I can't say a lot about the current state of Superman books, Nothing compels my interest.
But this has made me reflect on trying to pinpoint the last, Great, Superman Run... by that I don't mean brief brilliance like Dan Jurgens and Lee Weeks' Lois and Clark series, Or Scott Lodell's brief stay. And I don't mean stuttering runs like Palmiotti and Gleason's post-Rebirth run either. I mean a good sustained run, one that was enjoyabele and competent then, and stays in the memory now.

How far back do you have to go?

The superman titles at the time of when there was Jon and damian as small kids superfriends!

Jeph Loeb?

R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few

How do you define run? Or more specifically, how much time or how many issues constitute a run? (I ask because Lobdell was on the SUPERMAN title for about a year and and a half, plus he wrote a couple annuals and a few issues of ACTION COMICS during that time. I'd define that as a run.)

omike015

---

Worlds at war?

many did like him, as they thought he got the truth that Supes was ok to be shown as extremely powerful!

For me, it's when the Super team collaborated together on Superman, Action Comics, The Adventures of Superman and Superman: The Man of Steel. That era, which began in the early 90's produced some of the most consistently good stories. Such as: Krisis of the Krimson Kryptonite, Superman: Eradication, Panic in the Sky, Superman: Exile, The Death of Superman, World Without Superman, The Return of Superman, Superman/Doomsday (Hunter/Prey), just to name some of my personal all-time favorites. During that era, the stories were great and consistently good. But, unfortunately, towards of the end of the 90s, the stories became more and more lackluster. I could tell by re-reading those later runs, the Super team were getting tired.

For me, the beginning and middle point of the 90's was when the Superman books were at their greatest.

Jeph Loeb also had a good run, not great IMO, but good. He did manage to breathe new life into the titles to some extent even if I hate certain aspects of what he did.

It's interesting that a hero/villain performs one amazing feat, or use a power they haven't used for 20+ years, and that automatically propels them to a high status despite scans and evidence to the contrary. I don't know what is worse, selective feat picking that has only been done once or twice 20, or more, years ago or ignoring evidence from scans or the lack thereof. We need to stop putting our favorite heroes/villains on pedestals and start putting them where they really belong. But it's evident that people never will because they would rather accuse others of cherry picking feats, when they don't, and being 'morally superior' when they aren't. I guess being honest and as fair as possible only opens one up to being the target of childish accusations and fault finding by those who insist on acting petty and childish. What happened to a good debate between two civil, mature, adults?

Well, the whole run, not just OWAW.

R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few