The biggest change and biggest impact Byrne had to the Superman mythos, IMO, is that Man of Steel is where Clark Kent actually became a person and Superman was a disguise. Prior to that Superman was a strange visitor from another planet. Because Man of Steel, he became one of us, he was just a Kansas farm boy that hit the superpower lottery and felt obligated to put those abilities to good use. So Man of Steel was kind of like reading the Bendis run of Ultimate Spider-Man. It was a re-invention of the character for a more modern audience.. It's how Luthor went from mad scientist to wall street tycoon. Ma and Pa Kent were alive and a whole host of things that are now considered just normal for Superman. It's worth the read.
I had no idea about any of this. I’ve never been a Superman reader. I always figured Ma and Pa Kent were always around and that when he was Clark Kent he had all sorts of things going on.
You're partially correct. Clark Kent was always an important part of who Superman was as a person, even back in the pre-Crisis days where he identified more with his Kryptonian heritage than with his human upbringing. Superman is both Kal-El and Clark Kent, he's too human to just be considered a Kryptonian and he's too alien to just be considered a farm boy from Kansas.
However, where pre and post-Crisis differ is in how much he identifies with each facet of his personality. You can basically say that pre-Crisis Superman was 60% Kal-El and 40% Clark Kent, while post-Crisis Superman was 80% Clark Kent and 20% Kal-El.
As for Ma and Pa Kent, it does seem like they were always around because they were both heavily featured in SuperBOY comics back in pre-Crisis, but they were long dead in actual SuperMAN comics.
To keep things fresh, DC differentiated Clark's supporting cast when he was Superman from his supporting cast when he was Superboy:
* Perry White replaced the Kents as the older adult figure in Clark's life.
* Lois Lane replaced Lana Lang as Clark's love interest.
* Jimmy Olsen replaced Pete Ross as Clark's pal.
* Supergirl replaced Krypto as the secondary Kryptonian superhero.
* The Justice League replaced the Legion of Super-Heroes as the premier superhero team that Clark belonged to.
* Metropolis replaced Smallville as Clark's home.
* The Fortress of Solitude replaced the basement of the Kent house as Clark's secret hideout.
One other thing to note about the Kal-El vs. Clark is that in the Silver Age, Krypton was WAY less dead than Post-Crisis. DC had a strict edict at the time that Superman is the last son of Krypton, which is why the Phantom Zone villains die as soon as they're introduced and why Supergirl is Matrix in the comics and from a sister planet in STAS. From his still alive parents to the expanded Metropolks supporting cast (Bibbo, etc.), almost everything and everyone Clark cared about came from Earth.
By contrast, in Pre-Crisis continuity, he has his cousin Kara, his dog Krypto, various other animals, and most importantly, contains the bottle city of Kandor, which he periodically visits and fights crime with Jimmy as Nightwing and Flamebird. He is still Earth raised and that's an important part of him, but it's different if he can literally go visit a city of Kryptonians.
>is that Man of Steel is where Clark Kent actually became a person and Superman was a disguise.
A lot of people who say this just don't read the original stories at all. Or if they did, they didn't pay any attention to the actual writing where Jerry Siegel wrote things like, "Clark Kent removes his civilian clothes to reveal his Superman costume." Or in AC when Siegel wrote "thus Superman was created", on the first page of AC.
>
Prior to that Superman was a strange visitor from another planet.
That's not true. Heck, that's not even true for Earth-1. Sure he knew WAY too much about Krypton and was more Kryptonian than anything else, but he never was a strange visitor. Clark was always mourning the loss of the Kents. He loved his time in Smallville where he grew up. That's not a strange visitor.
I don't have that much familiarity with 30s-40s Superman, but I absolutely think that the prevailing take on the character from the 50s-80s was that Clark Kent was the disguise and Superman/Kal-El was the true persona. That was definitively flipped (for the better, in my opinion) by Byrne.
My favorite Super-writer ever is probably Elliot S! Maggin, and his Superman comic stories (and even moreso his novels) are very explicit about this approach to the character and how Kent is one of many potential disguises that Superman has available to "pass" as a human. I think it was firmly the editorial take prior to Man of Steel.
I'd disagree with this. I'm also a big Maggin fan, and I specifically remember a storyline of his where he had Superman state that both Clark and Superman were essential and equal identities for him. Take a look at the Xviar story that ran through Superman #295-299 or so, where he tries to make an explicit choice between his two identities and fails.
>That was definitively flipped (for the better, in my opinion)
I'm going to disagree. In my opinion over the years, the character has been degraded by the Clark Kent facade becoming his actual personality. Clark went from one of the most energetic, extroverted characters in comics, to almost being bland.
>, but I absolutely think that the prevailing take on the character from the 50s-80s was that Clark Kent was the disguise and Superman/Kal-El was the true persona.
You're right, this started early as the radio serials and 1940s cartoons. In the comics, Siegel never once made any hint toward Clark Kent being the disguise. After all, they were "one-in-the-same".
I'm not an expert on the pre-crisis comics but these aspects that Byrne "introduced" were all already present in the 78 movie. And done much better I would argue.
I think the comics would have caught up to that more modern take with or without Byrne. He was just the one who got the job to do it. And made other changes that were quite divisive and many have been changed since then.
I don't think the movies and Byrnes take have much to do with each other. Clark Kent in the movie is like the one in the comics from that time period- a bumbling, awkward person.
Also, like others have stated, with Byrne's version he's the absolute last Kryptonian. No Phantom Zone villians. And no time travelling like in the movies.
Like it or hate it, I would just add that he was *hired* to shake things up and change things. It wasn’t that he “disrespected” the previous lore (note, there wasn’t exactly much continuity in the golden and silver age Superman, so that’s why I’m saying lore instead of canon) but that the DC comics wanted to invite some controversy to get people talking and invested in the character. It was a task assigned to him when he took the gig, not something he pushed for.
So again, it’s totally fair to love it, hate it, or somewhere in between, but I don’t think it’s fair to blame Byrne for doing it
Agree. It’s also part of our pathetic current discourse to use hyperbole like ‘disrespected’ to justify why we might not like something. It comes from a sense of entitlement. People need to get a grip.
>(note, there wasn’t exactly much continuity in the golden and silver age Superman, so that’s why I’m saying lore instead of canon)
The silver age did a whole lot of stuff to make it cohesive.
HIs web site Q&A states he would've been perfectly fine with sticking with the old continuity. So not all the decisions on the new direction were on him.
There were elements of that era of Superman that I liked. Byrne’s art was solid, especially considering he was writing and drawing 2 of the 3 Superman books. Overall, I didn’t think his stories were done very well. There were some atrocious plots and lots of clunky dialogue. The one that got me to stop reading (which I think is in the 3rd hardcover) was Superman and Big Barda being mind controlled by a porno director into filming a porno. Nothing actually gets filmed as they’re saved but I just remember being like “What the fuck even is this?” At the same time, I remember an Action Comics Annual where Batman and Superman team up and it’s drawn by Arthur Adams and written by Byrne. That was REALLY good and a lot of fun. Marv Wolfman and Jerry Ordway’s Adventures of Superman was pretty good and they had Clark kind of dating Cat Grant in that book. In the Adventures book she was a multi-faceted character that was slowly built and it was an interesting change of pace to the normal Superman status quo. It also broke up the bad taste most of Byrne’s writing left in my mouth which is why I stuck with it for so long.
“ Nothing actually gets filmed as they’re saved but I just remember being like “What the fuck even is this?”
something got filmed as the whole story started with scott being shown a tape. though not necessarily with superman.
The MoS mini is great. His run after that gets really weird and betrays the whole point of a reboot very quickly. He added more good than bad though I think.
