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/featur...2239631900.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...