Superman Through the Ages! Forum

 For me it is probably be a toss up between the Lois & Clark version and the animated series version just because during the nineties they seemed to think that "humanizing" him means stripping his strength back down to golden age levels. If we're judging this based on how he is treated, maybe the 1975 television re-inactment of the play. 

Top 3:

1. Dead Superman (or maybe they did him a favor?)
2. Mullet Superman
3. Keith Giffen Superman (DC Comics Presents featuring the Creeper)

Perhaps you should widen the discussion by considering the "worst version of Sueprboy and/or Superman"?

Pocket Universe Supermurderer Superman.

The Reign of Superman I actually liked, and I think that from Exile in Space to Death of Superman, the stories were solid.

TV Shows Lois and Clark and Superman: Animated Series were very good in concept and execution, sometimes with bad storylines (like the super marriage), but that versions of the characterr was inspired in the John Byrne´s revamp. Ant the TV serries improved Byrne´s ideas, making them work.

So Byrne´s the worse Superman ever.

Electric Superman!  Ugggh!  >:( That's when they jumped the shark for me.

As in portrayal? Rucka's Superman hands down. This version (while under the mental projections of Max Lord) did not care about killing innocents as long as it meant that he could take his revenge upon Doomsday.

I remember thinking the exact same thing at the time it hapened! I must have been blocking that one out! :D

I agree but the 1990's Superman make be a little worst in many ways!!!

I am glad those monstrosities are behind us.

It's gotta be Bluperman.

The Electric Superman was the worst.

Whiney dumb hick from the Loeb era. (though I liked some aspects of Loebs run he just kept on going with the farm boy persona)

electricblue superman was pretty dumb (what did norm macdonald say about his costume change again???)



and of course the Byrne one was pretty horrible. seriously WHAT WAS THE POINT??? nice move DC. (though I guess it did increase sales over a short period of time)

 Technically, aren't the electric and hick and long hair and whatever else they thought would be a good idea during the nineties all the same version? The Byrne version?

If you needed a good reason to stay off drugs kids, go back and read some mid to late nineties Superman comics. They'll scare you straight! :D Because drug use is the only explaination for why someone would think these things are a good idea!

It's like New Coke, except they brought back the old one after only a few months

Lesson:  Don't eff with a classic

Do you guys know why I think the 90´s version is better than John Byrne´s? Because Jurgens, Kesel, Stern, Ordway, Simonson etc wrote bad stories, but they didn´t destroyed the Superman character like Byrne did. So their Superman was still a loser, but they were writing what Byrne established and was editorial imposed. Also, they were - even before the Loeb´s revamp, Waid´s Kingdon Come and Morrison´s JLA -, trying to rebuilt a kind of Superman mythology. Not the classic one, but they tried to do something where Byrne left empty. There was some kind of failed reconstruction there. The Superman family. The kryptonian conection. The human interest stories. All failed, but they were trying to do something good.

Byrne just succeeded in destroy.

Agree completely ug!!!.Everything superheroic Rucka gets hold of turns to crap!! The TAS animated on the other  the hand is one of my favorites.


Electric Supes wasn't really Supes at all.

Rucka did a good job with Ed Brubaker on Gothan Central. And I liked some of his Superman, even if the general story was crap. Specially the Mxyzptlk tales.

Honestly I didnt even like Animated Series Superman, but maybe its because Batman the animated series was so awesome that supes sucked (in comparasion)

-though I did like Mr.Myx in that series.

I suppose that's a fair argument. You have to work with what they give you, but I still think that some of those ideas were bad from the start like the electrical powers (I don't really know whose idea that was though). The long hair was kept for too long.

The electric version was the worst ever,even if Morrison in JLA make him sometimes interesting.

The worst version of Superman is one that never saw the light of day (but has been much discussed): Tim Burton's aborted movie incarnation (black-clad, flightless, etc). As for the comics, Electric Superman is the worst. 

Anything that happened from the 1986 reboot to the IC reboot

How about the portrayal of Superboy and Kal-L in Infinite Crisis?

