Comics where's the Secret Origins miniseries?

[Hypestyle]

it was supposed to be from Geoff Johns and Gary Frank.. an updated origin story miniseries.. supposed to start this spring.. by now, actually.. but.. now, nothing..

 

[Cain]

it was supposed to be from Geoff Johns and Gary Frank.. an updated origin story miniseries.. supposed to start this spring.. by now, actually.. but.. now, nothing..

It was always scheduled for July 2009 not spring and it still is.

 

[Cain]

....

 

[theMan-Bat]

Superman: Secret Origin #1 will be released on September 23rd.
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/090612-dc-sept-09-superman.html#commentForm

It doesn't look updated. It looks like it's a repeat of the Mort Weisinger Silver Age version with Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes from 1958 mixed with Richard Donner's 1978 Superman: The Movie. Gary Frank's Superman and Clark Kent looks just like Christopher Reeve, the actor who played Superman from 1978 to 1987. There's Donner's crystal Fortress of Solitude and Gary Frank's Jor-El looks a lot like Marlon Brando's Jor-El from the 1978 movie. Gary Frank's Jonathan Kent looks like Glenn Ford's Jonathan Kent from the 1978 movie.
Here's sort of a preview, short version of the Superman: Secret Origin version by Gary Frank.

I prefer the Man of Steel version by John Byrne. Byrne really updated it. He didn't repeat Weisinger's version and Donner's version.

To each his own. There is more than one version of Superman on various Earth's in DC's Multiverse. The New Earth Superman's origin is the Geoff Johns/Gary Frank Superman: Secret Origin version. Earth-22's Kingdom Come Superman's origin is John Byrne's Man of Steel version. In Kingdom Come the Kingdom Come Superman's statue of his Jor-El and Lara shows John Byrne's Man of Steel version of Jor-El and Lara. The statue of Jor-El and Lara, holding up the planet Krypton is a part of Byrne's Superman's Fortress of Solitude. The Kryptonian Battlesuit and Servitor Robot are also part of Byrne's Superman's Fortress of Solitude.

He is also shown having had the long hair they gave Byrne's Superman in the '90s.

Earth-2's Superman's origin is the Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster version.

Unfortunately Geoff Johns had the Earth-2 Superman killed by Superboy-Prime from Earth-Prime in Infinite Crisis. I'd like to see the Earth-2 Superman resurrected. I love that the multi-universe is back. The one Earth - one version - concept is to restrictive. I always liked the idea of the Multiverse. The new Multiverse opens creative doors for writers by expanding the DC Universe to include other versions of the characters. I do know that various and radically different interpretations of Superman can coexist. DC already publishes two or more Superman projects simultaneously that present radically different Superman's. The JSA with the Kingdom Come Superman and the Superman titles with the New Earth Superman are two examples.

 

[Cain]

what the? pushed back? well at least it's only by 2 months. Blackest Night must really be taking up a lot of Johns' time.

 

[Andy C.]

It doesn't look updated. It looks like it's a repeat of the Mort Weisinger Silver Age version with Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes from 1958 mixed with Richard Donner's 1978 Superman: The Movie. Gary Frank's Superman and Clark Kent looks just like Christopher Reeve, the actor who played Superman from 1978 to 1987. There's Donner's crystal Fortress of Solitude and Gary Frank's Jor-El looks a lot like Marlon Brando's Jor-El from the 1978 movie. Gary Frank's Jonathan Kent looks like Glenn Ford's Jonathan Kent from the 1978 movie.

That's kind of the idea. From what I gather, most of Geoff Johns' run has been about establishing the most 'iconic' parts of the Superman mythos. When the average reader thinks Superman, he thinks either the Weisinger comics or the Donner movies. And while existing readers know all the differences between the classic origin and the Byrne version, having to explain stuff like "no he wasn't born on Krypton, he was gestating in a birthing-matrix inside his ship before arriving on Earth" gets old.

Don't get me wrong, Man of Steel was a fun read, but to me it comes off as changing too much just for the sheer sake of changing it. And considering how much they changed about Krypton, Luthor, his powers, etc., and how much of the pre-established mythos they omitted completely, they might as well have just written a different character altogether.

