Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Acording to this site History of Superman comics, the new Mercury Age started only in 2006 with the One Year Later story after Infinite Crisis and the new Action Comics run with Richard Donner and Geoff Johns. I dot't know if it's too soon to declare this revamp a new Age already, or if the Jeph Loeb (with Superman For All Seasons and Return to Krypton storyline) and Mark Waid (with Birthrignt and Young Luthor in Smallville shoud be considered then a departure from the Iron Age.

From start, Geoff Johns books are influenced by the movies, since the story is a Donner's proposal from a sequel that's never been filmed. That's why we have Zod, Fortress of Solitude and Jor-El versions that are like the classic of 1978. On the other hand, when it's Johns writing the Krypton villains origin in Action Comics Annual, the tale is very Iron Age-ish in tone and style. Also, editor Matt idelson declared in his Superman Homepage columm that in the new continuity, he still views Clark Kent as the real personality, not Superman. That's  Iron Age concepts and execution.

About the failed revamps - currently there's no valid origin of Superman, what is sintomatic about the lack of direction of DC books - Loeb's and Waid's, liking the writer's or not, they were obviously writing a Silver and Bronze Age concept influenced Superman, and the real problem was of editorial control. They've written new origins opposing Byrne's, introduced new versions of Krypton, a new Supergirl, krypto, and the tone of their runs was nothing like Iron Age. Other writers like Joe kelly and Joe Casey played with the iconic and inspirational Superman that never kills and always knows what to do, in creative ways. Kelly''s Action 800 is a very good prove of that. In fact, Iron Age fans were pretty much vocal agains their stories and started to feel betrayed by DC Comics. Running from 1999 to 2006, if it's neither Iron not Mercury Age, what should we call it? And it's Jonns/Donner more a departure from Iron Age than Jeph Loeb and Mark Waid, based on just few issues?   

 

"Iron age"! >:( Whats the next? The tin age? the butter age? the trash age? This is silly.Superman is not a character like another..He is SUPERMAN is a icon,a modern version of an Olimpic God.The Superman stories cannot be written from ignorants MTV generation kids.Superman is not Wolverine or Lobo.It must respect the myth.You cannot change his suit or his chest logo,you cannot marry it with Lois Lane,you cannot make Luthor President of United States.We don't wont a "iron age",we wont a "Platinium age" in which the elements of the legend are respects.The best story of Superman in my opinion is "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" by Alan Moore.The "silly" elements of Weisinger era are transforms in modern mythology.The main street for  Platinium age is that one.

And Ma and Pa Kent must be dead to Superman?

I don't know.

To be honest, I get a lot more excited about new Superman Showcase books than new Superman comics these days.

All-Star Superman is the only series that I genuinely liked. The rest are just better than the crap that came before, but are not as good as All-Star or anything in those Showcase books.

Grant Morrison gives me hope that Superman isn't obsolete and you can still tell fun, great stories with him in a modern style that also stays true to the character.

Another reason why I'm caring less and less about continuity. If Jeff Smith's Captain Marvel series and All-Star Superman isn't really canon and are not part of modern continuity and yet they are countless times better than the current series featuring those two icons, then to heck with current continuity!

I don't care about what is continuity and what is not, at the end of the day all I really care about is if the story is a great read.
Great stories and great artwork together is the only thing that matters to me these days.

So that doesn't answer your question, but I needed to write that ;)



 

In my opinion, the Iron Age was about being dark just for the sake of it. When there's an actual meaning to the darkness, I don't consider it to be Iron Age-esque. Not everyone will agree with that, but it's how I see things.

Incidentally, I would consider Birthright to be part of the Mercury Age. But comic ages are an art, not a science. Not everyone will agree with the time periods
or definitions.

I disagree. The Council was portrayed as morally dubious in the 1978 movie (they were going to banish Jor-El to the Phantom Zone if he warned other Kryptonians) and giving Zod a more sympathetic origin is not Iron Age-esque either. Lots of villains, from Dr. Doom to Luthor himself have had these types of origins. Non has also become a far more interesting character now.

Everyone has their own opinion about that. I doubt there's an editorial edict stating which version is true. Personally I liked the Waid/Morrison view on the secret ID. The Donner/Johns run seems to contradict Idelson's view, and a new writer might contradict their view. That's the way things work in today's comics.

Plus, look at all the things that have returned: Kal as a non-costumed "Super-Boy" in his youth; Mon-El's relationship with Kal and time in Smallville; Superman's powers are at the highest they've been since 1986; Lex Luthor is a rogue scientist again; Bizarro World is back; multiple Kryptonians; I could go on and on here.

We're definitely in a new age. I'm sure things were just as confusing during the first Crisis and the reboots afterwards. This time DC wants to present their characters in a more mainstream way though, and that means using what's familiar to fans and bringing old concepts back. The Mercury Age, at least in my view, is old mixed with new. It's about respecting the past while also moving forward. Not everyone will like it, but I for one do.

As for DC, the most reasonable approach they can take is to make the vast majority of their fans happy, because they can't make everyone happy. Granted, being a human being, I would like them to just put out stuff I like, but it's not just about what I want. It's not about "my" or "your" Superman--it's about a universally appealing Superman (or as close to one as you can get).

Anyway, that's all I'm going to say regarding this subject. I don't have anything else to add.

All the tinkering and mega stories re-writing DC history in the last 20 years just makes continuity too much of a headache even if you like the stories.  Once, it was possible to change Supes with a Sand Creature story, now it takes altering the entire fabric of the comics universe.

