Superman writer/artist Dan Jurgens looks back on ARMAGEDDON 2001, 35 years later - Part 2

My talk with Dan Jurgens about SUPERMAN ANNUAL #3 and ARMAGEDDON 2001 continues. For Part 1, go here.

The inciting incident of the story is that Superman has taken American lives for the first time when he sinks an American nuclear sub and eight of the crew don't get out in time. We're shown that's an inadvertent act on his part, almost an accident. 

Later when he is responsible for Martian Manhunter's death, that's also unintentional. But at the same time, you have Lana Lang clearly feeling like Clark is not well and Batman's arc is also about getting him to the point where he's ready to take lethal action against Superman.

I feel like it would have been easy to write a version of the story where Superman just writes off any collateral damage as unavoidable and feels justified in taking out any powerful heroes determined to stop him. So, to ask the question in a way where I don't feel like I'm putting some of the answer in your mouth, why take the path where he's culpable for, but perhaps not intentional in committing his worst acts?

If Clark was still an aspect of Superman, he couldn’t possibly be involved with intentionally taking a life. Not in any way. Any loss of life had to be incidental and impossible to foresee. That’s what makes Superman so different from most other heroes.

To spoil a 35 year-old comic for those who haven't read it, this future timeline ends with Batman killing Superman. Typically Batman has had a no-kill rule. You make sure we see how conflicted he is over this, even as he does it. The exchange where Robin says "You did the right thing, Bruce" and Batman responds, "No. This can never be called 'right'" has stuck with me so much I wouldn't have even had to reread the book to remember it. 

But at the end of the day, it's always controversial to depict Batman taking a life. How did you navigate for yourself keeping Bruce in character as he did what had to be done?

So, in a hypothetical future story, the guard rails aren’t as restrictive. A writer can go down unlikely corridors of story that they couldn’t otherwise use. That issue’s conclusion is a prime example of that.

But, at the same time, in order to make it work you have to keep the characters consistent with any understanding we have of them. So, yes, Batman needs to have that rule and live by it, at which point he has to acknowledge that he stepped over that line. Batman may not be outwardly emotional, but he still has to show remorse and regret.

You're not the first person to kill off Lois Lane in an alternate future. You're not even the only one who did it in an ARMAGEDDON 2001 annual, and there are multiple prominent examples in the years that follow, so this isn't aimed at any specific instance. I've only seen an issue made of this in recent years, but there are fans who feel that it's somehow disrespectful to Lois Lane as a character to kill her off even in an alternate future. Sometimes this rises to the assumption that Lois was killed because the creator hates Lois.

Do you have any reaction to that point of view? Speaking as a creator, what goes into a decision like killing Lois, or giving any character a "bad end" in an alternate future?

I’d like to think that the bulk of my writing work with Lois Lane would make it quite clear that I don’t hate her as a character.

As much as anything, doing a story where she dies in a speculative future goes back to a couple of comics I had as a kid. 

Both are Imaginary Stories, which were the Silver Age’s version of alternative future or “What If?” stories. Lois’ death was the subject of both of these and for that time conveyed great emotional impact for Superman. If you’re dealing with the matter of Lois’ importance to Superman, her death shouldn’t suggest the writer hates her anymore than doing the “Death of Superman” would imply that the writer hates Superman himself. 

I’ve also gotten criticized for reducing Lois to nothing more than Superman’s “vessel” because she bore his child. 

In short, no matter what you do, someone will find a reason to dislike it.

As for the issues in question, notice how these are basically the exact same cover idea. “Superman, with a child, mourning Lois.” One might see any number of ways they foreshadowed my work, years later.

Shifting to the conclusion of the ARMAGEDDON 2001 event, how last minute was the decision to change Monarch's identity from Captain Atom to Hawk? Had you drawn the complete issue of the "Cap is Monarch" version by the time this happened?

I recall it as being very last minute, for those times. (These days, we can make changes to a book when it’s at the printers. Back then, before email, scanners and digital lettering, it was very different.)

My memory could be a bit spotty here but I know that I had broken down the entire issue with Monarch being Captain Atom. Those are rough sketch thumbnails that I always do printed size, before blowing up into final pencils.

I had drawn most, if not all, of the issue as well. 

At the time, there was a 1-900 telephone service that fans could call into and get, “Insider Comic Scoops,” for a fee. Maybe a buck? I’m not sure as I never made the call.

In any case, that phone service revealed that Monarch would be revealed as Captain Atom. If you look a the basic plots of the annuals, they were to set up the notion that Monarch could be most any DC hero and the revelation would be a surprise.

Once that secret as revealed on the insider hotline, DC decided to shift gears as the idea of a surprise was still something worth shooting for. With that in mind, they made the change from Captain Atom to Hawk.

I recall discussing this on a conference call with Archie and Denny. I don’t believe either of them were 100% convinced it was the right way to go. Nor do I remember either of them were totally against it. It was more of a, “This is probably for the best,” type of feeling we shared, though i was probably more inclined to keep it as Captain Atom. 

But we went through the script and identified the necessary changes that would have to be made. Denny wrote it up, I drew it and we went from there.

A couple years back, DC decided to print the "Robin lives" version of BATMAN 428, the issue where a fan vote ultimately decided that Robin would die. In that case, the difference between the two amounted to about five pages fully or partially altered. In the case of ARMAGEDDON 2001 #2, it would be significantly more unseen pages. At least in terms of the art that exists, would it be possible for DC to complete an alternate version of the issue - either as its own thing or as part of a long-overdue collection?

