Yes. Everything was simplified and rationalised. Typical 80s. In the 90s it got WORSE!.
IN YOUR OPINION. Please qualify your responses. There are a healthy number of us here at the Hype who will argue the exact opposite. A lot of us feel that Byrne got it spot on and Ordway & co. really did a great job of fleshing it out. Simplified is good if you're setting up a foundation. It needs to be direct and clear so that others can build on it.
Neither Byrne nor the writers who followed him were Superman fans. They just saw the character as a "job". The "Exile" arc was quite good. .
REALLY?!!! So Jerry Ordway, Roger Stern, Marv Wolfman ... they never were Superman Fans? Wow... would you please write to them and let them know because I'm pretty sure they'll be as shocked by that statement as I am. And, since you seem to have the amazing ability to read minds would you please tell us all who Obama is picking for his VP? We're all dying to know that as well.
Superman is the ultimate male wishfulfillment, something all men want to be. Strong, tough, intelligent - far beyond those mortal man. Not a "farmboy" with superpowers. He was based on Hercules and Samson. .
You seem to have this fixation with the phrase 'farmboy'. Is this a prejudice against people of other cultures or just a bad attempt to belittle a concept?
Since you bring this up again later in your missive, I'll address it then.
Hercules and Samson? Yes. But we've progressed passed simple concepts such as those. In fact, new presentations of Hercules and Samson reflect current character writing concepts. Depth and no longer infallible.
Again, those are just simple foundations for other to build on. Much like what Byrne and Wolfman did with Superman.
Yeah. Her father. The career military leader... that is a superficial cliche character at best. And Byrne could never write women. His Lois is much worse than the even-*****y Lois from the Bronze Age..
Superficial Cliche? Hmmmm.... and what was her father before that? Want me to fill in the blank for you? He was never spoken of. She was a fait accompli. She arose full blown with almost no background except for a sister that Jimmy was paired up with.
And, really, what's so cliche about him being a military career man? I have a large amount of friends who are just that? Everyone has parents ... why shouldn't hers reflect the personality she was given by the writers? Who should she have had as a father? What would you have done with the character? Cliche. I believe if Byrne had made him a green grocer from Syracuse NY with a bad heart and a penchant for picking up strays, you would have still had issues with it because it was Byrne. But, to qualify, that's just my belief.
Oh, and as to writing women.. I've said over and over that Byrne is an excellent idea man and was in no sense any competition for people like Moore. Waid, on the other hand, is very weak when it comes to concepts but strong with characterizations. The two would compliment each others styles if Waid could accept that only the dialogue and main plot would be left to him while the concepts would have to be Byrnes.
The death of the Kents is the day the boy becomes a man, Superman. I don't need a grown up man running to mum and dad every time he has to made decision. .
Oh, you mean I'm not a man because my parents aren't dead? I'm not a man because my family serves a similar purpose in my life ... to be a sounding board and to give me advice with tough decisions? To be, in essence, my family? I'm sorry for the way you view that situation.
And Clark doesn't
run home to his mum and dad every time he has to made a decision. Byrne realized that the death of the Kents was pretty meaningless and all the writers on Superboy ( a comic series you probably never heard of about the younger days of Superman ) discovered that the Kents were interesting characters and made for better stories. They also served by making a more organic way of showing Clarks real personality and saving on meaningless plot exposition by having Clark tell them what was happening instead. Byrne thought that keeping them alive served the character better than killing them off and so do I.
It's not Clark who he is. Superman is the hero who just IS. He is the hero. When he awakes in the morning he is Superman. Not like Batman who needs his costume. He IS a hero, he doesn't pretend to be one. If you make Superman an act he plays the whole thing Superman stands for becomes a BIG FAT LIE! Please don't come with "But he has grown up on a farm" bleh. He has GROWN OUT of that role. He was always different, he had always powers, since he entered Earth he had to hide. He is not one of us he is better and to blend into our society he has to ACT. But not when he's Superman. "Clark Kent" is a construction. People evolve. Only lovers of the superficial take want a Farmboy Forever Superman. .
