Imagine slut shaming a fictional character and saying that the writers are the ones disrespecting her while not waiting for the rest of the explanation. People have no patience or reading comprehension skills anymore. Glad you do though.

Imagine doing fans a solid and giving them what they want instead of making characters act completely out of decades of established personality rather than shitting all over the characters and fans. I'm tired to marvel ripping MJ and Peter apart. I literally didn't buy A single Spider-Man after One More day until Spencer's Run when he tried to fix their relationship. This is the same deal I boycotted, I don't need the rest of the explanation when the end result -Peter and MJ split is the same.

Seems like you missed out on some banger stories

I went back and read them after Spencer took ovet, and no, really nothing missed out on, brand new day sucked until later when they did the Venom Inc stuff. No-one liked the superior spider man shit. And carnage-goblin? Give me a break.

Frankly, since before One More Day, there hasn't been a lot that I've really enjoyed. Even then, the reveal of Peter's identity during Civil War was stupid as hell.

Dude, Superior Spider-Man is considered a great run by the majority of readers. It seems like you just plain haven't liked ASM comics for the past 20 years or so and needed an excuse to drop it, only to... come back and complain anyway.

If it was so great, why did they reverse it? Why when they gave it its own title in 2018 did it only last 12 issues? People want Peter as Spider-Man not Doc Ock, not Ben Reilly. Same reason the clone saga got so much flack. Superior spider man was a bad concept with good execution. The writing was smart, but there was no soul because there was no (for the most part) Peter.

Peter was in the back ground trying to guide Ock, sure, and those are the moments the comic showed heart and soul. An efficient Spider-Man is cool, but the efficiency came with a ruthlessness that just isn't Spider-man.

Wow you really came into this place with no knowledge of comics didn't you? Venom Inc. wasn't anywhere near Brand New Day, Superior Spider-Man is considered one of the best runs from the last 20 years of Spider-Man comics, of all the things that people give flack to the Clone Saga for, Ben Reilly is generally the one bright spot. People either want Peter to retire, have his kid and marriage back or just one of those without the other. The OG Superior Spider-Man run was planned to end that way.

They "reversed" it because it's called an arc. Ock went through his arc to learn that the way he was doing things was clearly NOT superior. Then, because of the popularity of that and somehow Spider-Verse, they gave him another run that unfortunately didn't sell well but shocker, Slott didn't write it, Gage did and he was always the lesser of the two writers and didn't have the ability to carry the title.

And you clearly cannot read my previous comments, I said that I stopped reading Spider-Man after One More Day until Spencer took over, I never said Venom Inc was close to Brand New Day, but it DID occur before Spencer's run, thus falls under the time I caught up on later.

Superior spider man considered one of the best runs in 20 years huh? I think plenty of fans would disagree https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/26/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/spidey-700-controversy/index.html While Superior was the best sales of Slott's writing, it was still lower than pre-One More Day sales. Thus you could hardly call it one of the best of the past 20 years which encompasses JMS's run which consistently sold over 100K copies. Slott's Superior sold a tad over 83k.

That's pretty objective proof that while it was the best of Slott's run, it was by far not "the best in 20 years" As for Ben, "the revelation that Ben Reilly was the original Peter Parker and Peter was the clone. Fans loathed this decision and it was eventually reversed," (See: https://screenrant.com/marvel-confirms-spider-man-clone-failure-ben-reilly/)

Do some research before you accuse me of knowing nothing of comics.

Imagine being so fucking smooth brained and incapable of having an actual well thought out opinion that you equate sales numbers with whether or not a book is good

"Da numbers are not as big as these numbers therefore it must be worse, look at da CNN article that was posted in 2012, obviously popular opinion can't change"

By your logic we'd have to take a movie like "The Thing (1982)" and say it's dog shit because it flopped at the box office, despite the fact it's been critically reassessed and is now considered a masterpiece.

In fact, people want Peter to.both continue being Spider-Man AND have a family, In January 2020, when Diamond Comics released its list of the "Top 100 Best-Selling Comics of the Decade", Renew Your Vows issue #1 was ranked at #67 One of the ONLY things Slott did well was Renew Your Vows, I admit, its among my fave Spider-Man stories of all time.

Upon release people considered the film controversial and bad, but time proved them wrong.