In this age of Omnibus Editions, Absolute Editions, Facsimile Editions and just plain cool collections, it certainly seems to me that there should be some type of collection for ARMAGEDDON 2001, books 1 and 2 as well as the connected annuals. 

Since I still get a lot of questions about this at Cons, I also think there’d be enough interest in the original ending, which means we should do something to present it as it was meant to be.

The reality, however, is that there is almost no one left on staff at DC who was there when we did the book. Denny [O'Neil] and Archie [Goodwin] passed away and [DC Publisher and Chief Creative Officer] Jim [Lee] and [Editor-in-Chief] Marie [Javins] have greater familiarity with Marvel’s efforts during those years. With that being the case, I doubt anything will ever be done with A:2001, but we can always hope.

Finally, I don't know how many people remember this, but the crossover was followed almost immediately by a miniseries called ARMAGEDDON: THE ALIEN AGENDA, centered on Monarch and Captain Atom battling through time. You drew the first issue and so I wanted to ask, was there some alternate version of this project that was supposed to focus on the Captain Atom Monarch before the change? Or was the entire existence of this mini a result of the change to Hawk?

As I recall, that miniseries came up very late in the game. Since I wasn’t involved in the earliest conversations, I can’t say for sure, but I think it was planned as something that could capitalize on the popularity of the series and was always planned to feature Captain Atom. I really don’t think it was a reaction to having Hawk as Monarch, though that certainly influenced where the series was going to go. 

The fact that the four issues were drawn by four different artists shows how sudden it was. The idea was to get the scripts done as soon as possible and get all four pencillers working at the same time. The first issue’s pencil deadline was a real rush— that much I definitely remember!

Thanks to Dan Jurgens for his time and a great interview!

Superman writer/artist Dan Jurgens looks back on ARMAGEDDON 2001, 35 years later

In comic book circles, Dan Jurgens needs no introduction. It's inevitable the first line of his obituary will be "the man who killed Superman," as he was the writer/artist of the famous SUPERMAN #75. His association with Superman as a regular writer/artist began in 1989, and as it stands, he's almost certainly written more Superman stories than any other creator. While the Superman artist with the most stories to their name is Curt Swan, Dan's body of work pretty handily should put him in 2nd or 3rd place there.

This week is the 35th anniversary of a DC crossover event called ARMAGEDDON 2001. Dan provided the art for the two bookend issues, the first of which established the premise: Ten years in the future - in 2001 - one hero would betray and kill all the others. The identity of that hero was never known, as they then assumed the name Monarch and became an authoritarian leader. By the year 2030, Matthew Ryder has had enough of raising his family in Monarch's joyless dystopia and manages to become a test subject in a time travel experiment that transforms him into the time traveling Waverider.

Determined to stop Monarch before he comes to power, Waverider travels back to 1991 and uses his powers to read the possible futures of the major DC heroes, each encounter being depicted in one of that summer's Annuals. Of course, this is ultimately a device for the creators to explore a bunch of "What If" stories with their characters.

Dan's contribution as a writer was with the very first issue after the bookend - SUPERMAN ANNUAL #3. With pencils by Dusty Abel and inks by Terry Austin, John Beatty, Dick Giordano, and Dennis Janke, Dan brings us a story about a 2001 where Superman has lost almost everyone who mattered to him - including Lois Lane and his coworkers at the Daily Planet - when Intergang nuked Metropolis. He's been on an obsessive anti-nuke crusade ever since, and he crosses a line that results in the loss of innocent lives. Thus, the President drafts the one man who might be able to take Superman down - Batman.

To mark this memorable story's 35th anniversary, I reached out to Dan Jurgens for a chat about crafting alternate futures, killing characters, Evil Superman stories, and writing one of the most memorable Superman vs Batman fights.

Armageddon 2001 was the first - but not the last - time you did the pencils for a major DC event. Did it feel like a big deal joining a relatively small club that counted George Perez and John Byrne as two of its very few members? How did you end up landing the assignment?

By that point, I had, of course, been working on ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN as writer/artist and drawing GREEN ARROW. 

I left GA in mid-1990 and was fielding offers. Right around that time Dick Giordano called me up and said they were planning an event that they were hoping I’d be able to draw. He said, “Don’t book anything else!” Before long, I was on the phone with Mike Carlin, Archie Goodwin and Denny O’Neil talking about the story. I was a bit hesitant to take something on that I wasn’t going to write, as well as draw, but when it became clear that Archie would write Book One and Denny would write Book Two, I simply had to do it. One of the great things about working in comics is getting the chance to work with people whose work you enjoy and respect. Archie and Denny were at the top of the list for that.

So, yes, I was definitely on board from the start. And, once Archie’s script came in, I was really thrilled. It was a great story and from a technical standpoint, no one wrote an easier to interpret and clean, visual script than Archie.

I love Monarch's armor. Did you get to design him and Waverider? If so what kind of parameters were you given to work with?

Yes, I designed Monarch’s armor as well.

Archie had asked for something dour in terms of color as well as making sure that it would cover his entire body. That, of course, was to keep his identity secret.

As for Waverider, Archie, Mike, Denny and I had a conversation where we came to the general idea of him being a time traveling Silver Surfer type. Since the Monarch was going to have a larger, heavier appearance, we wanted someone lithe. The timestream trailing color effect was my own idea, kind of based on Star Trek’s Enterprise when it would go to warp. At the time, I thought, “People will realize this signifier will indicate time travel.” I like to think that it worked.

Did you have any involvement in the plotting or the scripting of the ARMAGEDDON bookend issues?

