Action Comics 996
The frustration of this issue was the 'baby steps' it progressed. Before you know it, the story is over. Superman and Booster Gold moved forward from point A to point B merely across the future city to try and save the timeline and return home. Similarly the parallel story of Lois trying to save her father, and bring him home, only advanced her across the Logamba village. The good of the Lois story was that it was alotted more page space and highlighted her (logical/varied) top reporter competency without superhelp. The sweet part was the restraint of her super son as Jon continued to watch over her as her guardian angel. The Kal story was just more of the same and not as interesting but the good part was the ongoing personality dynamics with BG, some kickass showing of Superman while NOT depowered, and the twist cliffhanger revealing his next Kryptonian challenge is the SON of Zod. All in all a GOOD read, but not great; and there was (appropriate) ACTION, but nothing that significant.
Support Cancer Research and Alzheimer Research.
Agreed pretty much on every point. This story about Superman's search for answers could have been done in one or two issues. But I'm reasonably certain that Dan Jurgens is purposefully stretching this story out longer than it should it be. His writing is also not as good as it should be, either. He comes off as someone who is tired of writing Superman and wants his writing stint to be done and over, so he writes multi-part stories until Action Comics 1,000.
It's interesting that a hero/villain performs one amazing feat, or use a power they haven't used for 20+ years, and that automatically propels them to a high status despite scans and evidence to the contrary. I don't know what is worse, selective feat picking that has only been done once or twice 20, or more, years ago or ignoring evidence from scans or the lack thereof. We need to stop putting our favorite heroes/villains on pedestals and start putting them where they really belong. But it's evident that people never will because they would rather accuse others of cherry picking feats, when they don't, and being 'morally superior' when they aren't. I guess being honest and as fair as possible only opens one up to being the target of childish accusations and fault finding by those who insist on acting petty and childish. What happened to a good debate between two civil, mature, adults?