Superman in the post-Crisis era (reviews by shaxper)

[destro]

In many ways, the last years of Superman and Action under Schwartz represented the last time DC or Marvel maintained a major "canonical" title with simple, done-in-one stories that might appeal to new, young comic readers. (Was it also the first "for-real" reboot of a major character?)

I realize this period has it's fans. I'm just not one of them. I love silver age Superman, but a lot of the 70s/80s stuff before Byrne came on was pretty bad to me and a lot of others. And to be fair there were still done in one stories during the Byrne period and continued to be until they linked all of the Superman books together in the triangle era. I think the early Byrne era was fairly family friendly for the most part, with a few glaring exceptions (Superman/Barda porn movie, killing of the Zone criminals).

Should we count Green Lantern, Flash, Hawkman, etc... as major reboots?

[shaxper]

I'm very discouraged, Shax, by just how much I agree with your assessments. The weaknesses you're pointing out in Byrne's version of Superman sure seem accurate to me. How discouraging that I bought every issue.

"I didn't put you in a prison. I just showed you the bars."

- V (V for Vendetta)

Gah! You're killing me with these negative reviews!

Is it wrong, then, that I'm having fun writing them?

Arathaza seems like one of those throwaway villains that Byrne would occasionally use to get a plot going (like Caliber in Alpha Flight), that was probably never meant to be heard from again.

Most certainly. And, to be fair, it was a great way to open a story, especially with the gnarled up corpse of a rapidly aging Superman losing to her. The story just plummeted pretty fast from that point forward.

I just can't imagine continuing to read books you hate. More power to him if he wants too, but I wouldn't do it. Life's too short.

Clearly you weren't watching the agony that my Planet of the Apes reviews thread turned into for quite a while when I was stuck in the Adventure Comics years. Worst tripe I've ever read. In contrast, this is practically Eisner quality.

And I concur with destro. I'm in this largely because I have fond memories of the creative team that followed Byrne. However, I never trudged through these early issues before now.

(Was it also the first "for-real" reboot of a major character?)

I think you can make a case against that. You've got the Silver Age Hawkman, Green Lantern, and Flash, and even the Spectre was massively altered in his Silver Age debut.

And if we're looking at it in terms of a numbering reboot while the series is still in publication , there was that Supes issue from the Bronze Age that sported a large "1st issue" on the cover, even though the numbering didn't really change.

But yeah, this was the first truly complete, intentional, and publicized reboot of a franchise that I'm aware of.

[dupersuper]

According to Helfer's letter column, it was, and the writer of that series was in constant contact with Byrne over Lois' depiction.

*sigh* great: now I have to move it next time I go through my books.

[shaxper]

*sigh* great: now I have to move it next time I go through my books.

Well, I'll be reading and reviewing it within the next few days (as soon as it arrives by mail), so I may be able to save you the chore if it ends up being a worthless read.

[MDG]

I think you can make a case against that. You've got the Silver Age Hawkman, Green Lantern, and Flash, and even the Spectre was massively altered in his Silver Age debut....

But yeah, this was the first truly complete, intentional, and publicized reboot of a franchise that I'm aware of.

I don't count the Silver Age revivals since I think the concept of a "reboot" tends to be to get people who are aware of a character to start picking it up again. I don't think most people who picked the silver age versions of the Flash, Hawkman, GL and Atom off the stands were familiar with the Golden Age versions.

I hadn't thought of the Spectre or Plas, both of whom you can say were rebooted to an extent in their series' in Adventure Comics.

[Scott Harris]

Wonder Woman got rebooted every sixth issue during the 70's.

[shaxper]

Superman #3

"Legends of the Darkside" (Legends, chapter 17)
writer/pencils: John Byrne
inks: Terry Austin
letters: John Costanza
colors: Tom Ziuko
editor: Andy Helfer

grade: B-

First off, I've never read Legends, and these tie ins are not going to make me start. It's always seemed like an absurd storyline to me, badly misusing Kirby's New Gods (WHILE Kirby was working on an entirely different New Gods story for DC) in order to commit a bad theft from the core premise of Watchmen, and really -- do they ever explain why Darkseid and his vast legions NEED a religious zealot to make Earth distrust superheroes? Couldn't he just Omega Beam a ton of people and have his Paradaemons do the rest??

Anyway, I'll avoid commenting on the storyline throughout these tie ins since it's essentially beside the point. Like Legends or hate it, this is a Superman story.

I'd say what baffles me the most about this one is just how uneven of a creator it exposes Byrne as being. We've already discussed his inconsistencies as a writer, but let's talk art this time. This is a truly awful cover (and I don't know how an established artist RUINS a picture of Darkseid dangling a battered Superman from his fist) and yet the interior has the best art I've seen Byrne do for Superman yet. It's dense, crisp, consistent, and lively. I've given this issue a B- based on how much I enjoyed the art alone. Truly, the story was nothing worth noting.

The story did nothing for me. As a tie in, it really didn't accomplish anything. I don't know why Darkseid wanted Superman, and I don't really care. I enjoyed Byrne's depiction of the Hunger Dogs (nice plug for Kirby's upcoming work), but that was about it. The gratuitous battle that ensued with the giant armored thing afterward did nothing for me, and there really wasn't any kind of tangible plot to follow. Superman gets transported to Apokalypse. That's about it.

