What was Mark Waid's issues with the 1986 retelling?

[Czar Colossus]

Excellent...very well put. You are obviously well studied in your comics history. I'm with you concerning Byrne's take on Superman. Before that I bought Superman comics occasionally, I have been reading Superman every month since. I believe the reason we are (or at least I am ) suffering this new Superman revamp is due to the lawsuit DC vs Seigal's & Shuster's estates. The estates own the rights to the Golden Age interpretation of Superman while DC has rights to anything since (I'm sure it's a bit more involved than this, but it's the basic gist). Thus it would seem that we the fans are faced with the ramifications of this legal dilemma. Hopefully it won't destroy (arguably) the greatest Superhero of all time.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

Mark Waid's Superman: Birthright was definitely not truer to the Golden Age Jerry Siegel Superman than John Byrne's The Man of Steel. The Jerry Siegel Golden Age foster father Kent was elderly, described as kind, loving and guided Clark with the foster parents advice to Clark to use his powers to assist humanity. Mark Waid's Jonathan Kent in Superman: Birthright is far younger and blonde (obviously to resemble actor John Schneider on the Smallville TV show), is cold, distant, barely spoke to Clark rather than encouraging and guiding Clark into using his powers to assist humanity. The Jerry Siegel Golden Age Luthor didn't meet Superman until he was an adult and hated him because he powers were a threat. Mark Waid's Lex Luthor in Superman: Birthright is from Smallville and met Clark as a boy and blames Clark for his baldness. Mark Waid's Superman: Birthright was actually closer to the Silver Age, as well as the Smallville TV show, with the House of El on Krypton from the Silver Age, Lex coming from Smallville and having been friends with Clark as in the Silver Age and as on the Smallville TV show, and blaming Clark for his baldness as in the Silver Age, a younger Jonathan and Martha Kent as in the Smallville TV show, etc.

Neither is close to the Golden Age. What is close to the Golden Age is Grant Morrison's great run in the current Action. Waid cribbed a few scenes from the Golden Age, while Byrne knew next to nothing about it...or Superman, period. What Byrne took most from was the Donner movies and the George Reeves TV show.

That snide "Marvelized" remark came about because John Byrne was coming over from Marvel to DC to revamp Superman. He didn't Marvelize the character. He didn't turn Superman into Spider-Man, or Wolverine, or Hulk, or Daredevil, or Thor, and he didn't turn Luthor into Kingpin either. Kingpin is a gigantic mobster and martial artist and carries a laser cane. Kingpin is incredibly strong, most of his body mass is actually muscle that has been built to extraordinary size, much like a sumo wrestler and is an extraordinarily skilled martial artist, especially in sumo wrestling and can beat his foes Spider-Man and Daredevil physically, Byrne's Luthor was much thinner and couldn't do any of the things Kingpin can and wouldn't because he thinks that's beneath him. Instead he matches his brains against Superman's strength by creating something to destroy Superman. Kingpin was always a minor player to Spider-Man, just a weird mobster, while Byrne's Luthor was Superman's arch enemy.

It was a total Marvelization, as Byrne is one of many writers who cannot handle Superman and therefore runs from the challenge by changing him. His Superman was a mix of Spider-Man (with the constant running home to mommy scenes cribbed from Spidey going to Aunt May for advice) and also Colossus, as Superman was turned into a near-moronic farmboy gentle giant type of character. There's also some 'Lil Abner and Lennie Small in there. As for how he turned Luthor into Kingpin, all I have to say is:

Originally Posted by Neil Gaiman

It's a pity Lex Luthor has become a multinationalist; I liked him better as a bald scientist. He was in prison, but they couldn't put his mind in prison. Now he's just a skinny Kingpin.

This is how badly Byrne misunderstands Luthor:

Originally Posted by John Byrne

I never believed the original Luthor. Every story would begin with him breaking out of prison, finding some giant robot in an old lab he hid somewhere, and then he'd be defeated. My view was if he could afford all those labs and giant robots he wouldn't need to rob banks. I also thought later that Luthor should not have super powers. Every other villain had super powers. Luthor's power was his mind. He needed to be smarter than Superman. Superman's powers had to be useless against him because they couldn't physically fight each other and Superman was simply not as smart as Luthor.

Maggin easily wrote the best Luthor ever, a character who was not a "mad scientist" because he was completely sane. Maggin's Luthor is a good man who took a tragic turn-his involvement in crime is a tragedy. Luthor doesn't rob banks, he has billions hidden in secret accounts and under false names. He only stays in prison as long as he wishes to, and he only breaks out to fight Superman. There is nothing else in the world that is worthy of his time or his brilliance. And lastly, Byrne's comment about how Superman is not as smart as Luthor is very ironic, considering that the reason Superman always beat Luthor in Maggin's stories is because Lex underestimated Superman's own intelligence, plus Superman is a genius in his own right, as per the intentions of Jerry Siegel, his creator.

And, actually, Superman's sales were declining before 1986, which is why DC wanted to revamp Superman in 1985 and hired John Byrne in the first place. And John Byrne actually boosted Superman's sales enormously in 1986 with The Man of Steel and John Byrne's run on the ongoing Superman titles. If Superman's sales were declining then DC certainly wouldn't have given Superman a fourth ongoing series in 1991 with Superman: The Man of Steel. The Death of Superman arc also boosted Superman's sales even further in 1992. Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman was a successful television series from 1993 to 1997, which was definitely influenced by John Byrne's run. Superman: The Wedding Album was also an enormous success in 1996. Superman has definitely had success since 1986.

The sales of all DC titles were down in the early 80's. In fact, at one time it was even being tossed around that Marvel might have licensed some of DC's characters, and Byrne actually pitched the same basic thing that he ended up doing in Man of Steel, and Shooter said that if Marvel had licensed Superman, he would have rejected Byrne's pitch (no shock there, as Shooter actually knows his Superman). And none of the Post-Crisis sales matched the sales in terms of units and more importantly, market share, that Superman had in the 60's, which was by far his most successful, iconic and important period.

