Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Hello one and all,

I'm a college student and a big Superman fan.  I was first introduced to comics by my father, who read me a Swan/Shooter Legion story when I was very young, and I've been hooked ever since.  After sampling just about every era and medium that Superman has to offer, I've discovered that the stories that (to me) contain the most adventure, character, and sci-fi fun seem to be the Maggin/Bates/Schwartz/Swan Superman in the late '70s and '80s.  Yet, it seems that this Superman gets the most flack for being "too-powerful", "too inhuman", "too fantastic", and the reason for the sales slide that culiminated with Byrne's reboot in 1986.  
After some time lurking here, it seems that this board is probably the best one to ask this question (as you all seem to have a significant knowledge of just about every Superman incarnation).   With all of the positive reaction to the VERY Silver/Bronze Age All-Star Superman, I can't figure out why such an awesome character was so unpopular and thusly discarded!   So I ask of anyone who has an opinion, what was wrong with the Bronze Age Superman? Thanks in advance.

PS: My undying thanks go to Great Rao for setting up this great site!  Always a good place to visit.

Well, for ME, there were problems with the Bronze Age Superman because the titles seemed to follow more real world trends that end up being transitory in the long run...the "real world-ification" of the 70s doesn't even hold up as well as the "ideal world-ification" of the 60s...

But as to your question, I suppose the all-powerful being was seen as a liability in terms of increased realism as it affected movie, cable television, and video game sales...nevertheless, the sales slide in general continued...

Comics are tricky...in the 40s, sales were huge in terms of kids wanting heroes and adult GIs loving the reminders of home. the 50s and 60s introduced a sense of fantasy above and beyond that able to be re-produced in the fantasy and sci-fi of its day...and the competition from other media has never let up and has gotten far more diverse...

Absolutely nothing.  I have yet to meet a single person who has read the stories and doesn't like them.  Most of the criticisms I've heard are either speculations or from people who haven't read any of the tales but are just repeating other's arguments.  I think there may be a few who just like to criticize anything that's good.


You're very welcome, Doc!  Glad you like the site, and thanks for signing up!

:s:

The whole trend of "relevance" was extremely heavy handed and has dated poorly, IMHO.

While it wasn't as good as the Silver Age, the Bronze Age did provide us with some of Superman's greatest stories, Jack Kirby on Jimmy Olsen and all that good stuff.

The crricizims leveled at the Bronze Age was due to poor writing.  There were some real clunkers in the Bronze Age for Superman(the Master Mesmerizer for example)  

Green Lantern * Green Arrow: Hard Travelling Heroes story arc is a perfect example of the heavy handedness.

While the Silver Age was the most creative period in Superman's history, the Bronze age was the best from a literary standpoint. Show me any writer since 1986 who can match Maggin's novels or Alan Moore's stories, and I'll buy you a steak dinner!*










*- unless you are a member of PETA

I agree.  I think what happend is tastes changed.  I feel people just lost their love of fun action/adventure stories and creativity went out the window with it.

Thanks for all the replies! I've never really had the opportunity to talk about the more classic incarnations of Superman before.
I have not encountered much in the way of "relevance" in the Bronze Age Superman comics I have read.  It may just be my particular sampling of stories.  I certainly agree that such themes can overwhelm any kind of enjoyment in comic hero stories.  
I was inspired to ask this question after reading Maggin's Last Son of Krypton and Miracle Monday.  Both of those sweeping stories had so much going for them that I could not imagine anyone wanting to replace that cast of characters.  
Was the Byrne reboot inspired by the deconstructionist trend created by Watchmen? Or was it in the works before that began?

I think it was part of that trend. There were several differences, however, as The Dark Knight Returns and The Watchmen were not a part of continuity. (Miller later got his turn at Batman with Year One, though.)

The major difference after Crisis on Infinite Earths was that most DC Characters' histories were not erased. Hal Jordan's origin from the silver age was still a part of continuity. and the Flash's genealogy continued through Crisis on Infinite Earths, even to this day. Superman was the only one to have such a hard reboot, with about 50 years' worth of stories, characters, and situations immediately being discarded.

John Byrne gets most of the blame for this, but I think a lot of it was Marv Wolfman's intention as well. However, considering what Byrne recently said about Steve Irwin, I don't care what people are blaming Byrne for.

Coincidentally, you should read Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? It was a fitting tribute, probably one of the best stories I've ever read. T'was the last story published before Byrne took over.

The people at DC who were making the big decisions did not read Maggin's novels.


You may want to check out this article (http://superman.nu/a/History/end.php).

:s:

There may not be as much in Superman, but a few stories definitely showed signs of it, along with the updates of WGBS etc.  But again, its all a matter of taste and what era you are used to and like.