I suppose its necessary as modern comic fans are older and a real niche market now.

Honestly Ma and Pa Kent are great characters.I think that kill they has been  the bigger mistake of Golden and Silver age.Weisinger would have written greats stories on the Kent (Pa Kent that become "elastic dad" After swilling a bottle of an alien liquid,or Martha that gets super-powers temporarily by mr Mxyzptlk in "the Metropolis Ma of Steel"). :D

They were many great stories with them, in the Superboy comics!

Yes,great stories.I loved the silver age Superboy!  ;)

Mercury Age?   ???

Mercury is also called "QuickSILVER" -- is this a nod to to earlier Silver Age?

Or are they implying that comics continuity, plotlines, characterization and editorial policy during this Age have no solid form, are extremely fluid, wildly goes up and down in response to external environmental factors, and so highly poisonous that they must be disposed of in a toxic waste dump?   ;)

Hmm -- the latter sounds right so far...   ;)

Then again, considering the money spent by the poor readers of "Infinite Crisis", "52" and the upcoming "Countdown", naming this Age after the God of THIEVES is also rather appropriate...   ;)

"Opposition" to John Byrne? What, is Loeb going to challenge him to a lightsaber duel?

Did I ever talk like this?


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Iron Age in tone and style," but whatever it was, it WORKED.

When I heard Johns and Donner were going to do Zod, I groaned - because I've seen all this before. But Johns and Donner had a totally original take on the character of Zod that focused less on him as a Doctor Doom-style madman shouting things more often than the Spartans in 300, but as a villain, but a very sympathetic and human kind of villain who has a legitimate grudge. And the idea Zod has a SON is enough of a divergence to warrant this characters' existence.

Non as a wronged, somewhat pitiful character is much more powerful than Non as a thuggish retard.

All of this was much more spectacular because it wasn't EXPECTED. We expected to see Zod come back as a dull, run of the mill megalomaniac. And I have to give props to Johns and Donner for seeing something I didn't see.

(Of course, now I'm going to get on the shitlist of the people who believe villains should be 100% evil and not ever be complicated - notably John Byrne.)


My reaction is the exact opposite: ALL-STAR SUPERMAN is the style over substance, fast-paced and colorful but emotionally hollow and insincere, whereas it is Busiek and Geoff Johns that are telling the really spectacular stuff we'll remember 20 years from now.

(Assuming mechanical ants won't rule the human race by then, and we'll be too busy mining uranium for our overlords to be thinking about cartoons.)

Superman, in ALL-STAR is an overscrubbed, unreal person. He's polite to the point its a caricature. And that chaste kiss on the moon? Christ, I've kissed my sister with more passion than that. This is why I can't seriously believe ALL-STAR is a continuation of pre-86 Superman: Superman's relationship with Lois was passionate and occasionally pretty darn horny, especially under Pasko and Wein; there have been multiple occasions going back to the seventies that strongly imply they've had sex.

Compare Morrison's Disney Princess-and-Prince take on Supes and Lois to the very real relationship Superman has with Lois under Busiek and Johns: she's his rock, his connection to humanity, and his best friend all in one.

The thing that saved the Superman/Lois marriage for me under Busiek and Johns is how ADULT it is: not teenage problems like suspicions of infidelity, but the have the give and take of real married people. They're friends. They TALK to each other.


Now that I'm finished projectile vomiting for twenty minutes straight, let me respond:

1) Modern style? Nigga say what? Superman fighting with SAMPSON for the hand of Lois is modern-style? That's the thing that bothers me about ASS more than anything: it attempts to duplicate all the wrong things about Superman, and it does so with such a "gee-aren't-we-clever" hipster irony that is absolutely enraging.

I agree its modern style, in the sense that it takes a great concept and makes it tawdry and small. Baby Sun-Eater? Superman has communication with his descendants of the far future and the only thing its used for is a goddamn J-Lo joke?

2) True to the character? Again, what? Well, sure, if when you think of Superman you think of a two-dimensional cardboard cutout apologizing to Lois when monsters attack her.


Bravo, and very well put. A 100% modern age guy like Ron Marz can only be dark and erase existing concepts; Geoff Johns can be dark too, but he can snap out of it and also make me laugh. He can make me cry too, as he did with Black Adam accidentally smashing the grave of his family, and he can have an adventure spirit (the JSA attacking Kobra's spy base with submarines).


I fail to see how Clark Kent being the "real" person is somehow exclusively a "Modern Age" characteristic. Len Wein subscribes to this belief, and he never wrote a single Post-Crisis story to my knowledge. The point here is, even pre-Crisis, there was a diversity of opinion regarding who is real or not, and Clark being real is just one of several answers to that question.

And it should be so obvious that it doesn't have to be said: Matt's editor, not writing it. Johns made Superman explicitly lonely and alien, one who felt kinship immediately to a boy just because he was Kryptonian. That's not an action Modern Age Superman would take. If that's the editorial direction, I don't see it in the comics.

The Moercury Age definition is from the very Superman Through The Ages site. You guys just use the forum and not read the site updates? My understanding is that Loeb and Waid didn't started a new Age because of editorial opposing it, but in intent, they were not writing the Iron Age Superman anymore. We have to define just what is the Iron Age Superman, and have to be dropped to have a new Age:

1 - The vision of Byrne's Krypton?

2 - Clark Kent being the real personality?

3 - Jonathan and Martha Kent not have do die?

4 - No kryptonian Supergirl, Krypto and Bottle City of Kandor, Superman being the last kryptonian?

5 - Superman have to kill first to later develop a code agains killing?