I'm quite happy at Bryne's reinterpretation of Superman- and
was annoyed when DC started undoing it- but I'm at a complete loss as to
why you're so outraged at Moore's reinvention of a character you'd never
even heard of.

*****

Byrne's reinterpretation of Superman stayed true to the mythos of Superman.  He was still Earth's greatest hero.  Moore took Marvelman to the extreme and the result resembled nothing like the original.  What if he had deconstructed Archie Comics and showed real teenagers engaging in sex, doing drugs, getting drunk, etc (you know like real teenagers!  haha)?  Nothing against stories like that but why would he have to use Archie?

just my $.02.

Is this repetitive debate over yet?

I thought the revamp of Superman did an almost-perfect job of updating him (to the late 1980s) and making him interesting again in a different way and in the context of a cluttered superhero universe fifty years old. I enjoy reprints of the older Superman, but I'm aware that the 1950s Superman wasn't appearing in new comics by the '80s and would be difficult to sell sustainably by then anyway.

I was unaware of Marvelman before Miracleman. I now appreciate Marvelman in the same way as those Superman reprints, but Miracleman isn't that character. Perhaps Moore should have used a different name, a different costume and different background elements, but Marvelman was long dead by the time of Miracleman, and it's not unreasonable to say that if hardly anyone remembered him, there was hardly anyone to offend.

Miracleman is a great comic: not one which could run for twenty years, and not an upbeat one, but an interesting and powerful exploration of some aspects and implications of this superhero thing. It's also long out of print, and unknown to most current comics readers. In itself, not a lot of harm done.

Also, I like the name Miracleman, but I believe I'm the only one ever.

IMP.

I'm still going with 'conversational cul-de-sac', I'm afraid...

*****

No disrespect but what kind of answers were you looking for?

For defending Byrne's revamp work vs. Moore's I was, according to you Matt, automatically his subject in need of him to form my own opinion for me. Disagreeing with you made me an extension of Byrne's will. That was your inital contribution to out discussion. NOW you want to bitch loudly about me examining the contents of your argument, your approach, your words, and  on that basis doutbing your loud and inconsistent protestations that you are both a Moore fan and a Byrne fan just objectively looking for some simple answers? All the while you were painting me a Moore hater and Byrne fan and ignoring my counter arguments...yep.

It sounds to me like you're being a tad arbitrary here. And pedantic. And flat out full of it.