Anyway, I don't want to make any judgements about Secret Origin before it actually comes out. Maybe it'll be good, maybe it won't. But I've enjoyed most of Johns' work on Supes so far (even if New Krypton has been pretty boring), so I'm gonna try and give it a fair shot once it's out.

 

[theMan-Bat]

That's kind of the idea. From what I gather, most of Geoff Johns' run has been about establishing the most 'iconic' parts of the Superman mythos. When the average reader thinks Superman, he thinks either the Weisinger comics or the Donner movies.

I understand that Donner's version is the most popular of course.

And while existing readers know all the differences between the classic origin and the Byrne version,

There's not one classic origin. There's the Golden Age Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster version which I posted above, then there's the Silver Age Mort Weisinger version:

Then there's the Richard Donner Superman: The Movie version which I'm sure you've all seen, the John Byrne Man of Steel version which I've posted above, the Mark Waid Birthright version which I wont bother to post.

having to explain stuff like "no he wasn't born on Krypton, he was gestating in a birthing-matrix inside his ship before arriving on Earth" gets old.

The birthing-matrix in the rocketship is not hard to understand. I never had to explain it to anyone. Kal-El was created by artificial insemination. There's no sex on this Krypton. Byrne's version of Krypton 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."

 

[theMan-Bat]

Don't get me wrong, Man of Steel was a fun read, but to me it comes off as changing too much just for the sheer sake of changing it. And considering how much they changed about Krypton, Luthor, his powers, etc., and how much of the pre-established mythos they omitted completely, they might as well have just written a different character altogether.

Byrne's version is about bringing Superman closer to the Golden Age version, while also updating it for a contemporary audience. Byrne changed Krypton for the sake of updating it for a contemporary audience. Byrne and Wolfman brought Luthor closer to his Golden Age roots. Luthor was originally a red haired dictator - a ruler who assumes sole and absolute power. He wore business suits.

Byrne's Luthor was originally red haired and wore business suits and was certainly a ruler assuming sole and absolute power.

He was also a con-man. He had scientists working for him and Siegel's original Luthor had a scientific lab assistant working for him. Luthor originally met Superman as an adult and hated Superman because he's powers were a threat. Byrne's Man of Steel was a return to that concept and Byrne's Luthor is also a return to Luthor's roots as the overweight business suited con-man by Ed Hamilton and Wayne Boring in the 1950s.
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6227/sup50****hor.jpg

Superman's powers are still the same in Man of Steel, they are not at the near-infinite level they are in the Weisinger version and Donner version, Byrne lowered the power level down closer to the Golden Age version. Byrne omitted any other Krypton survivors so Superman would indeed be the Sole Survivor of Krypton again as was the Golden Age version, and Byrne omitted all the Silver Age Superboy adventures because frankly their ridiculously silly and juvenile. In Byrne's version Clark secretly uses his powers as a secret protector starting when he's eighteen.
"I have taken my standard 'Back to the Basics' approach," John Byrne says about his work on Superman. "Everything that has accumulated over the years has been the result of people trying to do something different. So now I'm taking Superman back to the basics, and that becomes different because it hasn't been done in so long. It's basically Siegel and Shuster's Superman meets the Fleischer Superman in 1986." http://theages.superman.nu/ges/steel.php

Anyway, I don't want to make any judgements about Secret Origin before it actually comes out. Maybe it'll be good, maybe it won't. But I've enjoyed most of Johns' work on Supes so far (even if New Krypton has been pretty boring), so I'm gonna try and give it a fair shot once it's out.

Secret Origin can't be worse than Birthright.

 

[Lane & Kent]

I'll give this a chance but I also prefer the Man of Steel version by John Byrne becuase it reestablished Kal-El as the last of his kind (which I prefer him to be} and Byrne gave a good reason for it.

 

[Andy C.]

I'm well aware of how much Byrne wanted to bring Supes back to how he was in the Golden Age, but by that point, the mythos had expanded so far beyond that, and the Superman and Luthor characters had been well established over the subsequent decades, that re-setting them to that standard seemed to me like a massive step backwards. Not to mention the 'corrupt untouchable business mogul' had already been cornered by the Marvel villains, so Byrne's Luthor came off (to me at least) like a poor man's Norman Osborn or Kingpin.