What, a thread on bad Supermans has gotten 20+ responses...and not ONE of them have mentioned SUPERMAN III and SUPERMAN IV? Shame!  ;)

There have been some pretty lousy versions of Superman, but I don't think there's ever been a single version of the character completely devoid of at least ONE good idea.

As lousy as LOIS AND CLARK was (and it was pretty bad...George Jefferson as the Toyman? Yeesh!) it had one interesting idea: it made Ma Kent a jeans n' t-shirt wearing, hip old lady, the kind that would do Tai Chi and occasionally skydive. She was much more vivacious and fun than the pie-baking stereotype/nonentity she was in so many other mediums, including the comics.

Mostly, LOIS AND CLARK offended me because it was a comedy, and it wasn't very funny.

My least favorite Superman ever was the rough 1960s Superman/Aquaman Hour. In KAVALIER AND CLAY, the creators of the Escapist had the indignity of their character entering another medium badly. They described all the characters behaving as if they were "slightly mentally retarded."

I laughed so hard at that, because I know what they mean. There was something dimwitted about Superman in "Superman/Aquaman."


Quoted for truth!

Somehow, Burton's version didn't horrify me quite so much as the insanely awful script that Keith Giffen wrote, which was Superman vs. Lobo as a "comedy." Giffen + "Comedy" = Destruction of Sanity.

Singing suicidal Superman. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dm5932W0Qo)

Ok, this has been getting to me for some time now.

It wasn't a mullet.

It was never a mullet.

A mullet is defined as very short in the front and long in the back (business up front, party in the back so to speak).

During that era Superman just had long hair.  When he was Clark it was slicked back and pulled into a ponytail.  You can't do that with a mullet.

Just sayin'.

Mullets were like, Kajagoogoo and all that... Am I right?

Everyone calls it Mullet Superman, but it was never a mullet.

All you ever wanted to know about mullets can be found here:

http://www.mulletsgalore.com/ (http://www.mulletsgalore.com/)

And you're right, Superman never had a mullet.  Captain Planet had a mullet.

Superman just had embarassingly long, glam rock hair, about 18 months after it went out of style.  And worse, Clark combed it into a ponytail.

(http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/f50d/screens_feature-39345.jpeg)

AND he wore a suit.

a suit and glasses with a pony tail??? ugh...was that suppose to be cool??? or maybe it was suppose to make clark look like a dork?

Now long hair and a beard, I could go with that.

From what I recall, a lot of the 90s comics didn't show him with a suit---recall one story had him with just a t-shirt on (while at the Daily Planet offices), along with the long hair/ponytail... given the 90's and 2000s comics' trend of drawing Clark looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger on steroids, it makes his glasses "diguise" look all the weaker....

Worst versions? How about funniest?

(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z119/pantomime2007/gifsupes1.gif)
(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z119/pantomime2007/gifsupes2.gif)

ya he didn't wear his blue suit and hat that much in the 90s. But he still usually wore a shirt and tie.

He should have had an actual mullet, that would be a good look for him.

That Supermacho bit always cracks me up.

That "Superboy" series from the late Eighties/early Nineties.  They turned the cheese factor way up on this one.  Then again, that may be part of its appeal.  One of those "so bad, it's good" kind of things.

I didn't mind the long hair all that much but I prefer the iconic hair style of course.

For me one of the worst version was the whole 'Death of Superman' comic in the mid-90's. Just did not like it at all. Thought it was just a strange publicity stunt.  That and I didn't really care for the animated series either.

The worst Superman is the Superman of the entire Chuck Austen run

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oGvsPo8kEhc/RnNn0fBxJXI/AAAAAAAAAHA/CP1U_IN6kZk/s1600-h/austen.jpg

Haha, . . . . . you ain't kidding.

I wish I was, Austen should never write another Superman story. EVER!

The Superman from The Dark Knight Universe is MY least favorite.  Phooey on dat guy!  ;)

Deffinitely 90's superman. The hair wasn't supermany and his powers < shudder >, he was so weak! he was hurt by anything more powerfulthan a bullet! He could even be killed by a atomic bomb!