Not with Book One and only a bit with Book Two. By the time that rolled around we had enough conversations that there was a small bit of input. As much as anything, it also came up when it was decided to change the ending. By then we were into the question of how to do it and do it easily, since I was already well into drawing the story.

At the time, what did you think of the plan to turn "a major DC hero" into a major villain?

I totally supported the idea. We have to be able to surprise readers from time to time and something like that works. Frankly, I think it would have worked better with Captain Atom because he had the power level to fit the idea of it all. On top of that, it would have been easier to keep him as a villain over the long haul because he didn’t have the connections to other characters, like Hawk did with Dove, for example.

And that always falls into the category of whether or not later writers will stick with it. Too often, someone else will come along with the sole desire of changing the last thing in print because Hawk, Captain Atom, Popsicle Man or whomever, has been their favorite since age seven and, “How DARE those creators mess with that?!” 

I love that this was a crossover that justified a lot of "What if"  stories. Once you knew what the crossover premise was, were you determined to write one of the Superman Annuals?

If you go back to the first question where I talked about wanting to write most of what I drew at that point, I was told right from the start that I’d be able to write one of the Annuals. So that made it a bit more enticing to get on board.

And I had hoped to draw it as well, but there was only so much time in the day. And as it was, that’s when I was working crazy hours anyway!

One thing that puts ARMAGEDDON 2001 near the top of my list of crossover events is that its structure doesn't force the tie-ins to be held hostage by certain plot points. Like ZERO HOUR, the event mostly acts as a cool writing prompt for the participating teams to run with. So with the marching orders being "show us where your character is 10 years from now," where did your brainstorming process start?

So, stepping back on this a bit, the first big decision was to set this up in such a way that it didn’t follow the pattern of a monthly book with a lot of different monthlies crossing into it. There was a very deliberate move to step outside all of that on behalf of both retailers and readers, who were a bit tapped out by that process. 

It also made the project more enticing to writers of the connected books and stories because it didn’t interrupt the flow of where they were in their own arcs.

In terms of the creative process, it was really the thought of saying, “Show us the future with something fun.” In other words, it as part of the exercise to step outside of where the character might logically go. So, a story idea or whacky new costume might be more likely to get approved than if it were part of the, “This WILL be THE FUTURE!” type of approach.

Did you give any consideration to telling the most plausible version of Superman's future, since at that point in comics, the character's existed in a perpetual present, where it seemed unlikely the storytelling would ever advance to their middle aged years? Or was your interest always in telling a future that you'd never want to experience with Superman? Were there any alternate pitches you toyed with before arriving where you did?

The ideas I had really swept into the one that saw print quite fast. I didn’t pitch anything radically different. It was more along the lines of a dialogue with Mike Carlin where we bounced various aspects of the overall concept back and forth. 

And we did want to step outside the continuity of the ongoing books at the time— to give it a bit of a different flavor.

Initially I wanted to talk to you about this because I remembered this as one of the first "Evil Superman" stories before that trope started being beaten to death over the last 10-15 years. And the unexpected thing to me when I reread it was that... I saw a lot more of "real Clark" in this authoritarian-leaning Superman than we've seen in stories like INJUSTICE. 

Can you talk about how you approached keeping some familiar aspects of the character even as he's taking actions that make the federal government and even Batman feel like he's stepped over the line? Were there any ideas you considered and then discarded because it would have made him TOO evil?

The balance was to keep Superman “in character” will also putting him on edge. 

Evil Superman for the sake of being evil doesn’t interest me because it’s too much of a detour. But keeping Clark more grounded and real makes it more of a logical— and not so distant— jump. 

At what point in the development process did you realize that Batman had to be the one to take on Superman in this story?

Batman was involved with the story idea right from the start. Some of the elements and ideas actually came to me while doing the DARK KNIGHT OVER METROPOLIS story a few years earlier. 

That often happens to me while drawing a story. Basic ideas can perk around in my head while I’m drawing a story, well after I’ve written it. I’ll be drawing page 10 (or whatever) and cooking on the next chapter, which I would have had no idea of beforehand.

The best example of this is Hank Henshaw/Cyborg Superman,  who I always so as a one-shot character. That changed once I started drawing that exact same story. 

Of course, with DARK KNIGHT OVER METROPOLIS, you're referencing Superman giving Batman the kryptonite ring and telling him that if he ever goes bad, he wants the means to stop him in the hands of a man he'd trust with his life. I can see how once that Chekov's Gun exists, you'd find it an irresistible hook to play out somehow.

Was the idea to homage the Batman/Superman battle from THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS simultaneous with that? It certainly was the most famous fight between those two.

Yes, definitely. I’d also add that a lot of creators within the Superman team had conflicting feelings about that fight because Superman was made to look like a government stooge of Ronald Reagan’s. 

We didn’t see him that way at all. He and Batman could disagree and be in conflict… and we recognized that Batman was supposed to be the coolest character in that particular story… but Superman coming off as a stooge might have been the wrong way to go.

But… that having been said… once the Kryptonite ring of Luthor’s fell into Batman’s possession, it was too cool NOT to use.

I remember reading this issue at 11 years old and noting the contrast with SUPERMAN IV. In that movie, Superman addresses the United Nations, tells the world he's taking away their nukes, and everyone cheers. Here, you've got a Superman on an extreme anti-nuke crusade and while it seems he still has a lot of public support, we see that the President considers him a threat to national security, which is something we didn't see happen in SUPERMAN IV. Was that movie on your mind at all as you wrote the issue?

Yes, it was. 