The Man of Steel is my favorite Superman origin story, including the Luthor stuff in it. I love how Clark is characterized, how his decision to become Superman is fleshed out with his kind foster parents, how his relationship with Lois begins, and how the world is introduced to him.

I think it's pure garbage, but seeing that you do defend Miller and love how Superman was in DKR and DKSA, it all makes sense now. It's a shame that you have such a solid factual knowledge of comics history but, IMO, you just don't get Superman. Most Batman fans don't.

Of course, because unfortunately that is what happened. By 1941 most Superman art was by Jack Burnley, Wayne Boring, Leo Nowak and Paul Cassidy, instead of Joe Shuster himself. Jerry Siegel also left DC by 1945, and Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster sued DC in 1946 over the rights of Superman. Don Cameron, Whitney Ellsworth, Bill Finger and Alvin Schwartz replaced Jerry Siegel. Mort Weisinger became the supervising editor in charge of the Superman books in 1948. Weisinger told the writers what kind of stories they had to write. Weisinger would come up with plots by asking young children what they think should happen in the next issue. Weisinger had Superman's origin majorly revamped with him having learned he was from Krypton while still a boy in Superman #132 (1959) "Superman's Other Life" and having battled crime as a youngster as Superboy, as recalled in Superman #72 (1951) "The Private Life of Perry White." In addition, it was stated that "Because of his super-memory, Superman can recall all the incidences of his childhood!" in Action Comics #288 (1962) "The Man Who Exposed Superman," and others. The complete revamp of Superman's origin was shown in Superman #146 (1961) "The Story of Superman's Life." Weisinger was also friendly with the boss, Jack Liebowitz, which further forced the writers into listening to what Mort told them to write. When financially troubled Jerry Siegel returned to DC in 1959 to 1966, Curt Swan recalled that Mort Weisinger bullied Siegel, simply because Siegel's circumstances made him unlikely to walk off for such mistreatment. Jerry Siegel wrote in a letter to Joe Shuster, "I get a lot of scorn, belittlement and hot-tempered abuse from Weisinger, who says my plotting and scripting is inferior. This is really making a buck the hard way, but it's the only way I can support my family." Curt Swan said that dealing with Weisinger caused himself recurrent headaches and temporarily drove him out of the business altogether in 1951. Otto Binder retired from the business in 1958, mainly to escape from dealing with Weisinger. Alvin Schwartz said, "Like many others, I found Weisinger difficult to deal with. But I endured until one day he insisted that I write a story in which Superman finds some way to transfer his powers to Lois Lane. … I thought such a plot was out of character." Alvin Schwartz wrote the story "The Superwoman of Metropolis" in Superman's Girlfriend Lois Lane #8 (1959) against his will, then quit: "I never wrote comics again." Roy Thomas recalled dealing with Weisinger inclined him to leave DC after only 8 days and move to Marvel in 1965.

All of that is true, but Mort treated all his people like crap. Guy was a douche, although he had a lot of personal issues as well. It does piss me off to no end that Siegel had to suffer such treatment, but it was not just Mort who did Siegel wrong-it was all of National. I'd like to see a version of Superman that would have been closer to Siegel intentions: Superboy from basically the beginning (he pitched the idea to DC in 38), and the entire K-Metal scenario would have completely changed Superman very early on.

Just by discovering and preserving K-Metal, Waid did more for Superman than Byrne ever did.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Neither is close to the Golden Age. What is close to the Golden Age is Grant Morrison's great run in the current Action.

This Superman in a t-shirt and blue jeans by Grant Morrison and Rags Morales is the opposite of returning to his Golden Age roots, same as the drastically redesigned costume by Jim Lee, same as Luthor being already hairless when Superman first meets him, same as Clark Kent working at a rival newspaper to Lois and Jimmy, same as Lois thinking Superman is a trouble-making menace to Metropolis, Clark Kent's persona being a poor slob with messy hair, wrinkled untucked shirts, no tie, etc. And people trusted the Golden Age Jerry Siegel Superman as a hero. In Action Comics #6 (1938) by Jerry Siegel, the newspaper headline for World Herald says "Entire Town Saved by Superman" and Evening News says "Superman Wars on Injustice", etc.

Waid cribbed a few scenes from the Golden Age, while Byrne knew next to nothing about it...or Superman, period. What Byrne took most from was the Donner movies and the George Reeves TV show.

John Byrne's The Man of Steel and his preceding Superman run is evidence to the contrary. Byrne's influences definitely included the Golden Age Jerry Siegel Superman comics, as I pointed out and gave examples of in my first post on the thread, as well as Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie, the George Reeves Adventures of Superman TV series, the Fleischer Superman cartoons and even some Silver Age Superman comics (Ed Hamilton and Wayne Boring's heavyset business suited con-man Luthor, Bill Finger's Lana Lang, Lori Lemaris, Otto Binder's Lucy Lane, Bizarro, etc.), and Jack Kirby's Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen and New Gods comics from the Bronze Age with Dan Turpin, Darkseid, etc.

It was a total Marvelization, as Byrne is one of many writers who cannot handle Superman and therefore runs from the challenge by changing him. His Superman was a mix of Spider-Man (with the constant running home to mommy scenes cribbed from Spidey going to Aunt May for advice) and also Colossus, as Superman was turned into a near-moronic farmboy gentle giant type of character. There's also some 'Lil Abner and Lennie Small in there.

