Comic Books

> > 686
SUPERMAN #686


Price: $2.99
iFanboy Community Pick of the Week Percentage: 1.4%

Reviews

UserAddedSpoilers
Smasher03/26/09YesRead Review
mrmister03/26/09NoRead Review
areyouthatguy03/26/09NoRead Review
robbydzwonar03/25/09NoRead Review
448
Pulls
Avg Rating: 3.7
 
Users who pulled this comic:
 

Comments

  1. Sammy says:
    March 23, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    I thought I was going to drop a lot of the superman books when I heard the ide about world without superman but im picking them all up, including the world of new kryton 12 issue mini and loving every series. action was amazing, supergirl was good, it will be interesting to see if this can beat them. heres hoping.

  2. Avatar photo PraxJarvin says:
    March 23, 2009 at 9:50 pm

    I really like that cover, even is Mon-El looks a little too much like Morpheus from the Sandman. I’m excited for the Mon-El parts of this book,. less excited for Guardian, but I trust Robinson with obscure, third-stringers.

  3. Avatar photo iiiplace says:
    March 23, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    Wednesdays are super fun again.

     

  4. Avatar photo Hawkboy says:
    March 23, 2009 at 11:36 pm

    I’ve been a Mon-el guy since way back when reading Jim Shooters Legion in oversized treasury reprints… can’t wait!

  5. Avatar photo TheNextChampion says:
    March 23, 2009 at 11:44 pm

    This is such a nitpick, probably if you look up in the dictionary this nitpick I’ll state is used as an example. But:

    Why isnt this series getting renamed? Seriously, if Mon-El and Guardian is taking over this book and Superman wont be showing up at all (or at most become a secondary character), then why call it Superman? Call it ‘Mon-El: Daxam of Steel’ or ‘Mon-El and Guardian’s Happy Fun Hour’ or something….Dont false advertise like that for a full year.

    Nitpicking but it bothers me to no end on it.

  6. Avatar photo Hawkboy says:
    March 23, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    Then don’t buy it.  If DC said… "buy this issue because it has the character Superman in it", then that would be false advertising.  Having a story where a character takes over for Superman for some issues isn’t remotely the same thing as I think it’s pretty safe to say Superman will be coming back.  Did you get bothered and claim false advertising when the Duke boys missed a season of the Dukes of Hazzard too?

  7. Avatar photo TheNextChampion says:
    March 24, 2009 at 12:01 am

    @hawkboy: I’m not picking this up, but it is false advertising when your calling your book ‘SUPERMAN’ and that character wont appear what so ever for a full year.

    All you have to do is cross off the name Superman and write in ‘MON-EL’ or ‘GUARDIAN’.

    Plus yes it is false advertising when the Duke boys arent in their show which is called ‘DUKES of Hazzard’.

  8. Avatar photo Noto says:
    March 24, 2009 at 12:02 am

    Mon-El is replacing "Superman" protecting Metropolis. He’s Kryptonian and has Superman’s powers. He may not be Superman, but he is a superman. I don’t see a title change as necessary, especially if Superman will be only gone for a finite number of issues.

  9. Avatar photo drakedangerz says:
    March 24, 2009 at 12:56 am

    They are not going to rename one of the longest running and most recognizable comics in the business.   They are trying something different and telling a story of a Metropolis, and a world, without Superman.  That issue has been addressed by DC for months now since they announced that Supes wouldn’t be in the book for a year.

    That being said, I’m pretty hopeful for this issue.  Not a fan of the Guardian, but I think I can grow to love him given time

  10. Avatar photo PraxJarvin says:
    March 24, 2009 at 1:23 am

    @Noto Okay, gotta nitpick you here…. Mon-El is not a Kryptonian. He is a Daxamite with similar powers to Superman’s.

    @TNC Quite frankly, I like the idea that Mon-El will be "Superman" if only by inference for a while. It’s better then Valor by a longshot! :-p 

  11. Avatar photo Hawkboy says:
    March 24, 2009 at 1:28 am

    @Thenextchampion  Superman is coming back… you do understand that right?  They aren’t claiming Superman will be in this particular issue of Superman are they?  The simple fact DC has publicly said Superman is leaving metropolis for a year and Mon-el will try and be a replacement in SUPERMAN’s world means they haven’t done anything under false pretences. 