While I admired aspects of the movie and didn’t care for others, I don’t think we should be naive about what would happen if anyone ever showed up and said, “I’m taking away the world’s weapons. Especially those of the most powerful.”

I don’t believe the current president would react well to such a move, do you?

Certainly not him or ANY other prior U.S President, that’s for sure!

For the conclusion of my chat with Dan Jurgens, go here. 

If you want an overview of Dan Jurgens's Superman career, take a look at the tribute I wrote for the publication of ACTION COMICS 1000.

A salute to Superman writer/artist Dan Jurgens as ACTION COMICS hits 1000 issues this week!

ACTION COMICS 1000.

I just want to allow a moment for this to sink in. ACTION COMICS, the comic book that began its run in June 1938 with Superman's first appearance, this week releases its one-thousandth issue. It's a staggering milestone in comic book history. That it more or less coincides with Superman's 80th birthday is also something to celebrate.

I've written many times before about my history with Superman comics, so I'm sure some of this will be familiar to longtime readers. The Superman milestone is a bit bittersweet for me because this issue also will mark the FINAL appearance from writer/artist Dan Jurgens in the regular Superman titles, at least for the foreseeable future. His run (and the run of his SUPERMAN collaborators, Patrick Gleason and Peter Tomasi) comes to an end as Brian Michael Bendis prepares to shepherd both Superman titles.

Dan took over writing ACTION COMICS about two years ago, with the launch of the REBIRTH line in ACTION 957. I'll talk a little more about this run later, but it's perhaps my favorite handling of the character in the last 10 years or so. And yet, it's not even Dan's most notable success with the character. When he leaves this world, I'd be shocked if the first line of Dan's obituary doesn't refer to him somehow as "the man who killed Superman" in one of the biggest selling comic books of all-time.

There's an interesting synchronicity between Dan's time with the character and my own buying habits. I can't remember a time when I WASN'T a Superman fan, but when I was very young, it wasn't like I was able to buy the comics every week. When I was six, my aunt got me the then-current relaunch of Superman by John Byrne in the six-issue MAN OF STEEL miniseries. Then over the next few years, I'd buy Superman comics from the local book store whenever my parents could be talked into it.

There was a particular story that made me a permanent reader and got my parents to take me to the comic store for regular trips. In SUPERMAN 28, the Man of Steel exiled himself to outer space, in a soul-searching story that lasted about six months. To a nine year-old, this was EPIC stuff and I had to get each chapter as it unfolded. The third part of the story, SUPERMAN 29, was written by and featured the art of... Dan Jurgens. Within a few months, Dan was drawing the ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN title and eventually took over writing it too.

So in a weird way, my regular association with Superman comics lines up almost exactly with Dan's. His art quickly became my favorite among the book. (I have to note that he's in a virtual tie with Jerry Ordway for the title of my all-time favorite Superman artist, and that at least two of my other favorites, Bob McLeod and George Perez also were on the books during this time.)

My Golden Age of Superman extends from about 1989 to 1994, more or less from the EXILE to the ZERO HOUR storyline, and Dan's work was essential to that. This was the period that included the Death and Return of Superman storylines, as well as PANIC IN THE SKY, KRISIS OF THE KRIMSON KRYPTONITE, and DAY OF THE KRYPTON MAN. All of them are landmark stories and were huge influences on my view of the character, but there are a number of wonderful standalone stories mixed in there - and a good chunk of them are Dan Jurgens's tales.

ComicBook.com recently complied a list of "essential" Dan Jurgens Superman stories, and just about all of these would make my list too. I love just about all the mega-storylines from this era, that crossed through the three, and later four, Superman books. Aside from those, I always had some affection for the really good single-issue tales that the creators would get to do between those stories. Off the top of my head, my favorites include:

Metropolis Mailbag: a concept introduced in SUPERMAN 64 is that once a year on Christmas, Superman reads his fan mail and does what he can to help those in need. It's an emotional little holiday tale that shows us the small kindnesses that Superman can accomplish with his powers, as well as reminds us that even he has his limits in what he can do for people. There's a humanity to this era of Superman and stories like this are a major reason why. A year later in SUPERMAN 76, we saw the entire DC community of heroes pulling together to answer Superman's mail, as this holiday fell during the period where Superman was dead.

Homeless for the Holidays: In ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN 462, Clark Kent learns that a co-worker has fallen on hard times, and with the help of Perry White and the staff of the Daily Planet, gives her a Merry Christmas and a new home.

Face to Face with Yesterday: ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN 474 - Another holiday tale, this one centered on a sin from young Clark Kent's past. A high school classmate of his has been comatose since a drunk driving accident senior year. On the night his parents are finally pulling the plug, Clark Kent pays his first visit there in a long time, and grapples with his guilt over not doing more that fateful night.

(This issue is also notable because it was the first issue with a price hike. Most of DC's other books had jumped from 75 cents to a full dollar nearly a year earlier. The Superman books held on the longest, but felt the price hike with this issue. Dan actually wrote a letter to the fans via the issue's letter column, saying he knew this wouldn't be popular with readers and relayed his own tale of pricing woe. When he was a boy, ACTION COMICS jumped from 12 cents to 15 cents, which meant he could only afford two of the three issues he intended to buy on this particular trip to the drug store. The cashier took pity on him that day, and gave him the issues at the lower price. I remember thinking what a nice gesture it was on Dan's part to basically take the time to say to the fans, "Yeah, I've been there too" and over something ultimately so minor that no one would have thought less if he DIDN'T say anything.)

