The Four Color Media Monitor

The Superman Homepage specialty site's listed at least 5 examples of story failures from the Big Blue Boy Scout's publication history, and amazingly enough, they admit Brian Bendis' storyline where Clark Kent reveals who hides behind the glasses was a bad tale, and there's more to ponder as well. First, from 2019's sans-adjective Superman 19:

In 2019, writer Brian Michael Bendis made the shocking decision to have Superman publicly reveal his secret identity to the world. After decades of Clark Kent carefully protecting this vital secret, Bendis had Superman announce his dual identity during a press conference, eliminating one of the most foundational elements of the Superman mythos.

Why it matters: This controversial storytelling choice effectively eliminated decades of storytelling potential. The dual identity had been central to Superman’s character since 1938, creating the essential tension between his extraordinary abilities and his desire to live as a normal person. The reveal dismantled numerous supporting character dynamics, particularly at the Daily Planet, where colleagues suddenly had to reconcile that they’d been deceived by Clark for years. Many fans and critics argued that Bendis fundamentally misunderstood what made Superman compelling—the relatable human struggle to balance his extraordinary responsibilities with his desire for normalcy. Despite editorial promises that the change would “stick,” many readers correctly predicted it would eventually be reversed, making the entire storyline feel like a temporary gimmick rather than meaningful character development.

Certainly, what's wrong with how it was handled is that Bendis, one of the most overrated writers of the century, was going by the PC notion that in a modern age where the web could reveal everything, so Superman's secret ID approach is literally outmoded. Not so at all. If a writer knows how to be creative enough, it's possible to write surreally enough to get around any such issues. Shortly after Bendis left, as noted, his changes were reversed, but the damage had long been done regardless, and until DC, along with Marvel, are ever sold to a separate and more responsible business, no chance it'll ever be mended.

But if Bendis misunderstood what worked for the Man of Steel, do those same fans and critics acknowledge he misunderstood only so much about any and all Marvel characters he wrote? And even the Legion of Super-Heroes? It still remains very unclear. Next, from Superman 32 and Action 987:

In a twist that bewildered many fans, DC revealed that the mysterious villain Mr. Oz was actually Superman’s father, Jor-El, who had somehow survived Krypton’s destruction. The revered scientist who had sacrificed everything to save his son was reimagined as a disillusioned, somewhat antagonistic figure who had been observing Superman from the shadows and harbored dark views about humanity’s worthiness of his son’s protection.

Why it matters: This storyline fundamentally undermined one of the most poignant aspects of Superman’s origin: the noble sacrifice of his parents. Jor-El had always represented scientific rationality and selfless parental love—the foundation upon which Superman’s moral code was built. Transforming him into a morally compromised character who survived Krypton’s destruction (via convoluted plot devices) cheapened the emotional impact of Superman’s origin story. The revelation also created logical inconsistencies with numerous prior storylines where Superman had encountered images or echoes of his father. Critics noted that this storyline seemed driven more by shock value than by any meaningful exploration of Superman’s character, and ultimately the development was quietly abandoned in subsequent storylines, highlighting how disconnected it was from the core Superman mythology.

If Lara didn't reappear by contrast, that can sum up more of what's really insulting to the intellect about the MO of the writers, modern or otherwise: that a woman is somehow sacrificial in sharp contrast to the menfolk. If memory serves, this is a problem that affected Elasti-Girl of the Doom Patrol to boot, since from what I know about the characters from that title, the menfolk who weren't mechanical like Robotman were resurrected, but Elasti-Girl remained solidly in the grave (save for a forced "reboot" by John Byrne in the mid-2000s). And no explanation to date why the lady must remain a sacrificial lamb but the menfolk can be revived anytime the writers/editors see fit. A similar problem came about when Marvel inexplicably revived Harry Osborn in Spider-Man in the late 2000s, but not Gwen Stacy. Again, why is a male character such a big deal, but not a female character?

I'm also quite tired of seeing these news sites say "revealed" when it's only "established" or "claims". They know it's all fiction, and they could do a favor by acknowledging it with logic. Now, from the recent Superman 6 and 7:

In one of the most criticized recent Superman storylines, Jonathan Kent—Superman and Lois Lane’s young son—was abruptly aged up from a child to a teenager. After being taken on a space adventure with his grandfather Jor-El (during the controversial Mr. Oz storyline), Jon returned only weeks later in Earth time but several years older due to relativistic time dilation near a black hole.

Why it matters: This decision abruptly ended what many readers considered one of the freshest and most compelling recent additions to Superman’s mythology: his role as a father to a young child. The “Super Sons” dynamic between Jon and Damian Wayne (Batman’s son) had developed a dedicated following, and stories exploring Superman’s paternal side had added new dimensions to the character. By aging Jon up, DC eliminated years of potential storytelling about Superman raising a superpowered child and learning to be a father. The accelerated aging felt like an artificial attempt to push Jon into the Teen Titans demographic rather than an organic character development. Many critics noted that the decision seemed driven by marketing considerations rather than storytelling possibilities, sacrificing a unique father-son dynamic that had rejuvenated Superman’s character after years of uneven storytelling.