Where is Superman constantly running home to mommy for advice during John Byrne's The Man of Steel and preceding Superman run? They do not exist. After he became Superman he visited with his elderly foster parents in Smallville rarely. Nor did Byrne portray Superman as near-moronic at all. Superman often defeated foes by outsmarting them during Byrne's run.
Superman figured out that Bizarro is an artificial being with cells that mimic living cells and that Lucy's vision was being restored by exposure to some of the dust from Bizarro's body that mimics living cells in The Man of Steel (1986) "The Mirror, Crack'd" by John Byrne.
Superman figured out how to move the whole structure of Professor Emmet Vale's underground laboratory into space by burrowing around the lab at super-speed, using his heat-vision to fuse the silicates in the soil into a steel-hard bowl a yard thick and then lift the entire complex and carry it "up, up, and away" from the earth and position the whole thing at the Lagrange point, where the gravities of the earth and the moon combine to create an area of stability in Superman #1 (1987) "Heart of Stone" by John Byrne.
Superman figured out the control circuitry on scientist David Gundersen's mind-transferring machine to transfer his mind back to his own body in Action Comics #584 (1987) "Squatter!" by John Byrne.
Superman figured out that everything in Host was suboperated to the transfer circuits and Superman outsmarted the H'v'ler'ni into turning on each other and causing a massive short circuit of all of Host's internal systems in Superman #6 (1987) "The Last Five Hundred" by John Byrne.
Superman figured out how to absorb Rampage's solar radiation into his own cell structure and then found a way to discharge it by hitting himself with lightening in Superman #7 (1987) "Rampage!" by John Byrne.
Superman and the Metal Men outsmarted Chemo, who had duplicated the powers of Superman, by the Metal Men blocking the sun's rays, and Superman using his heat-vision to make Chemo boil in order to have Chemo's chemical components jet out of his super-heated steam. Superman blasts it with his super-breath to propel it into the high atmosphere to crystallize and remain harmless floating at the edge of space. Superman figures out that without his molten insides, Chemo's empty body has gone as hard and brittle as glass, and with a tap from Superman, shatters into pieces in Action Comics #590 (1987) "Better Living/Dying through Chemistry" by John Byrne.
Superman figured out that a secret satellite had been in orbit that was bombarding half the country with chosen wavelengths of solar energy, the same solar energy that drives Superman's powers. When the energy in his body reached a certain level, his powers went out of control. By "fine tuning" the radiation, Luthor could control which power went haywire at which point. When Superman flew up in space, he realized that he could see all of the infrared stars, Superman figured out that the robot, Klaash, was surrounded by a selective warping field which rendered it visible only in the infrared, and Superman's infrared vision was on, courtesy of Luthor, all the time he battled Klaash, so Superman dismantled the satellite that directed Klaash and made his powers go haywire, and presented the evidence against Luthor to the police in Superman #10 (1987) "The Super Menace of Metropolis!" by John Byrne.
Superman outsmarted Mr. Mxyzptlk into typing and saying his name backwards by re-wiring the insides of a giant type-writer at super-speed, so when Mxyzptlk hit the "m" key it made a "k," the "x" made an "l," and so on, because Superman depended on Mxyzptlk to cheat and use his powers to strike the correct keys, and when he did, Mxyzptlk came out Kltpzyxm, in Superman #11 (1987) "The Name Game" by John Byrne.
When Darkseid tried to trick Superman and Wonder Woman into fighting each other by having each of them fight Kalibak and Amazing Grace in disguise as them and then having Kalibak and Amazing Grace duck out of view, so Superman and Wonder Woman would then battle each other, but Superman and Wonder Woman figured out that it was Darkseid's minions Kalibak and Amazing Grace disguised that they were each fighting, realizing that Darkseid's minions do not have the same level of power that Superman and Wonder Woman have and they noticed their impostors conveniently ducked out of view in order to try to get Superman and Wonder Woman to fight each other but instead they mocked fighting in order to cover their search for Darkseid, which brought them right to Darkseid's secret lair in Action Comics #600 (1988) "Different Worlds" by John Byrne.
Mr. Mxyzptlk bets Superman he can't make Mxyzptlk paint his face blue and Superman outsmarted Mxyzptlk by changing the makeup Mxyzptlk puts on to a kind that changes color under special lighting conditions to blue in The Adventures of Superman #441 (1988) "The Tiny Terror of Tinseltown" by John Byrne.
Superman deduced a way to defeat Psi-Phon and Dreadnaught with his intelligence by forcing Psi-Phon to overload Dreadnaught. Superman deduced that Psi-Phon created something very much like psychosomatic blindness. Just as a person afflicted with that ailment can still see, but his brain refuses to accept the images transmitted by his eyes, his powers were still there, he just couldn't work them. Psi-Phon was testing the strength and intelligence of the superheroes by analyzing the brains of beings with super-powers, finding the area of the brain that controls the power and shut it off, the Dreadnaught duplicates the power, thus creating the illusion that they steal it. Psi-Phon and Dreadnaught were not really alive. They were super-sophisticated probes, sent by an unknown alien race to determine if the earths heroes were smart enough to foil a would be invasion in The Adventures of Superman #442 (1988) "Power Play" by John Byrne.

As for how he turned Luthor into Kingpin, all I have to say is:

Originally Posted by Neil Gaiman
It's a pity Lex Luthor has become a multinationalist; I liked him better as a bald scientist. He was in prison, but they couldn't put his mind in prison. Now he's just a skinny Kingpin.

Neil Gaiman prefers the Silver Age to Bronze Age Lex and his use of the snide "skinny Kingpin" remark also doesn't make it a fact.

This is how badly Byrne misunderstands Luthor:

Originally Posted by John Byrne
I never believed the original Luthor. Every story would begin with him breaking out of prison, finding some giant robot in an old lab he hid somewhere, and then he'd be defeated. My view was if he could afford all those labs and giant robots he wouldn't need to rob banks. I also thought later that Luthor should not have super powers. Every other villain had super powers. Luthor's power was his mind. He needed to be smarter than Superman. Superman's powers had to be useless against him because they couldn't physically fight each other and Superman was simply not as smart as Luthor."

