Well, I should preface this by saying that I recently got rid of my comic book collection. I was moving and really didn't want to drag around 5,000 comics I barely read. So I pawned them off on my brother, and have spent the last couple of months bulking up my graphic novel collection to compensate.

As a result, I've read a LOT of really great Superman stories recently. (And a few mediocre ones.) The best stuff is no surprise:

• Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow
  
• All-Star Superman
  
• Superman For All Seasons
  
• the recent Geoff Johns run
  
• Etc.

Anyway, I've been spending a lot of time reading about and thinking about Superman recently, and that may be part of the reason that Earth One rubbed me so completely the wrong way.

As I've observed before, one way that stupid people befuddle smart people is to say one thing that is stupid in two unrelated ways. It makes it very hard to form a coherent response.

Earth One isn't stupid, but it is doing two unrelated things: It's seeking to tell the Superman story in a serialized graphic novel format, and it's seeking to make Superman "relevant" to modern audiences.

I believe that one of those goals is a good one and one is a bad one. Can you guess which is which?

Let me take this in reverse order. First off, I think the idea of making Superman "relevant" is misguided. The problem with Superman isn't that he's a naive creation of a bygone age. It's that he's generally written through a cynical lens. Superman is just as relevant today as he's always been. It's just a matter of writing him as a man who's capable of getting angry, but who's in control of that anger.

Heck, today's world cries out for a hero who's capable of voicing our moral outrage while showing us a compassionate way forward.

It's clear from the way that JMS writes about Superman that he loves the character, but I'm not sure that he really understands the character. His Superman is young and, I apologize for saying this, "emo." And the core of his moral code is apparently the concept that if someone hits you, you need to hit them back, which -- call me a wimp -- strikes me as a bit thuggish.

Also, his Superman is super-smart for some reason, but never seems to do anything super-intelligent. That's neither here nor there, but I thought I'd mention it.

And all that's a problem. JMS presents a Clark Kent that doesn't really feel like Superman to me. I just don't buy it.

The other problem is with the format. Now, I'm all for telling Superman's story as a series of serialized graphic novels. It's actually something I've thought a lot about over the years.

If you think about DC's big graphic novel sellers (Sandman, Watchmen, Dark Knight) they're all self-contained stories. A serialized Superman saga, taking Superman from birth to death, could become a perennial best-seller of that magnitude.

But if you're going to do that, you need to really approach it as "This is the story of Superman's life." By contrast, Earth One feels throwaway, with a slight story that unnecessarily adds and complicates the classic story without adding much of note.

It reinvents Jimmy Olsen, but barely scratches his character. Lois is a similar cipher. JMS made a big deal of leveraging his experience in the newspaper business, but the Planet feels as generic as any depiction I've seen.

We don't get enough of Krypton or Smallville to really appreciate their loss. We get a villain with a questionable design and an unsatisfying origin...

Mostly, this just feels slight. If I'm going to read "The Superman Saga: Part One" (which this is and it isn't), I want to feel like I'm reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (or at least the first Scott Pilgrim). I want a substantial experience.

And this feels like an annual.

From the 90's.

Also, John Hamm should play Superman.

I'm just saying.

(Sorry if this is a little stream of consciousness, but I'm writing from a movie theater lobby. About to go see Paranormal Activity 2. Happy Halloween!)