I don't believe that sales are an indicator of quality but, by your own goblin logic you are admitting AMS 700 is better that Renew Your Vows because it's sitting at #33 on that sales list

Btw, Renew Your Vows reinforces the idea that if Peter has a family, he'll abandon any of his morals to protect them and therefore he shouldn't have a family.

@DaddyChar and you're the retard who compares the sales of an anniversary issue to an issue of a spin off. Further, I stated that Renew Your Vows was a personal fave of mine and that it did well, especially for a spin off. I offered it as proof of people enjoying Peter and MJ being married with a child. And what morals do you think Peter abandoned? Even if he did, (he didnt) who in their right mind wouldn't put family first?

Are other heroes not depicted as doing whatever it takes to secure their children? Just because Superman went dark in Injustice do we say "oh this is why he can't be with Lois". Stop. That's a ridiculous reach.

Further, Superior is constantly ranked as controversial. https://www.cbr.com/controversial-spiderman-comics/ https://screenrant.com/superior-spiderman-doctor-octopus-mephisto-retcon-comics/ https://www.cbr.com/superior-spider-man-no-make-sense/ https://www.watchmojo.com/articles/top-10-most-controversial-moments-in-spider-man-history The things they've had to do to try to square That circle...oof. Happy with more recent artickes? Cause I can keep going.

Sure some liked it, but plenty of others didn't. Its far from being hailed as "one of the best runs from the last 20 years of Spider-Man comics".

Peter murdered Venom after he nearly killed MJ and Annie. And this was after MJ and Annie were safe. Peter rationalized that Eddie wouldn't stop and preemptively killed him, IIRC, with MJ's approval. Those morals. And if you can't meta read into that what Slott is suggesting, then maybe you shouldn't be calling DaddyChar a retard.

Peter has killed before. In canon infact.Usually by accident, but its happened if self defense and defense of others as well. Maybe you ought to read a bit more.

I have already started that I don't believe that sales are an indicator of quality, and instead of posting any legitimate form of journalism worth it's salt you post clickbait opinion pieces from fucking cbr, screenrant and most telling a watchmojo top 10 list. You are actually a clown who can't even rub 2 brain cells long enough to come up with a legitimate argument so you try to let others argue for you.

Also, I don't usually get on people for spelling mistakes but, in one of the urls it says "/articles/ and you still fucked it up and spelt it as "artickes"

Peter has killed by accident before in canon, but that is not what happens in Renew Your Vows. He commits premeditated murder in Renew Your Vows. Maybe you ought to read a bit more lawbooks.

Funny enough, I actually have read lawbooks. At worse, what Peter did in Renew your vows was manslaughter. Premeditation takes malice and forethought. This wasn't malice,. He was protecting his family and went too far. No jury would convict him of murder in the first degree. Further, in Renew Your Vows, the Vow he renewed at the end was to protect his family without killing.

Instances of Peter killing: Amazing Spider-Man" #54(2003)- Digger; The Amazing Spider-Man" #525 (2005) -Tracer; Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man" #3 (2003)- Morlun; Amazing Spider-Man" #40 (2002) - Shade; Web of Spider-Man" #91 (1992)-Whisper; Amazing Spider-Man" #104 (1972) - Gog; Amazing Spider-Man Annual" #5 (1968) - Finisher Those are excluding accidental deaths

@DaddyChar yes you stated you don't belive sales are an indicator of quality....but then proceeded to do so anyway. You can't have it both ways. What to you, is a "legitimate form of journalism worth it's salt"? Because I haven't seen you offer up once scintilla of evidence.

I don't try to let others argue for me, I simply (unlike you) offer corroboration for my opinions. If you want to have your opinion about something, fine. But you can only speak for you , as you don't provide proof of what you say. I use other's articles to prove others think the same as I do, that I am not the only one who has these opinions.

You obviously didn't read my comment, I didn't proceed to do so, I showed that by your logic of using sales figures that ASM #700 must be better than Renew your Vows, you then immediately back peddled and when "that doesn't count, it's an anniversary". Again that's not me saying 700 > Renew Your Vows that's you when you decided sales are indicative of quality.

And here, fuck it just for you https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-marvel-unlimited/ https://www.cbr.com/superior-spider-man-succeeded-high-level-difficulty-dan-slott/ "Oh wow look at da article it says superior da best"

Again, I think these articles are valueless because they just exist to get you to click on page so a soulless website can make money. If you are actually using them to fortify a more sound opinion, your opinion wasn't sound in the first place

Again, what is a "legitimate form of journalism worth it's salt", then? Cause for all of your complaining, you sure ain't showing much.