John Byrne didn't even say that. That quote is from Marv Wolfman from this interview:
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comi...rview_wolfman1

Maggin easily wrote the best Luthor ever, a character who was not a "mad scientist" because he was completely sane. Maggin's Luthor is a good man who took a tragic turn-his involvement in crime is a tragedy. Luthor doesn't rob banks, he has billions hidden in secret accounts and under false names. He only stays in prison as long as he wishes to, and he only breaks out to fight Superman. There is nothing else in the world that is worthy of his time or his brilliance. And lastly, Byrne's comment about how Superman is not as smart as Luthor is very ironic, considering that the reason Superman always beat Luthor in Maggin's stories is because Lex underestimated Superman's own intelligence, plus Superman is a genius in his own right, as per the intentions of Jerry Siegel, his creator.

Again, Byrne didn't make that comment about Superman not being as smart as Luthor, those are Marv Wolfman's words and views. Luthor underestimated Superman's own intelligence in Byrne's stories. Byrne's Superman is quite intelligent.

The sales of all DC titles were down in the early 80's. In fact, at one time it was even being tossed around that Marvel might have licensed some of DC's characters, and Byrne actually pitched the same basic thing that he ended up doing in Man of Steel, and Shooter said that if Marvel had licensed Superman, he would have rejected Byrne's pitch (no shock there, as Shooter actually knows his Superman). And none of the Post-Crisis sales matched the sales in terms of units and more importantly, market share, that Superman had in the 60's, which was by far his most successful, iconic and important period.

The sales of DC's flagship characters were down in the early '80s, Superman was still the Weisinger version, which was viewed as too powerful and dull by much of the public, Batman also had an image problem as he was still viewed as Adam West's version by much of the public, and Wonder Woman's sales were down after the cancellation of the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman TV show.
Superman comics were generally more successful in the '50s with the success and popularity of the George Reeves Adventures of Superman TV show, than in the '60s.
All comic book sales generally were lower in the '80s than they were back in the '50s and '60s. They were still sold everywhere, but the growing popularity of video games had a negative impact on comic book sales.
However, Superman #75 (1992), "The Death of Superman" issue, set a record as DC's best selling single issue ever.
Comic book sales shrunk much, much more into it's current closeted state when they stopped selling comic books in mainstream newstands, shopping centers and grocery stores.
What John Byrne purposed as Marvel's version of Superman to Jim Shooter in 1984 is very different from what he ended up doing in The Man of Steel in 1986. There is no Council of Twelve seen in The Man of Steel. A pregnant Lara didn't get sent in the rocket to earth and pulled out by Jonathan Kent and then gives birth and names the boy Kal-El before she dies in The Man of Steel. Instead, Kal-El was created by artificial insemination in The Man of Steel and there is a birthing-matrix in the rocketship in The Man of Steel. Byrne's version of Krypton in The Man of Steel is influenced by Donner's version, but it's not repeating Donner's version. John Byrne said, "I liked the cold, antiseptic Krypton that I saw in the movie." Jonathan Kent doesn't die from a heart attack in a tractor stuck in some mud in The Man of Steel. Lois doesn't get any stories first in The Man of Steel and Perry White doesn't urge Clark to try harder in The Man of Steel. There is no President taken captive by terrorists in The Man of Steel. Clark doesn't suddenly start using his powers for good and become Superman after he gets the job at the Daily Planet in The Man of Steel. He doesn't suddenly start wearing glasses to help disguise himself when he’s Clark Kent after he gets the job at the Daily Planet in The Man of Steel. Superman doesn't break up an armored car robbery, or rescues a stuck tramway car, or pulls subway cars full of people from a collapsed tunnel where Lois first meets him as Superman in The Man of Steel. Luthor isn't first seen as a shadowy figure watching television news accounts of the exploits of Superman and reading the Daily Planet article by Clark Kent in The Man of Steel. The Man of Steel is very different than the version he had purposed to Marvel in 1984.
http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/10/su...rnes-plot.html

I think it's pure garbage, but seeing that you do defend Miller and love how Superman was in DKR and DKSA, it all makes sense now. It's a shame that you have such a solid factual knowledge of comics history but, IMO, you just don't get Superman. Most Batman fans don't.

Saying those you disagree with "just don't get Superman," are just "Batman fans" and are "Superman haters" is both childish and untrue. I just prefer a different version of Superman than you do. To each his own. Over the years there have been radically different versions of Superman so each of us today has a highly personal view of who Superman is and favor those Superman stories that reinforce our view, our Superman. I'm a fan of both Superman and Batman.

All of that is true, but Mort treated all his people like crap. Guy was a douche, although he had a lot of personal issues as well. It does piss me off to no end that Siegel had to suffer such treatment, but it was not just Mort who did Siegel wrong-it was all of National. I'd like to see a version of Superman that would have been closer to Siegel intentions: Superboy from basically the beginning (he pitched the idea to DC in 38), and the entire K-Metal scenario would have completely changed Superman very early on.

Just by discovering and preserving K-Metal, Waid did more for Superman than Byrne ever did.

Neither John Byrne or Mark Waid knew Jerry Siegel's unpublished "K-Metal from Krypton" story from 1940 even existed before 1988. Mark Waid just happened to come across it when he was working in the DC library in 1988, where it had been preserved and forgotten for decades.
Jerry Siegel envisioned Superboy as a super-prankster rather than as a crime-fighter. Jerry Siegel sued DC for their use of Superboy and for publishing a Superboy without even consulting with him first or trying to buy the rights from Jerry Siegel first. "It is clear to me that, in publishing Superboy, the Detective Comics, Inc. acted illegally," said the judge J. Addison Young in his 1948 ruling. "I cannot accept defendant's view that Superboy was in reality Superman. I think Superboy was a separate and distinct entity."
http://www.planetslade.com/superheroes5.html

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by Czar Colossus

Excellent...very well put. You are obviously well studied in your comics history.

Thank you.