Minor Details:

- So, apparently, Superman's "aura of invulnerability," originally introduced as a means of explaining why his pants don't come off every time he gets caught at ground zero of an explosion, has now been extended to the logical conclusion that Superman's face can't get dirt on it. Of course, if you take this a step further than that, how does the man breathe, or even eat or drink? How does he hug and kiss Ma Kent? This is truly a stupid concept at its core.

- The Phantom Stranger gets used as a sorry excuse for Marvel's Uatu, The Watcher, standing beside Darkseid to function as witness to the events unfolding.

- Okay, it's weird enough assuming that the being on Apokalypse speak English (Superman understands them just fine), but even a sign on page 15 actually reads "Slum Area 27" in clear English. And, incidentally, you've got to love an all-powerful tyrant so committed to making his minions suffer that he goes out of his way to officially name their habitation sectors as "Slum Areas." Byrne is an idiot...


Plot synopsis:

Lois Lane gets an interview with G. Glorious Godfrey, he provides far too many hints that he's from Apokalypse, Superman gets teleported to Apokalypse, some stupid stuff happens for the sake of creating short-term conflict, we're supposed to think Superman is dead at the climax, and nothing of note actually occurs.

[jay-w]

How does Superman's costume get inside the "invulnerability aura"? The costume's definitely inside, that's the whole point. Can he turn it on and off?

Was this ever addressed in the comics over the 20 or so years it was in use?

[Bill Angus]

I don't recall if they addressed it specifically. My recollection is that this was introduced to specifically remove the pre-Crisis "costume made out of invulnerable, Kryptonian cloth"... mostly so artists could draw him with a tattered cape (as the cape, unlike the rest of the costume, was outside of the aura).

[Van Cleaf]

Nice to see that you've started again, shaxper.

Though I am really confused. Reading your reviews it often sounds like you hated the issue yet you still give grades like "B-". That would mean "good" to me. Why not D or F?

[destro]

Minor Details:

- So, apparently, Superman's "aura of invulnerability," originally introduced as a means of explaining why his pants don't come off every time he gets caught at ground zero of an explosion, has now been extended to the logical conclusion that Superman's face can't get dirt on it. Of course, if you take this a step further than that, how does the man breathe, or even eat or drink? How does he hug and kiss Ma Kent? This is truly a stupid concept at its core.

- The Phantom Stranger gets used as a sorry excuse for Marvel's Uatu, The Watcher, standing beside Darkseid to function as witness to the events unfolding.

- Okay, it's weird enough assuming that the being on Apokalypse speak English (Superman understands them just fine), but even a sign on page 15 actually reads "Slum Area 27" in clear English. And, incidentally, you've got to love an all-powerful tyrant so committed to making his minions suffer that he goes out of his way to officially name their habitation sectors as "Slum Areas." Byrne is an idiot...


.

This is what I find odd about Byrne's work at times. He seems hellbent on over explaining certain things that are just best left alone (the aura, the face vibration in public, etc..) but other details like the language thing (which honestly to me is just as unimportant) he leaves alone. He seems oddly selective about what he wants to put a heavy focus on.

[shaxper]

How does Superman's costume get inside the "invulnerability aura"? The costume's definitely inside, that's the whole point.

I was wondering this, myself. I suspect the answer is that they didn't think about it too much.

Kind of makes you wonder how he managed to avoid hovering above the ground when he walked -- certainly an awkward obstacle for Clark Kent.

Nice to see that you've started again, shaxper.

Though I am really confused. Reading your reviews it often sounds like you hated the issue yet you still give grades like "B-". That would mean "good" to me. Why not D or F?

As I explained in the review, the B- was because of the art. Otherwise, it probably would have been a C-. Generally, my grading scale works as follows:

A - Truly amazing comic. I have pretty high standards.
B - Generally quite entertaining with no significant flaws in the execution.
C - Your average comic book. Not particularly good nor particularly bad. I have no regrets about reading it.
D - Seriously lacking in some aspect.
F - I rarely ever give these, but this book is just so terrible that I'd like to burn it and pretend it never happened.

In this case, the story had no significant flaws (though it wasn't particularly worthwhile either) and the art was entertaining. True, it probably would have been a C+ were I more impartial but, compared to the crap Byrne has been turning in as of late, I suppose was ready to give this one a little too much credit for not sucking quite as much.

[dupersuper]

Well, I'll be reading and reviewing it within the next few days (as soon as it arrives by mail), so I may be able to save you the chore if it ends up being a worthless read.

I already own an issue. I don't see how you not liking it would save me from moving it.

[shaxper]

This is what I find odd about Byrne's work at times. He seems hellbent on over explaining certain things that are just best left alone (the aura, the face vibration in public, etc..) but other details like the language thing (which honestly to me is just as unimportant) he leaves alone. He seems oddly selective about what he wants to put a heavy focus on.

I wouldn't have questioned the speaking the same language bit, but the sign just seemed careless to me. I think most other artists would have put some kind of alien font on the sign and figured we didn't really need to know this was Slum Area 27.

[shaxper]

I already own an issue. I don't see how you not liking it would save me from moving it.

Worthless as in containing no important connections to the post-Crisis continuity.