MOTA, shut up. You lost this argument a long time ago, well before I chimed in. You have made NO points, you have contributed NOTHING worthwhile to this debate, and all you've done is slander and degrade anybody who might have a different viewpoint than you. As I've said before, I have no qualms with people liking the Byrne/Jurgens Superman. Many who do like that version also respect the previous incarnations, and have acknowledged that the Byrne/Jurgens version will one day be replaced by another version. They're able to see the big picture and are mature enough to accept it. It's people like you, the psychotics who rage and scream that the Byrne/Jurgens version is the ONLY valid incarnation of Superman and must never be changed under pain of death, that I'm against. (And no, I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that. Your fanaticism reeks of a lynch mob mentality.) Those who respect the prior incarnations are NOT "Silver Age zombies" or drooling retards who just want something to leaf over in the john. They're the TRUE fans of Superman, the people who know that he's bigger than any one particular incarnation. And even if they don't care for whatever interpretation comes up in the future, they know that their favorite version will still exist in TPBs and back issues--or on film and TV.
You, on the other hand, DON'T get it. You're every bit as "stuck in the past and incapable of breaking free of it" as you claim everybody who disagrees with you is. Take your claim that MOS "is a brand new chair that takes time to get used to." Reality check: MOS is now 18 years old. It's not a new chair anymore. And as for Birthright being "an old, comfortable sofa that just's been refurbished," guess what? That's exactly what MOS was. It was just refurbished in a manner that YOU favored. And like Birthright, MOS was a mix and match of elements of prior incarnations of Superman with some of the author's own sensibilities thrown in for good measure. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE IN PRACTICE BETWEEN THE TWO BOOKS. All your hate is based on nothing more than YOUR OWN TASTES, and you know it.
And I hate to break it to you, but a lot of the things that you claim are so destructive and ruinous to Superman have stuck in the public mind. Idyllic Krypton? Stuck. All Donner's film did was use a crystal design scheme, otherwise it's the same Krypton from the classic comics. Supergirl as a Kryptonian-like being? Stuck, thanks to the 1984 movie and the animated series. The S-shield as the House of El crest? Stuck, and it's been used in every mass media incarnation since, and will no doubt continue to. THe Phantom Zone as a Kryptonian prison? Stuck, thanks to the movies and to the animated series. The public has accepted that there are a small handful of survivors from Krypton, and it doesn't seem to bother them. Superman as an actual baby when he's sent to Earth? Stuck, right from the beginning. There's no way the test-tube fetus scenario will ever replace it. Brainiac as a computer? Stuck. That's how people think of the character and that's that. Have things from Byrne's version stuck? Yes, they have: Luthor as a tycoon and the Kents still being alive are now part of the mass media view of Superman. But much of what he did HASN'T stuck: Krypton as Vulcan 2.0, Jell-O Supergirl, Brainiac with an ultra-convoluted origin, Superman having no use for Krypton, any of his original characters, etc. And most of what Jurgens and company did certainly never stuck. I don't even think the marriage of Lois & Clark really stuck; most people still think of them as rivals. So by all rights, wouldn't it be in DC's best interest to represent Superman by combining all of the elements that HAVE stuck in the public mind, from all the different eras, and fashion a fresh incarnation from those elements that people have embraced over the decades? I think the answer is an unequivocal YES. You, on the other hand, are so hell-bent on living in 1986-1999 that you don't care if Superman becomes outdated and dies out, just so long as he dies out in YOUR pet incarnation. I'm sorry, but that's selfish and unfair.
Further, in his intro to MOS, Byrne said that maybe 30 years later someone would come along and revamp the character yet again, and that perhaps MOS would be what drew them to Superman. He KNEW his version wasn't going to last forever. It can't, it shouldn't, and it won't. Sooner or later, Superman WILL be changed yet again, and whoever does it will, like Byrne and Waid before them, mix and match elements of the past versions while adding their own spin on the legend. This is the nature of the beast. You can't keep whinging about how anyone who respects the different eras of Superman and may not be that attached to the Byrne/Jurgens vision are "living in the past," because that's EXACTLY what you're doing yourself. You blatantly refuse to let Superman grow away from 1986-1999 because you can't handle the fact that Superman has to change. And if the change in question means returning to past concepts that have been embraced by other media and the general public, so be it. I would rather judge the new incarnation of Superman based on two things:
1. Whether or not it adheres to the essential elements of the Superman mythos and
2. If it's good.
I don't need 20 or more years of backstory and "continuity" to enjoy any one version of Superman. My above two caveats are all I need. So the only one who's being a selfish slave to the past is you.