I'm with you concerning Byrne's take on Superman. Before that I bought Superman comics occasionally, I have been reading Superman every month since. I believe the reason we are (or at least I am ) suffering this new Superman revamp is due to the lawsuit DC vs Seigal's & Shuster's estates. The estates own the rights to the Golden Age interpretation of Superman while DC has rights to anything since (I'm sure it's a bit more involved than this, but it's the basic gist). Thus it would seem that we the fans are faced with the ramifications of this legal dilemma. Hopefully it won't destroy (arguably) the greatest Superhero of all time.

I don't believe that Dan DiDio had Superman rebooted so drastically because of the lawsuits with the Siegel estate over ownership. Dan DiDio has had Wonder Woman rebooted just as drastically without any lawsuits with the Marston estate over ownership. Dan DiDio's orchestrated DC reboots are simply attempts to boost sales. Grant Morrison, Jim Lee and George Perez (all lead by Grant Morrison's vision) are trying desperately to make Superman as modernized, edgy and kewl as they can, disregarding what was always so successful and iconic about Superman since inception, radically changing the personalities and appearances of the iconic Superman characters, to the point to where Lois Lane has a boyfriend and thinks Superman is a trouble-making menace to Metropolis. This Clark Kent's persona is apparently as a poor slob with messy hair, wrinkled untucked shirts, no tie, etc.


This Jimmy Olsen looks like Justin Bieber. He doesn't even have Jimmy Olsen's freckles.

This Superman is camera shy. Grant Morrison's Clark Kent worked at a rival newspaper to Lois and Jimmy.

Grant Morrison's angry Superman tyrannously threatens the citizens of Metropolis to "Treat people 'right' or expect a visit from me." Dictating above Metropolis, creating fear, rather than trust.

This Superman wears a t-shirt, blue jeans and later wears body armor instead of the classic iconic costume recognized by generations.

[Kurosawa]

First off: Superman comics from the 60's were HUGE sellers, both in terms of market share and pure numbers. Look it up. Usually 6 books (Action, Superman, Adventure, Superboy, Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane) were in the top ten.

I could go point-for-point, but I really have nothing to discuss with a Byrne-defender, Miller-worshipping, Waid and Morrision disparaging individual such as you. Nothing personal, but you clearly do not understand Superman at all, and that is not going to change, especially with the way you cherrypick your facts, and make assumptions that only support your viewpoints. See, to me, what is important is the characters and their creators, not my personal viewpoints. Jerry Siegel never intended for Superman to be a government lackey, never intended for Clark Kent to be the real person and Superman the disguise, never intended for the Kents to stay alive into Clarks adulthood, etc, etc. But we really have nothing left to discuss, our views on Superman are radically different and to be honest as soon as someone defends Miller's treatment of the character I pretty much consider their viewpoints on him to be null and void.

I respect your knowledge, but we will never agree on anything. Please add me to your ignore list.

[Czar Colossus]

You do make some valid points. Since Superman has been around for several decades and been handled by many creators he has grown far beyond the expectations of his creators. Personally I liked Byrne's interpretation of Superman; I did not like Miller's. I also feel that Alex Ross has a good take on him as well. Although it was indeed not originally the intention of Seigal and Shuster that Clark be the real person and that his parents live long into his career as Superman, I personally think he works best that way. There have been many memorable moments over the years seeing Clark's love and respect for his parents shape him into the hero that he is. I'm thus far not impressed at all with the New 52 version (but as I'm a big fan I will hang on). So there's my 2 cents for what it's worth.
.....oh and Colossus is not a moron; simple and pure hearted, but not a moron. (As a matter of fact archetypally they are brothers.)

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by Czar Colossus

You do make some valid points. Since Superman has been around for several decades and been handled by many creators he has grown far beyond the expectations of his creators. Personally I liked Byrne's interpretation of Superman; I did not like Miller's. I also feel that Alex Ross has a good take on him as well. Although it was indeed not originally the intention of Seigal and Shuster that Clark be the real person and that his parents live long into his career as Superman, I personally think he works best that way. There have been many memorable moments over the years seeing Clark's love and respect for his parents shape him into the hero that he is. I'm thus far not impressed at all with the New 52 version (but as I'm a big fan I will hang on). So there's my 2 cents for what it's worth.
.....oh and Colossus is not a moron; simple and pure hearted, but not a moron. (As a matter of fact archetypally they are brothers.)

Superman is not simple, however. He is a sophisticated Jewish urbanite, and a Renaissance man. And I'm loving the new 52 Superman.

Ross does have a great handle on the character, however. I think he should had the first shot a redesigning the costume if they just HAD to change it.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Superman is not simple, however. He is a sophisticated Jewish urbanite, and a Renaissance man. And I'm loving the new 52 Superman.

I agree with you entirely.

I really think all Superman's "established" characterization did was simplify the character, and make him a whole lot less interesting.

All the little aspects that Morrison has brought back from S&S's original run improve and enrich the character 10 fold from what he's been in recent decades.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

First off: Superman comics from the 60's were HUGE sellers, both in terms of market share and pure numbers. Look it up. Usually 6 books (Action, Superman, Adventure, Superboy, Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane) were in the top ten.

Superman was a bigger seller in the '50s, Batman was a bigger seller in the '60s.

I could go point-for-point, but I really have nothing to discuss with a Byrne-defender, Miller-worshipping, Waid and Morrision disparaging individual such as you. Nothing personal, but you clearly do not understand Superman at all, and that is not going to change, especially with the way you cherrypick your facts, and make assumptions that only support your viewpoints. See, to me, what is important is the characters and their creators, not my personal viewpoints. Jerry Siegel never intended for Superman to be a government lackey, never intended for Clark Kent to be the real person and Superman the disguise, never intended for the Kents to stay alive into Clarks adulthood, etc, etc. But we really have nothing left to discuss, our views on Superman are radically different and to be honest as soon as someone defends Miller's treatment of the character I pretty much consider their viewpoints on him to be null and void.

I respect your knowledge, but we will never agree on anything. Please add me to your ignore list.

