enough.

Anyone got sales numbers for post DoS books handy?

[Matt K]

I actually had two major problems with it:

A) Superman should've been taken out by one of his pre-existing rogue's gallery, but not Luthor. Someone totally unexpected like Toyman or Prankster. Doomsday is the most boring villain ever. I'd take Kangarooman over him.

B) He should've stayed dead a little longer. Seriously. At least kinda make them suspect that it MIGHT be a death that stuck for a little while.

I recently got ahold of the Eric Masterson issues of Thor and I found it funny that essentially Thor did this first (and came back around the time Superman "died"). I think it definitly spawned some interesting stories during the 2 years Thor was gone. I'd almost wish DC had taken thier time to build up Superman's return and perhaps had a reveal (like in Thor) that it was Luther (or some other rogue's) plan all along.

[marshal99]

I actually had two major problems with it:

A) Superman should've been taken out by one of his pre-existing rogue's gallery, but not Luthor. Someone totally unexpected like Toyman or Prankster. Doomsday is the most boring villain ever. I'd take Kangarooman over him.

B) He should've stayed dead a little longer. Seriously. At least kinda make them suspect that it MIGHT be a death that stuck for a little while.

Can i ask did you read the story when it came out or just read about it when it's all over and it came out in TPB ?

A) Fans would be in a uproar if superman was killed by a lameass villains like Toyman or prankster. Doomsday was just a plot device one off invincible villain designed to kill off superman and i have no problem with that.

B) Were you there when the storyline took place ? Superman was gone for close to a year in real time (at least it felt like a year) before DC decides to bring him back , there was no superman comics on the stand , no superman related comics (there was 2 one-shot specials but otherwise nothing) and it was quite a long hiatus for superman to stay dead though you know that he will be back at some point.

[LibrarianThorne]

A couple of times in the last few months I've seen such an attitude come up. The conversation may have turned to letting people stay dead once they clearly die in a comic book "in continuity," and then someone says, "I wish DC did it that way - Superman would still be dead after his fight with Doomsday!" My attitude, of course, is more along the lines of, "No, that doesn't follow! If DC editors and writers knew they were going to be chained down with a 'dead means permanently dead' rule, then they simply never would have let Doomsday kill him in the first place!"



I'm absolutely, positively certain that DC never intended to leave Superman dead "permanently," to answer that part of what you're asking.

I was already absolutely, positively certain of it, when I first heard in 1992 that his death was scheduled to happen in the near future. What amazed me was that some of the media coverage I saw took it much more "seriously" than that, as if DC were really likely to kill off one of their biggest cash cows and leave him dead for the next few decades!

I have heard rumors that the folks at DC were flabbergasted by how much media hype they got after announcing the upcoming death, and also by how many people started buying copies of the relevant comic books (mostly people who honestly thought Superman was going to stay dead and his Death would be a huge collector's item for future generations, I strongly suspect).

On a similar note - while I never particularly liked Jean Paul Valley, when he took over as Batman around the summer of '93, I didn't feel my blood pressure shooting through the roof over it, because I was absolutely, positively certain that it was only a temporary substitution.

Eventually this attitude led me astray - a few months later, I believe, when - shortly after helping the true Superman defeat Mongul and the Cyborg Superman impostor - Hal Jordan appeared to go mad with power and was "replaced" by Kyle Rayner, I didn't find Kyle very interesting, but I wasn't as upset as I could have been over the clumsy way they had just butchered Hal's heroic personality - because I was absolutely, positively certain that it would all get undone in a year or two and Hal would revert back to his Sacred Status Quo as a hero, somehow, after DC had played a few mind games with us!

It never seriously occurred to me at the time that the editorial team in charge of the Green Lantern title might really intend to junk Hal forever and bring in a new guy we'd never heard of before as THE Official Green Lantern! After the false alarms we had just had with Superman and Batman, I figured "Emerald Twilight" was just more of the same old, same old! Only years later did I realize I had been wrong - and that instead of being the setup for a fancy false alarm, Emerald Twilight really was just as lousy a piece of storytelling as it looked like, with the only motive behind it being the "obvious" or "face value" motive - "Hey! Let's get rid of Hal Jordan in some quick and dirty fashion so we can replace him with a younger face!"

I guess in a way that made me the polar opposite of any readers who actually wanted Clark Kent, the original Superman, to stay dead - and were shocked when they realized he had really come back from the dead.

P.S. On the other hand, when I finally got around to reading the "Death of Superman" TPB, I was astounded at how disappointing the writing was compared to what I had expected in a story about the Man of Steel getting killed in battle. I think the follow-up stories collected in "World Without a Superman" and "The Return of Superman" were generally much better done, however.

Now that's a rant. While I do agree that Return of Superman and especially Funeral For a Friend/World Without a Superman were much better than the Death of Superman, I disagree with your view on Emerald Twilight. I thought it was handled well, and made Hal a much more interesting character, it made him human and showed that there was a point where DC's most fearless superhero could crack.

