posted
Cobie, in answer to your question, I did collect this era of Superman for a brief time. I loved the exiled-in-outer-space arc (although I hated the story that set it up, the one where Byrne had Superman kill the Phantom Zone criminals.) I loved two of the three Armageddon 2001 tie-ins (Yay to Louise Simonson's Adventures of Superman Annual, probably the best that Maxima was ever written; yay to Roger Stern's Action Comics Annual, where Superman becomes President; nay to Dan Jurgens' Superman Annual, where a personal tragedy drives Superman over the edge and Batman kills him with the Kryptonite ring. Bleh.) And the artists -- Gammill, Perez, Grummett, Ordway, Jurgens -- were generally turning out fine work.
Where I felt it jumped the shark was when it became event-driven, starting with Death of Superman, which I consider the single biggest ripoff in the history of comics. The death of Superman should have been an operatic, multilayered story, not an endless fistfight with a lame new villain (I know, I know, if DoS and Reign of the Supermen and Return of Superman are all looked at as one big story blah blah blah...sorry, but DoS was so lame I wasn't very well going to stick around for the sequels.)
I guess my main problem with this era was that despite a few bright spots pre-DoS, the stories overall were a little bland for my taste, which I think was an almost inevitable consquence of having all the books so closely tied together, instead of each book being its own separate entity -- what we ended up IMO with was some talented writers having to supress their individual voices most of the time.
posted
I get your gripe with DoS, but like you mention, I look at it as the first chapter of a larger arc including the excellent Funeral for a Friend 8 parter (focusing on the cast) and Reign of Supermen, which was IMO awesome.
And then the subsequent 2+ years are when things really kicked into high gear.
I need to come up with some issue numbers to explain where I'm talking about I think. When the good really starts, Byrne was long gone. Certainly 'Panic in the Sky' was part of what I loved. Weezie's entire Superman: Man of Steel run is included.
Probably right around when Superman proposes to Lois and she finds out he is Clark Kent are when things just get really excellent. Or when Luthor comes back as his son with the long red hair.
Things were excellent well beyond the culmination of the Luthor subplot / destruction of Metrpolis. Actually, beyond even Zero Hour (1994) with the Kenny Bravermen issues.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Loved this are of Superman as well. I thought the death, while a stunt, led to some great storytelling for characters that wouldn't normally get the amount of facetime they did there.
Loved Time and Time Again, as well as Panic in the Sky. The books at that time were a fun read for me. There were definate clunkers in there, but from the relaunch to around the proposal...like Cobie said above, things were actually pretty good. I stopped reading a little before the proposal...so I guess my mileage may be a little different. I have thought about going back and filling in any gaps up to the wedding and leaving the bulk of my collection with that run.
From: Turn around... | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Panic in the Sky is perhaps the most under-rated superhero slugfest / adventure in the last 25 years. It owns 98.5% of all superhero crossovers. It's the good parts of Secret Wars with a plot and integrity.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd have to agree with Cobie and Dev about Superman's glory days, though I haven't exactly read every era significantly enough to present myself as an expert on such. But for me Superman's glory days began with Byrne's Man of Steel miniseries and ended when Dan Jurgens left the franchise.
Superman was at the top of his game during that era. Other than the harm and confusion done to the Legion it caused, the reboot was an absolutely perfect jumping-on point for fans to get into Superman. Unlike the wishy-washy Batman reboot in which some pre-Crisis things happened and others didn't, everything you needed to know about his continuity unfolded right before your eyes. You didn't have to know diddly-squat about what happened prior to MoS. If they wanted to reintroduce old concepts, they did and reimagined them right before your eyes.
And, you know, there was a LOT of merit to Superman being the only Kryptonian and having never been Superboy. This made him feel more important, more unique and his adventures more meaningful as you read them. I've said before and will say again, the ENTIRE DCU ahould have been rebooted in the wake of Crisis like Superman was (and Wonder Woman was) and without all these soft or years later reboots. Call Crisis The End of the old continuity and just start fresh, and things would have probably gone better overall. Yes, great fan-favorite runs like Wolfman on Titans and Levitz on Legion would have ended prematurely, but in either case in hindsight, was the best truly ahead for those runs?
Anyhow, that's a BIG digression, but it feeds into my point about how damn good and accessible Superman was in those days. The stories were great and Superman was relatable and above all human during those times. I'm not so sure that he should ever have killed those Phantom Zone villains, but I have to admit Byrne really presented it convincingly with what all we were shown of the scenario. Mixed feelings or not, I think Byrne saved his best for last with that story.