And I know this sort of thing is subjective, but I always hated the 'cold, antiseptic' Krypton from both the Byrne comic and the Donner movies. One of the key elements of Superman before then (and now that they've re-established a lot of the Pre-Crisis stuff) was him trying to carve out his own identity by balancing his Kryptonian heritage with his Midwest upbringing. If Krypton was such an unfeeling dystopian world, why the hell would he even care about being from there? That's like someone escaping a dictatorship, only to go around flying said dictatorship's colors. Adding the birthing-matrix nonsense into it, and calling him the 'Last Son of Krypton' makes even less sense, since he technically wasn't even born there.

Anyway, I know that since there was never one official established origin story (other than a single panel in Action #1), there are always going to be arguments over what the 'definitive' take on Superman is. But for me, neither the Golden Age or the Byrne comics do the rest of the mythology proper justice.

And for the record, I liked Birthright.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I don't like the design of the ship as was done by Gary Frank... Byrne's origins was the best design wise.

 

[theMan-Bat]

I'm well aware of how much Byrne wanted to bring Supes back to how he was in the Golden Age, but by that point, the mythos had expanded so far beyond that, and the Superman and Luthor characters had been well established over the subsequent decades, that re-setting them to that standard seemed to me like a massive step backwards.

To get back closer to the concept it was meant to be by the creators, while also updating it for a contemporary audience was a massive step forward and improved sales.
There were a lot of barnacles that had accumulated on Superman in the Silver Age/Bronze Age. As 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/forum_posts.asp?TID=19894&PN=0&TPN=3
"One of the things that impressed me, as a kid, about Spider-Man was that Peter Parker was 15 or 16 years old, but he called himself Spider-Man, not "Spider-Boy". Something that Stan made good use of was that kids -- at least the ones I knew -- didn't want to play at being kids, they wanted to play at being adults. So there were no "boy" or "lad" characters in early Marvel. We had the Invisible Girl and Marvel Girl, but neither of them were really "kids" (Jean would have been about 16 or 17 in that first issue), and "girl" was just the term used then for anybody who was female. We even had "old girl" for women who were really past the term.
Starting out with no Superman already in place, young Clark would, I expect, have picked a less age specific name (than "Superboy")."
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19894&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 still living characters."
http://byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6045
There were a lot of barnacles that had accumulated diluting Luthor's evilness. Lexor - the Bizarro world were people idolized Luthor and hated Superman, Silver Age Luthor's sweet nice Little House on the Prairie side with sister Lena Luthor, and Superman messing up poor Luthor's experiment and making Luthor bald. I'm glad John Byrne just scraped them away. I prefer Luthor to be an unsympathetic vicious sadistic bastard with a god-complex like he was in the Golden Age.
There were also a lot of barnacles that had accumulated diluting Superman's uniqueness as Krypton's Sole Survivor. In the Golden Age this was the standard. With Mort Weisinger's endless flow of Krypto the Super Dog, Beppo the Super Monkey, Kara Zor-El Supergirl, the Argo City citizens in the Survival Zone, the Kryptonian's in the Phantom Zone, and millions of Kryptonians in the Bottled City of Kandor in the Silver Age/Bronze Age one began to wonder if anybody really died when Krypton exploded.
Weisinger's Superman was also trapped by the ridiculously high level of his own power. Infinitely powerful and perfect is infinitely boring. If he doesn't have to struggle, and isn't at risk, there's no tension, and conflict isn't possible. As Denny O'Neil said "At one point he blew a star like you'd blow out a candle. Well, if the guy can do that how are you going to get conflict into the story exactly? The technical difficulties of writing about a guy who's godlike. How do you get him in trouble? Where's the conflict coming from?"

Not to mention the 'corrupt untouchable business mogul' had already been cornered by the Marvel villains, so Byrne's Luthor came off (to me at least) like a poor man's Norman Osborn or Kingpin.

Superman originally was a champion of the common man versus corruption of the law at the highest level. Luthor in Man of Steel was a return to that concept. Byrne's Superman arrested Luthor in Man of Steel so Luthor isn't completely untouchable. And his ability to exist above the law made things very difficult for Superman, and it brought some reality to Superman, some relevance, showing that the system is flawed and doesn't always work. It made Superman look like he wasn't perfect or living in a perfect world. I'm glad Superman couldn't legally keep him behind bars. It created tension, created a struggle to have Luthor actually hold his own against one of the most powerful men in the universe, despite having no actual Superhuman powers of his own.

