The very beginning of this thread, with Man of Steel #1. I chronicle the changing editorial edicts and philosophies of the Post-Crisis Superman Office here, if you're curious. It's one of the two aspects of this thread that I personally find the most interesting to maintain!



This happened in 1986, and I believe the intent was to make Superman's struggles/conflicts believable again. Plus, Watchmen was about to be released. I've argued in my Complete Batman: 1979-2011 thread that Frank Miller (and perhaps others at DC) must have had acces to at least a portion of Watchmen prior to its release, as aspects of Dark Knight Returns end up bearing a startling resemblance to it, so it's possible that Moore's deconstruction of the superhero played into Frank Miller and Steve Gerber's initial pitch for a Post-Crisis Superman as well.

Look, I read a good few of Superman's stories published immediately before the reboot and I don't remember him being the personification of the True American Male. If anything, he was somewhat whiny. At least his post-Crisis version had the marbles to propose to Lois.

Re: the "wussification" of Superman.


Although I think certain seeds were planted prior to Crisis (Batman and the Outsiders #1 turned him into a government stooge to make Batman look cool three years before Dark Knight Returns did and yes, Miller was involved in that issue too) Superman himself had a sort of failsafe in place which prevented him from coming across as too much of a wimp - the fact that he was as intelligent, resourceful, and heroic as he was powerful.  Sure, Christopher Reeve's Superman might have seemed a little too boy scoutish while rescuing a cat from a tree in his first film, but when he follows that up by going brain to brain against Lex Luthor and winning it's hard to really think of him as anything but the king of superheroes.

When Byrne came along however, he retained the boy scoutish elements (ie. turning down a lady's radio because he thought it was too loud) but also established that there would be a lot times when he'd be in way over his head while outright having Superman admit that he either wasn't in the same league as some of the other top heroes (ie. Action Comics 600 has him tell Wonder Woman "I... admire you, Wonder Woman.  I respect you.  But... I really am just a boy from Kansas... you're... way out of my league!") or just didn't click with them (ie. Batman).

That "I'm just a boy from Kansas" (really, he couldn't even say "man" at least?) explains why Superman could go from being king of the superheroes to the guy who could be disparaged with the condescending nickname 'Smallville' down the road and when DC's biggest and supposedly coolest hero Batman looks down on you, it's kind of hard to not expect that attitude to rub off on the readers.  

As I said, having Superman rescue kittens from trees (which I have nothing against, actually) isn't a problem if he does so while on the way to outwitting Lex Luthor or Brainiac, but having him do so while on his way to being made a fool of by Luthor for the dozenth or so time kind of makes you wonder why he doesn't just stick to the easy stuff more often and leave someone like corrupt businessmen to the police.

Whoops!  In that case, I thought those Action Comics Weekly covers (I believe there's another where Superman wipes the sweat from his brow after stopping a locomotive) were more a result of artistic license than reliable indicator of his power level.  I mean, Byrne's Superman certainly couldn't push planets around, but having seen him lift vehicles with ease (ie. Luthor's yacht in Man of Steel, The Joker's tanker in Superman #9) I wouldn't expect him to have trouble with an elephant.

I want just add another opinion absolutely complementary with your hypothesis. I absolutely agree that Byrne's Superman wasn't very good in absolute, but relatively to what had come before, it was almost revolutionary. Let us remember that this was a period of great turmoil in the world of comics, with the publication of works that are still considered masterpieces and the arrival of British authors. But Superman, from a storytelling point of view. seemed to have stopped at the period immediately after the Sand Superman saga. Except for a few minor continuity changes, every Superman's story from the 1971-1986 is virtually interchangeable (well, no surprise here, considering that the writers and artists were virtually the same). And they weren't even very good stories to begin with (with a very, very, very few exceptions). The poor Crimebuster had tried to read and review all the bronze era Superman's stories but he had to throw the towel because it was a such soul-crushing experience. And I mean, considering that we have virtually hundreds of Superman stories in the 1971-1986 period, how many of them are regularly reprinted? Only the Sand Superman Saga (because of its historical importance, not because it's particularly good) and Moore's stories (because, well, he's Alan Moore) come to my mind. I distinctly remember that in a period where we had Claremont's X-Men, Miller's Daredevil, Simonson's Thor and so on, Superman almost seemed the parody of himself. In what new and exciting ways will Superman use his planet-crashing powers to gaslight Lois Lane for the umpteenth time, instead of, I don't know, actually helping people?

So, when Byrne arrived, he looked incredibly new, fresh and modern compared to his predecessors (although by his standards he was barely competent.). The bad quality of the previous Superman stories (real or presumed) was so ingrained in the minds of the readers (who, considering the sales charts of the time of the time, didn't even read them), that any change that clearly distanced itself from what came before it would have been considered a revolutionary masterpiece.

Well, IHMO of course.

By the way, about the "wussification" of Superman (if we mean about his character, not his power levels), well, perhaps the post reboot version was a "wussy". But his previous version was a downright toxic jerk (and I can bring a lot of examples to prove my point). Prove me wrong.

That's a solid perspective I'd failed to consider. Thanks for this!



On the one hand, I agree. On the other, really the one counterpoint I can see to both your theory about why Byrne was welcome and about Supes being a toxic jerk is the Christopher Reeve perspective. Superman didn't only exist in comics, of course, and (as you pointed out) the circ numbers on Superman comics were very low by this point, so I think it's safe to assume the Chris Reeves Superman was having a larger impact on folks than his comic book counterpart. That character was certainly the opposite of toxic, and his (first two) movies were adored, so I think that may complicate your point about Byrne being a welcome change. It sure sounds like his was better than much of the writing that had come before, but the characterization was a major upturn of the middle finger at anyone who believed in the cinematic version that had captured the soul of America only half a decade earlier, and which was still regularly being rerun on broadcast television.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe fans really were willing to give Byrne a pass for being better than what had appeared in print before, but for me, his depiction gave us an ignorant, easy to anger, punch-first-ask-questions-later, sometimes morally questionable farm boy from Kansas in place of the greatest hero of all, whose powers were secondary to his conduct and ideals.


Anyway, GREAT perspectives, zaku. You've really gotten me thinking now.

You are right that usually when people thought about Superman it was the the Christopher Reeve who they visualized!

So, I adjust my theory a little bit:

• you had people who knew the comics (and here Sup. was a dick, I mean, there are sites dedicated to how much a dick he was!) and they had a very low opinion of them
• The vast majority who knew Superman only thanks to the movies

Now, let's try to remember what kind of heroes people wanted in those years. That was the era of Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Willis and so on. Very action oriented heroes. Heroes who were here to kick ass and chew bubblegum (and they were all out of gum). In the comics world we had Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, the success of Punisher and so on. Violence in pop culture was trendy.

And the poor Superman? In the 1987 we had Superman IV.

Let's not talk about it.

At this point the Man Of Steel in the public consciousness was almost a camp caricature and his super-boyscout characterization was considerated out-of-date in an era where people craved for more violent heroes.

So Byrne gave readers the Superman they wanted. Someone ready to use his fists to resolve any problem. A more pro-active hero (like when he dismantles the military of Qurac, something that movie/pre-crisis version would never do). And a more assertive Clark Kent. Readers welcomed this more up-to-date characterization.


Why, thank you . And you made me realize that when people talked about Superman as a super-boyscout, they were talking about Christopher Reeve (because his comic counterpart was waaaaay different, characterwise).