SUPERMAN 131: one of the epic Lex Luthor stories. Having kept Superman occupied with a minor crisis, Lex settles two old grudges at once by having the Mayor assassinated and hiring (and later betraying and murdering) his hated foster father to do the deed. Oh, and he becomes a father and has his wife put into a medically induced coma while all of this is going on. It's Lex Luthor at his most evil.

LOIS & CLARK: an 8-part storyline that puts some pieces into place for REBIRTH. Clark and Lois are in hiding, enjoying a quiet life on an Earth different from the one where they lived their entire lives. But they can't stay out of trouble forever, and the stakes are higher now that they've got a 10 year-old son name Jon who doesn't know his father was once one of Earth's greatest Superheroes.

The dynamic of Superman and Lois having a young son became one of the corner stones of REBIRTH. I gushed about this storyline soon after it started, and almost two years later, I can attest that the storytelling in both Superman books felt fresh, emotional and were the kinds of Superman stories that I hope are told for years to come.

At WonderCon, Jurgens mentioned that making Superman a father ensured that he'd have plenty of fresh ground to explore with the character and Lois. Superman has matured, and Dan pointed out that during his first run on the character, they would make the character a bit more reactive than he'd been before. (As he put it, "Our Superman would get angry" rather than always being totally chill.) I like the paternal side of Superman getting showcased again, as during the Curt Swan era, he definitely felt like a "dad," an older sort of soul than the portrayal in the Christopher Reeve movies.

I bring up Curt Swan for another reason - he's the only person to have drawn more Superman stories than Dan. Curt's regular run on Superman comics lasted about thirty years or so, and then even after MAN OF STEEL brought an end to it, he'd often be back for special projects and fill-ins right up until his death in 1996. He easily has drawn more stories than Dan, but once you get past those two, whoever's in third place would have to be FAR behind Jurgens.

If you tally the total number of Superman stories Dan has been involved in, I understand it's just over 230 issues, but that includes a substantial number where he was writing without drawing. For many readers like me, Dan Jurgens is the definitive Superman artist, and not just because he wrote and drew Superman 75, where he got to kill him. (Dan also got to do the honors in 1996 when Clark Kent finally married Lois Lane.)

For this reason above all others, his capacity for amazing Superman art, I had to buy a Superman sketch from him when I had the chance a few years ago. I've met Dan in person about four or five times now, and it's always been a pleasure. He's truly one of the kindest people you could meet at a comic convention, and always seems happy to engage the fans.

I mentioned before that my regular run reading the character began almost exactly when Dan started writing and drawing him. Dan left the book in late 1999, after over ten years with the character. I stayed a bit longer. That particular incarnation of Superman continued more or less until the FLASHPOINT storyline in 2011.  This storyline prompted a line-wide reboot of ALL DC continuity, called The New 52, meaning that from September 2011 going forward, all of Superman history had a clean slate.

As a long-time fan I was bummed, but I decided to give it six months to see if I liked what the new teams were doing. I figured out pretty quickly the new approach wasn't to my tastes, but with the seventh issue, DC announced a "new" Superman artist... Dan Jurgens. That was enough to get me to stick around for Dan's run, which ended up being only six months. When he left a year into the New 52, I left too. There was something poetic - I came in with Dan Jurgens... and I left with him.

(If this sounds familiar, you probably read me talking about it here and here, when I walked away from the books for what I assumed was permanent.)

Of course, that meant that when Dan came BACK, I was probably obligated to follow suit. And I did. I check out his LOIS & CLARK out of curiosity, as the Superman and Lois featured in that book weren't the New 52 versions, but "my" versions that I grew up reading. Other than that, didn't buy many new comics for almost four years. I'd kicked the habit and accepted that the current Superman comics weren't for me. I saw no reason to get back into them.

Then DC made probably the ONE announcement that would change that: Dan Jurgens was taking over ACTION COMICS, and it would be starring the Superman and Lois from LOIS & CLARK, along with their super-powered son.

Every time I think I'm out...

And now that run is coming to an end, and in bittersweet fashion, it ends even as it feels like there are tons of stories that Dan has left to tell. Though he was coordinating his vision of Superman with the creative team on the SUPERMAN title, this was the first time that Dan truly had full control over the storylines he was telling. His last run on the books was when there were four monthly titles that fed into and out of each other. It was an amazing feat of collaboration, and Dan worked with some great talents writing the other books, such as Jerry Ordway, Roger Stern, Louise Simonson, and Karl Kesel. Reading the last two years of ACTION, I really got a sense of how Jurgens was able to really take ownership of his plotlines rather than being part of a four-book relay race.

I feel like I've grown up with Superman in more ways than one. The EXILE story found him adrift, trying to figure out who he was. He came out of that more matured and over the years he revealed his secret to Lois Lane and proposed, he died and came back, he married the woman he loved, watched friends and parents die, and became a father. He's matured and become more thoughtful, perhaps even wiser as he became paternal. I like the depth that's given him.

Because of these elements, the REBIRTH storyline is unique among Superman runs. Gleason & Tomasi have also gotten to play in that sandbox, but it's Dan Jurgens who truly got things rolling when he introduced Jon Kent in LOIS & CLARK. It launched a Superman era that couldn't be anything but different from what came before. Assuming these changes endure (and I really hope Bendis doesn't eliminate them), Jurgens can still be proud that he was the first person to break that ground with Superman. How many people are lucky to have TWO iconic runs with the same legendary character?