The Denny O'Neil Green Lantern/Green Arrow really put me off at the time...

I always liked the Bronze Age Superman--- "Who Took the Super Out of Superman", the Galactic Golem, "Superman Takes a Wife"/Mr. and Mrs. Superman stories (well, the Earth-2 Superman, but still Bronze-Age-era stories), even the cheesy "Starshine the hippie orders everyone over 30 out of Metropolis with please-power" story (though the "return" of Pa Kent part was quite nice...). That, and Steve Lombard, WGBS, the rise of Darkseid, etc. Well, also Johnny Nevada too... :-)

Guess the Bronze Age hit the halfway mark between eras for me--- more modernized writing styles and elements, a Lois who isn't as obsessed with marrying Superman (as amusing as the Silver Age "Lois Lane" stories could be), more minorities showing up (well, guess that one's important to *me* :-) ), etc., but still respectful of the stories of the previous years---all vs. the post-Byrne "let's retcon everything six ways to Sunday" grim and gritty recent trends in writing...

Don't get me wrong---I like the Silver Age stuff, as well... :-)

Well, you know, I am becoming more interested in the Bronze Age Superman, and have deliberately tried to research the 70s mythos for Supermanica just to keep myself informed.  There are some stories I do like.

The reason I left comics in the early 70s was because for all the unreality of Lois's trying to marry Superman, or Jimmy becoming a Hollywood producer, it was an unreality that I could take or leave but wasn't that removed from Superman fighting Zha Vam, a Flame Dragon, or journeying to Krypton's past.  In the 70s I was never convinced that Superman could really take on societal problems or even if he should.  It seemed forced and somewhat too topical for a super hero...as a 12 year old, I knew that Lois couldn't solve race issues and I liked my comic book characters to get involved with things they could somehow fix.

Gangbuster Thorul, I own a well-worn copy of "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" It was a great story to go out on.

I have to say that Johnny Nevada really put my preference in perspective for me.  The Bronze Age seems like a happy medium between eras, maintaining strong ties to the elements of the past despite its more "modernized" characters and stories.  I agree that "relevance" is one of the era's low points...

I must admit, I occasionally run into Silver Age stories that put most Bronze Age works to shame.  "The Team of Luthor and Brainiac" in particular stands out in my mind as a real gem.

The Maggin novels and then, ironically, Crisis, were my gateway first to Bronze Age Superman and then to a love for all pre-Crisis Superman.

Those two Maggin books summarize everything great about the Superman of the 70s, including the WGBS cast and setting.

I think that the Byrne reboot was in the works from at least the time he took over the Fantstic Four and radically re-energized that title using some minor retcons and giving a new look to the characters.  A DC editorial crew who hated classic Superman and were looking for a post-Crisis revamp seized on Byrne, the most popular artist of the time and made him an offer he couldn't refuse: total power to mess with the most iconic superhero property.

Alan Moore had little to do with the inspiration for this, in my opinion.  He understands Superman better than any writer currently working in comics.

Kurt Busiek is doing pretty good. Grant Morrison is up there too.

:s:

*cough*Mark Waid*cough*

A lot of the Bronze age stories played around with Superman's mind or emotions.
 Lois and Lana get infected by the same disease that killed John and Martha Kent.
 Supergirl and Kandor try to convince Superman that Krypton wasn't real.  The restoration of Kandor itself.  
Superman prentending to be all his villians to help cure a person who thought he was Superman.
 My favorite is when the Superman Revenge Squad made Superman a coward and he beat them by telling a tv crew to keep a television camera on him.  
Then there was when the Parasite drained all the emotional support  for Superman from the world(Superman looked into a photo alblum and used the memory of Ma and Pa Kent to beat the Parasite)
And a bit of humor when the Ambush Bug brought a piece of red K to apologize to Superman with and Superman and Ambush Big switched minds(The Ambush Bug in Superman's body and Supes in the Bug's body)  Kobra showed up during that little nonsense

And even better, they are both now writing Superman comics.

The Iron Age is officially over, at least for Superman.

What puzzled me about that era's Superman was Clark Kent's rather schizophrenic journalism career -- in some issues he would be working for the Daily Planet, in others he would be anchoring WGBS news.  Eventually around CRISIS, Lois Lane also becomes both a roving reporter for WGBS and a journalist for the Daily Planet.  I mean, where could they put the brakes on which kind of journalism Clark's going to do?

Would it be so very terribly heretical to say that, as much as I love him, my favorite Superman was done by Garcia-Lopez, not Swan?