  12. Avatar photo Hawkboy says:
    March 24, 2009 at 1:43 am

    @Noto Is he still Kryptonian?  When I was a kid he was.  But now I think they have made him a Daxamite (Or something like that)

  13. Avatar photo JumpingJupiter says:
    March 24, 2009 at 1:55 am

    That’s a sweet cover!

  14. Avatar photo Noto says:
    March 24, 2009 at 2:24 am

    @Prax – I stand corrected. I only came back on to Supes shortly before the New Krypton crossover. I only knew of the classic Mon-El and made a presumption. My statement still stands though. He’s still a "superman" filling in for the real deal.

  15. Avatar photo Trichon says:
    March 24, 2009 at 8:41 am

    I havent had this much fun reading Superman in a long time.  I have to say I am very excited to see what the guys have planned coming up for these books.  When I heard about no Superman in the Superman books I dropped these.  But then quickly picked it back up after listening to the DC podcasts and hearing how passionate these writers are for the characters.  I’ll keep reading these books as long as they keep writing.

  16. Avatar photo TheNextChampion says:
    March 24, 2009 at 11:12 am

    @hawkboy: I know he’s coming back….but for a full year (if newsarama is to be believe) Superman isnt going to be on his self titled comic. Action Comics can replace Sups cause there’s no ‘Superman’ on the title. Same with Detective Comics not having Batman because ‘Batman’ isnt on the title.

    I guess what everyone is saying that ‘Mon-el is technically a Superman’ cause he has powers but isnt Kryptonian makes sense. Again it was just a tiny (insignifigent in the long run) nitpick and I cant imagine I will be the only person in the entire comic book world that will be confused about this.

  17. Avatar photo PraxJarvin says:
    March 24, 2009 at 11:17 am

    @Noto I as far as I recall Mon-El has always been a Daxamite since way back in Superboy #89 (his apperance around 1960). I think he pretends to be Kryptonian at first, but later reveals his true heritage. Did that change somewhere in between then and the early 90s?

  18. Avatar photo Conor Kilpatrick (@cskilpatrick) says:
    March 24, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    @TNC: This isn’t the first time that Superman did not appear in his own book(s).  He was gone for well over a year when he died and the titles of the books did not change.  And yet, no one complained about it then.

    Funny, that.

  19. Avatar photo Hawkboy says:
    March 24, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    @praxJarvin Hey thanks for the info… I always thought that the Daxam thing was added in the 80’s.  Cool! 

    @thenextchampion I imagine you will be the only one confused by this.

  20. Avatar photo drakedangerz says:
    March 24, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    I’m actually a bit curious as to if/when Mon-El will meet up with Sodam Yat; Ion from the Green Lantern Corps.  Do they know each other in the future? (I know nothing about the Legion of Superheroes aside from what happened in the Smallville episode)  It would be interesting to have them meet up now since both are getting some time to shine in the DCU and their respective books.

  21. Avatar photo TheNextChampion says:
    March 24, 2009 at 3:57 pm

    @conor: You know when you put the word’s ‘funny that’ at the end of your sentence it makes you sound like a dick.

    @Hawkeye: Made a mistake on my sentence; I ment to say ‘I cant believe I will be the only one complianing about this, nor will people not be confused by this as well’.

  22. Avatar photo TheNextChampion says:
    March 24, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    Oh and how bout of Marvel can take Hulk out of their books, replace it with ‘Hercules’ and keep the original numbering….why cant they do this to Superman?

    They cant call this ‘Mon-El #686’? If Marvel can replace a big name hero (arguably their biggest character) and replace it with a C-D level superhero; and then keep the original numbering….then DC could do this for this shotty replacement.

  23. Avatar photo drakedangerz says:
    March 24, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    @TNC-You’ve moved from nitpicking to trolling.  You said your piece, move on please

  24. Avatar photo Hawkboy says:
    March 24, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    @thenextchampion You are the reason people make fun of Fanboys.

  25. Avatar photo WinTheWonderboy says:
    March 24, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    I think I’ll talk about the actual content of the book and how good its been(very BTW)lately. instead of way its still called "Superman"($$$ me thinks)

    Does anyone know if Sodam Yat has a kinda sorta British accent? or is it that Mon-El’s the Daxamite that sound like Hugh Grant?

