Your DC-Only controversial opinions (part II)...

[Yoda]

Well the Kansas upbringing that involves the farm he could probably do without. The Kents originally owned a general store, and it would get rid of the obnoxious "Naive Farm Boy" stuff.
Getting rid of the secret identity from the foundations is a bad idea, but I think exploring a time without it in a continuity (either in the main universe, a cartoon, a movie, etc) could be interesting. It's not really sustainable for him to have it forever if his story progresses naturally.

I'm not saying exploring stories in that direction aren't worthwhile. I think we kinda have an idea as to how they would be received, see Truth, but you can explore anything you want storywise.

As for progress, yes it's not a sustainable feature. I think Bendis is actually going in that direction with his flash forward visions. But there's little chance of that actually being explored long term. Superman and his supporting cast is not going to age naturally, at least not long term. The cycle will restart eventually.

But the human settings and interactions are no longer unique on their own either. How does working at the Daily Planet and being married distinguish him from Spider-Man, who works at the Daily Bugle and actually got married first?

I don't think the marriage is in the same ballpark as the Daily Planet, Lois generally, and the secret identity. It's a story development that has stuck around for a long time, and was a natural progression of things, but narratively it's not as synonymous with Superman as Lois herself is. Personally, sometimes lean towards Smallville Season 11's perpetual engagement as a prefered status quo. But that's another topic entirely.

I honestly think it comes down to outside media adaptations. Spider-Man's most well known characterizations outside of comics don't incorporate the Daily Bugle to the extent that the Daily Planet has been incorporated with Superman. That's translated into a lessened importance over the years. Nor is it synonymous with Spider-Man or carry the narrative weight the Daily Planet and being a journalist does for Superman. Although I'd argue Mary Jane is now in a Lois tier as a love interest; she is a more traditional love interest though and doesn't carry the narrative weight Lois does.

[SiegePerilous02]

I'm not saying exploring stories in that direction aren't worthwhile. I think we kinda have an idea as to how they would be received, see Truth, but you can explore anything you want storywise.

As for progress, yes it's not a sustainable feature. I think Bendis is actually going in that direction with his flash forward visions. But there's little chance of that actually being explored long term. Superman and his supporting cast is not going to age naturally, at least not long term. The cycle will restart eventually.

Well yeah, Superman is bigger than any one version. But it is a natural progression that can be explored.
If anyone says he should never have a secret identity period in his story, as in from the very beginning, I would disagree with them. But ditching it eventually in an adaptation could work.

I don't think the marriage is in the same ballpark as the Daily Planet, Lois generally, and the secret identity. It's a story development that has stuck around for a long time, and was a natural progression of things, but narratively it's not as synonymous with Superman as Lois herself is. Personally, sometimes lean towards Smallville Season 11's perpetual engagement as a prefered status quo. But that's another topic entirely.

Agreed.

I honestly think it comes down to outside media adaptations. Spider-Man's most well known characterizations outside of comics don't incorporate the Daily Bugle to the extent that the Daily Planet has been incorporated with Superman. That's translated into a lessened importance over the years. Nor is it synonymous with Spider-Man or carry the narrative weight the Daily Planet and being a journalist does for Superman. Although I'd argue Mary Jane is now in a Lois tier as a love interest; she is a more traditional love interest though and doesn't carry the narrative weight Lois does.

The Daily Planet stuff being so prevalent in other media that people expect it may actually be a good reason to give it a bit of a rest, or utilize it in a different way. Superman hasn't had a near universally beloved movie since the 80s, and we need to reiterate to the mass audiences that there is more to him than the Kents, Lois, the Daily Planet, Lex and Zod. He really needs a Thor Ragnarok style adventure that he is built for to shake up perceptions while being true to the character to show how versatile he is. I definitely wouldn't advocate for an entire movie series removed from Earth (and I think Lois and Jimmy have gotten up to plenty of weird stuff that there is precedent for them getting involved even in a more cosmic, "out there" adventure), but allowing at least one story to exist as such would be a breath of fresh air for cinematic Superman. Or, if we're doing a more grounded "Champion of the Oppressed" story, look to the Golden Age or early New 52 for inspiration. Just give the guy a shake up instead of relying on the same old elements over and over again.