[dancj]

It never seriously occurred to me at the time that the editorial team in charge of the Green Lantern title might really intend to junk Hal forever and bring in a new guy we'd never heard of before as THE Official Green Lantern!

The difference here is that Green Lantern is just a job which could be filled by other people. Superman and Batman are always going to be synonymous with Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne. Probably the only other DC character who's 100% safe would be Wonder Woman - and even that might change over time.

[Shellhead]

I recently got ahold of the Eric Masterson issues of Thor and I found it funny that essentially Thor did this first (and came back around the time Superman "died"). I think it definitly spawned some interesting stories during the 2 years Thor was gone. I'd almost wish DC had taken thier time to build up Superman's return and perhaps had a reveal (like in Thor) that it was Luther (or some other rogue's) plan all along.

Did it first? Nope. Iron Man did it in the 60's, with Happy Hogan briefly taking up the armor, and again in the 80's with James Rhodes wearing the armor for a couple of years before Tony took it back.

[Matt K]

Did it first? Nope. Iron Man did it in the 60's, with Happy Hogan briefly taking up the armor, and again in the 80's with James Rhodes wearing the armor for a couple of years before Tony took it back.

Didn't know that but then again Iron Man does have a history of having people taking over the armor.

[Lorendiac]

The difference here is that Green Lantern is just a job which could be filled by other people. Superman and Batman are always going to be synonymous with Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne. Probably the only other DC character who's 100% safe would be Wonder Woman - and even that might change over time.

Which reminds me of another point that I didn't mention above - somewhere around that time ('93, '94, somewhere around there) DC also had Diana and Artemis compete in a contest that resulted in Artemis being the "new Wonder Woman," officially, for several issues. Again, I never seriously considered the possibility that this would become a "permanent" change in the star of the title. (For one thing, Diana wasn't even dead or insane or physically disabled - she simply changed to a different outfit for awhile and continued fighting crime as she saw fit! :))

So, under the circumstances, I naturally took it for granted that DC had developed a corporate obsession along the lines of, "Let's PRETEND to replace several of our Big Name Heroes with pinch-hitters with different attitudes - just in order to boost sales and stir things up - then we'll bring back the old familiar faces, same as before!" How was I supposed to know that in one case out of four, they might really be "serious" about this, unlike the other three cases? In context, it all looked like four variations on the exact same pattern, all happening within a year or two of one another! :)

[Forsaken_One]

Green Arrow was more or less permenent. At least I don't think they planned on bringing back Ollie later on, they just happened to do so. Much like Hal is. Or Jason Todd. Or [insert dead character here].

[NotSuper]

I didn't mind that he died simply by being beaten to death. The best way IMO. Not through some weakness, simply by running up against someone who was far more powerful than he was.

What I minded was that Doomsday did it. A near mindless brute with strength comparable to, but not far greater than Superman's, yet far slower and with no other powers...wtf? Supes isn't Batman, but he should have been able to figure out that there are better ways to deal with a creature like that than standing there and punching it while it punched him.

Had they pitted him against a guy like classic Darkseid, or Imperiax (not as badly handled a character as Imperiax mind, but that sort of power level). Someone who clearly far outclassed Superman. And then had Superman just go all out. No holding bacck. No protecting metropolis. just out in space, moving at near lightspeed, punching with force capable of busting continents, keeping up the heat vision at maximum power. Fighting with all his skill and all his brains. Busting out every trick in the book, sun-dipping, everything. All against a foe far, far more powerful than he was. Finally to, in the end, impossibly, win, but even as he is doing so die in the attempt.

Thats a death worthy of Superman. But going down to a guy who he himself outclasses in virtually every area except for pure brute strength and invulnerability? Just punching each other? Lame.
I'm of the same mindset. I actually thought it would've been cool if someone like Mongul killed Superman. That way there would've still been a titanic struggle and a more interesting battle.

I never did care for Doomsday (for the reasons you mentioned), yet his animated incarnation doesn't really bother me. The Cyborg Superman really seems like a jobber, in retrospect. I was bothered that he originally started out as a Reed Richards-esque character.

However, the storyline DID get me to regularly start collecting Superman comics, so I owe it something. Plus, we got Steel and Superboy out of the deal, and that's a good thing. I'd probably appreciate the story more if I finished reading the Roger Stern novelization.

[marshal99]

The thing is , as first written , Doomsday was stronger and was this seemingly unbeatable monster who basically walked all over the JLA, supergirl and superman. Superman couldn't stop it at all , and he made his last stand at metropolis. A bit hokey to have a double KO but it works for me.

[Guts/Batman]

A bit hokey to have a double KO but it works for me.

Heh. A double KO that came too quickly.

Also, notice who is on the JLA when they decide to kill Superman and have Doomsday waste them... ;)

[Ender]

I was a strictly Marvel guy up to the death. Superman was the lamest dork you could buy as far as I was concerned. Then this big story happend and as I was reading week by week it occured to me that this character had a presence that no Marvel then or now could match.

