Please understand, if you’d said you didn’t like it, then I wouldn’t have anything to say to you except, “I disagree” (whcih wouldn’t be worth typing up). But by claiming you liked it and doing notihng but listing its “flaws” you’ve written a very poor review. “It’s always easier for me to focus on the negatives of something, I’m just that way” is no excuse. EVERYBODY’s that way. A good reviewer should be able to point out a story’s strengths as well as its flaws if they liked it. That’s not to be “nice” or “positive” but to be fair and accurate. I don’t think I’m expecting too much if I expect some positive criticism from a story you claim to like.

I won’t be reading your review of “Reign of the Supermen” (yeah, I know, big relief). I have no desire to see one of my favorite stories torn to shreds by you, and at this point, it’s all but inevitable you will. Not because it deserves it, but because the opinions you’ve already expressed indicate how you’ll react to it. “Reign” has many of the same “boring” supporting characters you don’t care about, Project Cadmus is prominent so you’ll want to skim through that, and I’m sure you’ll find all sorts of “flaws” that will be the only subject of your review. There’s no suspense in wondering whether or not you like “Reign” if the only difference is whether or not you say, “Don’t get me wrong, I liked it, but…”

Bruce was way too distracted by the Bane storyline at the time. His back hadn’t been broken yet, but he was already sending Jean-Luc out with Robin, sometimes even in a Batman costume.

Bruce did go to the funeral, however. He stayed out of sight until he caught a Middle-Eastern suicide-bomber about to blow up a bunch of Middle-Eastern dignitaries attending the service. He told the terrorist that in Superman’s memory he would handle the scum the way Superman would have, raher than his own way.

Otherwise, we saw no other reaction from Bruce.

Honestly, rereading this after the death of Steve Rogers and how that was handled… that’s how this should have been written.

Yeah, but they didn’t want to end up with what’s happening on Cap now, where I don’t want him back.

Bucky Barnes is waaaaaaaaay more interesting.

Chad, I hope at the end of this, you do watch the Superman: Doomsday animated DVD – it’s what happens when you strip away all the subplots and focus on what this story would look like with a lean beginning, middle and end, and involved only the most important supporting characters. Whether you’ll like it or not is a whole other matter, but it’s worth a try as an addendum to reading these three books.

Never really been all that interested in actually reading the Death of Superman (although articles and columns about it have always intrigued me) but was always curious about this considering their dynamic.

I guess I have the opposite reaction; I don’t give two deuces about the whole Captain America storyline. But I dig a good chunk of the 90s Superman output.

The Superman titles between when Byrne left (1988?) and when Loeb and Joe Kelly came on (1999?) had a very specific feel. You had a regular creative team with Dan Jurgens, Louise Simonson, Roger Stern, Karl Kesel, and a bunch of others. You had a very specific cast of the Daily Planet regulars, as well as the new additions of Ron Troupe, Bibbo (who, come on, was ON THE TIMM CARTOON), Project Cadmus, etc. Everybody ate at Dooley’s, drank Soder Cola, watched the Whitty Banter show, etc. Oh, and every book had a triangle on the cover. Like it or not, the creators tried very hard to give Metropolis a distinct feel with a recognizable cast. I’ll be the first to admit that a lot of it was very dry. On the other hand, I’ll also admit that it was very distinct.

For better or worse, all these elements were slowly phased out or altogether ditched when Loeb and Kelly came aboard. It’s inevitable whenever a new creator comes onto a book for the purpose of revamping a series: they ditch what they dislike and introduce what they want. Still, the Bibbos and Soders were a staple of the Superman line for roughly a decade, making it a significant part of Superman’s history. It shouldn’t be looked at with any more disdain than we would at Superman in the 40s as a crimebuster or in the 70s as a newscaster.

I get Chad’s point that this kind of story should transcend a particular era of Superman. I suspect he’s looking for something akin to “Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader,” but without Gaiman’s metatext. On the other hand, the very notion of killing Superman with a big, grey monster that came out of nowhere probably epitomized trends in 90s comics, so maybe it SHOULD be locked into this period.

The character dies. There is a lot of reaction. People we don’t really care about (the entire SHIELD supporting cast) stand around talking about how they miss him. The body is stolen/cloned. Someone else is running around claiming to be Captain America.

I agree it is written better. But it is the same story, almost note for note. All they really needed to add was three more guys pretending to be Captain America.

Dammit, it didn’t work!