Also, again just because something is controversial doesn't mean it bad, I already stated that with my "The Thing" example but you seemed to have blown right past that

For comics, I don't believe good journalism exists. The best you'll get is fan discussion on a book or a retrospective 20 years later.

I am not at all familiar with your "The Thing" example, I'm not gonna speak on something I know literally nothing about. You seem to be skirting my question still though, what is a "legitimate form of journalism worth it's salt"?

The very fact that something is "controversial" inherently MEANS some people thought it was bad. English for 200 please Alex!

It also inherently means people thought it was good

Indeed, my initial point at the veeeeeery beginning was me giving my opinion that Superior sucked. And I was attacked for it. I initially missed the run, went back and read it, didn't like it. I (and many others) are fully within our rights to have said opinion.

I admit, I shouldn't have used an absolute like "no one liked" it.

Let's again look towards another medium, all GTA have some form of controversy surrounding them but in spite of that they are all masterclass in game design.

I'm in no way trying to deny your opinion, your more than initialed to it. I simply disagree with your opinion and think sales numbers have no place in whether or not a product has an intrinsic value

Sure, but sometimes game design isn't all that matters. Last of Us 2 was a beautifully designed game, but Last of Us (part 1) was hailed for its story. So when the Last of Us 2 goes off the rails story wise, A lot of gamers (like me) hated the game as a whole because the story trumps everything else. Same with the comics, I haven't ragged on any art. To me the art supports the story, but the story is the main evenr.

Again, I'll pull out another example, while I may not be the biggest fan of it The Wizard of Oz is considered an all time classic despite being a major flop on realese at the box office, the only reason it achieved classic status is critical re-evaluation and re-runs in the 60s-70s

The reason I used sales numbers is I tend to agree with you as for the comic industry there isn't great journalism. Sales numbers are what the industry goes by though. It's the closest thing you will get to an indication of how the comic is heading as far as fans go. People will vote with their wallets. Now yes, there are problems with sales numbers, some people are just collectors and will buy no matter what, also sales numbers only show one point in time.

But overall, sales numbers are the industry standard, and the best of bad metrics.

Again, I gave my examples and simply disagree with that sentiment

Movies and games also aren't a direct 1:1 translation to comics. They are different mediums. Wizard of Oz wasn't an established IP to mess up the lore on. Let's instead take the Disney live action remakes (which I'm pretty sure) none have done better than the originals, Disney changed a lot from iteration to iteration and got diminishing returns. People don't like established lore being screwed with, see also LotR: Rings of Power.

Sure, but I don't think people shouldn't be hyperfixated on what something "should be" and should instead focus on what that thing is

And yes, sometimes that thing is just dog ass

Never in my life have I seen a review that has 55 comments.

This man thinks that posting clickbait articles from ScreenRant and WatchMojo, two of the most laughed at "news" sources is proof of anything. Not to say that Superior wasn't controversial but that in no way means that it wasn't heralded as spectacular after it's end. Also, way to just drop a slur. You've made one review on this site and called someone something derogatory. Congratulations, you won the fastest intolerance award. Also, how do you like the fact that Ellie is gay in TLOU Part 2?

Also, from the way you seem to get really angry over being called out for knowing nothing, which is absolutely the case, I'm gong to assume I've been reading comics longer than you've been alive bucko. You got caught saying " brand new day sucked until later when they did the Venom Inc stuff".

Those are so far removed from one another that's why I called you out. That means that you either have no idea what connects to what OR that you really did skip all of that meaning you also skipped Superior which really disproves your whole point because all you did was say "people" don't like it and just found articles calling it controversial. I guarantee you either read a synopsis of Superior and went "Oh that's dumb" or watched some YouTuber cover it because you couldn't be bothered to read.

Name me two better or more widely discussed runs of Spider-Man than Superior Spider-Man within the last 20 years without using ScreenRant, WatchMojo or CNN. Something that you have ACTUALLY READ.