I can appreciate aspects of almost all versions of the Man of Steel. Golden Age Supes had a great sense of humor, and he was tough, and knew how to be mild mannered in moderation, with a Lois that works easily as Clark's rival. The Silver Age had it's high points, all the time travel, and the sci-fi, and Lex Luthor, and Jimmy Olsen's' crazy-awesomeness. The Bronze Age made Superman mythic in scale for the first time. The Steel and Iron ages made Clark Kent believable as a human being (if not an athlete) and had the most developed portrayal of Metropolis.

I'm anticipating a violent response to a newbie coming in and saying this, but my least favorite version of Superman is:

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow

I know that it's supposed to be this great farewell to the Silver and Bronze Age, but I just don't think Alan Moore got it right. He did well in his Superman / Swamp Thing crossover. I really love "For the Man Who Has Everything". He definitely gets this version of Superman in Supreme.

But I just don't see the love for that age of Superman in Alan Moore killing off the entire Superverse.

He kills Jimmy! He kills Lana! He kills Pete Ross! He kills Krypto! He kills Bizarro! He kills Lex Luthor! If Supergirl wasn't already dead, he would have killed her!
Worst of all, he kills Clark Kent and Superman, rather than mourning his beloved human side, throws the suit in the dumpster and walks away. I really think Kal-El has more respect for someone he has devoted at least half his life to!
Not to mention the fact that not only is Clark Kent killed, so is Superman. He kills Mxyzptlk. That's bad enough. But then he decides to kill himself too? Great. Atone for killing by killing again. I just don't think that sepukku is something Superman would condone! Sure, Kal-El doesn't die. Disguising yourself as "Jordan Elliot" and living a normal life isn't a bad idea, but think of the message Superman is sending then! "If you ever kill someone, you deserve to die, and since nobody else can kill you, you have to do it yourself". Alan Moore just didn't get it.

There's only one scene in that comic I like. Supergirl and the Legion come back and wish Superman goodbye. That scene is beautifully written.

I do feel that Moore redeemed himself with Supreme, Promethea and Tom Strong years later, and I enjoyed his previous  famous work, Watchmen and V for Vendetta. As a matter of fact, I like most of Alan Moore's stuff. But that particular abuse of the whole world Superman acts as the centerpiece of, I have little love for. He just didn't get it.

By the way, I'm Adekis! Nice to meet you all! I'm not usually so explosive, but I feel pretty strongly about this one. I hope you'll all welcome me into the community! :D

Well, you're not alone. I'm no newbie, and I've made no secret of the fact I do not think "Whatever Happened" is all it's cracked up to be. It doesn't do much for me at all. It's actually pretty forgettable, if you discount its novelty factor.

Ultimately, he tried to shock, to get talked about, to raise a ruckus, but it's just lost amongst all the other ho-hum "shocking" things post-quality in Superman, designed to be talked about, oo-ahh....

As I once said, when I talked about it at length, it's also crammed and rushed.

Somewhere in my mind, Superman is still "mythic" (as you put it), and this comic doesn't even rate alongside the great comics of his career. I'm not saying it's not a fun read, or interesting, but just that it doesn't match up against the best of Superman as I knew him.

Actually, on the forum years ago I suggested Sand-Superman Saga is far superior to "Whatever Happened" and you should have heard the howls from some........... But I haven't changed my mind.

"Whatever Happened" comes from an era when "nasty and brutish" was synonymous with "clever".

Em...... It's still better than this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oGvsPo8kEhc/RnNn0fBxJXI/AAAAAAAAAHA/CP1U_IN6kZk/s1600-h/austen.jpg

Chuck Austin should never write a Superman story ever again.

Or alternately, "if you kill someone, it's okay for you to choose your own punishment.  Then you can disguise yourself and start a new life as someone else."  Last time I checked, the FBI kind of frowns upon this practice.

