They've written new origins opposing Byrne's
"Opposition" to John Byrne? What, is Loeb going to challenge him to a lightsaber duel?
Did I ever talk like this?
On the other hand, when it's Johns writing the Krypton villains origin in Action Comics Annual, the tale is very Iron Age-ish in tone and style
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Iron Age in tone and style," but whatever it was, it WORKED.
When I heard Johns and Donner were going to do Zod, I groaned - because I've seen all this before. But Johns and Donner had a totally original take on the character of Zod that focused less on him as a Doctor Doom-style madman shouting things more often than the Spartans in 300, but as a villain, but a very sympathetic and human kind of villain who has a legitimate grudge. And the idea Zod has a SON is enough of a divergence to warrant this characters' existence.
Non as a wronged, somewhat pitiful character is much more powerful than Non as a thuggish retard.
All of this was much more spectacular because it wasn't EXPECTED. We expected to see Zod come back as a dull, run of the mill megalomaniac. And I have to give props to Johns and Donner for seeing something I didn't see.
(Of course, now I'm going to get on the shitlist of the people who believe villains should be 100% evil and not ever be complicated - notably John Byrne.)
All-Star Superman is the only series that I genuinely liked. The rest are just better than the crap that came before, but are not as good as All-Star or anything in those Showcase books.
My reaction is the exact opposite: ALL-STAR SUPERMAN is the style over substance, fast-paced and colorful but emotionally hollow and insincere, whereas it is Busiek and Geoff Johns that are telling the really spectacular stuff we'll remember 20 years from now.
(Assuming mechanical ants won't rule the human race by then, and we'll be too busy mining uranium for our overlords to be thinking about cartoons.)
Superman, in ALL-STAR is an overscrubbed, unreal person. He's polite to the point its a caricature. And that chaste kiss on the moon? Christ, I've kissed my sister with more passion than that. This is why I can't seriously believe ALL-STAR is a continuation of pre-86 Superman: Superman's relationship with Lois was passionate and occasionally pretty darn horny, especially under Pasko and Wein; there have been multiple occasions going back to the seventies that strongly imply they've had sex.
Compare Morrison's Disney Princess-and-Prince take on Supes and Lois to the very real relationship Superman has with Lois under Busiek and Johns: she's his rock, his connection to humanity, and his best friend all in one.
The thing that saved the Superman/Lois marriage for me under Busiek and Johns is how ADULT it is: not teenage problems like suspicions of infidelity, but the have the give and take of real married people. They're friends. They TALK to each other.
Grant Morrison gives me hope that Superman isn't obsolete and you can still tell fun, great stories with him in a modern style that also stays true to the character.
Now that I'm finished projectile vomiting for twenty minutes straight, let me respond:
1) Modern style? Nigga say what? Superman fighting with SAMPSON for the hand of Lois is modern-style? That's the thing that bothers me about ASS more than anything: it attempts to duplicate all the wrong things about Superman, and it does so with such a "gee-aren't-we-clever" hipster irony that is absolutely enraging.
I agree its modern style, in the sense that it takes a great concept and makes it tawdry and small. Baby Sun-Eater? Superman has communication with his descendants of the far future and the only thing its used for is a
goddamn J-Lo joke?
2) True to the character? Again, what? Well, sure, if when you think of Superman you think of a two-dimensional cardboard cutout apologizing to Lois when monsters attack her.
In my opinion, the Iron Age was about being dark just for the sake of it. When there's an actual meaning to the darkness, I don't consider it to be Iron Age-esque. Not everyone will agree with that, but it's how I see things.
Bravo, and very well put. A 100% modern age guy like Ron Marz can only be dark and erase existing concepts; Geoff Johns can be dark too, but he can snap out of it and also make me laugh. He can make me cry too, as he did with Black Adam accidentally smashing the grave of his family, and he can have an adventure spirit (the JSA attacking Kobra's spy base with submarines).
Also, editor Matt Idelson declared in his Superman Homepage column that in the new continuity, he still views Clark Kent as the real personality, not Superman. That's Iron Age concepts and execution.
I fail to see how Clark Kent being the "real" person is somehow exclusively a "Modern Age" characteristic. Len Wein subscribes to this belief, and he never wrote a single Post-Crisis story to my knowledge. The point here is, even pre-Crisis, there was a diversity of opinion regarding who is real or not, and Clark being real is just one of several answers to that question.
And it should be so obvious that it doesn't have to be said: Matt's editor, not writing it. Johns made Superman explicitly lonely and alien, one who felt kinship immediately to a boy just because he was Kryptonian. That's not an action Modern Age Superman would take. If that's the editorial direction, I don't see it in the comics.