And I know this sort of thing is subjective, but I always hated the 'cold, antiseptic' Krypton from both the Byrne comic and the Donner movies. One of the key elements of Superman before then (and now that they've re-established a lot of the Pre-Crisis stuff) was him trying to carve out his own identity by balancing his Kryptonian heritage with his Midwest upbringing. If Krypton was such an unfeeling dystopian world, why the hell would he even care about being from there? That's like someone escaping a dictatorship, only to go around flying said dictatorship's colors.

I don't like Weisinger's Krypton that the Silver Age/Bronze Age Superman pines for. The Supermope diminishes him. I wouldn't like and would be a little afraid of the Superman who says "Great Rao" and spends his spare time in a Fortress shrine to Krypton in solitude feeling like a "stranger in a strange land" on Earth. The Supermope diminishes him. Siegel's Krypton was not depicted as a Utopian society and was only depicted at the moment of its destruction, details of life there being unaddressed and frankly irrelevant to Superman's adventures on Earth. Siegel's Golden Age Superman didn't even know about Krypton. And Byrne's Superman also didn't even know about Krypton until years after he had been crimefighting as Superman. I prefer the Superman who is formed by the Kent's upbringing and views his Kryptonian heritage only as a curious memento of a life that might have been. Krypton is alien to him. The cold, antiseptic Krypton is far more believable and serves as a warning to not let ourselves become like that. There's a moral. Superman is fulfilled, secure, whose identity is solidly formed by his folksy human Kansas parents' values, without any desire to return to Krypton. He's generally upbeat and positive. He feels human because of his upbringing.

Adding the birthing-matrix nonsense into it, and calling him the 'Last Son of Krypton' makes even less sense, since he technically wasn't even born there.

He is the last Kryptonian, whether he was born on the planet Krypton or not is irrelevant. Also, the fetus has a heartbeat. Once that little heart starts beating the baby is alive. Anything that has a heartbeat is alive.

Anyway, I know that since there was never one official established origin story (other than a single panel in Action #1),

That single page prototype origin story published in Action Comics #1 (1938) had a passing motorist (singluar) find the child, who took him to a orphanage. Where, so far as anything indicated in the text reveals, he remained until he became an adult. He acquired the name "Clark Kent" from unknown sources, presumably from someone at the orphanage.

This is not an official established origin since it was altered and replaced by the creators Siegel and Shuster themselves with the Superman #1 (1939) origin that I've already posted where the Kents find him, name him Clark Kent and raise him giving him a loving home and family.

there are always going to be arguments over what the 'definitive' take on Superman is. But for me, neither the Golden Age or the Byrne comics do the rest of the mythology proper justice.

The Golden Age Superman mythology by creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster is as close to the proper correct authentic version as there is, and John Byrne's version is closer to the Golden Age roots (while also updating him for a contemporary audience).

And for the record, I liked Birthright.

And I don't like Birthright. We are obviously fans of different versions of Superman. Over the years there have been radically different interpretations, different versions of Superman so each of us today has a highly personal view of Superman and favor those Superman stories that reinforce our prefered version, our Superman.

 

[ironman29758]

I remember reading that John Bryne regretted removing Superboy from community:

<A class=bold name=143>Why did JB remove Superboy from continuity with the MAN OF STEEL reboot?


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)

so he knew that Superboy was an important part of the Superman mythos

 

[MadVillainy]

They seem to be using things I dont like in the Superman origin

-Superboy
-The fact that he new Lex before Smallville
-Legion of Superheroes

 

[theMan-Bat]

I remember reading that John Bryne regretted removing Superboy from community:


so he knew that Superboy was an important part of the Superman mythos

John Byrne has not said he regrets removing Superboy or that Superboy is an important part of the Superman myths. In fact Byrne says,
JB: "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/listing.asp?ID=2&T1=Questions+about+Comic+Book+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/forum_posts.asp?TID=23422&PN=0&TPN=1

 

[Andy C.]

And I don't like Birthright. We are obviously fans of different versions of Superman. Over the years there have been radically different interpretations, different versions of Superman so each of us today has a highly personal view of Superman and favor those Superman stories that reinforce our prefered version, our Superman.