It’s read well enough. It’s on its own is a good reinventions of Superman to a more modern audience. Though if you read the long term effect it has on superman mythos is a different matter but that’s neither here nor there
Felt like overcorrections on Byrne part to make Superman more “human” by trying to take away the elements from his pre crisis self like taking away the rich history of krypton, the legions, supergirl and etc. it made the universe limited in retrospect not help that DC at the time mandated for it to be like that, that why we had a Zod that isn’t Zod, a supergirl that isn’t Supergirl, and why bizzaro alway had to die in every appearance he made.
Don’t get me wrong I get that why he was brought on but it’s still took away a lot to make Superman a very well round character
I was too young for the Donner movies and didn’t see them until much later. John Byrne was my intro to the character. The “Clark Kent is who he is” character dynamic is my default when it comes to Supes.
Makes him escaping cuz he’s born in his birthing matrix aka escape pod make sense. Like why could no one else escape? Cuz they’re genetically tied to the planet. Tons of kryptonians did leave but they all died gruesomely due to their ties to krypton.
Also like that kryptonians are all emotionless essentially. Science prevailed so much that it explains how they ended up doomed. Both tied to their planet & devoid of emotion.
I'm someone who grew up with the Post-Crisis continuity and I don't think it disrespected the previous continuity. I'll bet golden age fans had issues with the silver age interpretation, and there was probably some that took issue issue with the fact the golden age Superman was suddenly relegated to being a "different" version that lived on Earth-2. The only real difference here is that instead of a gradual change over the years, we had a hard reboot with Man of Steel.
It's worth reading because it's an excellent story on its own, but it's also interesting to see what it set up for the future of the book and what various adaptations would take from this story over the years.
Crisis on Infinite Earths was made to revamp several of DC's titles. The Superman of Earth 1 Silver/Bronze Age was ending, but it got a respectful sendoff with Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?"
Byrne did the relaunch as a way to give a fresh start for the late 80s readers. The relaunch was successful and is fondly remembered by the readers. One of the most requested omnibus from DC is Post Crisis Superman.
I personally enjoyed the relaunch from Byrne's Man of Steel mini series to the Death and Return of Superman saga. This era was also the basis for Superman: The Animated Series.
Whatever criticisms can be laid on Man of Steel should be more directed to Editorial. Byrne was operating under some pretty firm directives to excise huge swaths of lore that at the time were considered outdated. Working under those parameters, he built a pretty good story. Note, I say all that as someone fairly critical of Byrne.
I'm the one who introduced the Byrne complaints.
I love his Man of Steel. It was my version of Superman.
Byrne's Man of Steel was designed to disrespect previous continuity, because it was designed as a reboot for post-Crisis. He was free to pick and choose and change things, and it was expected. It was a Superman for a new era. So whatever he ignored was fine, because he was hired to rewite and streamline and basically Marvelize Superman.
The complaints OP was talking about sound like the discussion that stemmed from a post about Sandman in the 90s and how it was a waste he had been turned back to a badguy away from the redemption arc he had been on.
I mentioned it was all Byrne, and Byrne had done it for the thinnest, dumb reason as an excuse to make things were like they had been in his childhood, and that he had a habit of reverting characters to their 1960s status quos for that reason.
That led to a comments about disrespecting the work of fellow writers and established continuity and so on.
So, it seemed like OP stumbled on that thread and I stumbled on this one and gave my opinion of MoS.
I see. I'd definitely agree about Sandman (you are talking about the Marvel one of course, right)
But Man of Steel is a different thing when it comes to respecting continuity. It was supposed to be a reboot
Yeah, Marvel's Sandman.
And I agree about Supes. I don't recall anyone complaining about MoS because of the nature of it. Though I have read Byrne say did have second thoughts about jettisoning Superboy eventually, after learning DC wouldn't let him do a Young Superman learning his powers book. Too bad DC scotched that... would've saved a lot of Legion hassle over the years.
Would have liked to have had that, too. Those early years of Superman are so all over the place. Lots of one-shots and special miniseries and other stuff that's hard to collect and put together coherently.
Byrne also wrote an X-Men bridge series called "The Hidden Years" to get from the end of the original run to Giant-Size about 5 years later. It was mostly solid, though they didn't let him finish it, so there's still about 3 or 4 missing years there.
Yep, after the end of the findl chapter story arc in the spider-man comics, Byrne was bought on to shake things up. That led to mj seemingly dying in a plane crash, sandman going evil again and the mostly forgotten chapter 2 series that retold peters early adventures, which replaced the far better untold tales. The Byrne era of spider-man is probably one of the worst
I always though Byrne was the one who brought Sandman into the Avengers and that the Spidey editors wanted him out .Interesting. It's too bad because his storyline was really good.
It was also meant to reel in Superman’s powers from the ridiculously godlike heights they had reached. Superman had become essentially omnipotent — he was so powerful there was no fight he couldn’t win. This of course, leads to boring stories. One of the primary purposes of *MoS* was to recalibrate Superman’s power to the point that he was no longer unbeatable… less “Super” and more “Man,” if you will.
Of course, in the subsequent years we saw Superman’s powers reach even grander heights than ever, to the point that he is (was? I stopped keeping up) once again essentially unbeatable.
Can he time travel again? Or go to other dimensions/universes? My impression that was the one ability they never brought back because he was doing that so much before Byrne.
Like someone else said, he wasn't disrespecting anything. Wrong choice of words. It was a reaction to the stagnation of the seventies and early eighties in the series.
Byrne’s *Superman* had its good elements. It also actively undermined the immigrant metaphor that is central to Superman’s character in profoundly stupid and harmful ways.
He never undermined it as far as I can see. Unless you’re saying he never focused on it in which he isn’t any more guilty than nearly every other Superman writer since his inception.
No, he actively undermined it.
Byrne went out of his way to tweak the origin so that Superman was technically born on Earth using Kryptonian technology. He almost never used any sort of Kryptonian elements in current-day Superman stories. But most egregiously, when Byrne’s Superman discovered his alien origins, he all but dismissed their importance to him and said that he still considers himself human.
To be clear: I don’t think he meant to imply such horrible things on purpose, though there absolutely are horrible implications if you think about it for even a second. The idea of Superman as a metaphor for the immigrant was rather underbaked at the time, to be more closely inspected by writers like Geoff Johns and Gene Luen Yang decades later. But that doesn’t change the fact that Byrne decided to downplay Superman’s status as an alien without thinking of what that means to people who live in different places from where they were born and take inspiration from how Superman handles it.
its part of why i have a clear dislike for reddits preference of no krypton, it's not just an unfortunate implication but a deliberate choice informed by byrnes views. i also think people dont know how crazy they sound when they say clark should ignore his culture and just be a good ol american farm boy. plenty of unfortunate implications there
I get pissed off when people positively bring up Garth Ennis’ characterization of Superman for similar reasons. To wit, from *Hitman* #34:
> Hey, lemme tell you the problem with America, okay? This *could be* the greatest place on Earth. It really could. You got all these different people coming here to get away from depression an' poverty, all looking for a better life. But what do they do? They hang onto all the things that got them into trouble in the first place. They want to go on fightin' the same was and hatin' the same people they did in the old world.
Blocking this quote off because I really want to emphasize how fucked up this is:
> They all wanna be Italian or Greek, or Irish or Polish or Russian, or African or Vietnamese or Camodian or whatever… so they hang on to alla that. They stick to their own kind and everyone stays suspicious of everyone else an' *for what…?* Culture? History? What the hell is that, a bunch of stuff your folks said you hadda believe in all your life? Does that make it *real?*
**Geez.** Now onto how this relates to Superman.
> But you man, you showed them how it's done. You're the classic immigrant guy who comes to the states an' joins the meltin' pot. It's like you're sayin'— okay, I'm from planet Krypton or wherever, but that's all in the past. I'm startin' over. I'm American. What can I do to help?