I already have, JMS's run was within the past 20 years, sold way better than anything from BND or after, and imo Renew Your Vows was way better than Superior. But I can keep going, Spencer's Kindred stuff. The Clone Conspiracy. Oh how about all the spider-verse stuff which has now 2 movies about it? absolute carnage. King in Black. I have read it all. From yourprofile pic I'm actually gonna guess we're close to the same age.

Further, no I'm not some woke dumbness like you seem to be, frankly I don't give a shit about slurs. But beyond that I don't give a fuck about Ellie being a lez in LoU part 2, she was clearly so in the first one, obviously which you never played. Why the hell would that bother me? No, my problem with LoU 2 was killing off Joel.

I understand brand new day and venom Inc were seperated, but both were still written by Slott. As far as i am concerned they are within the same run. I I didn't read those titles when they came out. I didn't read shit from brand new day all the way till Spencer took over on his run, then I went back and read everything. (Comixology made it easy)

I'm definitely intolerance of stupid, and you got it in spades. Superior wasn't that great, get over it. Civil War was better, Back In Black was better. The Other was better and laid the groundwork for the Spiders verse stuff. As far as "more widely discussed" stuff, how bout Brand New Day? Spider-Island? Superior just wasn't good as far as I'm concerned.

As far as a lasting legacy? Superior provides nothing. Nothing from that time is still consequential. Peter no longer has degrees, no longer has Parker Industries. Doc Ock doesn't even remember his time as Superior, nor the lessons he learned along the way. Further, Despite Slott's teasing that Peter was never returning, Slott gave that away with Peter hanging around in the background. Bad pacing, sometimes slow, sometimes overwhelming with so many story plots going on in one issue.

Not to mention that they had to dumb everyone(the other characters) down in order to make sure no one was able to tell it wasn't Peter/Spider-Man. Spider-Man has a history of imposters, clones etc and to top it off Rock never really even tried to act like Spider-Man or Peter, and yet no one saw through it?Norman found out quick, but MJ? Nope. Apparently Norman is more intimate with Peter than MJ. Overall, woulda been a great spin off or "What if...?" But as canon? No thanks

Umm, my guy, "thanks" for ranting about Superior on my review. You do remember how in Superior a lot of people noticed that Peter was acting strange? MJ distanced herserlf from him because of it, Charlie started investigating it and Avengers did multiple tests and even attacked Superior Spidey because of it? And Norman found out due to Charlie investigating this? Like you can dislike Superior all you want, but your points sound like you never even read it.

And Otto as Peter always had an excuse for it, be it "his" death, Venom taking control of him and whatnot. Slott build up it naturally. And of course when Peter came back, Norman immediately noticed the change, due to him knowing both Otto and Spidey well.

But to back your original point. Like I said, I do want MJ and Peter to be together and this run has it's issues, but that doesn't automatically make this worst ever. Especially since it seems there is more going on then just "Paul and MJ had kids lol". Sure, hate this run all you want, but don't come screaming to my review that you just want MJ and Peter together and if that doesn't happen, you stop reading this. I didn't ask, nor do I care.

Tbf, I have never addressed you in anything I said. I was addressing another commentor. In fact, I desperately hope you are correct and there is more going on than meets the eye. If you are correct, so be it, I was wrong. But I will be very happy to be wrong.At which point a 6.0 is still reaching on a score imo.

I say that because beyond the Peter/MJ thing, I still think Peter acted completely out of character in running around punching cap (last issue I know) stealing from the FF and Tony. Not asking for help beyond going to norman, not that Norman didn't get the job done, but fact remains it was simply out of character.

Even recently when MJ was possessed by Moria during the crossover with the X-Men for Hellfire Gala, Peter wasn't half-cocked with MJ's life in danger.

Peter fought Wolverine when he thought she was being attacked by him.

He also listened to wolverine when he said to be paitent. Peter didn't LiKE it mind you, but he didn't rush headlong by himself. Further, when he punched Cap, it wasn't cause he thought Cap was attacking MJ. The two aren't a 1:1 compairison. Further, he didn't go out and commit crimes (B&e, burglary, theft) in order to save MJ during the hellfire event either.

Maybe he learned from the damage he caused in this flashback story.

Fair. I still think he acted out of character even for when the time this story occurs though.

Apologies for misunderstanding your tone, but I still have to disagree with your take that Peter is acting OOC. Considering whaty he has just been through. Now it's not the easiest thing to remember, especially due to this run having bad and messy pacing + structure. But this Peter had just survived Sinister War and losing Harry and then immediately hospitalized and then losing his brother Ben. Peter at this point isn't doing great physically or mentally.

