The S = Family Crest interpretation allows "Superman" to be a name given by the public, and probably reluctantly accepted by Superman.  It takes away the arrogance behind the name, especially since he's an alien, so I like it.

----------

Actually, John Byrne solved this 'problem' in "Man of Steel". 

Lois dubs Clark "Superman" before he even wears the costume.  Ma Kent and Clark then develop the costume and logo accordingly.  No arrogance present. 

My favorite version is that 70's Curt Swan one as well, reprinted in Secret Origins of the DC Super Heroes, which is also one of my favorite books.

••

I cannot make those two paragraphs part of the same thought process.Well -- maybe the alien part. In the 70s DC was deep into the "Strange in a Strange Land" aspect of Superman -- an aspect which made absolutely no sense for a character who had been raised as a human being (albeit a very special one) since infancy.

But an arrogant Superman? WAY too much "deconstruction". They is what they is. Take 'em apart, and they break.

I'll be blunt, the other choices are Crap.

Byrne crafted a good COMICBOOK origin story, while Waid wrote a wannabe screenplay, and Johns reworked all the 'stuff' already out there and labelled it His. Not only that, Birthright and S.O. are editorially redundant AND unimportant. MoS got it right, case closed.

Lenil Yu's art is too harsh and unsuited to Superman (better on Punisher or Wolverine) and Gary Frank isn't dynamic enough (like stillframe images rather than John Buscema or Kirby) and the Reeve likeness was ill-advised imo.

Man of Steel makes sense as a story and is timeless, where the others 'feel' modern, probably because they make poor examples of what good comicbooks should be. Imaginative and full of wonderment.

And, once again (I will make it my quest unto death to impress this upon people!) -- that thing on his chest is an EMBLEM, not a LOGO. The LOGO is on the front of his comic, not the front of his shirt.

----------

I stand corrected. :-)

Lenil Yu's art is too harsh and unsuited to Superman (better on Punisher or Wolverine) and Gary Frank isn't dynamic enough (like stillframe images rather than John Buscema or Kirby) and the Reeve likeness was ill-advised imo.

---------

I so miss 80's and early 90's comic book art. 

I cannot make those two paragraphs part of the same thought process.Well -- maybe the alien part. In the 70s DC was deep into the "Strange in a Strange Land" aspect of Superman -- an aspect which made absolutely no sense for a character who had been raised as a human being (albeit a very special one) since infancy.

----------

It made even LESS sense considering two midwest general store owners would have no idea to raise Clark as a Kryptonian, even if they tried to raise him 'differently'. 

MAN OF STEEL. John Byrne's reworking of Superman and his mythos was the first time I ever enjoyed the character. Up til MAN OF STEEL and the reboot, I'd always detested just how . . . well . . . "super" Superman was. Byrne made me see just how interesting the "man" in Superman is.

Ah, memories . . .