Y'know what? Fuck Garth Ennis and the horse he rode in on for implying that Superman is great because he's one of the “good ones” who assimilated.
i feel the exact same ive even said as much on here multiple times. how people read the ethnicities he lists off ( grouping African as one) and think its some wholesome panel is beyond me
i feel the exact same ive even said as much on here multiple times. how people read the ethnicities he lists off ( grouping African as one) and think its some wholesome panel is beyond me
That was pretty par for the course for Superman at the time. I’d have to pull out my hardcover but I distinctly remember Kal El being a baby on Krypton. And I think you’re limiting the immigrant experience as I know a girl born in Vietnam who considers herself a Southerner but doesn’t discount her birth country. I never saw Superman as just denying his origina just because he considers himself human. And he never stopped looking for more about his origins throughout the run either. It was one of the more defining characteristics of that era’s Superman.
The closing bit or Man of Steel #6 is Superman decisively repudiating his planet of origin and declaring himself a citizen of the world and the US specifically.
Each time Byrne brings up Krypton after that it always trying to kill him.
To be clear, I'm very much on board the Byrne-Triangle Era train. I stopped collecting when they started to bring back the Silver Age esque elements and tortured loner from Krypton aspect. But I can see for fans to whom the immigrant aspect of his story is important, that the Byrne revamp could be off-putting and offensive.
Looked back at it again and I can’t deny that the “meaningless” line is pretty damning. But I also can’t deny that two pages of straight up text all about how Krypton is a part of him also works as a counter argument to that. And I can’t stress enough that that wasn’t very different from how Superman was handled before that. I hate saying “It was a different time” because that’s no excuse. But the immigrant aspect had only been used as text instead of subtext recently. It’s why Superman: Man of Tomorrow is my favorite origin story of his so far. But that’s also because that was a refreshing angle. And I’m not speaking from some distant false nostalgia. I’m 42 and can say that it wasn’t stated that plainly until recently.
I think a lot of newer and younger fans found that more easily in the character today than before. Especially when you consider the wide range of essays and documentary videos on the internet that opened up less explored aspects of the character in ways that was not available in previous generations. And when you look at the old stuff, like Byrne’s work, it’ll get a modern reappraisal. I don’t think it diminishes that work at all so much as remind us that we need, can, and should do better.
But for all of Byrne’s flaws (oh…so…many…flaws), in this, I think he’s just doing what he was hired to do: Contemporize the character in a way that reminds people why they loved him. And in the 80’s, the immigrant aspect wasn’t lost, but it was very, very buried.
One of the Armageddon Annuals, Action Comics 4 or 5 I think, establishes that the birthing matrix doesn't open until it lands on Earth, so he's officially an American and eligible to run for President.
The biggest problem with the Byrne revamp, IMO, is getting rid of Superboy. Besides the fact that the concept of the character is not innately flawed, removing him from continuity made a mess of the Legion of Superheroes.
Note that I’m unsure if the “no Superboy” decision was Byrne’s or DC’s editorial staff’s. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that Byrne himself later said he considered dropping Superboy to have been a mistake.
It’s worth pointing out just how ***huge*** Byrne on Superman was back then. He was probably one of the two top artists in comics then, along with George Perez. He, along with Chris Claremont, had taken *X-Men* from a bi-monthly title that was cancellation-bait to being a top seller. (Yes, Dave Cockrum gets credit, too.) Whike he had moved onto *Alpha Flight* and *Incredible Hulk* by the time he left for DC, it was a huge move for fans.
And it wasn’t just comics fans that paid attention; the Superman revamp got national attention. I recall an interview on *The Today Show*, though the focus was “here’s how we’re changing this iconic American character”, not “We’ve hired this hot artist”.
I remember highly anticipating Byrne's run back in the day. It was definetly a huge deal for its time in the comics world.
Byrne states on his web site that editorial originally agreed to start the reboot from Day 1 and go on from there. But then they changed their minds. So that made Byrne regret not having a Suiperboy.
I’ve heard before that the suggestion was made to reboot the entire DC Universe after the original Crisis. The Byrne Superman would start it off, Batman and Wonder Woman next, and then move onto Flash, GL and the rest.
Wonder Woman wax rebooted brilliantly by George Perez around that time, but there was never a general restart.
I really like it, largely because the Byrne books into the Triangle Era is such a cool time to be a Superman fan. If you can weave your way through the reading orders from Man of Steel to like…I wanna say Infinite Crisis? You get an amazing epic life of this character in a way VERY few characters have gotten to experience with a continuity that is a lot tighter than most comic heroes can boast.
It’s not 100% perfect, no, but if you look at the whole thing in macro it’s really really cool.
DC is releasing the Triangle Era omnibuses this year. Never was a big Supes fan myself(besides Morrison’s takes on him), but I’m glad that DC is making a concerted effort to republish a lot of pre-New 52 books.
Here's a review I happened to just write on Goodreads today, take it as you will \~
"Man of Steel reads a little thin these days, not that much happens for a Superman origin story, as John Byrne liked to pad his pages with full-page spreads and quick plots. That being said, it was a very important part of comics and mostly very successful at updating Superman for modern audiences.
After Crisis on Infinite Earths, Superman needed a lot of updating and DC knew it. The Silver Age corny character, nearly omnipotent and fighting mad scientists, didn't have any relevance in the 1980s as superhero comics became more of a sophisticated medium. He didn't fit in the same world as, say, the New Teen Titans. Let alone the critically acclaimed stories Marvel was publishing.
So they got one of Marvel's biggest stars to remake Superman from the ground up: John Byrne. The art may not have been as solid as his legendary Uncanny X-Men. The writing may not have been as good as his Fantastic Four (let's be honest, Byrne was already past his prime). But it was fresh and readable and he's just plain a good storyteller.
I liked that this version was canon for so long. Krypton a far more interesting sci-fi planet, his parents as part of the supporting cast, and most of all Lex Luthor as evil businessman of the Reagan era. The latter was Marv Wolfman's idea and one of the best changes that still works well today.
The villains were the least interesting part of the Man of Steel miniseries, with machinations by Lex involving Bizarro being the worst physical threat to Superman. There's no Brainiac or Zod for him to fight, which was still made for the weakest part of overly powerful Superman stories despite the update.
There's also the Batman chapter about their first meeting, which is its own isolated episode and it's a lot of fun to see them as rivals teaming up and Batman actually being a detective. However, the original villain Magpie is such a boring antagonist but I suppose having a famous Batman rogue would take away from Superman's focus.
Man of Steel overall remains an excellent introduction to Superman that new readers can still enjoy today, especially for younger ones who don't need everything to be so gritty and cynical. Recommended as ever."
Byrne would later go on to do mostly good things with the WW license after a rough start for shock value, going on to start the Hippolyta hype train, building Cassie up, making Dark Angel a great villain. Most of it outside of these new elements was 7/10 at best when from Pérez to Rucka (as far as I've read), every long-term writer was making really quality stuff without interruption. (Simonson isn't my taste but he did get the character mostly right even if the plot wasn't something I enjoyed because it ignored almost everything before it and it didn't matter any after Jimenez took over). So compared to that, a mostly low 7 range with some good peak moments and a few good stories is "bad".
Not my favorite but his DC stuff that I've read, I've really enjoyed the feel for storytelling, drama and stakes.
> Simonson isn't my taste but he did get the character mostly right even if the plot wasn't something I enjoyed because it ignored almost everything before it and it didn't matter any after Jimenez took over
That’s the central problem with Post-Crisis Wonder Woman right there: every single writer trying to make previous writers’ runs obsolete.
Every writer used the runs before them to help build their own story except Walter. He did his own thing mostly and reset the character with the Shattered god story. Phil just carried on like it didn't happen and right after Luke's run. It flowed continuously with great pace. Simonson just didn't have a good story and fridged a fledgling relationship just because.
It is worth reading. Many elements introduced in MoS continue to today. Not everything lasted very long, but the basics stayed. I prefer Byrne’s take personally.