[Yoda]

The Daily Planet stuff being so prevalent in other media that people expect it may actually be a good reason to give it a bit of a rest, or utilize it in a different way. Superman hasn't had a near universally beloved movie since the 80s, and we need to reiterate to the mass audiences that there is more to him than the Kents, Lois, the Daily Planet, Lex and Zod. He really needs a Thor Ragnarok style adventure that he is built for to shake up perceptions while being true to the character to show how versatile he is. I definitely wouldn't advocate for an entire movie series removed from Earth (and I think Lois and Jimmy have gotten up to plenty of weird stuff that there is precedent for them getting involved even in a more cosmic, "out there" adventure), but allowing at least one story to exist as such would be a breath of fresh air for cinematic Superman. Or, if we're doing a more grounded "Champion of the Oppressed" story, look to the Golden Age or early New 52 for inspiration. Just give the guy a shake up instead of relying on the same old elements over and over again.

Yes and no. I don't know that a Ragnarok style departure is necessary when we don't have any type of foundation in place yet. I don't think sending Cavill of to New Genesis necessarily would cure what ails the movies, though I think the reception of Cavill in Justice League was generally better (outside of the CGI upper lip) than BvS or even Man of Steel. And Man of Steel didn't really incorporate the secret identity or the Daily Planet in the traditional sense until the closing scene. Of all the issues with the DCEU movies, I don't think that was really the problem to be focused on fixing. It actually had a pretty non-traditional take on things and there's nothing of Clark Kent reporter in there. Similarly, most of that stuff was cut out of the theatrical BvS cut.

I do agree a Golden Age/Morrisson style take on a relaunch would be solid. I've outlined that myself over in the Superman threads on this topic. I also think a take similar to King's Up in the Sky could work as a general framework.

[SiegePerilous02]

Yes and no. I don't know that a Ragnarok style departure is necessary when we don't have any type of foundation in place yet. I don't think sending Cavill of to New Genesis necessarily would cure what ails the movies, though I think the reception of Cavill in Justice League was generally better (outside of the CGI upper lip) than BvS or even Man of Steel. And Man of Steel didn't really incorporate the secret identity or the Daily Planet in the traditional sense until the closing scene. Of all the issues with the DCEU movies, I don't think that was really the problem to be focused on fixing. It actually had a pretty non-traditional take on things and there's nothing of Clark Kent reporter in there. Similarly, most of that stuff was cut out of the theatrical BvS cut.

I do agree a Golden Age/Morrisson style take on a relaunch would be solid. I've outlined that myself over in the Superman threads on this topic. I also think a take similar to King's Up in the Sky could work as a general framework.

Well Cavill's most likely gone regardless. Next time we see Superman we're likely starting from scratch with a soft reboot/back to basics.
Was any of that stuff really cited as being missed by the GA? They just didn't embrace this Superman in general fully, regardless of what he was doing.

Maybe not to start the film series, but a more experimental cosmic story could as an individual installment within said film series. I think the Golden Age/Morrison style story could work as an initial shake up while still keeping things on Earth with humanity (though yet another origin story may be overkill, and those stories work best with a younger Superman not at the height of his powers) but the film series shouldn't be obligated to use the Daily Planet in every installment. Let the cinematic Superman, within the same continuity, show how versatile it is. If the cosmic film is good and audiences already love this Superman, they will go see it regardless. And Lois and the DP staff could show up again in the following film, or even elsewhere in the DCEU.

[phantom1592]

Yes and no. I don't know that a Ragnarok style departure is necessary when we don't have any type of foundation in place yet.

Ohhh... there's a foundation. Of all superheroes that have EVER existed, the only that does NOT need... EVER... to go back to the basics is Superman. I would say the biggest problem that these reboots and reimaginings have is that they are trying to 'reinvent the wheel' and giving us substandard origins again.

They solved this problem back in the 50's with George Reeves. Spend 59 seconds introducing the character and then get on with an all new adventure that the audience hasn't seen.



That's really all you need. Between Smallville, STAS, Lois and CLark, Superman Returns, the 80's movies.... does anyone NEED to see the rocket crash again?? Throw in a quick flashback or a prologue and then give us an established heroic Superman. Even when they try to change it up... the foundation is STILL the same thing... just told worse.