MJ is pretty much the only thing he has going in his life and he was just about to move in with her, when he lost her to a psychopatic murderer, who had just marked her for sacrifice and who had a vendetta against Peter. Peter also knows that time moves faster where MJ is stuck then it does on Earth. So he is in extra hurry. And he even says that FF and Cap only wanted to help, but that time just wasn't on their side. Norman was the only one who would help him, no questions asked.

This isn't the first time Peter has been this stressed. And during that time, it's really hard to use your intelligence, when you are about to lose the love of your life (again) and could've already lost her. And to me, it isn't OOC that Peter would do everything in his power to not feel that loss again.

Because editorial is the other half of the problem.

I just wanted to say that I agree with you. Worst spiderman run ever

,,Cant keep her legs shut for a while'', yeah, so much respect to the character in that sentence. Dude, you dont even know how long she has been there, ''a while'', like you say, could be like five or six years. Six years without your boyfriend its not a while. And, he literally does nothing? Really? Steal the fantastic four, create a portal to another world and save a family is nothing? If you didnt like the issue I obviously respect it, but man, I dont understand spidey fans jajajaja.

You are correct, I have zero respect for this character as written, this is not the MJ I grew up with. The Renew Your Vows run, THAT is the MJ I grew up with. They did this with Gwen during "Sins Past" everyone hated it. This is the same thing. And yes, Peter was feckless in this issue. So the dude stole from his friends, that takes A lot of doing, half the FF was gone until after Peter got the reactor. You think if Mister Fantastic was in his lab Peter coulda done that? No.

Further, I meant more Peter did nothing to stop the treat, he got there, provided a distraction while getting his ass kicked and Paul stabs the big bad. And on the time jump, no we do no how much time passed, but extrapolating from how long Peter was gone from new York while he was there (2 weeks passed in NY to one day there) the kids are 8-9 years old! You telling me it took Peter approx 6 months to get back???

Also, If a time dilation occured, MJ would also be physically older, she doesn't give any signs of this being the case other than her hair is different.

Peter acts erratic and out of character. FFS he PUNCHED Cap last issue, instead of getting the greatest minds together to help him he alienates everyone around him. This further tells me it wasn't 6+ months till he got back, meaning there is no way MJ coulda had kids at those ages unless we are bringing "magic" back the Marvel States it doesn't have to explain cause its very nature of being "magic"....which is an excuse for very shitty story telling.

Mmmm, i dont see ir that way. First, of course mj its not different, Peter is the dame phisically as he was 20 years before this arc and this run, people in superheroes cómics doesnt change, that's not an argument. About the rest, i can understand It, but we have different opinions. I respect It so i wont say anything to you.

Sure Peter is the same as he was 20 years ago, but so is everyone else. They aged, then de-aged Captain America at one point, thus they DO depict aging in relation to other characters. MJ would have , in relation to peter, aged.

Marvel did this "its magic, we don't have to explain it" scrap during One More Day. It was shitty writing to make something happen cause they didn't want Peter and MJ together then, and its shitty writing now. Plain and simple. Its funny that DC never fucks with Superman and Lois like this.

...Except that time DC fucked with Superman and Lois like this by breaking them up for the reboot.

....and come to find out, that wasn't the REAL Lois and clark, who eventually came back in the story and had a son. Yeah, I know about the new 52, wasn't received well, that superman who was with wonder woman instead of Lois was an alternate universe superman, was killed off and the real one took his place within that universe. Difference is....THIS is the real Peter and MJ from the 616 universe.

Even if your recollection of how that went was correct (and I don't think it is), that's just DC Rebirth retconning things. Who's to say that 5 years out from this story, they don't retcon it to not be the real Peter and MJ? You're not thinking this through. You can hate it all you want, but be consistent at least.

I am 100% consistent here. This is The Amazing Spider-man , flagship title of Marvel and Spider-man. This is the 616 universe, nothing has happened like a full brand reboot that happened in the new 52. Also I am correct in what happened in the new 52 and you can tell by when the Superman who remains alive said he died once too and came back, hinting that this is the original superman who died from Doomsday. And even if the retcon happens here, it doesn't make this a good story.