I last saw Dan a few weeks ago at WonderCon, where he was generous enough to fit me on his busy sketch list and then went above and beyond on my request. This was a riff on a crossover from 1996 called DC VS. MARVEL. The two companies teamed up for a miniseries that pitted the heroes of both universes against each other, with the outcomes of five of the fights determined by fan votes. In a massive injustice unmatched by any electoral shenanigans since, the fans voted that Storm should be Wonder Woman in battle. (See that fight here.) Dan was one of the artists on that miniseries and ended up drawing the Wonder Woman/Storm fight. That made my sketch request pretty easy to come up with...

It may have taken 20 years, but the Amazing Amazon is at last avenged, and we now have the outcome of the battle, the way it should have gone and drawn by the man responsible for the original work. Dan went above and beyond what I expected the result to be and this might be one of my favorite comics-related possessions of all time. To my knowledge, this is the only time he's been asked to do this particular request.

Dan, thank you for 30 years of great Superman stories with more to come. Thank you for all those books I read again and again as a boy, to the point where entire runs are pretty much memorized in my head, down to some of the smallest details of the panels. So many of those stories meant everything to me as a kid, and when I'm fortunate enough to see your art on new Superman tales, I'm always transported back to those days.

Thank you for showing us there's no end to the kind of stories that can be told with a Superman who represents the best in all of us. And thank you for underlining that humanity in him by making Superman a loving husband and a wonderful parent. It's nice to have Superman stories that achieve depth while still being appropriate for the youngest readers, just like the tales of the era I grew up with.

Like Curt Swan, I think you'll end up associated with this character up until your last days on Earth. You clearly have more stories to tell and I can't imagine I've read my final Dan Jurgens Superman adventure. But the end of this chapter deserves to be commemorated and of everyone contributing to Wednesday's ACTION COMICS 1000, it feels most right that you're there. Congrats!

Oh, and happy birthday to you too, Superman. Here's to 1000 more! If the villainous Word Bringer actually exists, maybe I can be there as a brain in a jar for ACTION 2000!

SDCC wrap-up: A salute to Mark Hamill's COMIC BOOK: THE MOVIE and Superman: Rebirth

The older I get, the more my trips to Comic-Con take out of me. This is almost a week past due, but I wrote a piece for Film School Rejects about Mark Hamill's little-seen directorial debut COMIC BOOK: THE MOVIE. It went live while I was at SDCC and had no opportunity to write a post here. However, Mark Hamill himself RT'd the link to it and I'm told that at one point, the article was on the front page of Medium, so I hope you enjoy it.

When I was in college, some friends and I had a ritual we’d do on nights where several of us were bored. We’d grab my friend Joe’s high-8 camera and wander into the bowels of the library to shoot our own improvised movies. These were all done with editing-in-the-camera, meaning we shot in sequence, one shot at a time with no post-production work. We never started with a script, though by the end we were bringing along an array of costumes and props.

None of these were great films, but there was an infectious energy about them. The first film was just myself and Joe, and we took turns holding the camera depending on which of us was in the shot. We had fun but wouldn’t have repeated the experiment had the friends we showed it to not said, “When are you doing another one? Can I be in it?” This goofy time-waster looked like so much fun that its energy transcended its low production values and creative constraints.

Mark Hamill’s 2004 directorial debut, Comic Book: The Movie, is the closest I’ve ever seen a feature film duplicate that energy. It’s an improvised mockumentary in the tradition of the Christopher Guest films like This is Spinal Tap and Best in Show. This is a shaggier effort than those films. CB: TM was apparently shot on digital video, but I’d swear the visual quality isn’t much more impressive than High-8, particular when displayed on an HD screen.

[...]Hamill’s repertory company of players is largely made up of voice actors whose work you’ve heard in shows like Pinky & The Brain, Futurama, Animaniacs and many, many more. But that’s all part of the infectious joy of this film. It really feels like Hamill was hanging out with his buddies and said, “Why DON’T we make a movie about something we all love? And let’s do it in a place we love: San Diego Comic Con.”

You can find the rest on Film School Rejects at:  Mark Hamill’s Comic Book: The Movie Shows That Luke Skywalker is One of Us.

In additional Comic-Con news, two of my experiences work as follow-ups to earlier posts. Years ago, I wrote about how when I was in college, I wrote a letter to TV writer Ron Moore (TNG, DS9, Roswell, and Battlestar Galactica) and much to my shock, he tracked me down to call my home and thank me for the letter. It felt like one of the coolest things that had happened to me. Since then, I've always wanted to meet him, even if just to shake his hand and thank him for being so cool. Well, I briefly got to meet him following the Writing for Star Trek Panel and he could not have been a nicer guy. There have been some shifts in positive direction as far as my career lately, and I'm taking this encounter as a signpost of big things on the horizon.

I also attended the DC Rebirth: Superman panel, which focused on the newly relaunched Superman titles. About four years ago, I wrote two very long posts about my relationship with Superman comics and what eventually led me to break up with collecting comics after 23 years of consistent buying. This came a year after DC Comics began a massive relaunch known as The New 52. You can find those old posts here and here.

Well, this May, DC relaunched yet again via DC Universe Rebirth and they knew the exact way to lure me back - Superman writer extraordinaire Dan Jurgens is penning ACTION COMICS, and the Superman of the New 52 is dead. In his place, the pre-New 52 Superman has taken over in this universe and he's not alone. He and his wife Lois have crossed into this new continuity and they've brought with them their 10 year-old son Jon. (This whole story was told in the CONVERGENCE tie-ins and SUPERMAN: LOIS & CLARK, also written by Jurgens.)