In general, the Bronze Age or the Schwartz years were amongst Superman's high points; maybe the highest point. My favorite was the Elliot Maggin-penned Superman/Atom/Green Arrow team-up where they parachute into Kandor to stop a robot composed entirely of Junk. Len Wein, one of the most truly creative professionals around, was shaking up the status quo, having Superman regrow Kandor and encountering Chemo and the Galactic Golem. There were space opera stories involving the Superman Revenge Squad (including one where he turned into a lizard-thing to go undercover), and all the while Martin Pasko was revitalizing the Rogues Gallery with characters like Master Jailer, returning the original Toyman, changing Bizarro's powers, and introducing the Atomic Skull. Steve Gerber, one of the greatest writers in the entirety of comics history, did his love letter to Superman, the PHANTOM ZONE miniseries. Then there was Supergirl becoming an adult; my favorite was that Maggin SUPERMAN FAMILY where she moves to Florida and battles an Aztec Priestess. Maggin also was telling a lot of stories featuring Luthor as a very sympathetic, pitiable and far more fascinating villain.

And then...oh, and THEN...we had Cary Bates. I can't even begin to list his achievements: the first story arc with Vartox, the three-parter that introduced Terra-Man (and had Superman return from the dead), the story that featured Faora, THE Zoner, beating Superman up with pressure point tricks, his "Wrath of Khan" transformation of Lex Luthor, and that JLA story arc he did with Maggin that has the heroes visit Earth-Prime.

What was WRONG with Superman in this time? Most of the flaws starting to show up near the end, of exhaustion.

First, too many magic using villains. I honestly can't tell apart any of the magic-using hot chicks that were introduced in the last few years: Syrene, Yellow Peri...remember when SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE and ELIZABETH came out around the same time? Man, those two just run together, don't they? I can think of a scene, but I don't know which movie it was from.

And then there was "El Diablo" himself, Gerry Conway, other writers may be worse, but he was the most totally mediocre writer in comics history. Gerry Conway is the Bono of comics: a dull-at-best contributor whose fat hiney is hauled out of the fire by the Edge's ripping guitar. All I can say is, Conway must thank his lucky stars he's got Don Heck on pencils during part of his JLA run, and his best bud Roy the Boy was there to plot his ARAK, SON OF THUNDER. I can't even start to list the bad stories Conway inflicted on Superman in this period, but my all time favorite stupid idea was when the Superman of Earth-1 and Superman of Earth-2 merged to form one double-sized super-Superman. Trust me, it all makes as much sense as it sounds like it does.

Essentially, what Conway's saying is, Superman is one of those combiner Transformers, merging to form the Super-Megazord or whatever.

I initially was confused but think Maggin integrated the two nicely in his novels.  In hindsight, it seems a realistic turn of events, someone "graduating" from print to video, but keeping one foot in either world.  It was certainly true of the first generation of tv journalists in the 50s.

I always think of G-L as the guy who drew the best Lois, and when he's on, his Superman is smashing.

What was wrong:

1) The whole Clark-as-WGBS-anchorman idea.

2) The idea that everything from the Weisinger years had to remain canonical even though the style of writing had drastically changed.

I don't think the idea of rebooting Superman was so bad. It probably should've been done in the early 70s, rather than 1986 (O'Neil's run was an attempt at a revamp, not a reboot). I just think that what Byrne did was too radical an overhaul.  It was one thing to redisign Krypton, another thing to so thorougly change was Krypton was...

I do not want to resurrect the discussion about the merits of the Sand-Superman saga which we hammered out at great length a while back, but are you trying to have it both ways? Denny didn't go far enough; John B. went too far. (?) We really have to have the blinkers on not to see that "Superman Breaks Loose" was a cut-off of the old, and an introduction of the new. The silliness was gone (as much as we adore the Silver Age) and Superman grew up so to speak, ushering in a whole new era for him, beginning with Denny's work. I don't agree everything from Mort's years remained "canonical". Look at what Elliot S! did with Krypto, his updating and re-introduction -- same character, but an amazing transformation into a mature storyline and character. Look at how Luthor grew as a character, and that superb first novel "Last Son". Superman always had natural "reboots" all the way along, and the "Bronze Age" is a great example of a distinct and worthwhile era in his development. Julius Schwartz had it right: he didn't chuck anything out. He initiated a shift, a tweak here and there, an emphasis on this, a push to the background of that... Nothing wrong with Bronze Age Superman. What a great era. Julian has mentioned Len Wein. Some of my favourite stories are his. Look at how he took "minor canon" (Superman's neighbours) and matured it, developed specific ideas. He didn't throw anything away. Why throw things away? I think the Bronze age teams did wonders with a heavy and deep history.