I'll readily admit "Whatever Happened..." is easily Moore's weakest Superman story, but I don't have as much of a problem with the body count as you guys do.  Indeed the whole aim of the story, from the "this is an imaginary story" intro to the "80-page-Giant"-like cover of the last issue, is to recreate the feel of the Silver Age, and some of the best-remembered tales of that era were the hand-wringing, tear-jerking, overwrought tragedies penned by Jerry Siegel, who wasted no opportunity to visit grief, ruin and destruction on the Man of Steel for reasons it doesn't take a Freud to figure out.  Chiefly I'm thinking of tales like "The Three Wives of Superman," (http://supermanfan.nu/main/?p=4458 (http://supermanfan.nu/main/?p=4458)), which makes Superman a widower three times in one book,  and of course the legendary "Death of Superman," for some reason almost universally regarded as a classic despite being, IMHO, relentlessly bleak and brutally cruel without even offering the final ray of hope Moore's story does.  Moore may play nasty here, but he's not exactly inventing the practice.  The only real difference I can see is that we knew "Death of" was Imaginary and everything would be fine next month, whereas with Moore's tale we knew it was the end, the "real" end.

Anyway, that's the spirit in which I read it: it's a Silver Age tale told in the 80s.  So the images may be a little more graphic and scary (though only compared to what went before, not what's come after) but the spirit is the same.  Note that in stories like "Death," or its polar opposite "The Saga of Superman-Red and Superman-Blue," or even the "fake-out" story "The Last Days of Superman," the writers are sure to touch all the bases, as if working through a checklist of all the elements in the mythos: Legion?  Check.  Atlantis?  Check.  Kandor?  Check.  I take Moore's approach in the same vein, except in this case he's tying up each of those threads: Krypto?  Dead.  Bizarro world?  Gone.  Luthor?  Killed.  Yes, it's a bloodbath, but again it's not the first time an Imaginary Story killed off everyone or nearly everyone, and if you're going to write the last Superman story, you've got an awful lot of baggage to get to.

Ultimately what I don't like about the story is that it is in fact designed to end the saga.  But that's the same problem I had with the other "imaginary stories" that did the same thing.  Somewhere out there, obviously, is an audience that wants to see how Superman dies, which bullet has Batman's name on it, etc.  That's never been me, partly because I can't think of many -- if any -- examples where it was done well.  I liked the way Marvel's Captain Marvel died, but it helped that it was only the second story I ever read with him in it; to me dying was the most interesting thing he ever did.

Anyway, I guess my point is "Whatever Happened to..." is not the best story, and certainly not the masterpiece it's cracked up to be (though for the record, I think "The Killing Joke" is a much more egregious example of a Moore story being puzzlingly over-rated), but it is, for me, what it set out to be; an 80s version of an "Imaginary Story" that could easily have been written by Jerry Siegel, except that if it was there would have been a lot more dialog balloons with characters saying *CHOKE!* and *SOB!* and *GROAN!*

As a boy I didn't know what the word catharsis meant, but I believe this is what I experienced reading many of those Superman stories. Especially by the end of the story. I felt like I had been through something (because I always got wrapped up in what happened--even if I had been forewarned that it was "imaginary") and it wasn't that I felt good by the end--sometimes I felt downright miserable--but it did make me feel like I could get through almost anything, I guess. Maybe that's what catharsis does--it toughens your soul and prepares you for all the real challenges you'll have in life, so you're not as likely to be overwhelmed and defeated by all the horrors ahead.

Something like "Whatever Happened..." was then doing the same thing, but it was a lot harder pounding for the soul. You knew at the end of that story that it wasn't going to get any better after this. You had put yourself through all that pain in the story, but there was a greater pain to come. But maybe that was the point. It wasn't about getting any relief or satisfaction in the end, but making yourself mentally tough enough to endure the rest of your life without this comic book that had been your soft place to land.

That's life. People die, things come to their end. It hurts and it doesn't get any better. But if you accept that, maybe you can get on with enjoying the things you have while you have them.