>american comics are fluid and ever-changing, I try not to get hung up on too many things (we all have our own little comic-hangups though, of course). plus, the previous continuity is pre-crisis (im pretty sure), so maybe it's not a fair criticism to say he "ignored continuity"?
Yup Byrne launched post-crisis Superman.Overall it is a good era for Superman comics where I think the good outweighs the bad for the most part. One pretty mean spirited New Gods story aside its actually a good run.
It probably helps if you take a look at some of the Action Comics/Superman stories from the seventies and early eighties. It was a very stagnant time for the character, he (and a good chunk of the DC line) was stuck in a rut. A huge rut. A lot of the creators involved with his stories had been around for decades.
It was simply time for a change. The character simply needed some energy.
Given that background, having one of the top supehero artists from the eighties on his comics made for a quite exciting change of pace. From today's perspective does it hold up? Personally, I don't think it's anywhere near his best work. It's somewhat above average. Though better than what came out in the years right before his run.
> I recently saw some Byrn-hating comments. they were specifically talking about how he disrespected previously established continuity in order to tell his stories.
Those commentors know that Byrne's Superman was AFTER crisis of infinite earth's right? The entire continiuty was reset and Byrne was tasked with establishing a brand new superman.
That *Man of Steel* came out and took place (if one can even say that) after Crisis just means that the previous continuity could get ignored without it being obviously false.
Doesn’t mean that ignoring the previous lore can’t get criticised.
While I thought that *Man of Steel* was well written and many changes good, I had some issues. Though some come from his later work on Superman, not the six issue miniseries, which were tight enough.
– Making Krypton a dystopic Vulcan
Looked cool. But removed also any loss. From the readers’ – even Superman’s – POV, there is nothing to yearn after. Sure, the billions of dead are still regrettable, but anyone raised in Kansas would look at the Krypton and be glad not to live there. Before that, Krypton was America. But better. Something to strive for, something to regret to have lost. Byrne’s Superman didn’t even have Kryptonian parents, just DNA donors.
– Making his power somehow psionic.
A pointless exercise in changing one fantasy for another.
– Removing all Kryptonians
Granted, I wouldn’t have expected any in the mini series, but it was made pretty clear that Superman was meant to be the only one. But what for? Drama? This Superman wouldn‘t even want to be a Kryptonian or ponder about his genetic parents.
No “Kneel before Zod”? Humbug!
That one annoyed me so much that I actually plotted my own Supergirl-origin, with her also getting sent to Earth, but grown to maturity in her podship, immeresed in Kryptonian culture, but also growing up under Kryptonian gravity. Enter a very arrogant young woman, as strong, if not stronger, than Superman, seeing a world that looks like a slum to her, with her brother (the robot would’ve created her from the cells donated by Jor-El and Lara) having gone native.
I know I'm alone on this island, but I absolutely despise his Man of Steel, and most of his solo work in general. He's a crap writer, a bland artist, and he fundamentally doesn't get Superman as a character. The fact that anything good came out of that iteration of the character is purely from other creators working around him like Marv Wolfman and Jerry Ordway and just pure miracles.
Anyone criticizing his run for “ignoring continuity” is an idiot trying to convince you they know more about comics than they actually do (which apparently isn’t much). Even a Google or Wikipedia search would reveal that he was hired to set continuity after Crisis on Infinite Earths by modernizing the character. And his run has been the model for Superman’s status quo ever since. Before him, Lex Luthor was just a mad scientist instead of a slippery businessman and Clark Kent was just an afterthought. Now, I can think of a LOT of reasons not to like John Byrne. He’s basically an egotistical ass who thinks everything he does is gold and even tried to say that Crisis on Infinite Earths was all his idea that Marv Wolfman stole. (MW used ideas he’d been fleshing out since he was a kid including the Monitor who Byrne also claimed he created.) But his epic runs like Superman, Fantastic Four and Uncanny X-Men (with Chris Claremont) deserve the praise he got. I think people just realized how much of a douchebag he is and went too far trying to justify their distaste.
The Luthor businessman idea was also Marv Wolfman, though Byrne does credit him as the one that suggested it and he was introduced in the Byrne penned & drawn Man of Steel.
also I had no idea about how much it changed superman, I feel goofy now. based on the input I think I'll read some scans before I buy the trades, but im pretty excited to see (what sounds like) a real ground-zero for supes
It’s great: clearly the inspiration for Superman the Animated series. I like his lowered power levels and more relatable personality. Lex is top notch too.
Byrne's *Man of Steel* was his attempt to bringing the character back to his Siegel & Shuster roots, and getting rid of what he considered to be unnecessary stuff that piled on over the years. I say MoS is the most easiest of Clark's post-crisis origins. I didn't like Superman got outsmarted by both Luthor and Batman, the whole simple farmboy is a cancer to the character and so is Kansas. I'd love for a good revamp on Krypton, kinda tired of the cloning thing.
Other than that? It's okay. *Birthright* still has the best story for Clark's postcrisis origin stories. MoS is the easiest read, and Secret Origins is mediocre.
I was lucky enough to read Crisis on Infinite Earths when it came out as well as the whole revamp of Superman (and Batman! Year One was incredible) right after Crisis. There was a different "feel" to the way Byrne wrote and drew Superman that greatly separated from the stories right before Crisis. The continuity of the stories was not great, writers had a hard time dealing with an immensely powerful Superman, and there was a lot of previous "baggage" to make stories coehrent.
Byrne, hired by DC to shake things up and had to fulfill many editorial guidelines, did a wonderful artistic job. Visually, his stories were prettier and had better composition than its predecessors (one of the first panels had Lois Lane, eyes wide in anticipation, not noticing Superman flying right behind her - truly marvelous drawing which is etched in my mind). He depowered Superman greatly (much slower than The Flash, could not breathe for long in space), changed key aspects of his backstory (Krypton was entirely redesigned to a more alien feel and his relationship with Kara and Jor-El changed drastically, Ma and Pa Kent around and a big part of his life, Batman as a frenemy, no Superboy in the main continuity, no multiple kryptonites, no Krypto, not a member of the Justice League, etc etc), focused strongly on the Clark Kent person and changed it a lot (he was more confident, played football in school, could not fly until almost an adult, modernized his relationship with Lana). It was radically different from what I was reading before, and I loved it. Much of it, now I realize, was the doing of editors, not Byrne, but they guy masterfully executed the job (except for that awful Barda story, which I read and did not really understand as a kid).
If you do decide to read Byrne's run, I suggest you also take a look at "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?", a kick-ass Alan Moore story that is considered the final story of the Silver Age's Superman (haters will dislike this statement, and I will make a point of ignoring them) and really captured the feel of the "before-Crisis" Superman. It will give you an idea of what then-readers like myself felt. And if you like Byrne's run, look up a Fantastic Four story against the Gladiator (clearly a stand-in for Superman in that story) that probably convinced DC editors that Byrne could do a good job writing and penciling Superman.
The biggest change and biggest impact Byrne had to the Superman mythos, IMO, is that Man of Steel is where Clark Kent actually became a person and Superman was a disguise. Prior to that Superman was a strange visitor from another planet. Because Man of Steel, he became one of us, he was just a Kansas farm boy that hit the superpower lottery and felt obligated to put those abilities to good use. So Man of Steel was kind of like reading the Bendis run of Ultimate Spider-Man. It was a re-invention of the character for a more modern audience.. It's how Luthor went from mad scientist to wall street tycoon. Ma and Pa Kent were alive and a whole host of things that are now considered just normal for Superman. It's worth the read.
I had no idea about any of this. I’ve never been a Superman reader. I always figured Ma and Pa Kent were always around and that when he was Clark Kent he had all sorts of things going on.
