I'm a pretty big Alan Moore fan but I have so little interest in Superman as a character that I've never looked at Supreme much. The style of the artwork never appealed to me either, whenever I happened to see a cover somewhere.
It's far from Moore's best work. And it's still Superman. But it's at least readable SA Superman.
Alan Moore's Supreme is very good, but I wouldn't call it a classic. I think that word gets tossed around too much.
It's an odd mix, but I thought it worked for the most part.
Life looks better in black and white.
I like Silver Age Superman and I liked Alan Moore's Supreme, but I don't think the book was intended only for me or even for me primarily.
You can debate the inconsistencies of Alan Moore's opinions on creative rights, but leaving the writer's character out of the equation, one thing you can say about him is that he can take something old and make it new again. He can even take something that you don't like and make you look at it and see all the good in it.
The only reason I could see someone who hates SA Superman not wanting to read Moore's Supreme would be that they're so committed to their prejudice that they don't want to dare risk losing it by reading a work that might force them to re-evaluate their prejudices.
Although I'm sure it's possible to still hate SA Superman and like Supreme. The argument would be "Well, of course, Alan Moore can make even something dreadful look good."
Myself, I appreciated the healthy mix of old--Jim Mooney--with new--Rick Veitch. The real purpose of Supreme wasn't to create a good Superman story--it was to show how you can use continuity in new and innovative ways. You can even ignore continuity--as Moore ignored Liefeld's Supreme continuity--without maliciously deconstructing and destroying it--as was the trend and continues to be the trend. In a way, Supreme was Moore's mea culpa to the extent that he encouraged deconstructionism in comics (see Marvelman). Supreme is ultimately a constructive--or reconstructive work--that celebrates the history of comics rather than denigrating it. And all students of the medium could profit by reading it, even if in the end they choose to reject the lessons it offers.
That book was quotable like a mo-fo:
Suprema (after 3 decades of imprisonment by Gorrl, The Living Galaxy): A-and what about Glenvale or Littlehaven? Does my steady Troy Taylor still ask after me?"
Supreme: Littlehaven's a ghost town, and Glenvale's gone. As for your boyfriend, he's probably middle-aged and married. I'm sorry, Sally.
Suprema: Drat.It may not be in Moore's top 10, but it's at least earned an honorable mention, I think.He looks like a 90's model. His powers may be so poorly defined as to be absolutely limitless!
"'Kirby got a shitty contract too, so get over it' isn't a great tagline."
I sold off my complete set of the Moore Supreme run but I did enjoy it for what it was. But I'm of the opinion that a homage or "back to basics" approach could never top the original. I roll my eyes whenever I read that Simonson's Thor was better than the Lee Kirby stories or that Byrnes FF was the definitive FF run , for that matter.
Life is what you make it.
I have the Story of the Year tpb and it is a damn good read. They are some of the best Superman stories ever written even though they use a surrogate character.
Prince Lemur Protector on Marvel Super Hero Squad Online
I loved Supreme as well. It was one of the first Alan Moore stories I ever read. And even today it remains the one I feel most tempted to re-read.
For all those who have Moore pegged as a bitter curmudgeon, full of bile and rancour towards the industry, a dip into the world of Supreme (and Top-Ten, as well, I'd suggest) will show a man who has a hell of a lot joy for the world of comics and sees the best in them despite a machine that is ever a slave to formula and the safe course.