That's a nice way of looking at it.  Of course kids aren't immune to the fears we all face, like abandonment, failure, death of loved ones, a broken heart, etc., no matter how much we want to shelter them from it.  Grimm's fairy tales, Hans Christian Andersen, Bible stories are all full of tragedy and horror, and kids have been fascinated by them for centuries; indeed Disney-like efforts to sanitize them and make them "kid-friendly" only make them less interesting to children (and everyone else).  I think kids understand on some instinctive level that they're in for hard times later in life, and they seek out these tales for clues of how to deal with it, or at least to build up their callouses so they won't be felled by the first blow. 

In that sense, you could almost argue those Imaginary Stories by Siegel et al were providing a public service to young readers.


I'd agree with that, overall.  Ultimately there were just two ways to go at the time; either keep sailing along, business as usual until suddenly you hit the reboot, or make an effort to wrap it all up with some sort of story that brought closure.  Now I suppose you could say they had the option of giving the old Superman a "happy" ending, but the beauty is you do have that ending if you want it, in "Superman-Red and Superman-Blue" and maybe a couple of others.  They're all "imaginary," so you can plug in whichever one you like.  But seeing as how the "real" end of the books came in 1986, it was pretty much a given things would take a darker turn.  And if you're willing to acknowledge that hard truth, I honestly think it could have been much, much worse.  Indeed, I found Byrne's "Pocket Universe" saga infinitely more bleak and depressing than Moore's finale.  For that matter, I find "Superman as murderer and porn star" more depressing than that whole battlefield full of dead supporting players at the end of "Whatever Happened..."

Anyway, after some thought, I've finally found my candidate for Worst Version of Superman Ever:

(http://www.redshirt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/supernazi8.jpg)

I personally consider All Star Superman a more proper ending for the character than Alan Moore's story. Although I wished they used the ending that was used in the animated adaption which was that

Lex Luthor saw the errors of his way and right before his execution redeems himself by giving Superman's DNA to Leo Quintum, which shoud lead to what would become the Superman Squad in the future. This shows that despite everything, Superman was right all along about Lex having potential for doing something great. 

Well, the problem with All-Star Superman as an end to the Bronze/Silver Age Superman is that they're pretty clearly not the same guy. Silver Age Luthor, for example, is a much more respectable, noble man than in All-Star (I ultimately prefer heroic Luthor, though it has little impact on my enjoyment of All-Star). In All-Star, there's no Supergirl in Superman's time, though she makes an appearance as Superlass of the Superman Squad (and apparently a member of the Legion). Most importantly, there's no  Leo Quintum in the Silver and Bronze Age. This brings my to my next observation.

Now, this is interesting, because though few people notice, this is alluded to in the comic as well. I'm afraid I'll do the idea little justice, especially compared to some of the blogs that talk about it, but it's pretty heavily implied that Leo Quintum is Lex Luthor in disguise, come back from the future after his change of heart following his aquisition and loss of Super-Powers. Quintum claims to be running from the past, though we never see exactly what that is. He's unsure of whether he deserves Superman's trust. He purposely goes on his mission to the sun in order to ensure Superman gets the power boost necessary to save the sun from Solaris. He and Luthor also share a numerical motif: the number five. The issue that deals with Luthor in prison is number five. Leo Quintum also has a lot of the number five permeating his story, though sadly, I forget where exactly, besides the name. Why does the mainstream DCU have no Leo Quintum? Because Luthor hasn't had his change of heart and become him in the mainstream DCU.

Finally, I've got one more thing to say:

I KNEW I was forgetting someone! The real crime of this guy is that he should be really cool. Just listen:
Superman, in the future, fighting twin metahuman clones of Adolf Hitler, who are in charge of an army of robots and monsters. That sounds great to me, and it's still awful. The worst thing about this guy is that it's a good idea, and it's still bad, much like the "Speeding Bullets" Elseworld where Kal-El becomes Bruce Wayne instead of Clark Kent. Should be a good idea, but the execution ruins what I had in mind when I picked the book up.

Sure, that one looks like a winner NOW.  But DC says, "Hold on! It ain't over yet!"