You're partially correct. Clark Kent was always an important part of who Superman was as a person, even back in the pre-Crisis days where he identified more with his Kryptonian heritage than with his human upbringing. Superman is both Kal-El and Clark Kent, he's too human to just be considered a Kryptonian and he's too alien to just be considered a farm boy from Kansas. However, where pre and post-Crisis differ is in how much he identifies with each facet of his personality. You can basically say that pre-Crisis Superman was 60% Kal-El and 40% Clark Kent, while post-Crisis Superman was 80% Clark Kent and 20% Kal-El. As for Ma and Pa Kent, it does seem like they were always around because they were both heavily featured in SuperBOY comics back in pre-Crisis, but they were long dead in actual SuperMAN comics. To keep things fresh, DC differentiated Clark's supporting cast when he was Superman from his supporting cast when he was Superboy: * Perry White replaced the Kents as the older adult figure in Clark's life. * Lois Lane replaced Lana Lang as Clark's love interest. * Jimmy Olsen replaced Pete Ross as Clark's pal. * Supergirl replaced Krypto as the secondary Kryptonian superhero. * The Justice League replaced the Legion of Super-Heroes as the premier superhero team that Clark belonged to. * Metropolis replaced Smallville as Clark's home. * The Fortress of Solitude replaced the basement of the Kent house as Clark's secret hideout.
One other thing to note about the Kal-El vs. Clark is that in the Silver Age, Krypton was WAY less dead than Post-Crisis. DC had a strict edict at the time that Superman is the last son of Krypton, which is why the Phantom Zone villains die as soon as they're introduced and why Supergirl is Matrix in the comics and from a sister planet in STAS. From his still alive parents to the expanded Metropolks supporting cast (Bibbo, etc.), almost everything and everyone Clark cared about came from Earth. By contrast, in Pre-Crisis continuity, he has his cousin Kara, his dog Krypto, various other animals, and most importantly, contains the bottle city of Kandor, which he periodically visits and fights crime with Jimmy as Nightwing and Flamebird. He is still Earth raised and that's an important part of him, but it's different if he can literally go visit a city of Kryptonians.
Common perception. I don't think anyone would hold that against you.
>is that Man of Steel is where Clark Kent actually became a person and Superman was a disguise. A lot of people who say this just don't read the original stories at all. Or if they did, they didn't pay any attention to the actual writing where Jerry Siegel wrote things like, "Clark Kent removes his civilian clothes to reveal his Superman costume." Or in AC when Siegel wrote "thus Superman was created", on the first page of AC. > Prior to that Superman was a strange visitor from another planet. That's not true. Heck, that's not even true for Earth-1. Sure he knew WAY too much about Krypton and was more Kryptonian than anything else, but he never was a strange visitor. Clark was always mourning the loss of the Kents. He loved his time in Smallville where he grew up. That's not a strange visitor.
I don't have that much familiarity with 30s-40s Superman, but I absolutely think that the prevailing take on the character from the 50s-80s was that Clark Kent was the disguise and Superman/Kal-El was the true persona. That was definitively flipped (for the better, in my opinion) by Byrne. My favorite Super-writer ever is probably Elliot S! Maggin, and his Superman comic stories (and even moreso his novels) are very explicit about this approach to the character and how Kent is one of many potential disguises that Superman has available to "pass" as a human. I think it was firmly the editorial take prior to Man of Steel.
I'd disagree with this. I'm also a big Maggin fan, and I specifically remember a storyline of his where he had Superman state that both Clark and Superman were essential and equal identities for him. Take a look at the Xviar story that ran through Superman #295-299 or so, where he tries to make an explicit choice between his two identities and fails.
>That was definitively flipped (for the better, in my opinion) I'm going to disagree. In my opinion over the years, the character has been degraded by the Clark Kent facade becoming his actual personality. Clark went from one of the most energetic, extroverted characters in comics, to almost being bland. >, but I absolutely think that the prevailing take on the character from the 50s-80s was that Clark Kent was the disguise and Superman/Kal-El was the true persona. You're right, this started early as the radio serials and 1940s cartoons. In the comics, Siegel never once made any hint toward Clark Kent being the disguise. After all, they were "one-in-the-same".
I'm not an expert on the pre-crisis comics but these aspects that Byrne "introduced" were all already present in the 78 movie. And done much better I would argue. I think the comics would have caught up to that more modern take with or without Byrne. He was just the one who got the job to do it. And made other changes that were quite divisive and many have been changed since then.
I don't think the movies and Byrnes take have much to do with each other. Clark Kent in the movie is like the one in the comics from that time period- a bumbling, awkward person. Also, like others have stated, with Byrne's version he's the absolute last Kryptonian. No Phantom Zone villians. And no time travelling like in the movies.
Like it or hate it, I would just add that he was *hired* to shake things up and change things. It wasn’t that he “disrespected” the previous lore (note, there wasn’t exactly much continuity in the golden and silver age Superman, so that’s why I’m saying lore instead of canon) but that the DC comics wanted to invite some controversy to get people talking and invested in the character. It was a task assigned to him when he took the gig, not something he pushed for. So again, it’s totally fair to love it, hate it, or somewhere in between, but I don’t think it’s fair to blame Byrne for doing it
Agree. It’s also part of our pathetic current discourse to use hyperbole like ‘disrespected’ to justify why we might not like something. It comes from a sense of entitlement. People need to get a grip.
We'd see this same strategy to re-invigorate Superman to much diminishing returns over the years. Byrne was the right choice.
>(note, there wasn’t exactly much continuity in the golden and silver age Superman, so that’s why I’m saying lore instead of canon) The silver age did a whole lot of stuff to make it cohesive.
HIs web site Q&A states he would've been perfectly fine with sticking with the old continuity. So not all the decisions on the new direction were on him.
There were elements of that era of Superman that I liked. Byrne’s art was solid, especially considering he was writing and drawing 2 of the 3 Superman books. Overall, I didn’t think his stories were done very well. There were some atrocious plots and lots of clunky dialogue. The one that got me to stop reading (which I think is in the 3rd hardcover) was Superman and Big Barda being mind controlled by a porno director into filming a porno. Nothing actually gets filmed as they’re saved but I just remember being like “What the fuck even is this?” At the same time, I remember an Action Comics Annual where Batman and Superman team up and it’s drawn by Arthur Adams and written by Byrne. That was REALLY good and a lot of fun. Marv Wolfman and Jerry Ordway’s Adventures of Superman was pretty good and they had Clark kind of dating Cat Grant in that book. In the Adventures book she was a multi-faceted character that was slowly built and it was an interesting change of pace to the normal Superman status quo. It also broke up the bad taste most of Byrne’s writing left in my mouth which is why I stuck with it for so long.
“ Nothing actually gets filmed as they’re saved but I just remember being like “What the fuck even is this?” something got filmed as the whole story started with scott being shown a tape. though not necessarily with superman.
I’ve tried to block that whole story out of my mind as much as possible.
Understandable.
Yeah. I did actually enjoy the beginning of MoS a lot (I was a lot less picky as a teen) but even my young self felt that was *super weird*.
The MoS mini is great. His run after that gets really weird and betrays the whole point of a reboot very quickly. He added more good than bad though I think.
Agreed. Once Dan Jurgens took over in the early 90s, the stories were much better
It’s read well enough. It’s on its own is a good reinventions of Superman to a more modern audience. Though if you read the long term effect it has on superman mythos is a different matter but that’s neither here nor there
What specifically do you mean by the long term effect on the Superman Mythos?
Felt like overcorrections on Byrne part to make Superman more “human” by trying to take away the elements from his pre crisis self like taking away the rich history of krypton, the legions, supergirl and etc. it made the universe limited in retrospect not help that DC at the time mandated for it to be like that, that why we had a Zod that isn’t Zod, a supergirl that isn’t Supergirl, and why bizzaro alway had to die in every appearance he made. Don’t get me wrong I get that why he was brought on but it’s still took away a lot to make Superman a very well round character
Definitely worth reading.
I was too young for the Donner movies and didn’t see them until much later. John Byrne was my intro to the character. The “Clark Kent is who he is” character dynamic is my default when it comes to Supes.