Dude, you could have just written that and saved yourself a lot of time with the big dissertation. I already know all about what Byrne intended to do with his reboot and his modernizing of the Golden Age version of the character. And I still didn't enjoy it.

I have and always will prefer the over-the-top, pseudo-mythological godlike Supes that was hammered out in the Silver Age by Weisenger, defined as such in the Bronze Age by Elliot S! Maggin and Alan Moore, and revitalized by Mark Waid and Grant Morrison. You obviously don't.

And guess what? That's okay. Like you said, there are so many takes on Supes that everyone has 'their' own idea of who the character is and what the mythos should be. And since neither of us is going to budge on which version we prefer, there's not much point in this going any further.

Your assertion that the Byrne Superman is closer to being the 'real' one simply because it follows the Siegel and Schuster version more closely does bring up an interesting question, though. With a character having amassed such a huge body of work by so many authors, is the 'real' version of the character simply the one who showed up first, or the accumulative mythology crafted by all of the authors and the collective consciousness of the audience over the decades? Is it what the original author saw, or what the majority thinks of when they think of the character? Because if the former is the case, then there hasn't been a single comic about the 'real' Batman ever since he stopped murdering criminals with his pistols.

 

[SuperDaniel]

edit

 

[SuperDaniel]

I personally think that the pre-crisis Superman is stupid and there is only a few good stories written about it. John Byrne changed Superman for the better. He added more layers to the character and made everything much more plausible and believable. THank god he removed Superboy because it has always been a stupid concept. Same as with Lex knowing Clark Kent in Smalville.

Still, the best version of Superman would be a mix of all ages.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Dude, you could have just written that and saved yourself a lot of time with the big dissertation. I already know all about what Byrne intended to do with his reboot and his modernizing of the Golden Age version of the character. And I still didn't enjoy it.

I thought you might already know, but I'm sure there are others that didn't know, so I went into detail and I posted the different versions of the Superman origin for everyone, and it's just fun to compare them.

I have and always will prefer the over-the-top, pseudo-mythological godlike Supes that was hammered out in the Silver Age by Weisenger, defined as such in the Bronze Age by Elliot S! Maggin and Alan Moore, and revitalized by Mark Waid and Grant Morrison. You obviously don't.

Correct.

And guess what? That's okay. Like you said, there are so many takes on Supes that everyone has 'their' own idea of who the character is and what the mythos should be. And since neither of us is going to budge on which version we prefer, there's not much point in this going any further.

Exactly. No amount of back and forth arguing is going to change the others preference.

Your assertion that the Byrne Superman is closer to being the 'real' one simply because it follows the Siegel and Schuster version more closely does bring up an interesting question, though. With a character having amassed such a huge body of work by so many authors, is the 'real' version of the character simply the one who showed up first, or the accumulative mythology crafted by all of the authors and the collective consciousness of the audience over the decades? Is it what the original author saw, or what the majority thinks of when they think of the character? Because if the former is the case, then there hasn't been a single comic about the 'real' Batman ever since he stopped murdering criminals with his pistols.

That's right. The 'real' authentic Batman is the version by creators Bill Finger and Bob Kane that killed criminals with his pistols and was very violent and brutal. Tim Burton's version in the Batman and Batman Returns movies is the closest to that. Frank Miller's very violent brutal version is the closest in the comics.

 

[ironman29758]

John Byrne has not said he regrets removing Superboy or that Superboy is an important part of the Superman myths. In fact Byrne says,
JB: "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/listing.asp?ID=2&T1=Questions+about+Comic+Book+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/forum_posts.asp?TID=23422&PN=0&TPN=1

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=2&T1=Questions+about+Comic+Book+Projects#143
this is above the quote you made about wanting Clark to be back to the basics and the sentence about JB regreting it was the last sentence so it is true, you might have ignored it.

Blackman, you may not like the silver age superboy aspects but other people do(they used alot of Silver age concepts in Smallville as well as other tv shows, comics, etc) it was the silver age superman, Barry Allen that got me into DC and they started reintroducing silver age stories slowly and I love it

 

[theMan-Bat]

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=2&T1=Questions+about+Comic+Book+Projects#143
this is above the quote you made about wanting Clark to be back to the basics and the sentence about JB regreting it was the last sentence so it is true, you might have ignored it.