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

I agree with SiegePerilous02 about keeping the next Superman flick, let’s see stuff like Kandor, Bizzaro World and War World. Keep it mostly off earth for the first movie. Win over new fans by showing them stuff they haven’t seen with the franchise. Because they do want NEW. That’s why fricking Aquaman did better than most, if not all of the Spider-Man movies. People got sick of seeing movie after movie of Uncle Ben dying while the Osborn’s do their scheming. Spider-man only finally made a billion dollar flick after they changed the mythos up a bit. Yeah coming after Endgame probably helped more than a little but still.
That being said idk about using Ragnarok as example of how to do it right. I like that movie. But then I remember Taika Waititi sometimes used humor to undercut some of the dramatic scenes like when Asguard blew up. Can you imagine how he’d do the destruction of Krypton?
Lara: My husband you were right! We are all going to die!!!
Jor-El: well....this blows, ha! Get it Lara? Cuz the planet is about t-
*KABOOM, the planet explodes

[stargazer01]

A Superman movie definitely needs to show new stuff. More cosmic adventure mixed with Earth stuff. Go wilder with the Sci-Fi. This is why Braniac and Mongul are great villains to show other environments that can be scary and different and fantastical. Wow the audience with imagination and creativity. It's Superman! Take Superman to a red sun planet where he can be just normal for a bit. Not the whole time, just a bit to broaden the mythos on film. Show that he is a hero with out without his powers.

Mr Mxy can also be a lot of fun. The Supergirl episode showed Mxy can work in live action and be very entertaining. Incorporate Lois and the Daily Planet in some ways. Show Lois and Clark as reporters working together or something. Show their romantic chemistry too. I need that, and I'm sure many other women like it too. Part of the story can be on Earth and the other in outer space until all collides. You really need to bring things back to Earth at the end. Make sure to show Superman interacting/helping people and just being nice and charming. We really didn't see that in the recent movies.. It's very important because that's who Superman is, he is a nice guy who cares for others.

I think another thing Superman really needs is his portrayal. The Snyder movies failed to make his Superman really charismatic. Wonder Woman and Aquaman did it so much better and audiences fell in love with them. Snyder's Superman was too serious and bleak, unfortunately, though he had some nice scenes in Man of Steel. BvS, however... He had more personality and was more likeable in JL but the movie wasn't very good, unfortunately.

[Yoda]

I agree with SiegePerilous02 about keeping the next Superman flick, let’s see stuff like Kandor, Bizzaro World and War World. Keep it mostly off earth for the first movie. Win over new fans by showing them stuff they haven’t seen with the franchise. Because they do want NEW. That’s why fricking Aquaman did better than most, if not all of the Spider-Man movies. People got sick of seeing movie after movie of Uncle Ben dying while the Osborn’s do their scheming. Spider-man only finally made a billion dollar flick after they changed the mythos up a bit. Yeah coming after Endgame probably helped more than a little but still.
That being said idk about using Ragnarok as example of how to do it right. I like that movie. But then I remember Taika Waititi sometimes used humor to undercut some of the dramatic scenes like when Asguard blew up. Can you imagine how he’d do the destruction of Krypton?
Lara: My husband you were right! We are all going to die!!!
Jor-El: well....this blows, ha! Get it Lara? Cuz the planet is about t-
*KABOOM, the planet explodes

A significant factor in Aquaman's success was its strong draw of women, based on the romance plotline with Alanna and Arthur's father, and Alanna and Mera as strong characters, not just Jason Momoa. So sidelining the romantic human factor in favor of a CGI spacefest isn't necessarily a recipe for success. And Spider-Man didn't really alter the formula all that much. It just refocused it on a younger, relatable teen Spider-Man and did a great job with it. It skipped the well known origin, but still focused on a relatively new and learning Spider-Man. In many respects a Morrison-like Golden Age take is exactly in the vein of formula that led to success of Spider-Man: Home Coming and Far From Home.

[stargazer01]

A significant factor in Aquaman's success was its strong draw of women, based on the romance plotline with Alanna and Arthur's father, and Alanna and Mera as strong characters, not just Jason Momoa. So sidelining the romantic human factor in favor of a CGI spacefest isn't necessarily a recipe for success. And Spider-Man didn't really alter the formula all that much. It just refocused it on a younger, relatable teen Spider-Man and did a great job with it. It skipped the well known origin, but still focused on a relatively new and learning Spider-Man. In many respects a Morrison-like Golden Age take is exactly in the vein of formula that led to success of Spider-Man: Home Coming and Far From Home.

That's why Lois is important. She's smart and brave. Show it. And her romantic chemistry with Clark too. Of course, you need a really solid story, script and director to make it all work. Show other smart and brave females too. They can be aliens or human. Aquaman had a compelling Atlanna. I loved her. Ma Kent can be just as compelling in a supporting role even if she has no powers. She loves her son and that's great too. Maybe we can see Lara and Jor-El again in flashbacks. A Superman movie needs great action and visuals, but also some humor and lots of heart. Aquaman had all that.

[Jim Kelly]

Maybe a Superman movie needs to have a younger Lois and Clark because, in MAN OF STEEL, I was put off by the Lois Lane character. She was supposed to be this accomplished reporter--but I was told that rather than shown how she got that way. A movie should really show Lois at the beginning of her career and how she had to struggle to get a story and get that story published.