What about when Tom Taylor changed the son to a bisexual, or full-fledged homosexual? Certainly the above argument is valid, but even so, the increasingly forced injection of LGBT ideology into mainstream comicdom has long gotten way out of hand. As for Superman as a superdad, sure, the idea has potential, but it should wait until they actually decide to draw the whole DC continuity to a close. Something the upper echelons to date are obviously unwilling to do, even if it helps minimize the damage they've long inflicted upon the DCU. And "uneven" storytelling? Umm, it's been worse than that for 2 decades now. Next, a most troubling point in recent Superman writing history that was bad, and pretty amazing they're willing to acknowledge the following as being a divisive direction:

In 2011’s Action Comics #900, Superman declared that he would renounce his American citizenship, stating: “Truth, justice and the American way—it’s not enough anymore.” While not necessarily a failure, this controversial storyline suggested Superman would work through the United Nations rather than unilaterally, to avoid his actions being seen as expressions of U.S. policy.

Why it matters: This storyline created massive mainstream media controversy and alienated many longtime Superman fans who viewed his connection to American values as central to his character. While the writers intended to position Superman as a global hero transcending national boundaries, many readers saw it as a rejection of core aspects of the character’s identity. The timing—during a period of heightened political tensions—made the storyline feel unnecessarily divisive. Perhaps most tellingly, DC quickly backpedaled on this development, never substantively following through on this dramatic declaration in subsequent issues. The entire controversy exemplified the risks of using Superman to make contemporary political statements without fully considering the character’s complex symbolic importance to diverse audiences. The fact that this storyline is remembered more for the controversy than for any meaningful character development is a real shame, because for many, Superman should be a hero who represents all of humanity rather than one particular country.

Yes, humankind is an important approach for whom Supes should represent, but that doesn't mean the writers (mainly David Goyer, IIRC) should concoct such a tale at the expense of more positive USA values. Besides, one of the most irritating things about what was published is that, if they were writing up a metaphor for the regime in Iran at the time, they just had Superman levitate there in midair, not taking down the autocracy, and not actually giving any backing to the demonstrators either. Such moral equivalence only made things worse ever since. Now, here's one more interesting example they chose to add:

In the highly anticipated JLA/Avengers crossover (2003-2004), fans were treated to various hero-versus-hero battles, including Superman defeating Thor in individual combat. However, later in the story, the combined might of the Avengers managed to overwhelm Superman, with Captain America in particular standing his ground against the Man of Steel.

Why it matters: While this crossover was generally well-received, many Superman fans felt this particular sequence betrayed the character’s established power levels for the sake of preventing either publisher’s heroes from appearing definitively superior. After establishing Superman could defeat Thor (Marvel’s strongest Avenger), having him then be overwhelmed by ostensibly lesser threats like Captain America struck many readers as inconsistent and politically motivated. The sequence highlighted the inherent challenges in crossover events between competing publishers, where creative decisions often reflect corporate compromises rather than logical storytelling. This failure matters because it exemplifies how external publishing considerations sometimes override character consistency and internal logic, even in otherwise celebrated storylines. The controversy continues to fuel debate about Superman’s power levels relative to other comic book universes, demonstrating how such narrative choices can have lasting impacts on character perception.

If this is supposed to imply there's something inherently wrong with a guy dressed in stars and stripes scoring a victory over a superhuman being with much higher power levels, let's consider that there are stories where Cap was pitted against sci-fi figures who could also have formidable powers, and even Dr. Doom makes a most challenging foe for a character like Cap. So I think this 5th example is pretty petty, and besides, what about any and all stories where Batman could've bested the Man of Steel? Surely those weren't forced? The one that really turns me off would have to be filmmaker Zack Snyder's Batman vs. Superman from the past decade, and of course, those films today are anything but well remembered.

And say, wasn't this the same news site that just a few entries back, discussed the topic of Superman jettisoning his USA citizenship in a politically motivated tale? So why are we being lectured suddenly about JLA/Avengers being politically motivated in regards to Cap? A much more valid complaint can certainly be made about modern mainstream scriptwriting, where only so many ideologues are chosen for assignments based on their leftism. But, don't expect the Superman Homepage, an otherwise woke site at this point, to dwell on any of that. Nor can you expect them to admit that under the current corporate structure dominating mainstream superhero fare, neither the Man of Steel nor any other DC heroes will find good writing, and maybe not even artwork.

Labels: Avengers, bad editors, Captain America, dc comics, dreadful writers, golden calf of LGBT, history, Justice League of America, marvel comics, msm propaganda, politics, Superman