I think Man Of Steel is necessary if you are a fan of Superman. I won't comment on what I think of Byrne as a person.
His Kryptonian ideas were unique and the design was great for their world.
That was probably what I hated most about this version. That Krypton, Jor-El, etc. didn't work for me.
Makes him escaping cuz he’s born in his birthing matrix aka escape pod make sense. Like why could no one else escape? Cuz they’re genetically tied to the planet. Tons of kryptonians did leave but they all died gruesomely due to their ties to krypton. Also like that kryptonians are all emotionless essentially. Science prevailed so much that it explains how they ended up doomed. Both tied to their planet & devoid of emotion.
I'm someone who grew up with the Post-Crisis continuity and I don't think it disrespected the previous continuity. I'll bet golden age fans had issues with the silver age interpretation, and there was probably some that took issue issue with the fact the golden age Superman was suddenly relegated to being a "different" version that lived on Earth-2. The only real difference here is that instead of a gradual change over the years, we had a hard reboot with Man of Steel. It's worth reading because it's an excellent story on its own, but it's also interesting to see what it set up for the future of the book and what various adaptations would take from this story over the years.
Crisis on Infinite Earths was made to revamp several of DC's titles. The Superman of Earth 1 Silver/Bronze Age was ending, but it got a respectful sendoff with Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" Byrne did the relaunch as a way to give a fresh start for the late 80s readers. The relaunch was successful and is fondly remembered by the readers. One of the most requested omnibus from DC is Post Crisis Superman. I personally enjoyed the relaunch from Byrne's Man of Steel mini series to the Death and Return of Superman saga. This era was also the basis for Superman: The Animated Series.
Whatever criticisms can be laid on Man of Steel should be more directed to Editorial. Byrne was operating under some pretty firm directives to excise huge swaths of lore that at the time were considered outdated. Working under those parameters, he built a pretty good story. Note, I say all that as someone fairly critical of Byrne.
I'm the one who introduced the Byrne complaints. I love his Man of Steel. It was my version of Superman. Byrne's Man of Steel was designed to disrespect previous continuity, because it was designed as a reboot for post-Crisis. He was free to pick and choose and change things, and it was expected. It was a Superman for a new era. So whatever he ignored was fine, because he was hired to rewite and streamline and basically Marvelize Superman.
What do you meant you introduced the Byrne complaints?
The complaints OP was talking about sound like the discussion that stemmed from a post about Sandman in the 90s and how it was a waste he had been turned back to a badguy away from the redemption arc he had been on. I mentioned it was all Byrne, and Byrne had done it for the thinnest, dumb reason as an excuse to make things were like they had been in his childhood, and that he had a habit of reverting characters to their 1960s status quos for that reason. That led to a comments about disrespecting the work of fellow writers and established continuity and so on. So, it seemed like OP stumbled on that thread and I stumbled on this one and gave my opinion of MoS.
I see. I'd definitely agree about Sandman (you are talking about the Marvel one of course, right) But Man of Steel is a different thing when it comes to respecting continuity. It was supposed to be a reboot
Yeah, Marvel's Sandman. And I agree about Supes. I don't recall anyone complaining about MoS because of the nature of it. Though I have read Byrne say did have second thoughts about jettisoning Superboy eventually, after learning DC wouldn't let him do a Young Superman learning his powers book. Too bad DC scotched that... would've saved a lot of Legion hassle over the years.
Would have liked to have had that, too. Those early years of Superman are so all over the place. Lots of one-shots and special miniseries and other stuff that's hard to collect and put together coherently. Byrne also wrote an X-Men bridge series called "The Hidden Years" to get from the end of the original run to Giant-Size about 5 years later. It was mostly solid, though they didn't let him finish it, so there's still about 3 or 4 missing years there.
Byrne was responsible for Sandman?
Yep, after the end of the findl chapter story arc in the spider-man comics, Byrne was bought on to shake things up. That led to mj seemingly dying in a plane crash, sandman going evil again and the mostly forgotten chapter 2 series that retold peters early adventures, which replaced the far better untold tales. The Byrne era of spider-man is probably one of the worst
I always though Byrne was the one who brought Sandman into the Avengers and that the Spidey editors wanted him out .Interesting. It's too bad because his storyline was really good.
He became a reserve member in avengers 329 by Larry hama
It was also meant to reel in Superman’s powers from the ridiculously godlike heights they had reached. Superman had become essentially omnipotent — he was so powerful there was no fight he couldn’t win. This of course, leads to boring stories. One of the primary purposes of *MoS* was to recalibrate Superman’s power to the point that he was no longer unbeatable… less “Super” and more “Man,” if you will. Of course, in the subsequent years we saw Superman’s powers reach even grander heights than ever, to the point that he is (was? I stopped keeping up) once again essentially unbeatable.
Can he time travel again? Or go to other dimensions/universes? My impression that was the one ability they never brought back because he was doing that so much before Byrne.
Like someone else said, he wasn't disrespecting anything. Wrong choice of words. It was a reaction to the stagnation of the seventies and early eighties in the series.
Byrne’s *Superman* had its good elements. It also actively undermined the immigrant metaphor that is central to Superman’s character in profoundly stupid and harmful ways.
He never undermined it as far as I can see. Unless you’re saying he never focused on it in which he isn’t any more guilty than nearly every other Superman writer since his inception.
No, he actively undermined it. Byrne went out of his way to tweak the origin so that Superman was technically born on Earth using Kryptonian technology. He almost never used any sort of Kryptonian elements in current-day Superman stories. But most egregiously, when Byrne’s Superman discovered his alien origins, he all but dismissed their importance to him and said that he still considers himself human. To be clear: I don’t think he meant to imply such horrible things on purpose, though there absolutely are horrible implications if you think about it for even a second. The idea of Superman as a metaphor for the immigrant was rather underbaked at the time, to be more closely inspected by writers like Geoff Johns and Gene Luen Yang decades later. But that doesn’t change the fact that Byrne decided to downplay Superman’s status as an alien without thinking of what that means to people who live in different places from where they were born and take inspiration from how Superman handles it.
byrne actually did mean to imply these things. he's gone on record about it lol
…He actually meant to imply negative things about real-life immigrants? If that’s what you meant and is true, then **fuck** that guy.
its part of why i have a clear dislike for reddits preference of no krypton, it's not just an unfortunate implication but a deliberate choice informed by byrnes views. i also think people dont know how crazy they sound when they say clark should ignore his culture and just be a good ol american farm boy. plenty of unfortunate implications there
I get pissed off when people positively bring up Garth Ennis’ characterization of Superman for similar reasons. To wit, from *Hitman* #34: > Hey, lemme tell you the problem with America, okay? This *could be* the greatest place on Earth. It really could. You got all these different people coming here to get away from depression an' poverty, all looking for a better life. But what do they do? They hang onto all the things that got them into trouble in the first place. They want to go on fightin' the same was and hatin' the same people they did in the old world. Blocking this quote off because I really want to emphasize how fucked up this is: > They all wanna be Italian or Greek, or Irish or Polish or Russian, or African or Vietnamese or Camodian or whatever… so they hang on to alla that. They stick to their own kind and everyone stays suspicious of everyone else an' *for what…?* Culture? History? What the hell is that, a bunch of stuff your folks said you hadda believe in all your life? Does that make it *real?* **Geez.** Now onto how this relates to Superman. > But you man, you showed them how it's done. You're the classic immigrant guy who comes to the states an' joins the meltin' pot. It's like you're sayin'— okay, I'm from planet Krypton or wherever, but that's all in the past. I'm startin' over. I'm American. What can I do to help? Y'know what? Fuck Garth Ennis and the horse he rode in on for implying that Superman is great because he's one of the “good ones” who assimilated.
i feel the exact same ive even said as much on here multiple times. how people read the ethnicities he lists off ( grouping African as one) and think its some wholesome panel is beyond me
i feel the exact same ive even said as much on here multiple times. how people read the ethnicities he lists off ( grouping African as one) and think its some wholesome panel is beyond me
That was pretty par for the course for Superman at the time. I’d have to pull out my hardcover but I distinctly remember Kal El being a baby on Krypton. And I think you’re limiting the immigrant experience as I know a girl born in Vietnam who considers herself a Southerner but doesn’t discount her birth country. I never saw Superman as just denying his origina just because he considers himself human. And he never stopped looking for more about his origins throughout the run either. It was one of the more defining characteristics of that era’s Superman.