[stargazer01]

Maybe a Superman movie needs to have a younger Lois and Clark because, in MAN OF STEEL, I was put off by the Lois Lane character. She was supposed to be this accomplished reporter--but I was told that rather than shown how she got that way. A movie should really show Lois at the beginning of her career and how she had to struggle to get a story and get that story published.

maybe not the beginning but the middle? A movie has little time to show so much detail. This is why she needs her own TV series. haha

I also felt we didn't see how Lois and Clark started dating. They met in Man of Steel and suddenly were living together in BvS. Not sure living together but in a seemingly committed relationship. We missed some of the fun parts.

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

A significant factor in Aquaman's success was its strong draw of women, based on the romance plotline with Alanna and Arthur's father, and Alanna and Mera as strong characters, not just Jason Momoa. So sidelining the romantic human factor in favor of a CGI spacefest isn't necessarily a recipe for success. And Spider-Man didn't really alter the formula all that much. It just refocused it on a younger, relatable teen Spider-Man and did a great job with it. It skipped the well known origin, but still focused on a relatively new and learning Spider-Man. In many respects a Morrison-like Golden Age take is exactly in the vein of formula that led to success of Spider-Man: Home Coming and Far From Home.

Full disclosure, I’m pretty sure the cgi fests in the trailers helped very favorably for Aquaman, especially for foreign markets. Maybe if Shazam had more of that in their trailers, it would made more bank too (I liked that movie). So I’m thinking maybe we should be looking more at Morrison’s wacky silver age Superman works than his grounded golden age stuff for inspiration.
Anyway I’m not saying you have to sideline Lois or any of the superverse’s other strong female characters in anyway to get that big over the top adventure story. There’d be plenty of ways to work her into the story and do their romance justice. While also having Clark outwit 4th dimensional imps or beating up tyranical alien suns, etc.

[SiegePerilous02]

A significant factor in Aquaman's success was its strong draw of women, based on the romance plotline with Alanna and Arthur's father, and Alanna and Mera as strong characters, not just Jason Momoa. So sidelining the romantic human factor in favor of a CGI spacefest isn't necessarily a recipe for success. And Spider-Man didn't really alter the formula all that much. It just refocused it on a younger, relatable teen Spider-Man and did a great job with it. It skipped the well known origin, but still focused on a relatively new and learning Spider-Man. In many respects a Morrison-like Golden Age take is exactly in the vein of formula that led to success of Spider-Man: Home Coming and Far From Home.

Arthur and Mera are also not a romance the mainstream audience has seen much of, if at all. To a lesser extent, neither were Diana and Steve, most of the casuals who went to see that didn't watch the 70s show. They have been exposed to an abundance of Clark and Lois already. The romance would be a draw, but not by itself, and a CGI spectacle laden film could do well too.

Lois definitely shouldn't be excluded from a cinematic Super-mythos as a whole, and she doesn't necessarily have to be excluded from a more "out there" film because there is more than enough precedent for her being involved in that stuff. But just doing another Earth based story with the Daily Planet and the romance, and just hoping it will be better executed than the last 2-3 go arounds, doesn't strike me as the shot in the arm the character needs. A single Superman story, just one, without Lois and maybe Lois making cameos in other DCEU films without Superman in sight could be a good wake up call to the casual audiences that, while they can be even better together, they work well apart as well.

[Nelliebly]

Maybe a Superman movie needs to have a younger Lois and Clark because, in MAN OF STEEL, I was put off by the Lois Lane character. She was supposed to be this accomplished reporter--but I was told that rather than shown how she got that way. A movie should really show Lois at the beginning of her career and how she had to struggle to get a story and get that story published.

I have no issue with rebooting Lois and Clark with younger actors but I also can’t say I agree that it’s a problem to portray Lois as a super successful 36 year old woman (as she was in Man of Steel). I think it’s powerful in fact to accept that, in this story, we are dealing with an experienced woman—not an ingenue. And I appreciate that kind of story because we don’t get it often with women. Lois was very good at her job in Man of Steel and we saw it firsthand with the way she tracked him all over the globe. I certainly love and welcome an origin story from her POV but I have and had zero issue with a 36 year old successful woman as the lead. Her age was refreshing as hell.

[Agent Z]

I'm not so much bothered with the stories of Superman going evil so much as I am sick of the idea that him going ruins everything for the entire universe. If your universe cannot survive unless Superman is alive and not evil, then there is something seriously wrong with your universe.