Maybe I read too much into it but Doomsday was a considerably Marvelish character to me his look his attitude seemed out of place for DC. Which I think was intentional it brought in this Marvel zombie. I could see Wolverine fighting Doomsday.

Anyway I disagree it was quick, they fought for miles and weren't there two gas explosions? This Superman who fought a tough cowboy style fight was really cool. Superman wasn't the big blue supfriends geek I remebered. He was a bad ass who would do whatever it took to protect humanity. I follwed Reign of Superman which lead to Emerald Twilight eventually. And that lead to Zero Hour.

What became apparent to me then is that when you buy DC ( and yes this is hokey) you buy into a community. The DC universe is my favorite because there is more of a feeling that every character is living on the same planet. The JLA tried to stop him? How many times has Spidey fought the Juggernaut or the Hulk and not a single Avenger showed up much less the whole team? That you could see cause and effect was amazing. Marvel still dosen't seem to be in the same world to me.

[Alan2099]

Which reminds me of another point that I didn't mention above - somewhere around that time ('93, '94, somewhere around there) DC also had Diana and Artemis compete in a contest that resulted in Artemis being the "new Wonder Woman," officially, for several issues. Again, I never seriously considered the possibility that this would become a "permanent" change in the star of the title. (For one thing, Diana wasn't even dead or insane or physically disabled - she simply changed to a different outfit for awhile and continued fighting crime as she saw fit! :))

So, under the circumstances, I naturally took it for granted that DC had developed a corporate obsession along the lines of, "Let's PRETEND to replace several of our Big Name Heroes with pinch-hitters with different attitudes - just in order to boost sales and stir things up - then we'll bring back the old familiar faces, same as before!" How was I supposed to know that in one case out of four, they might really be "serious" about this, unlike the other three cases? In context, it all looked like four variations on the exact same pattern, all happening within a year or two of one another! :)
I've always thought some alterante reality story were Artemis was Wonder Woman, Azreal was batman, and either Cyborg or Eradicator ahd taken over as Superman with the team as JLA members could be rather awsome.

You could even bring in the dark Flash.

Anyway, I liked Doomsday before they wimped him down. He was simply a pure unstoppable unreasonable force. You didn't need any motive. All you needed to know was that he was coming and nobody could do a thing about it.

I also liked how Cyborg Superman handled him when he "returned from the dead".

[Gentlegamer]

There seems to be a popular misconception that DC somehow wimped out with the Death of Superman, like they meant to permanently kill him off but changed their minds along the way. And some of these readers are still bitter about it, I read it in CBR posts on a semi-regular basis.

But the Death of Superman storyline never read that way to me at all. Instead, it seemed like the entire story arc was carefully planned out in advance, with all the twists and turns and new characters, leading to the exciting return of the real Superman.

Am I wrong? It just seems like these bitter fans didn't even read the same comics that I did, or they were just giddy and irrational about the whole idea of Superman dying.I read the story just as you do. In fact, I usually cite the Death of Superman as how properly to handle a superhero death/rebirth . . . as a deliberately planned story arc. The usual way, the poor way, is one writer kills a character (sometimes in a cool way/meaningful death) and then another writer some time later decides he wants to use the character and creates a lame soap-opera style "rebirth" or something. And no, Hal Jordan's rebirth doesn't fall in the latter category.

[Gentlegamer]

I was a strictly Marvel guy up to the death. Superman was the lamest dork you could buy as far as I was concerned. Then this big story happend and as I was reading week by week it occured to me that this character had a presence that no Marvel then or now could match.

Maybe I read too much into it but Doomsday was a considerably Marvelish character to me his look his attitude seemed out of place for DC. Which I think was intentional it brought in this Marvel zombie. I could see Wolverine fighting Doomsday.

Anyway I disagree it was quick, they fought for miles and weren't there two gas explosions? This Superman who fought a tough cowboy style fight was really cool. Superman wasn't the big blue supfriends geek I remebered. He was a bad ass who would do whatever it took to protect humanity. I follwed Reign of Superman which lead to Emerald Twilight eventually. And that lead to Zero Hour.

What became apparent to me then is that when you buy DC ( and yes this is hokey) you buy into a community. The DC universe is my favorite because there is more of a feeling that every character is living on the same planet. The JLA tried to stop him? How many times has Spidey fought the Juggernaut or the Hulk and not a single Avenger showed up much less the whole team? That you could see cause and effect was amazing. Marvel still dosen't seem to be in the same world to me.
As a relatively new comics reader (a little over a year), this has been my perception as well. For example, recently, the New Thunderbolts were only able to get a little help from Spider-Man during a crisis at the U.N. building in NYC, but when Hydra laters shows up to nuke Manhatten, where was Spider-Man, Daredevil, the Fantastic Four, Avengers, etc.? Definitely a different type of "community" in Marvel. And by the way, not worse, just different from DC.