I think the reaction to the Superman reboot -- by both some fans and some pros -- was an early indication of issues we would see in the industry down the line. Normally, you could make major changes to characters -- from Flash and Green Lantern and Superman and Batman themselves -- and there wouldn't be any real resistance. Mostly because the audience turned over so quickly.

There was a lot of kicking and screaming about JB's Superman reboot and it seemed to come from aging fans and fans turned pro. Kids my age (13 at the time) were pretty excited about it. And the interesting thing was that I liked JB's Superman enough to actively seek out the stories that the aging fans complained "no longer counted."

When BIRTHRIGHT came out, I had issues with it but I accepted that it would make sense to reboot Superman every few decades -- as had been the case previously. But now, aging fans my age were kicking and screaming about the changes -- and not just changes on a global scale but changes on a specific story point. In other words, the fannish devotion to continuity was getting worse.

Why do you think DC let George Perez introduce a "learning the ropes" Wonder Woman? 

I've said it before here and I'll say it again: dropping Superboy from the
canon is one of my favorite aspects of the JB reboot of Superman.

I never liked Superboy. I thought the whole concept was silly and hokey
and completely without any sense of drama or suspense. I liked that JB's
Superman was a throwback to the Golden Age version--he makes his
debut as a super hero when he's an ADULT. That was also the way it was
done in the first Christopher Reeve movie, which is the first version of
Superman that really "spoke" to me.

In fact, I'd have to say that the only Superboy story that I ever truly
enjoyed was the Superman/Legion of Super Heroes crossover that JB and
Levitz did.  

+++++++++++

Same here.

Also, I think that JB's pocket universe Superboy story may have been my introduction to the character, and since he was the "villain" in that story, well...

JB, did any part of your decision to drop Superboy have to do with Lois "naming" Superman?  I may be confusing the movie with the comic(s) but I always thought that that was an integral part of her.  Shows off her brilliance as a writer and ties her to the Man of Steel...even if he hadn't fallen for her.

This might be a good topic to start a new thread but speaking of movies influencing the comics(or the "real" version) I recently picked up the Batman dailes 1943-1946 and found it interesting how much the comic was influenced by the serials.  Alfred and the batcave being examples of things that weren't established in the comics.

I've always felt that movies/t.v. usually just modify what's been established in the comics but that isn't always the case.  I guess it's nice that they don't always screw things up or "don't get it".

Superman the movie is that way for me.  I guess I saw it at such an impressionable age and the DC comics of the time weren't that fun for me that it became the "real' version in many ways.  Hackman as Luthor wasn't the real guy and Marlon Brando wasn't the real Jor-El, but some elements of the movie became "fact' in my mind.

I think I'll have to remember that when some youngster tells me of the "real" X-Men, Punisher, Elektra, Daredevil, etc. based on their viewing of the movies.

I never liked Superboy. I thought the whole concept was silly and hokey
and completely without any sense of drama or suspense.

*************

SER: I agree that Superboy stories seemed to have gotten stuck in a Mitt Romney past that never actually existed. However, the concept of Superboy -- a young Clark who has adventures and is allowed a degree of fallibility -- appeals to me. It's one of the things I like about SMALLVILLE.

A part of me has trouble with a Clark Kent who doesn't actively use his powers until adulthood. Peter Parker realized that with "great power comes great responsibility" and he was in his teens when the spider bit him. Shouldn't or rather wouldn't Clark Kent try to help others once he discovered his abilities?

So, if you have a 15-year-old Clark Kent with super strength and super speed, I think he should be using those abilities in a positive sense. I think the SMALLVILLE approach makes sense in that he hasn't decided *how* he will be Superman but he's laying the foundation for it.

I am convinced George was allowed to do what he did because the Powers
at the time simply didn't care. They gave no thought whatsoever to the
ripple effect that George's reboot caused. It just didn't occur to them that
Wonder Woman could possibly be that important.

***************

SER: Yeah, what stands out to me about that is the idea that DC would *ever* allow someone to reboot Superman or Batman so that they *debut* in the modern age. I mean, Wally West was the Flash in LEGENDS when Wonder Woman showed up!

What's also extremely sexist was the idea that Black Canary was a real replacement for in the now-invalid JLA stories. That would be like saying that Superman wasn't there but let's replace him with Wildcat. That's about the same, right? They're both dudes!

sigh