John Byrne didn't say he regretted removing Superboy, or 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's not really a fan of 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
"One of the things that impressed me, as a kid, about Spider-Man was that Peter Parker was 15 or 16 years old, but he called himself Spider-Man, not "Spider-Boy". Something that Stan made good use of was that kids -- at least the ones I knew -- didn't want to play at being kids, they wanted to play at being adults. So there were no "boy" or "lad" characters in early Marvel. We had the Invisible Girl and Marvel Girl, but neither of them were really "kids" (Jean would have been about 16 or 17 in that first issue), and "girl" was just the term used then for anybody who was female. We even had "old girl" for women who were really past the term.
Starting out with no Superman already in place, young Clark would, I expect, have picked a less age specific name (than "Superboy").
The only time I have ever seen or heard kids wanting to be treated as kids is when they think it will allow them to get away with something. The rest of the time, they are positively aching to be treated as "grown-up"."
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

 

[DavidTyler]

Superman: Secret Origin #1 will be released on September 23rd.
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/090612-dc-sept-09-superman.html#commentForm

It doesn't look updated. It looks like it's a repeat of the Mort Weisinger Silver Age version with Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes from 1958 mixed with Richard Donner's 1978 Superman: The Movie. Gary Frank's Superman and Clark Kent looks just like Christopher Reeve, the actor who played Superman from 1978 to 1987. There's Donner's crystal Fortress of Solitude and Gary Frank's Jor-El looks a lot like Marlon Brando's Jor-El from the 1978 movie. Gary Frank's Jonathan Kent looks like Glenn Ford's Jonathan Kent from the 1978 movie.
Here's sort of a preview, short version of the Superman: Secret Origin version by Gary Frank.

I prefer the Man of Steel version by John Byrne. Byrne really updated it. He didn't repeat Weisinger's version and Donner's version.

To each his own. There is more than one version of Superman on various Earth's in DC's Multiverse. The New Earth Superman's origin is the Geoff Johns/Gary Frank Superman: Secret Origin version. Earth-22's Kingdom Come Superman's origin is John Byrne's Man of Steel version. In Kingdom Come the Kingdom Come Superman's statue of his Jor-El and Lara shows John Byrne's Man of Steel version of Jor-El and Lara. The statue of Jor-El and Lara, holding up the planet Krypton is a part of Byrne's Superman's Fortress of Solitude. The Kryptonian Battlesuit and orange Servitor Robot are also part of Byrne's Superman's Fortress of Solitude. He is also shown having had the long hair they gave Byrne's Superman in the '90s. Earth-2's Superman's origin is the Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster version.

Unfortunately Geoff Johns had the Earth-2 Superman killed by Superboy-Prime from Earth-Prime in Infinite Crisis. I'd like to see the Earth-2 Superman resurrected. I love that the multi-universe is back. The one Earth - one version - concept is to restrictive. I always liked the idea of the Multiverse. The new Multiverse opens creative doors for writers by expanding the DC Universe to include other versions of the characters. I do know that various and radically different interpretations of Superman can coexist. DC already publishes two or more Superman projects simultaneously that present radically different Superman's. The JSA with the Kingdom Come Superman and the Superman titles with the New Earth Superman are two examples.

I'm with you on the Byrne update. It was definitely the best reboot. Waid and company screwed it all up after that.

BTW, in the original comics, the Kryptonian tower was a golden colour as is the star drive of the vessel that Kal-el was sent into space in. It was very beautiful. It's sad that whoever recoloured it felt they needed to make the tower a dull grey and the star drive red. If I get my scanner working again, I'll find my copies and post them.

 

[Czar Colossus]

Earth-2 Superman is being resurrected in Darkest Night (I'm assuming as a villain, at least as first) along with J'onn J'onz and Aquaman.

 

[Young Superman]

I'll give this a chance but I also prefer the Man of Steel version by John Byrne becuase it reestablished Kal-El as the last of his kind (which I prefer him to be} and Byrne gave a good reason for it.

Agreed. I also prefer him to be the sole survivor of the planet Krypton

 

[BatJeff7786]

So I take it no one liked Superman Birthright?