But the creators who picked up the baton after Byrne left immediately lifted everything to a higher level. Their development of the supporting cast, the terrific story arcs, the sense of identity that all titles still managed to maintain throughout, the development of the mythos and some of the finest artists ever to grace a comics page (my faves being Jerry Ordway, Dan Jurgens, Jackson Guice and Kerry Gammill) combined to make it an era I'll always remember extremely fondly.
Even the Death stunt meets with my approval because it turned the attention of fandom at large to what the Super-team was doing. Before this, sales were languishing, and these books weren't getting the attention they deserved. But even after Reign was over, sales continued to soar for a long time as many realized what a terrific read these books were.
But all things must pass, so exit Jurgens and enter Loeb and McGuinness. At first, I enjoyed what they were doing, but more and more, it became apparent that their goal was to restore the Silver Age. The Byrne origin was scrapped. Jor-El and Lara looked like their classic versions, Krypto and Kara brought back and on and on. Suddenly, that tight continuity was gone and the question of whether certain stories ever happened at all. (No matter what's been said, it's a pretty sure thing that the Matrix/Linda Danvers/Supergirl has been wiped out, for example.) There are certainly good things about having Krypto and Kara back among other things, but I think those of us who enjoyed that era have to feel at least partially thrown under the bus.
But really, that era was Superman for me. The character was at his best during that time, and the stories and art matched him well. I've a feeling that as much as I've dabbled here and there with Superman since Jurgens left, that I'm probably done with following the character longterm and will only jump on and off with certain creative teams. Makes me kind of sad, really.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chief Lardy: Even the Death stunt meets with my approval because it turned the attention of fandom at large to what the Super-team was doing. Before this, sales were languishing, and these books weren't getting the attention they deserved. But even after Reign was over, sales continued to soar for a long time as many realized what a terrific read these books were.
That's a valid point, Chief. I just think it's a shame that the stunt didn't work as a stand-alone story and that Doomsday was such a lame character.
Set
There's not a word yet, for old friends who've just met.
posted
I do think the 'Death' storyline would have been more powerful if an established Superman villain (preferably Brainiac, 'cause I loathe the terribly overused Luthor) had been responsible.
Really, the only thing that the whole 'Death of Superman' event has done is give us Conner, in the long-term, and that, IMO, makes it worth it.
Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Steel, while many creators have not been able to figure out what to do with him, is a great addition and should be utilized more. I thought what was done with him at the beginning of the JLA was cool.
From: Turn around... | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Set, I agree that it should have been an established Superman villain.
Never a big fan of Conner or Steel, myself. Of the four core members of Young Justice (Cassie, Tim, Bart, Conner), my least favorite by far was Conner.
Actually, my favorite Conner moment was in an early issue of Peter David's Aquaman, where Aquaman shows him who's boss -- "Hey, punk, impressed yet?"
quote:Originally posted by Chief Lardy: Even the Death stunt meets with my approval because it turned the attention of fandom at large to what the Super-team was doing. Before this, sales were languishing, and these books weren't getting the attention they deserved. But even after Reign was over, sales continued to soar for a long time as many realized what a terrific read these books were.
That's a valid point, Chief. I just think it's a shame that the stunt didn't work as a stand-alone story and that Doomsday was such a lame character.
Sometimes (but rarely), stunts do work for enhancing longterm sales. Captain America's death did the same for Brubaker's title. That title's sales weren't up to the quality being put out but have been higher ever since. It's a shame that it takes stunts like that to get a quality title the recognition it deserves.
quote:Originally posted by Set: I do think the 'Death' storyline would have been more powerful if an established Superman villain (preferably Brainiac, 'cause I loathe the terribly overused Luthor) had been responsible.
Really, the only thing that the whole 'Death of Superman' event has done is give us Conner, in the long-term, and that, IMO, makes it worth it.
The Super-team had their reasons for doing it with Doomsday instead of an established villain, but I don't remember all the particulars from the interviews.
And yes, we got Conner (and Steel) out of the whole thing. No one should overlook the great work Kesel and Grummett did on the character, especially in his solo series. Makes me wonder in hindsight why Johns killed him, then brought him back? Was it all really about that lawsuit?
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
And yes, we got Conner (and Steel) out of the whole thing. No one should overlook the great work Kesel and Grummett did on the character, especially in his solo series. Makes me wonder in hindsight why Johns killed him, then brought him back? Was it all really about that lawsuit?
Of course no one admits it, but it's the only logical conclusion. After his death, He was only referred to as "Conner" and any flashbacks, statues, etc. went to great lengths to not show the "S" Shield. This extended to other characters, including the awkwardly re-named "Superman Prime" and the equally awkward "Superman" in the Legion cartoon.
When the lawsuit extended to stake a claim on "Superman", I think DC realised that it was all or nothing now, and just started publishing all things "S" again (because, really, they couldn't just scrap the entire "Superman" line).
From: Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