I can't tell you how much of a difference this has made. Superman has felt heroic and confidant again, a hero worthy of being looked up to. Better still, his relationship with Lois helps humanize him. The big element the New 52 got rid of was Lois and Clark's marriage, but it also severed ANY real relationship between the two. Superman's romantic interest was Wonder Woman, and it felt wrong to pair him up with another super, as it's always been more interesting to show that Lois Lane is more than up to the task of being Clark's equal.

As much as losing Lois hurt Superman, losing Clark REALLY hurt Lois's character. They're really yin and yang, particularly since the previous two decades-plus where she's in on the secret. No one really seemed to know how to develop Lois on her own and she never had the same chemistry with other characters that she did with Clark when there was romance on the table.

At the Superman panel, Dan Jurgens said that he considers ACTION COMICS #1 to be a significant book not just because it introduced Superman, but because it's also the first appearance of Lois Lane. There are few writers who understand Lois Lane as well as Jurgens and I really believe that she is in good hands with him and Peter J. Tomasi and Patrick Gleason, who are writing the SUPERMAN title. Fans who are frustrated that Lois's role has only been that of Jon's mother since REBIRTH are advised to be patient, because it was hinted that a few developments are very close on the horizon to restore her to prominence.

Let's talk a little about Jon Kent, who might be my favorite addition to the Superman mythos in a long time. He's got Clark's powers and Lois's inquisitive attitude. It's only been recently that he found out his dad is Superman and both writing teams really have a strong handle on his voice. He's a good kid, but also isn't afraid to stand up to his parents when he wants to be heard. There's something very endearing about seeing Superman as a father, taking his son on a routine rescue and using the adventure as an opportunity to teach him about his powers.

The Superman books have not had this much heart in a long time. Some characters feel too "aged up" when given children, but Superman's always been such a paternal figure that it feels natural to give him a child. I'll admit, in Jurgens's first issue of ACTION, it brought a smile to my face to see Jon cheer "Go Dad, go!" as his father flew off to a confrontation. (Art by Patrick Zircher.)

I can't speak for the quality of most of the other Rebirth properties (other than urging you check out BATGIRL & THE BIRDS OF PREY, written by THE 100's Julie & Shawna Benson), but if you've been a lapsed Superman fan, the stories being crafted by Jurgens and Gleason & Tomasi; drawn by Gleason, Zircher and Tyler Kirkham, are some of the most original and heartfelt tales the character has had in a very long time. It's the perfect antidote to the missteps of the New 52 and the darker tones of BATMAN V. SUPERMAN.

For the first time in a long time, the greatest superhero in comics is in the hands of creators who understand what makes him great, and I for one am enjoying the ride.

Meeting your idols at Comic-Con

I had an awesome weekend at San Diego Comic-Con, though that was probably evident from the fact that I couldn't get my act together and have a new post up yesterday.  SDCC can be an incredibly fun event, but also incredibly exhausting.  And yes, a lot of that is due to how crowded the show has gotten in recent years.  This was my tenth year attending the con, so I've seen a lot of changes just in that time.  To give you an idea of what kind of changes those are - during my first visit in 2004, one of my friends was able to buy his admission badge on site.  For Saturday.

This year, ALL passes for all days sold out in a matter of hours.  Panel audiences have gotten insanely crowded in the last couple of years, to the point where it is almost necessary to pick one panel you really want to see and line up for it at the start of the day, if not overnight.  (During my first year, I saw multiple panels in one day, including walking right into Ballroom 20 and Hall H without waiting in any lines.)

It's easy to complain about how the overcrowding and long lines dampen what used to be a great celebration of fandom.  It's hard to deny the effect that the Hollywood-ization has had on the con, to its detriment in a lot of ways.  But every now and then, you have an experience or four at the show that reminds you why you love this place to begin with.  After all, this is a place where I have run into Joss Whedon by chance - twice!

I've been pretty open in the past about my former hobby of collecting Superman comics.  It's a hobby that started in 1986 and only recently walked away from it a year ago, as detailed in this two part post.  If you read those, you might remember I spoke with great admiration for an era of Superman comics from the late 80s to the mid-90s, the Stern/Ordway/Jurgens era, as some call it.  That era was my "Golden Age of comics" and this past weekend, I got to meet four creators responsible for large parts of that era.

The first of these was a signing featuring writer Louise Simonson and artist Jon Bogdanove.  In the 90s, they were the creative team on SUPERMAN: MAN OF STEEL and created the character of Steel, who was far more interesting than his feature film made him out to be. There are a couple nice things about these sorts of signings.  First, since there are fewer people in line, there's less of a wait and you're less likely to be rushed along.  This also means that you can have a more meaningful chat while your books are being signed.

I always try to think of something interesting to say to these people.  This is partially because I used to be tongue-tied in situations like this, and partially because I've witnessed WAY too many awkward con encounters.  (Don't be shocked, but a fraction of comic book fans have issues with social awkwardness.)  Oh, who am I kidding? I was a tongue-tied fool during my first meeting with Joss Whedon during my inaugural visit to SDCC and I wasn't much better during my second chance meeting four years later.  Fortunately, making conversation with people whom you are a fan of is one skill I've honed from a lot of industry wrap parties and holiday gatherings.

I had a brief chat with Louise about some of her writing in the acclaimed "Funeral for a Friend" storyline and then it was my turn with the man affectionately known as "Bog."  I decided to ask him about how much effort it took to do the art for MAN OF STEEL 37, an issue that saw a time anomaly bring Superman into contact with Batmans of multiple timelines.  To underscore the effect, each alternate Batman was drawn as an homage to a specific era of Batman comics, with Bogdanove doing spot-on imitations of other artists' styles.