(http://latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/superman-rags-morales.jpg?w=400&h=646)

(http://latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/superman-loses-the-red-trunks.jpg?w=386&h=578)

The worst is not yet to come ... IT is upon us. 

I'd say jhon Bryne Superman, since I could perhaps beat him up in afight ;D, but this new superman might be worse. :o

Apparently Superman always has red eyes now.

And his left thigh is inhumanly too long...

This is where the Bronze Age Curt Swan's ability to understand anatomy and principles like foreshortening is sorely needed. Even many lesser artists knew enough in days of yore to not try to draw what they didn't know how to draw.

One of those covers is by Geo. Perez who should know better.

MEL- Swan in any era, 50s-90s, was a better craftsman and storyteller and he knew not only anatomy but to do expressive faces and gestures that turned four color funnies into illos in the Norman Rockwell manner.

Yeah, it does look like Perez. He seems to be even more intent on showing every muscle in full tension (and outlined like its a ball). It's very hard to extend a leg, tense all muscles, show the knee in full view and then have the lower leg slightly foreshortened below it. The digital airbrushed colors emphasize all this to my mind.

Swan understood these things better, even as he added more detail in his later work.

worst version?
every panel with superman floating in air with his arms crossed with glowing red eyes

thats the worst version

I don't know if Supes really would get that angry ALL the time like he does
plus when he does that, something happens to him where it looks foolish (he gets talked down too, or beaten up)

so writers want him to look tough...for a second and then take him down a notch??

There's this version of Superman where he's de-aged, de-married, and given a costume that looks like it was designed by an overrated, past-his-prime 90s comic book artist who has no business doing anything with Superman.

Thankfully, this was just a nightmare I had one night.

Right...?

Four years later and I still say Greg Rucka's revenge-driven maniac.

Dan Jurgens.

(http://superman.nu/portal/History/foolish.JPG) (http://superman.nu/portal/History/iron.php#jurgens)

Is there a context I'm missing here?

I don't think it's too bad for Superman to hope for less fan mail. He's a humble guy. He thinks his time would be better spent saving lives or even reporting on injustice than on reading fan mail. Especially since in this era, he didn't have the super-intellect yet, the one that allows him to read and respond to them all in a few minutes. It's a loss I don't like, but certainly one I can handle, especially since he eventually got that particular power back.
Don't get me wrong. There are defintely some bad moments in the Dan Jurgens era, but I don't think that's one of them.

I think this is one of those annual Christmas stories where Superman grudgingly opens his mail, full of desperate pleas for help from people around the country/world, and deigns to help out a handful of them.

Don't recognize the midget in the chauffer's cap, though.

The only correlation is that it's one of the few Jurgens panels I've got on the site.  Basically, every time Jurgens wrote Superman, he wrote of an angst-ridden ineffectual and powerless whiner and complainer who spent all his time moping about how he couldn't do anything.  Hence, my take for worst version of "Superman" ever.

If you could even call him that.

(http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/asimov/20/sup72z.jpg)

He did at least draw him pretty well, though, when inked by Art Thibert.  I remember liking his art on the "Krimson Kryptonite" storyline.  Of course it helps that it was written by Roger Stern, who's a real writer.

I recall buying that mailbag issue because I thought it might be fun. Then I opened it and saw that Superman was aggravated by answering fan mail. Granted, I get aggravated getting a lot of mail, but I'm not Superman. I don't read Superman to see someone like me; I want to read about someone who rises above his weakness to be an example to others.

And I say this having been brought into Superman's world through "The Death of Superman," which I still really enjoy. But moments like these, when Jurgens or someone else made Superman a dour, joyless whiner, made me start saving for Archives.

It wasn't the worst but it seemed like the long haired Superman seemed less polite and less-Superman like.

the tail end of Loeb's era was pretty terrible

When Loeb first came on it wasn't bad but towards the end WOW
I GET IT!!!!! He lived on a farm
and being superman is HARD!!!
and he's stupid

for the love of mike, I GET IT!!!!!!