First Batman/Bruce Wayne IS a hero in our out of costume. Period.
And to finally address your 'Farmboy' remark:
You seem to have a superficial understanding of what I spoke of earlier about the real core of the character being Clark. First ... the fact that Clark grew up on a farm in no way means that he's a simple farmboy. He is, at his core, the straightforward, compassionate, hardworking individual the Kents raised him to be. That has nothing to do with whether he was raised on a farm or, as in the Superboy comics, in the Kent's little grocery store. You grow up but you never lose who you are. At least, most people don't. You don't lose the influences that made you YOU. That's why Clark is the core and 'Superman' & 'Daily Planet associate Clark' are permutations of that personality. Neither is a lie and neither is a falsehood. They are simply different sides of the same personality. Clark in Metropolis is quiet and reserved. Clark as Superman is direct and a man of action who often takes charge in a crisis.
Putting on a costume did NOT make Clark a hero. Clark would have been a hero no matter the Superman moniker or not.
And his powers developed over time. Another thing Byrne was spot on about. There is no concievable way the Kents could have realistically raised a baby they couldn't control. He would have needed to NOT have those superpowers until he spent sufficient time under our Yellow Sun.
No it's actually great. But Byrne HAD to make Krypton a dystopia - and you know why? Because he used Superman to mirror his own "origin story" (immigrant), so he made him a true American. But Superman deep in his heart is different. He is supposed to be a stranger in a strange land, here to protect his adopted home. Superman became a WASP under Byrne, a yuppie. That's completely against the concept of the character. Clark kent is the overlooked guy that no one notices but IN FACT that guy is a Superman. That's what Siegel and Shuster wanted to create, they mirrored themselves in this character. .
Now this is something I can agree with you on ... with the exception of your comment about Byrne doing it to mirror his own history. England was not a dystopia. That's where Byrne was borne.
And the immigrant angle is right from Siegel and Shuster. It's an integral part of what they created.
Well, depends on which origin. In the Silver/Bronze Age he was already a toddler who remembered a lot of things. You know, what's another problem is with Byrne's take: To some parts he IS Kryptonian. But what did Byrne's "Marvelman" (that "Marvel" because his Superman is more like Peter Parker or a Marvel mutant) do? He called his Kryptonian origin "worthless". .
Uh.... NO he wasn't. He was a baby. He didn't remember a lot. I grew up with the silver age version of the character. He wasn't a toddler. And Byrne's statement in the final chapter of MOS rings truer than anything any other Superscribe has written. To paraphrase: 'Krypton made me Super but Earth made me human'. His Kryptonian worthless? I think it's how you're interpreting it. I look at it that he learned from his Kryptonian heritage what was important about the human race by both the example of his birth father and the repression Jor-el saved him from.
But let's not gloss over this. Byrne's Krypton had a rich and vibrant history before it reached it's final days. It was a slow and gradual process from that life embracing past to the dystopia it became. It became an interesting story in itself - as opposed to the Flash Gordon Krypton of the 50's and 60's or the confusing mess of Birthright.
He is a representation of everything that's good. More than a fireman/policeman or farmboy. .
Are you really saying that firemen, police officers, and farmboys are less than good because that's exactly how that reads.
I don't want Superman to be perfect. I want him to stumble at times. I want him to be angry at other times. I want a Superman who isn't god-like in his wisdom and abilities. I want a Superman that I can identify with and interesting stories can be written about.
Millar, Maggin, Waid, Morrison,Alan Moore, Shuster, Siegel, Johns - these guys and more are on my side and we are right.
Again, you read minds? and... again... you need to qualify that 'we are right' statement.
I don't think Singer's Supe can be fixed. It's to much dirt on it with the kid and the peeping tom thing. I think that Singer can deliver a good sequel, but only if he reboots it cuase.............he'd have to do a lot of homework to fix Supes now. 
