Sadly, and I know that I am probably in the minority here, but I do regard Alan Moore's work on Supreme as a Superman rip-off. YES, I know, its well written and very "meta" but I regard it as more an interesting experiment rather than an engaging story. A lot of work was done to make Supreme more of a Superman analogue, but I was completely disconnected from the character of Ethan Crane. I know he was supposed to be a stand-in for Clark Kent, but I wasn't all that enthralled with the character of Clark Kent to begin with. And Ethan Crane basically just became an echo of an already established character.Originally Posted by TROUBLEZ
I never got why Supreme would be interested in Diane Dane, aside from the fact that Superman was interested in Lois Lane and that's who they were standing in for. The same for Darius Dax, as a stand in for Lex Luthor. Yes, it was admirable that Alan Moore was able to tweak Superman's mythos to the character of Supreme and highlight some of the forgotten aspects of the character of Superman that had been forgotten over the years. But I felt that in the end that it was actually a disservice to the character of Supreme.
The fact of the matter is Supreme DID have a history beforehand. It may not have been a good one, but it was his own history, with his own characters and his own supporting cast. All of that was done away with, for better or for worse, to basically make Supreme into a secondary Superman. But his character didn't all of a sudden become more interesting or engaging. It was a fascinating experiment, but lacking in heart and emotion for a lack of a better term. Someone far more bitter would say that "it takes real talent to take a partial rip-off of Superman and turn him into a complete rip-off." But I think a better assessment would be that Alan Moore's tenure on the book was an intriguing effort on his part but did not succeed in making the audience more connected to the character and his world, and it primarily succeeded on the strength of Alan Moore's talent and ability.