Spencer effectively retconned "sins past" doesn't make "sin's past" a good story now. "Sin's past" was bad then, it's STILL bad. This is bad now, even if its reconnect it will STILL be bad. I am consistent in this.

New52 scrunched time, so characters were younger. That allowed DC to say certain characters had never been together. Lois and Clark didn't break up or need a reason to be separated, so neither was dragged through the mud as seems to be the case here. In terms of time dilation, other comics have done it, shown temptation, and then overcame it, but that diesn't seem to be the story being told h. MJ's history both with Peter and with her family don't really fit where this series seems to be going.

While it does sound like a weird redo/parallel of Sins Past, I'm really hoping that's not the case. I also hope it's not just 10 years later, too bad, bbye. Give me a good old devil swap or more freaking clones. Anyway, I stopped reading a while ago. There are plenty of good Spidey stories with the marriage in tact.

Truth.

For 5 years, the New 52 Lois and Clark were the real ones. And even after the pre-New 52 versions came back, the reasoning was that the New 52 versions were split from the others, so they were always the real characters anyway. The inconsistency is that you're excusing DC fucking with Lois and Clark by acting like the New 52 is a separate universe, when it isn't.

If a retcon changes the dynamic of the storytelling like you seem to think, you can't judge this current ASM story since it may be retconned, and therefore disclassified as "fucking around" per your standards.

This is where you are misunderstanding. New 52 Superman was never considered the real superman (see https://screenrant.com/how-did-new-52-superman-die-dc-rebirth/#:~:text=With%20the%20help%20of%20the%20returned%20Post-Crisis%20Superman%2C,body%20went%20up%20in%20an%20explosion%20of%20power.) Or see: https://www.cbr.com/how-new-52-superman-died/ New 52 superman was recognized as a completely different superman as he was brasher, less refined, edgier and over all rougher Superman than previous.

Again as I said earlier, A region to ASM wouldn't make this issue any less of A trainwreck. This IS the 616 Peter, this IS the 616 MJ. This IS the 616, there hasn't been a reboot of marvel as DC does like every other year. Further, I am not saying I was alright with how the new 52 was, I disagreed with it then. But the mea culpa by DC was to give the fans what they wanted (Clark and Lois plus a kid). Though that doesn't mean that the new 52 was goood.

Bad issues are bad issues despite a "retcon". Difference is, new 52 Superman was markedly different than the prior superman, hell the dude sometime bordered on being like the superman from Injustice. My point remains DC never fucked with the actual Lois and Clark. If they had done this story in ASM as a " What if...?" Or something else that didn't fuck with the canon of 616, then it'd not be as bad, just a comic that I could do without. THIS is a serious dick slap to fans face.

Do I need to explain the concept of time? The concept of context? Now we separate the two, because of Convergence. Before that point, there was no separation. Readers had no reason to think that the New 52 version of the characters weren't the main versions of them.

Rebirth then established that they were split versions of the characters caused by Flashpoint. Rebirth also established that the New 52 universe is the same universe as pre-flashpoint, but with time removed.

You were wrong in your comment about DC not fucking around with Lois and Clark, because you're not very knowledgeable about comics, and you have to bullshit to make yourself right

Split versions inherently means it wasn't the real one. How in the hell is that bullshitting. Sounds to me like you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole.

Also, how many times do I have to say, Retcon doesn't make the original story good. Bad stories are still bad, generally indicating the need for the retcon in the first place. They never fucked over Lois and Clark like this. Even if you want to say they were part of the same, they weren't the actual same characters. Even if they were, they didn't do THIS. They didn't cuck Clark. Lois didn't have someone else's kids. They didn't character assassinate. They didn't make anything unfixable.

DC didn't even go as far as one More Day and this is WAY worse than OMD. I repeat: DC never fuck Lois and Clark like this.

The split versions thing was a retcon. Before that, they were considered the genuine article. I feel like I need to get in MS Paint and draw you a timeline, because apparently point A to B doesn't make sense to you. I never said you thought the stories were good because of retconning, I don't know where that came from. I simply said that you're excusing DC fucking with Lois and Clark in a way totally comparable to OMD because it, in hindsight, was retconned after half a decade.

You clearly didn't read these comics so I don't know why I'm bothering to continue arguing with you. Take the L, or dig that trench you're in deeper.