  26. Avatar photo TheNextChampion says:
    March 24, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    @Win: If he would take and have mannerisms of Hugh Laurie I wouldnt complain 🙂

  27. Avatar photo PraxJarvin says:
    March 24, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    @Drake Mon-El has met Sodam Yat as of Final Crisis: Legion of 3 Worlds #3. It was a pretty cool series of events. Actually, some of the Sodam Yat stuff in that book is important to GL as well.

  28. Avatar photo Noto says:
    March 24, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    @Prax – I should never have done so much drugs in the 80s.

  29. Avatar photo drakedangerz says:
    March 25, 2009 at 1:09 am

    @Prax-But thats set in the future right?  It confuses me.  I asked James Robinson some basic Mon-El question and he started telling me about him in the Legion and I totally didn’t know what he was talking about.  I have no knowledge of it, but am quite curious.  Anyways, thanks for the info!

    @WinTheWonderboy-Why would he have a British accent?  Something about Sodam makes me think he has a surfer dude vibe going on.  Maybe its just the way Gleason draws him 🙂

  30. Avatar photo PraxJarvin says:
    March 25, 2009 at 2:54 am

    @Noto Haha. No, no I was genuinely wondering if maybe they rescinded that. I do think at one time, Daxamites were supposed to be Kryptonian conolists. Not sure how that plays into things anymore.

    @Drake Yes, Legion of 3 Worlds and Mon-El and Sodam Yat’s meeting does take place in the future. Essentially the best way to look at it is like this… Mon-El will, at some time after these events, end up back in the Phantom Zone. In 1000 years he’ll be set free by the Legion and he’ll pal around with them. I may be mistaken, but outside of the Superboy books, I don’t think Mon-El has ever had an extended stay in our present.

  31. Avatar photo saturnmda says:
    March 25, 2009 at 9:14 am

    MOn-El has always been Daxmite–he was called Valor in the 90s when DC mucked up the Legion/Superman/Superboy.He hung around "our" time briefly in his own book and in L.E.G.I.O.N.

    Daxamites, I think it was established in Legion lore, are more powerful than Kryptonians. (Read the Great Darkness Saga when Darkseid enslaves Daxam)

    When Lar Gand/Mon-El first appeared he was thought to be Clark’s older brother when the Kents took him in. They called him "Mon-El" becasue his rocket was found on a Monday. (Thank God it wasn’t Thurs-El) Any other questions?

    As for changing the title to Mon-el–they could’ve changed it to Superman Family, Superman’s Pal Mon-el, DC Comics Presents…who cares? It’s still the Superman world.

     Long Live the Legion

     

  32. Avatar photo sandgrounder says:
    March 25, 2009 at 10:27 am

    I’d dropped Superman and Supergirl pre-New Krypton but I’m back on board now, along with World of New Krypton, and enjoying them greatly. I’ve never read any Mon-El before but I’ve always heard of him refered to as Daxamite.Wonder if they’ll mention the fact that Daxam is currently under Mongul’s rule?

    (The actual cover for Superman states ‘World without Superman’ and ‘Featuring Mon-el and Guardian.’ Hardly false advertising. How long was Captain America without ‘a’ Captain America?)

  33. Avatar photo CaptHowdy says:
    March 25, 2009 at 11:56 am

    I am sorry, but a title is not advertising so therefore cannot ever be false.  It’s a bloody title!  How about the title:  SPEED 2: Cruise Control…  Did that movie feature ‘Cruise Control’ thoughout?  How about, ‘The Gospel According to (insert whichever Saint you want in title)’?  Are they featured AT ALL int he their self titled gospels?!??!!  No.

     Don’t be retards.

    Now, if you see an actual ADVERTISEMENT that said… ‘see St. Peter in the Gospel of St. Peter’,   that is false ads.

  34. Avatar photo PraxJarvin says:
    March 25, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    @ CaptHowdy Actually… aren’t all four Gospels attributed to 4 of the apostles, who do in fact appear in the Gospels? Example FAIL! :-p

  35. Avatar photo Cooper says:
    March 25, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    This was fantastic!

    I liked how we never saw Superman’s face throughout – there was no point to it in terms of plot revelations, but it really helped cement Supes as this legendary figure in everyone’s eyes.

    Who needs Supes, I’m happy with Mon-el!

    Good stuff!