It was you who choose to respond to my post. I don't put anyone on an ignore list, but you are free to add me to your ignore list if you like, since I clearly do not agree with you. Am I a John Byrne-defender? Yes, a Frank Miller-worshipper? No, I am a defender. I defend any writer or artist whose work I enjoy. I certainly do no share your hatred for either of them and their material. Again, I just prefer a different version of Superman than you do. And I quote and scan from the comic books themselves, rather than making unfounded claims. Unfounded claims is exactly what you have espoused, like your claim that John Byrne had Superman constantly running home to mommy for advice. Superman has never been a government stooge. Jerry Siegel did write Superman involved patriotically with the governments U.S. Navy, the police, etc. on numerous occasions. Jerry Siegel had him being Clark Kent since his childhood, Clark Kent is the name his kindly foster parents gave him in childhood, not just a disguise with glasses, etc. And in John Byrne's The Man of Steel, Clark Kent creates the new Clark Kent as a disguise to hide his super self with glasses, his hair slicked back and stoops a tad. While the Kent's staying alive past Superman #1 (1939) into Clark's adulthood is an alteration from Jerry Siegel's original intention, I never had a problem with John Byrne having them living on rather than dead, they are nice, heartwarming characters and can help keep Superman grounded. The Joker staying alive past Batman #1 (1940) was not Bill Finger's original intention, either, but I am certainly glad that Whitney Ellsworth had the Joker living on as well.

[CConn]

Weren't Batman's sales at an all time low in 1964? Nearly forcing DC to kill off Batman entirely? Only to be saved by the genius editorial work of Julie Schwartz?

[Young Superman]

I perfer John Byrne's take on Superman, and theMan-Bat did a great job of explaining why Byrne's Superman was so awesome. But I thought I'd give five reason why I perfer the Byrne era.

1. The Sole Survivor of the Planet Krypton. One of the appeals to me is that he was the last Kryptonian, the last of his race, he was unique in the universe.

2. Not as powerful. The Pre-Crisis Silver Age/ Bromze age Superman was os powerful that he moved Planets. You really wonder why you needed other heroes. I liked that he struggled to move things and even had to use a space suit to go into Space. there were limitations and to his powers.

3. Clark a more competent reporter. Clark wasn't clumsy, etc. I know Byrne got this from the George Reeves version which I liked.

4. Lex Luthor is a self-made corrupt corperate tycoon from the suicide slums. Who's hatred of Superman is out of the jealousy of the love of the people of Metropolis for the hero.

5. Both the Kents are alive to guide and support Clark.

Again theMan-Bat covered this stuff on the first page of this tread, and he did it better then me.

[CConn]

Also, **** heartwarming characters that keep Superman grounded. Their continued existence removed a large bit of the edge that the original Superman had.

Lastly, paragraphs were invented for a reason.

[Evil Twin]

You can view 1960s sales figures at http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales/1960s.html

The only years that Batman, the single comic book, outsold Superman, the single comic book, was in 1966/1967, the height of Batmania. Even then, there wasn't much difference in the sales of Batman + Detective and Superman + Action and Superman had a whole family of titles that were strong sellers.

In 1966, the #1 title was Batman with 898,470 reported circulation. Eight of the next 9 titles had Superman/Superboy in it (caveat World's Finest and JLA also had Batman).

For comic book sales, nobody dominated the market of the 1960s like Superman. Batman, Spider-Man, FF, etc. weren't really close. Archie probably has a better argument than Batman for the 1960s.

FWIW, I do think the idea that the Batman titles were close to cancellation isn't really supported by the sales data. Losing ground and in need of a revamp to stay current in the market place, sure. But, cancellation seemed more a threat to make Kane give up some editorial control than a real possibility because of numbers.

[Czar Colossus]

I agree that the absence of the Kents takes something away from Superman as does his relationship with Lois regressing from what we've had for the last 16 yrs. Even considering that Jonathan died before this New 52 reboot we got years of great stories showing his important influence on Clark. As it stands the relationship between Lois and Clark at this point seems a bit different in that she is not enamored with Superman. The love triangle that was developed for years finally yielded that best outcome with them finally getting married. Their relationship evolved into something wonderful. As Clark's parents would eventually pass, Lois would be the anchor to humanity that Superman needs. I feel Superman is more interesting when he is portrayed as a god-like being that relates strongly to the humans he is devoted to protecting, not just because he has a strong sense of responsibility, but because he truly has a family and loved ones among us (What could be a stronger motivation that the bond of family and marriage?). Superman as more alien is not as appealing. With the utmost respect and admiration to Siegal & Shuster for creating Superman in the first place, he is a great character who has been fleshed out in some better ways by other writers than his creators may have originally conceived. Even the explanation of his dual identity being such that Clark's hair and glasses were not so much the deterrent to revealing his duality as the assumption by the general public that Superman was not hiding anything since he did not wear a mask (not to say the emphasis on posture and body language made no difference); this made perfect sense.(Not an idea presented by Siegal & Shuster) Of course we'll probably never know, but I don't think they would have objected to the notion that Clark really came first (he didn't even know he was Kal-El until much later) and the evolution of his relationship with Lois leading to marriage. A truly great character is someone that can live possibly forever and can be expounded upon by others to add to their richness. Perhaps it's too early too tell, but I feel we have lost some wonderful elements in the new interpretation (and again I hate this new look). Also I said (of Colossus and especially Superman) simple, not simple minded. The greatest truths as well as the greatest men are often simple.

[CConn]

Par

Ah

Graphs.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by CConn

Weren't Batman's sales at an all time low in 1964? Nearly forcing DC to kill off Batman entirely? Only to be saved by the genius editorial work of Julie Schwartz?

Superman comics sold bigger in the '50s with the success of the Adventures of Superman television show starring George Reeves. Julius Schwartz and Carmine Infantino boosted the Batman sales with the new look in 1964 and the '60s Batmania hit with the success of the television show starring Adam West and Burt Ward in 1966, which boosted the sales of Batman comics enormously into the bigger seller, outselling Superman.

