You've mentioned this before, Julian, about Superman being more closely tied to his origin era of the 1930s/1940s.
Actually, this was the first time I brought it up - check out the date on my post there.
I became a fan of Superman in the early 1970s which is far removed from his 1930s origins.
Ditto for me. Roger Moore is my James Bond and Bates/Maggin are my Superman writers.
The character has updated, mostly successfully, for every era since his origin. IIRC, the Silver Age sales were higher than the Golden Age ones, or at least they were comparable.
That's an interesting point - Superman HAS been revised successfully many times.
It is interesting to note that in many ways, his seventies incarnation is the BIGGEST departure from Superman's beginnings. Not because of stuff like Kandor being re-enlarged, but because Superman's personality went from an all-wise father figure, to being a funny, understated character who cracks wise occasionally, and while he has a lot of dignity, he doesn't give speeches or pose. His heroism comes not from a Sir Lancelot purity, but from a very direct sense of right and wrong and refusal to compromise. In other words, Superman didn't try very hard to be a hero in the 70s - he just WAS one.
IMHO, Superman should be kept. Period.
OTOH, the comics marketplace doesn't owe him an existence, despite his having founded the industry. If the creative powers-that-be can't keep him fresh and vital for a changing fanbase, then the problem lies with them.
Agreed. I'd rather have no Superman comics at all than lousy ones.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM