The Death of Superman: 16 Years Later

[Silvercrest]

^^Oy.

And revealing the Cyborg as a villain was a "surprise" that fell flat. The character claimed to be Superman rebuilt, but they never spent any time explaining how this was supposed to have happened or who did it.

As a regular reader of the Supes titles for the entire post-Byrne period at that point, I correctly guessed a few issues into the arc that the Cyborg was really Hank Henshaw...and I went on record with that at my LCS at the time!

I also guessed that the one with the goggles was the Eradicator in possession of Superman's body...which wasn't exactly how it turned out, but pretty close.

I didn't guess Henshaw. I wasn't reading the titles when he first appeared, and I don't know if I would have put the clues together if I had. I did guess the Eradicator, though, in the same way you did.

Although I have to admit, the way they re-introduced the real Superman into the storyline was pretty clever.

Do you mean by that the way that, when we first saw the revived Superman at the Fortress, we didn't even notice because we were misdirected to believe that it was the Eradicator version of Superman in a different outfit?

I take it they fooled you too. Yes, that.

 

[Trent Roman]

And the original point being refuted by myself and others, which you had previously defended, was...

(I guess the fact that his character was based on the story of Jesus has to do partly with that )

There's a big difference between saying that the character was based on Jesus and saying that he's taken on Christ-like qualities.

Hmm. Quite right. I don't have access to the creators intentions, and as I've never cared for the character I've never bothered with his backstory, but if you say the authors intended their character to be a meld of Moses and Herakles, then I must assume that is correct. Still, no reason to prize authorial intention; there is also a difference between what they deliberately set out to create and what they actually created, and this is where the overbearing cultural influences come in: a character ready-made to become messianic.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[The Old Mixer]

there is also a difference between what they deliberately set out to create and what they actually created, and this is where the overbearing cultural influences come in: a character ready-made to become messianic.

Once he got out of his phase of throwing thugs out windows, running them into the paths of their own bullets, and kicking cars full of them to crushing deaths, and starting kinda sorta trying to turn the other cheek...absolutely!

 

[Trent Roman]

I need to find me some early Superman...

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Capt_Piett]

I remember when this originally came out and the price went through the roof of the black bagged book. I think this was the first time any "Big" character had been killed, so the fan interest as well as the casual reader or the general public's interest was stoked. Say what you will about the "Return" arc that followed, but Superman #75 was a masterpiece of DC's marketing team.

 

[Kryton]

Well, both Supergirl and The Flash (Barry Allen) were pretty big guns who were famously killed quite some time before the S-Man was...and Wonder Woman KINDA was when she was turned back into clay before the post-Crisis relaunch.

 

[msbae]

^ Not really. Apart from the 'only/last son' thing (and Zeus, as we all know, knocking up anything with a pulse), Superman is presented as a moral paragon whereas Herakles was... rather not.

In fact, Hercules was deliberately referenced in the early Siegel/Shuster tales, and that early Superman--the two-fisted, wisecracking, sometimes bloodthirsty social crusader who took the law into his own hands--was a lot more Herculean than Christ-like. That others have chosen to portray Superman as a messiah figure over many years of mythical evolution isn't in question...but by design, Superman was meant to evoke Moses and Hercules.

And the original point being refuted by myself and others, which you had previously defended, was...

(I guess the fact that his character was based on the story of Jesus has to do partly with that )

There's a big difference between saying that the character was based on Jesus and saying that he's taken on Christ-like qualities.

No... I'm not comparing Supes with Hercules. I'm saying he's the latest version of the 'Strong Man' Myth that has prevailed in Hellenic Civilization for millenia. Each version of Hellenic Civilization had their own version.

For Ancient Greece, it was Heracles.

For Rome, it was the same character, just renamed Hercules.

For Britian, it was King Arthur. However, he needed the Sword of Power to be that strong man. It could also be argued that his right-hand man Lancelot was a strong man-type as well, complete with super hero qulaities of chivalry and bravery beyond compare.

For the USA, we needed a strong man that was truly out of this world. We never do anything small. That's why our version is an alien immigrant with super powers. The fact that he came to America and added to our greatness with his special talents just puts an even more American spin on the myth.

 

[theenglish]

So, Paul Bunyan doesn't count for the U.S.?

 

[Misfit Toy]

So, Paul Bunyan doesn't count for the U.S.?

Now I'm picturing a giant blue Krypto...

 

[msbae]

So, Paul Bunyan doesn't count for the U.S.?

I forgot about him...

Well, you can never have too many heroes and tall tales...

 

[iguana_tonante]

I didn't read comics back in 1993 but, I said to myself (and a comic-loving friend) "Why the Hell would they want to kill off an American hero?!"

You don't kill off American heroes. Period.

While heroes from all the rest of the world can fuck off themselves.
Oh, wait. There are no heroes from the rest of the world.

 

[The Old Mixer]

msbae has a funny notion of heroism. A lot of people became "American heroes" by dying. Dying is the ultimate heroic sacrifice. But it rarely features into the stories of comic book super-heroes because of the endlessly-serialistic nature of the medium.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

It sucked. I knew it as a kid in high school and I know it now. Doomsday is nothing but a gimmick. He was not even a character. He came from out of nowhere and all they did was fight. The end.

So very lame.

 

[Gojirob]

I think that one real casualty of the DoS was the revamping of Toyman into a child killer. I know it was not truly related to the Death and Return, but it always felt this change crept in as a result of all that. All of his post-DoS appearances, including STAS (where he was still creepy as hell)and L&C, have kept him in this way. Superman can't kill him - in fact, the old Batman/Joker conurundum is 1000 times worse for Superman. But his every appearance probably means a child's brutal death. I think they almost acknowledged the bind they're in with this character in the DTV of Doomsday. No other villain could have made me cheer when the clone dropped him to his death. I wish they'd used IC to turn him back somewhat, as his 'reform' turned out to be an illusion in retro-con.

 

[DarthPipes]

I remember reading it when I was in junior high. I just bought the trade paperback a couple of days ago. Just an incredible, continuing fight.

 

[Supervisor 194]

Preach it, Beaker!

 

[Mr Light]

Death/Return was one of the things that got me into comics, and I still think its a great story (I haven't read it recently though). To my nostalgic mind it remains the best BIG Superman story; what other epic Supes story has there been since? There's the Imperiex War which had some great elements but also a lot of dead weight.'

My favorite part was actually the Return segment with all the different Supes running around, it was so cool when they would crossover. And I was totally shocked when the Cyborg betrayed them all. The destruction of Coast City was pretty shocking at the time.

 

[msbae]

msbae has a funny notion of heroism. A lot of people became "American heroes" by dying. Dying is the ultimate heroic sacrifice. But it rarely features into the stories of comic book super-heroes because of the endlessly-serialistic nature of the medium.

Heroism does not necessarily require the ultimate sacrifice. Living heroes are better than dead ones. After all, living heroes can continue being heroes while the dead ones are just worm food.

Besides, anything that would make one's inner-child cry is a bad thing, dude.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Heroism does not necessarily require the ultimate sacrifice.

It's not required...but it's very heroic.

Living heroes are better than dead ones.

IRL, everyone dies...sometimes it's better to sacrifice ones life for a cause. And sometimes one can do more good as a martyr. It was worth exploring these things via Superman, even though the manner of his death was so contrived...particularly as the situation was designed to be very temporary.

But General George S. Patton would agree with you to an extent....

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

 

[TGTheodore]

Heroism does not necessarily require the ultimate sacrifice.

It's not required...but it's very heroic.

And frequently wasteful, and in those instances not very heroic after all.

--Ted