  36. Avatar photo PraxJarvin says:
    March 25, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    I really enjoyed this issue. Not great, but a good way to segue the title from Superman to Mon-El. I’m a bit unclear on the confusing "Billie Harper" thing. It seems a little needless at this point, and the way we are rushed into an explanation, with Harper easily trusting Mon after 5 seconds, is odd. Her identity might have been something to keep as a mystery for another issue or two. I enjoyed Mon-El and I like the SP tack we’re going to be taking with the title. The only thing I’m leery about is Samson… 

  37. Avatar photo Alexferrer says:
    March 25, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    I’m sad to see that officer Harper is moving away from Gotham… She and Robin made a great pair. But at least we don’t have to worry about she being forgotten after the whole bat-status-quo shake up.

    I believe she will be very important on Robinson’s book. He was the one who created her back when he wrote Batman in OYL. He’s probably very fond of her.

    By the way… Fantastic issue. I was not a fan of Robinson’s start on Superman, but now it never fails to be a POTW contender for me. Who would have thought Mon-El could be the missing ingredient in a Superman book?

  38. Avatar photo bird says:
    March 25, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    Metropolis looked really great in the issue.

  39. Avatar photo drakedangerz says:
    March 25, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    I enjoyed it as well.  It didn’t floor my like Rucka’s Action Comics issue, and I don’t really think its fair for me to compare the two, but it was still satisfying.  I’m on board for at least the next issue, but really hope it kicks into gear now that the introductions are pretty much over with

  40. Avatar photo PraxJarvin says:
    March 26, 2009 at 12:14 am

    It was pretty bad week for my comic pile, so Superman makes POW. Which is mindblowing because I hate Comic Book Superman. All it takes for his book to be POW? Not being the star of his namesake title!

  41. Avatar photo CaptHowdy says:
    March 26, 2009 at 12:40 am

    The issue was alright.. nothing fantastic… s’pose the main character has to grow on me… may take a few issues.

  42. Avatar photo CaptHowdy says:
    March 26, 2009 at 12:46 am

    @PraxJarvin  Eh, that’s what I get for shooting my mouth off 🙂

  43. Avatar photo PraxJarvin says:
    March 26, 2009 at 1:01 am

    @CaptHowdy Your point is valid, I was just poking some fun at you. :-p

  44. Avatar photo superchuck says:
    March 26, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    @Prax.  Actually, only 2 of the gospels are by apostles.  Luke was an associate of Paul’s who basically became a historian of Jesus.  Mark was a friend of Peter who got the account from him firsthand.  Neither of them are actually in the gospels.

  45. Avatar photo PraxJarvin says:
    March 26, 2009 at 10:17 pm

    @Superchuck Isn’t Mark supposed to be "secretly" in the very last sequence of his own Gospel? The one where Jesus says something about handling snakes? I could be wrong there, that’s an ill remembered factoid from a class last year. 

  46. Avatar photo captbastrd says:
    March 27, 2009 at 12:06 am

    @PraxJarvin RE: Billie Harper

    I’m not too caught up on what she was refering to, but from what I could tell, it wasn’t a ‘secret identity’ secret, just something she didn’t want getting out as it’d likely be cause for being the butt of jokes and confusion. Perhaps she confided this small secret in Mon-El ‘cuz she wants to jump his super-bones… or just think he seems nice or something.

    2 silly points of confusion for me though: is Billie black or just tan? Not knocking the art or the coloring, but I couldn’t tell. It might just be me subconsciously assosiating a woman w/ that name w/ Billie Holiday.
    & What did he do with the electric razor exactly? It was built up like he was gonna lop off his locks (which, not to knock the writing either, but that’s a lame thing to build up) but the next page it looked like all he did was go for the gelled up/douchesmith look.

    I liked this book much more than you’d think from the sound of it… I think I’m displacing anger on poor Mon-El.

  47. Avatar photo CaptainSweatpants says:
    April 19, 2009 at 7:06 am

    Honestly I am not on board with the idea that Superman would ever abandon Lois and Martha Kent but anyway I put that aside. I am glad I did because the return of the Jimmy Olsen and Guardian characters bring to mind the old Kirby era tales. There is a quality to Mon-El that makes him likeable and given the Sodam-Yat tease in the solicit for June I sense this will go somewhere. Probably somewhere very black. I will support Robinson on this and hope for a rewarding story.

Leave a Comment