[Czar Colossus]

Originally Posted by CConn

Par

Ah

Graphs.

sorry

[Kurosawa]

The absence of the Kents allows Superman to grow up, keeping them around keeps him eternally Superboy. Even Byrne admits that getting rid of Superboy was a mistake, and Siegel intended Superboy to be part of his history from practically the beginning.

I hate that Richie Cunningham crap with Ma and Pa fawning over Clark and him being so "aw shux" about it...saccharine as hell, and it's no wonder people saw that and perceived Superman as some sort of lilywhite dork and Batman as a badass who had actually suffered in life.

Superman works best when he is based in the Golden, Silver and Bronze Age versions, because it that was the most iconic and creative version-Silver Age especially, even though I'm more partial to the Golden Age social crusader Superman myself.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

The absence of the Kents allows Superman to grow up, keeping them around keeps him eternally Superboy. Even Byrne admits that getting rid of Superboy was a mistake, and Siegel intended Superboy to be part of his history from practically the beginning.

The Kents do not need to be absent for Superman to grow up. Alfred is Batman's parental figure, and keeping him around does not keep Batman eternally Batboy.
John Byrne has not said he regrets getting rid of Superboy. In fact, Byrne says,
"One of the central points of my "back to the basics" approach to the Superman reboot was that he began his career as an adult -- so no Superboy."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/lis...ok+Projects#32
He said that he wanted to do stories of Superman "learning the ropes." A Superman who is "new to the job." Byrne said, "I wanted to drop Superboy because he was not part of the original mythos." Byrne said, "The choice to leave him out of the canon was mine. But, as noted many times, that choice was made with the assurance from the Powers That Were that I would be able to do a Superman who was still learning the ropes. Then, after the contracts were signed, they reneged on that promise."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...422&PN=0&TPN=1
DC did not publish the version of Superboy that Jerry Siegel had created. Jerry Siegel envisioned Superboy as a super-prankster rather than as a crime-fighter.

I hate that Richie Cunningham crap with Ma and Pa fawning over Clark and him being so "aw shux" about it...saccharine as hell, and it's no wonder people saw that and perceived Superman as some sort of lilywhite dork and Batman as a badass who had actually suffered in life.

Caring, loving parents do tend to fawn over their sons and daughters. Jonathan and Martha Kent fawning over him like parents, showing care and concerned, and Clark being respectful to them is charming and likable. Alfred also fawns over Bruce and acts like an overprotective, concerned parent, they definitely have a father and son relationship, they even live together. Alfred is much more than just an English butler, Alfred is Batman's parental figure, like both a father and mother, as Jonathan and Martha Kent are for Superman.

[Evil Twin]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

Superman comics sold bigger in the '50s with the success of the Adventures of Superman television show starring George Reeves. Julius Schwartz and Carmine Infantino boosted the Batman sales with the new look in 1964 and the '60s Batmania hit with the success of the television show starring Adam West and Burt Ward in 1966, which boosted the sales of Batman comics enormously into the bigger seller, outselling Superman.

That only works if you compare one magazine, Batman, to another, Superman for a 2-year period, 1966-1967. Even ignoring that Batman was often bi-monthly for a portion of that period and was frequently just a reprint title. The Superman family of titles vastly outsold the Batman family of titles every year of the 1960s, even during the height of Batmania. Batman and Detective combined didn't outsell Superboy and Superman combined at any point in the 1960s. Without even adding in Action, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, and Adventure Comics which all outsold Detective Comics.

Think about that. Even during the heights of Batmania, Superman dominated the market. Batman didn't really become the dominant sales force he's become until post-Dark Knight Returns/Year One. Even then, Burton's movie provided the real boost.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

Superman comics sold bigger in the '50s with the success of the Adventures of Superman television show starring George Reeves. Julius Schwartz and Carmine Infantino boosted the Batman sales with the new look in 1964 and the '60s Batmania hit with the success of the television show starring Adam West and Burt Ward in 1966, which boosted the sales of Batman comics enormously into the bigger seller, outselling Superman.

Batman outsold Superman for 2 years, 66 and 67, and that was just the individual Batman title, Detective Comics peaked in 1967 at # 8, being outsold by Superman, Superboy, Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane.By 68, it was over and Detective was down to #20 and Batman #3.

Dell was actually the #1 comics publisher in the 50's, with their Disney books. They sold great and were great comics too-Carl Barks was as great at what he did as Kirby was.

[theMan-Bat]

Batman did outsell Superman in the '60s, in 1966 and 1967. I didn't say Batman constantly outsold Superman throughout the decade of the '60s nor did I claim that Batman had more titles than Superman.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

The Kents do not need to be absent for Superman to grow up. Alfred is Batman's parental figure, and keeping him around does not keep Batman eternally Batboy.
John Byrne has not said he regrets getting read of Superboy. In fact, Byrne says,
"One of the central points of my "back to the basics" approach to the Superman reboot was that he began his career as an adult -- so no Superboy."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/lis...ok+Projects#32
He said that he wanted to do stories of Superman "learning the ropes." A Superman who is "new to the job." Byrne said, "I wanted to drop Superboy because he was not part of the original mythos." Byrne said, "The choice to leave him out of the canon was mine. But, as noted many times, that choice was made with the assurance from the Powers That Were that I would be able to do a Superman who was still learning the ropes. Then, after the contracts were signed, they reneged on that promise."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...422&PN=0&TPN=1
DC did not publish the version of Superboy that Jerry Siegel had created. Jerry Siegel envisioned Superboy as a super-prankster rather than as a crime-fighter.



Caring, loving parents do tend to fawn over their sons and daughters. Jonathan and Martha Kent fawning over him like parents, showing care and concerned, and Clark being respectful to them is charming and likable. Alfred also fawns over Bruce and acts like an overprotective, concerned parent, they definitely have a father and son relationship, they even live together. Alfred is much more than just an English butler, Alfred is Batman's parental figure, like both a father and mother, as Jonathan and Martha Kent are for Superman.