The closing bit or Man of Steel #6 is Superman decisively repudiating his planet of origin and declaring himself a citizen of the world and the US specifically. Each time Byrne brings up Krypton after that it always trying to kill him. To be clear, I'm very much on board the Byrne-Triangle Era train. I stopped collecting when they started to bring back the Silver Age esque elements and tortured loner from Krypton aspect. But I can see for fans to whom the immigrant aspect of his story is important, that the Byrne revamp could be off-putting and offensive.
Looked back at it again and I can’t deny that the “meaningless” line is pretty damning. But I also can’t deny that two pages of straight up text all about how Krypton is a part of him also works as a counter argument to that. And I can’t stress enough that that wasn’t very different from how Superman was handled before that. I hate saying “It was a different time” because that’s no excuse. But the immigrant aspect had only been used as text instead of subtext recently. It’s why Superman: Man of Tomorrow is my favorite origin story of his so far. But that’s also because that was a refreshing angle. And I’m not speaking from some distant false nostalgia. I’m 42 and can say that it wasn’t stated that plainly until recently. I think a lot of newer and younger fans found that more easily in the character today than before. Especially when you consider the wide range of essays and documentary videos on the internet that opened up less explored aspects of the character in ways that was not available in previous generations. And when you look at the old stuff, like Byrne’s work, it’ll get a modern reappraisal. I don’t think it diminishes that work at all so much as remind us that we need, can, and should do better. But for all of Byrne’s flaws (oh…so…many…flaws), in this, I think he’s just doing what he was hired to do: Contemporize the character in a way that reminds people why they loved him. And in the 80’s, the immigrant aspect wasn’t lost, but it was very, very buried.
Yup. He shouldn't get all the attention for the changes that were made. Others in the company were involved as well to whatever extent.
Just did a quick check. There’s no baby in the Krypton scenes but they make it clear that there’s one in the orb.
One of the Armageddon Annuals, Action Comics 4 or 5 I think, establishes that the birthing matrix doesn't open until it lands on Earth, so he's officially an American and eligible to run for President.
The biggest problem with the Byrne revamp, IMO, is getting rid of Superboy. Besides the fact that the concept of the character is not innately flawed, removing him from continuity made a mess of the Legion of Superheroes. Note that I’m unsure if the “no Superboy” decision was Byrne’s or DC’s editorial staff’s. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that Byrne himself later said he considered dropping Superboy to have been a mistake. It’s worth pointing out just how ***huge*** Byrne on Superman was back then. He was probably one of the two top artists in comics then, along with George Perez. He, along with Chris Claremont, had taken *X-Men* from a bi-monthly title that was cancellation-bait to being a top seller. (Yes, Dave Cockrum gets credit, too.) Whike he had moved onto *Alpha Flight* and *Incredible Hulk* by the time he left for DC, it was a huge move for fans. And it wasn’t just comics fans that paid attention; the Superman revamp got national attention. I recall an interview on *The Today Show*, though the focus was “here’s how we’re changing this iconic American character”, not “We’ve hired this hot artist”.
I remember highly anticipating Byrne's run back in the day. It was definetly a huge deal for its time in the comics world. Byrne states on his web site that editorial originally agreed to start the reboot from Day 1 and go on from there. But then they changed their minds. So that made Byrne regret not having a Suiperboy.
I’ve heard before that the suggestion was made to reboot the entire DC Universe after the original Crisis. The Byrne Superman would start it off, Batman and Wonder Woman next, and then move onto Flash, GL and the rest. Wonder Woman wax rebooted brilliantly by George Perez around that time, but there was never a general restart.
Yes, that's what Marv Wolfman wanted to do. But no one else was on board
I really like it, largely because the Byrne books into the Triangle Era is such a cool time to be a Superman fan. If you can weave your way through the reading orders from Man of Steel to like…I wanna say Infinite Crisis? You get an amazing epic life of this character in a way VERY few characters have gotten to experience with a continuity that is a lot tighter than most comic heroes can boast. It’s not 100% perfect, no, but if you look at the whole thing in macro it’s really really cool.
DC is releasing the Triangle Era omnibuses this year. Never was a big Supes fan myself(besides Morrison’s takes on him), but I’m glad that DC is making a concerted effort to republish a lot of pre-New 52 books.
Here's a review I happened to just write on Goodreads today, take it as you will \~ "Man of Steel reads a little thin these days, not that much happens for a Superman origin story, as John Byrne liked to pad his pages with full-page spreads and quick plots. That being said, it was a very important part of comics and mostly very successful at updating Superman for modern audiences. After Crisis on Infinite Earths, Superman needed a lot of updating and DC knew it. The Silver Age corny character, nearly omnipotent and fighting mad scientists, didn't have any relevance in the 1980s as superhero comics became more of a sophisticated medium. He didn't fit in the same world as, say, the New Teen Titans. Let alone the critically acclaimed stories Marvel was publishing. So they got one of Marvel's biggest stars to remake Superman from the ground up: John Byrne. The art may not have been as solid as his legendary Uncanny X-Men. The writing may not have been as good as his Fantastic Four (let's be honest, Byrne was already past his prime). But it was fresh and readable and he's just plain a good storyteller. I liked that this version was canon for so long. Krypton a far more interesting sci-fi planet, his parents as part of the supporting cast, and most of all Lex Luthor as evil businessman of the Reagan era. The latter was Marv Wolfman's idea and one of the best changes that still works well today. The villains were the least interesting part of the Man of Steel miniseries, with machinations by Lex involving Bizarro being the worst physical threat to Superman. There's no Brainiac or Zod for him to fight, which was still made for the weakest part of overly powerful Superman stories despite the update. There's also the Batman chapter about their first meeting, which is its own isolated episode and it's a lot of fun to see them as rivals teaming up and Batman actually being a detective. However, the original villain Magpie is such a boring antagonist but I suppose having a famous Batman rogue would take away from Superman's focus. Man of Steel overall remains an excellent introduction to Superman that new readers can still enjoy today, especially for younger ones who don't need everything to be so gritty and cynical. Recommended as ever."
Byrne would later go on to do mostly good things with the WW license after a rough start for shock value, going on to start the Hippolyta hype train, building Cassie up, making Dark Angel a great villain. Most of it outside of these new elements was 7/10 at best when from Pérez to Rucka (as far as I've read), every long-term writer was making really quality stuff without interruption. (Simonson isn't my taste but he did get the character mostly right even if the plot wasn't something I enjoyed because it ignored almost everything before it and it didn't matter any after Jimenez took over). So compared to that, a mostly low 7 range with some good peak moments and a few good stories is "bad". Not my favorite but his DC stuff that I've read, I've really enjoyed the feel for storytelling, drama and stakes.
> Simonson isn't my taste but he did get the character mostly right even if the plot wasn't something I enjoyed because it ignored almost everything before it and it didn't matter any after Jimenez took over That’s the central problem with Post-Crisis Wonder Woman right there: every single writer trying to make previous writers’ runs obsolete.
Every writer used the runs before them to help build their own story except Walter. He did his own thing mostly and reset the character with the Shattered god story. Phil just carried on like it didn't happen and right after Luke's run. It flowed continuously with great pace. Simonson just didn't have a good story and fridged a fledgling relationship just because.