You're continuing to argue because you can't stand to be wrong like you so clearly are. I've already been over this, at the time of new 52, as in when it was written, no one thought it was the real superman, dude was completely different. I feel like I'm trying to explain something to a flat eather here.

Here this is as simple as I can make it: https://comicvine.gamespot.com/articles/five-biggest-ways-dcs-the-new-52-has-changed-the-s/1100-143555/ An article dated Sept 7, 2011. The month after new 52 released. Here's a quote:"The stage is being set and this clearly isn't the Superman we've gotten used to over the last couple decades." No one thought he was the same superman, stop being a putz.

They're talking about the shift in characterization, not the literal universe/character designation! Do you need help? Are you okay?

Omg no one thought it was the real superman BECAUSE OF HIS ACTIONS. It was a new universe, it had just been rebooted, there have been multiple superman in the past, no one thought that this one was the same one. How dense can you get? My dog gets these types of concepts.

For fucks sake! The label is the "NEW 52" do I have to define "new" for you too?!

Another article from that time period: "The relaunch of Superman and Wonder Woman was describe as characters over icons. Particularly in the case of Superman, it was felt that Fthe iconography of superman overruled the character and made it hard for readers and creators to connects with the character." https://bleedingcool.com/comics/recent-updates/the-new-52-will-always-be-the-new-52-dan-didio/ Its clear this superman was so vastly different that people couldn't connect t to him.

In peoples minds, if they fail to connect to a character because of all the vast differences, he is fundamentally a different character.

In the New 52 era, which universe was the main universe?

Going further, a redditer (not that I normally use reddit as a source, but this tells the feelings of the fans at the time) "Now the problem here was that Superman wasn't welcomed with open arms by the older, more perennial fans. This wasn't their Superman. Their Superman was much more inspiring than this one. " Again, people felt that this wasn't the real superman

That's like saying if marvel nixed the 616 universe and only had the Ultimate universe, the Ultimate universe Peter woulda been the "real" Peter. When infact, he was vastly different.

If Marvel had ended the 616 universe, and then rebooted using the plans for the Ultimate Universe, that Peter Parker would be the canonical Peter Parker.

I'm sorry...but no. He'd be the replacement.

Then pre-Flashpoint Superman is just the replacement of pre-Crisis Superman and he wasn't the real Superman either.

And thus it goes. Back further and further. This is the problem with DC, and why the did the original Crisis on infinite earth events. However, arguably none had varied much from any previous version in any consequential way EXCEPT the New 52 version and Golden Age. TBF, Golden age is the "original" but got relocated to "Earth 2" later. But even some stories overlap directly between Golden age and Silver age, powers were different, but the tone of the character remained.

The only Prime Earth version that deviated tonal wise much since crisis on infinite earths was the New 52 version. The very soul of the character had changed as opposed to all the changes prior. Its all very hard to keep track of due to all of the multiverse, then no multiverse, then multi verse again things going on, but it's considered that new 52 superman was ultimately a different character than post crisis superman, basically an imposter that people at the time recognized something wrong.

Just because a character is named superman does not make it so, take Superboy for instance. Orginally, he had no name besides "Superman". When the original Superman returned, he declared that the clone had earned the name "Superboy", much to his dismay. Cyborg Superman also took the name of " Superman".

Canonically, New 52 Superman was part of Pre-Flashpoint Superman. The two had been split apart as a result of Flashpoint, and then they were merged during Rebirth. If you were to read Post-Crisis Superman to present, you would include the New 52 era in that reading.

Canonically, red superman and blue superman were part of post crisis superman as well, but neither of them were "the" superman. Further, as we established earlier, New 52 Superman being part of posts crisis Superman was a retcon. At the time, no one believed he was one and the same. If I gave you half a snickers bar, that does not mean I gave you a snickers bar, it simply mean I gave you half.

Professor X and Magneto are each separate and distinct characters. But they are each half of Onslaught. Do we then call professor X by himself "Onslaught"? Firestorm, two people combining to make one hero, but neither are the hero by themself. The Sentry and the Void are treated as two separate individual characters even though they're technically one in the same.

Point being there has never been a time (that I can recall) when a comic character is either split or two halves becoming one where each half isn't treated as separate and distinct from the whole. For some reason, Darkwing Duck keeps coming up in my mind, Negaduck was Dark Wing's evil side split off, but was referred as a completely separate being.