That Byrne quote is completely cherrypicked: here's the full quote:

Originally Posted by John Byrne

JB: There's hardly a job out there that I would not tweak in some way if I could. As you may know, I dumped Superboy from the Superman mythos largely because I did not see him as a necessary character, and DC had agreed to allow me to show Superman "learning the ropes" after the reboot. Unfortunately, once the contracts were signed, the backed down on this and insisted we do MAN OF STEEL so that Superman would be "up to speed" by the time the new first issue came out. (Eventually I would realize that they wanted Superman rebooted without him actually being, you know, rebooted. Odd, indeed, since I had said from the start I was prefectly prepared to work from within continuity, and the reboot was their idea.) So, since I did not have a Superman who was still "figuring it out", I wish I had had Superboy to fill that role. (2/21/2005)

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/lis...k+Projects#143

As for Alfred acting as a parental figure, that is Post-Crisis only. Alfred originally came along after Batman and Robin had been operating for years and was originally a comic relief figure. He later lost weight and grew a moustache because of the performance of William Austin in the 43 serial, but was still often a comic relief character.

and yes, Siegel wanted Superboy to be a trickster type character, but then again, his early Superman had moments of that and Superman continues to have elements of that still today. Some of the early Superboy stories from More Fun Comics and Adventure Comics had elements of kid gang comedies in them.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

That Byrne quote is completely cherrypicked: here's the full quote:

Originally Posted by John Byrne
JB: There's hardly a job out there that I would not tweak in some way if I could. As you may know, I dumped Superboy from the Superman mythos largely because I did not see him as a necessary character, and DC had agreed to allow me to show Superman "learning the ropes" after the reboot. Unfortunately, once the contracts were signed, the backed down on this and insisted we do MAN OF STEEL so that Superman would be "up to speed" by the time the new first issue came out. (Eventually I would realize that they wanted Superman rebooted without him actually being, you know, rebooted. Odd, indeed, since I had said from the start I was prefectly prepared to work from within continuity, and the reboot was their idea.) So, since I did not have a Superman who was still "figuring it out", I wish I had had Superboy to fill that role. (2/21/2005)

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/lis...k+Projects#143

John Byrne wasn't saying he made a mistake removing Superboy, he's just sulking and venting about the Powers That Were at DC "double-crossing" him by "the assurance from the Powers That Were that I would be able to do a Superman who was still learning the ropes. Then, after the contracts were signed, they reneged on that promise." Removing Superboy was John Byrne's idea, he didn't want to use Superboy, and he says "One of the central points of my "back to the basics" approach to the Superman reboot to the Superman reboot was that he began his career as an adult -- so no Superboy". John Byrne said, "there's really nothing about the retroactive introduction of Superboy into the mythos that works. Aside from the contradiction of established continuity -- not a concern in those days -- the first issue presents us with Clark Kent in Smallville with Ma and Pa and a supporting cast all in place. No consideration was given to the fact that for this to work he would have had to have his "secret identity" before he became Superboy. He would have had to have adopted the "mild mannered", glasses-wearing, posture-altered persona for Clark before he became Superboy."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...894&PN=0&TPN=3
"The deathbed scene, wherein Pa Kent, before dieing, cautioned Clark that he must only use his great powers for the good of Mankind, when Clark had already been doing just what his father bid him to do. Superboy's adventures had made the deathbed scene not only unnecessary, but actually insulting. Pa Kent should be confident enough in the moral upbringing he and Martha had given Clark that he would have no need for that "reinforcement". I decided to go back to Seigel and Shuster and eliminate Superboy from my version -- but keeping certain elements by retaining Ma and Pa Kent as viable characters."
http://byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6045

As for Alfred acting as a parental figure, that is Post-Crisis only. Alfred originally came along after Batman and Robin had been operating for years and was originally a comic relief figure. He later lost weight and grew a moustache because of the performance of William Austin in the 43 serial, but was still often a comic relief character.

I am aware that originally Alfred was a silly bumbling butler Bruce Wayne hired to clean and cook and that he was originally overweight until Detective Comics #83 (January, 1944) "Accidentally on Purpose" when Alfred's look was remodeled after thin actor William Austin, who portrayed Alfred in the Batman movie serial from 1943. I feel Frank Miller greatly enhanced Batman's cast by making Alfred a living father figure that raised Bruce, rather than just a silly butler Bruce Wayne hired to clean and cook.

and yes, Siegel wanted Superboy to be a trickster type character, but then again, his early Superman had moments of that and Superman continues to have elements of that still today. Some of the early Superboy stories from More Fun Comics and Adventure Comics had elements of kid gang comedies in them.

I would have rather Siegel's own version of Superboy had been published, as conceived by Siegel himself. Instead they published a Superboy by Don Cameron, without the input or approval of Jerry Siegel.

[Evil Twin]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

Batman did outsell Superman in the '60s, in 1966 and 1967. I didn't say Batman constantly outsold Superman throughout the decade of the '60s nor did I claim that Batman had more titles than Superman.

You said "Superman was a bigger seller in the '50s, Batman was a bigger seller in the '60s."

Which is wrong. From the period 1960 to 1969, Superman sold millions more than Batman. Even if we're just restricting it to Superman magazine vs. Batman magazine. We toss in all the related titles and it's even more lopsided in favor of Superman.

1966 to 1967 don't make up "the '60s". Nor, did you specify that you weren't talking about Superman titles in their entirety vs. Batman titles in their entirety, which certainly is a relevant barometer of popularity.

If you want to say that at one point in the 1960s, one Batman magazine outsold Superman's namesake title for a short period, then fine, but by all reasonable standards Superman dominated the superhero marketplace of the decade. And it wasn't even close. That clearly was the peak of Superman's comic book commercial appeal and it's relevant to try to understand why that was.