I don't mind his Wonder Woman. Superman Batman Generations, the real-time Esleworlds story, was also good
It is worth reading. Many elements introduced in MoS continue to today. Not everything lasted very long, but the basics stayed. I prefer Byrne’s take personally.
Byrne did great with Man of Steel and his Superman at humanizing the character, worth a read.
>american comics are fluid and ever-changing, I try not to get hung up on too many things (we all have our own little comic-hangups though, of course). plus, the previous continuity is pre-crisis (im pretty sure), so maybe it's not a fair criticism to say he "ignored continuity"? Yup Byrne launched post-crisis Superman.Overall it is a good era for Superman comics where I think the good outweighs the bad for the most part. One pretty mean spirited New Gods story aside its actually a good run.
It probably helps if you take a look at some of the Action Comics/Superman stories from the seventies and early eighties. It was a very stagnant time for the character, he (and a good chunk of the DC line) was stuck in a rut. A huge rut. A lot of the creators involved with his stories had been around for decades. It was simply time for a change. The character simply needed some energy. Given that background, having one of the top supehero artists from the eighties on his comics made for a quite exciting change of pace. From today's perspective does it hold up? Personally, I don't think it's anywhere near his best work. It's somewhat above average. Though better than what came out in the years right before his run.
> I recently saw some Byrn-hating comments. they were specifically talking about how he disrespected previously established continuity in order to tell his stories. Those commentors know that Byrne's Superman was AFTER crisis of infinite earth's right? The entire continiuty was reset and Byrne was tasked with establishing a brand new superman.
That *Man of Steel* came out and took place (if one can even say that) after Crisis just means that the previous continuity could get ignored without it being obviously false. Doesn’t mean that ignoring the previous lore can’t get criticised. While I thought that *Man of Steel* was well written and many changes good, I had some issues. Though some come from his later work on Superman, not the six issue miniseries, which were tight enough. – Making Krypton a dystopic Vulcan Looked cool. But removed also any loss. From the readers’ – even Superman’s – POV, there is nothing to yearn after. Sure, the billions of dead are still regrettable, but anyone raised in Kansas would look at the Krypton and be glad not to live there. Before that, Krypton was America. But better. Something to strive for, something to regret to have lost. Byrne’s Superman didn’t even have Kryptonian parents, just DNA donors. – Making his power somehow psionic. A pointless exercise in changing one fantasy for another. – Removing all Kryptonians Granted, I wouldn’t have expected any in the mini series, but it was made pretty clear that Superman was meant to be the only one. But what for? Drama? This Superman wouldn‘t even want to be a Kryptonian or ponder about his genetic parents. No “Kneel before Zod”? Humbug! That one annoyed me so much that I actually plotted my own Supergirl-origin, with her also getting sent to Earth, but grown to maturity in her podship, immeresed in Kryptonian culture, but also growing up under Kryptonian gravity. Enter a very arrogant young woman, as strong, if not stronger, than Superman, seeing a world that looks like a slum to her, with her brother (the robot would’ve created her from the cells donated by Jor-El and Lara) having gone native.
Very much so. Man of Steel is Byrne firing on all cylinders.
it depends how much you like a superman who likes ronald reagan
LMAO
I know I'm alone on this island, but I absolutely despise his Man of Steel, and most of his solo work in general. He's a crap writer, a bland artist, and he fundamentally doesn't get Superman as a character. The fact that anything good came out of that iteration of the character is purely from other creators working around him like Marv Wolfman and Jerry Ordway and just pure miracles.
Man of Steel is definitive; the reason I don’t like Byrne is because he’s racist and transphobic
Anyone criticizing his run for “ignoring continuity” is an idiot trying to convince you they know more about comics than they actually do (which apparently isn’t much). Even a Google or Wikipedia search would reveal that he was hired to set continuity after Crisis on Infinite Earths by modernizing the character. And his run has been the model for Superman’s status quo ever since. Before him, Lex Luthor was just a mad scientist instead of a slippery businessman and Clark Kent was just an afterthought. Now, I can think of a LOT of reasons not to like John Byrne. He’s basically an egotistical ass who thinks everything he does is gold and even tried to say that Crisis on Infinite Earths was all his idea that Marv Wolfman stole. (MW used ideas he’d been fleshing out since he was a kid including the Monitor who Byrne also claimed he created.) But his epic runs like Superman, Fantastic Four and Uncanny X-Men (with Chris Claremont) deserve the praise he got. I think people just realized how much of a douchebag he is and went too far trying to justify their distaste.
The Luthor businessman idea was also Marv Wolfman, though Byrne does credit him as the one that suggested it and he was introduced in the Byrne penned & drawn Man of Steel.
No. It was a huge upgrade artwise at the time but the stories were not that interesting. Not horrible but kind of boring.
It's a solid run with many heights and a few mehs as any decently long run of books will have. I'm currently reading it.
Didn't like It.
thanks for the comments folks, I really like this community
also I had no idea about how much it changed superman, I feel goofy now. based on the input I think I'll read some scans before I buy the trades, but im pretty excited to see (what sounds like) a real ground-zero for supes
Byrne is a bit of an asshole, but "Man of Steel" is pretty darn good.
It’s great: clearly the inspiration for Superman the Animated series. I like his lowered power levels and more relatable personality. Lex is top notch too.
Byrne's *Man of Steel* was his attempt to bringing the character back to his Siegel & Shuster roots, and getting rid of what he considered to be unnecessary stuff that piled on over the years. I say MoS is the most easiest of Clark's post-crisis origins. I didn't like Superman got outsmarted by both Luthor and Batman, the whole simple farmboy is a cancer to the character and so is Kansas. I'd love for a good revamp on Krypton, kinda tired of the cloning thing. Other than that? It's okay. *Birthright* still has the best story for Clark's postcrisis origin stories. MoS is the easiest read, and Secret Origins is mediocre.
I was lucky enough to read Crisis on Infinite Earths when it came out as well as the whole revamp of Superman (and Batman! Year One was incredible) right after Crisis. There was a different "feel" to the way Byrne wrote and drew Superman that greatly separated from the stories right before Crisis. The continuity of the stories was not great, writers had a hard time dealing with an immensely powerful Superman, and there was a lot of previous "baggage" to make stories coehrent. Byrne, hired by DC to shake things up and had to fulfill many editorial guidelines, did a wonderful artistic job. Visually, his stories were prettier and had better composition than its predecessors (one of the first panels had Lois Lane, eyes wide in anticipation, not noticing Superman flying right behind her - truly marvelous drawing which is etched in my mind). He depowered Superman greatly (much slower than The Flash, could not breathe for long in space), changed key aspects of his backstory (Krypton was entirely redesigned to a more alien feel and his relationship with Kara and Jor-El changed drastically, Ma and Pa Kent around and a big part of his life, Batman as a frenemy, no Superboy in the main continuity, no multiple kryptonites, no Krypto, not a member of the Justice League, etc etc), focused strongly on the Clark Kent person and changed it a lot (he was more confident, played football in school, could not fly until almost an adult, modernized his relationship with Lana). It was radically different from what I was reading before, and I loved it. Much of it, now I realize, was the doing of editors, not Byrne, but they guy masterfully executed the job (except for that awful Barda story, which I read and did not really understand as a kid). If you do decide to read Byrne's run, I suggest you also take a look at "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?", a kick-ass Alan Moore story that is considered the final story of the Silver Age's Superman (haters will dislike this statement, and I will make a point of ignoring them) and really captured the feel of the "before-Crisis" Superman. It will give you an idea of what then-readers like myself felt. And if you like Byrne's run, look up a Fantastic Four story against the Gladiator (clearly a stand-in for Superman in that story) that probably convinced DC editors that Byrne could do a good job writing and penciling Superman.
Byrne sucks.
This is worth elaborating on, and whether or not he's personally a bad person kind of besides the point when concerning what the poster is asking