Bog's face lit up as I mentioned the issue, and he went on to tell me he immersed himself in research.  He studied all of his predecessors' and really got inside their process.  If I understood him correctly, he'd sometimes get only one of those Batmans drawn on the cover in a day, taking his time to get it right.  The most interesting thing was he said he learned a lot by trying to get inside the technique and style of those other artists and that it taught him a lot about his own craft.  He said it improved his technique to gain that insight and that it might have been one of the most important things he did for his craft.  It struck me that his experience could also be analogous to writing.

Speaking of writing, one of my favorite encounters of the weekend came at another signing, when I met legendary writer/artist Jerry Ordway.  Jerry's first issue of Superman (Adventures of Superman 424) was also one of my first comics, and eventually Jerry graduated from pencilling to writing and drawing as well. He was a part of the Superman family from 1987 to 1993, so he played a significant role in shaping that incarnation.

Jerry also happens to follow me on Twitter, so I introduced myself via my handle. Though I'm not sure he saw my review of MAN OF STEEL, he definitely remembered a tweet I made about how comic writer Mark Waid has a right to his negative opinion of MAN OF STEEL, just as I have a right to dislike Waid's own Superman origin series BIRTHRIGHT.  This led us to discuss how we both enjoyed the Zack Snyder/Henry Cavill film, and how we were perplexed at how little credit some people were giving it.

Jerry's said on Twitter that he enjoyed the film, so I don't feel like I'm betraying any confidence by repeating that here.  He went on to mention talking with another comics creator who really disliked the film, and that led us to a 5-minute chat about everything we liked about the movie and what we loved about Superman in general.  It was just like any chat you might have at the comic store, except at one point it hit me that "Holy shit, I'm geeking out about Superman with a guy who had a lot to do with SHAPING my concept of Superman!"  It was surreal, but very cool.

Jerry was also very gracious in signing several of my books, by the way.  When I asked for a picture with him, he also insisted on getting one on HIS camera, saying he likes to get pictures with the fans.  This was a stark contrast to several years ago when I lined up for a certain Star Trek actor's signature and the good captain couldn't be bothered to look anyone in the eye.  His eyes were downcast at what he was signing the entire time.

I had an equally great encounter with Dan Jurgens, a Superman writer/artist best known as the man who drew the landmark Superman 75, which was the issue where Superman died.  Jurgens first issue was actually Superman 29 in 1989, one issue after I convinced my parents to get me each new issue rather than purchasing it sporadically.  He was a regular artist on the books until 1995 and a writer until 1999.  He briefly returned to the book as the regular artist for six issues soon after the reboot of the series in late 2011.  Jurgens was pretty much the definitive Superman artist of the 90s. When I picture Superman, most of the time it's Jurgens art that I see.

I was one of several people who arrived early to line up for Dan's signing after attending a spotlight panel focusing on his work..  When he arrived at the table, he looked a bit perplexed, perhaps thinking that surely all of these people couldn't just be there waiting for him.  But we were and when my time came to get my books signed, I mentioned how long I'd been following him.  I couldn't help but mention that my comic collection actually ended with his last issue, to which he said, "I'm sorry to hear that."

I told him that I felt that the incarnation that was being published now was no longer "my" Superman.  Back when Dan and Jerry were doing great things with the character in the 90s, fans attached to the Silver Age era regularly complained that Superman had been ruined and that they missed the old version.  As someone who loved the then-current Superman, it always annoyed me that those fans couldn't let go of the past.  I told Dan, "I don't want to be the guys angrily raining on the fans' parade. If someone loves the current version, that's great, but I don't need to keep buying it just to make a point about how angry it makes me."

Dan reflected on that too, saying that though they got a lot of grief from the older fans, if those fans had their way, then it never would have led to great stories like the Death and Return of Superman.  That's a good point to to appreciate as writers - you can't be so scared of radical change that you close yourself off from exploring new ideas.  We chatted a few more minutes and I left with a feeling not unlike the one I had following the Ordway signing.

These guys were - in an odd way - an integral part of my childhood.  I waited every week for the release of the latest issues.  I knew Jurgens' artwork so well that I could detect the different nuances brought out by individual inkers.  Ordway artwork was equally unmistakable. I re-read those issues so often that I practically have each panel memorized, even more than two decades later.  So to meet them decades later and have substantive, if brief, conversations with them about that passion was oddly affecting.  (When I relayed the stories to my wife, she said, "That's like if Julie Andrews came over and had a conversation with me about Mary Poppins!"  What can I say? She gets it.)

I also had the opportunity to meet TV writer Jane Espenson and Brad "Cheeks" Bell, her co-creator on the webseries Husbands.  In a humbling moment, they both recognized my Twitter moniker and Cheeks said he was pretty sure he followed me and that he liked my stuff.  The highlight for me was that I got to thank Jane for a letter she wrote to me ten years ago.  I had written her a fan letter asking advice about breaking into TV writing and she graciously responded even as she was cleaning out her office on Buffy.

So yeah, it was a good con.

Bitch about the long lines, the terrible food, the incredibly rude volunteers and the convention-goers who never bathe all you want.  For two days this weekend, I got to reconnect with a major part of my childhood AND get it touch with some experiences that reminded me why I wanted to be a writer in the first place.  Some sore feet, over-priced parking and a little claustrophobia are a small price to pay for that, wouldn't you say?  Experiences like these will always keep me coming back to SDCC as long as I can.