Quote:

the G-man said:
Well, it's 2004 now. Soon to be 2005.

Thirty five years ago would be approximately 1970.

I'd say the silver age was pretty much over by then.



Quote:

whomod said:

And because of this approximation you are completely unable to understand what I'm saying?



I understand what you are saying. I simply do not agree with it.

My point is that you tend to lump everything you don't like about Superman into what you refer to derisively as "the silver age" and you tend to act as it the simple act of labeling something "silver age" is sufficient justification for why it is bad.

The fact of the matter, however, is that many of the aspects of Superman that don't appeal to you are from eras unrelated to the "silver age," most notably the "triangle" between Clark-Lois-Superman and the "Buck Rogers" style Krypton, both of which were in the book since the beginning.

Furthermore, while I am willing to concede that there are some aspects of the Superman mythos of the past that are not my cup of tea, there are many others that , like it or not, are powerful concepts that seem to resonate with writers and, in the right hands, the readers.

For example: do you really think it was ONLY "anal retentive silver age fanboys" who bought the recent return of the Kara version of Supergirl? Not likely. There aren't that many of us left.

And don't you think it just telling that the best writers in the business, guys like Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, and Paul Dini (on the animated series), are more interested in telling Superman stories with the "silver age" trappings than they are with the trappings of the "Byrne" version (and, in fact, given how Byrne himself handles Superman in books like "Generations," can there by any doubt that Byrne himself has come around to a more "silver age" style of Superman)?

Like it or not, "your" Superman just isn't a hit with the readers. And that's why, ever three or four years, DC has to try yet another "bold new direction" that fizzles out within a year.