When was the last time Superman was considered DC's lead character?

[superduperman]

I think that the fact that for a good chunk of the last 30 years there's been this constant drive to "fix" Superman for whatever reason while with Batman there's this "business as usual, keep chugging onward" vibe, really I think speaks volumes.

I think ultimately Warner's/DC's management just prefers Batman over Superman for a myriad of reasons, both in terms of being profitable in terms of media adaptations since 1989 and of course Warner's spent the better part of the 2000's and the 2010's in a protracted copywrite Battle with the heirs of Superman's creators while they owned Batman free and clear with no legal headaches.

I hadn't thought of that but that might be playing more of a role than we think. It makes more sense to prop up a character you already own outright over one you have to keep fighting with the descendants of. And of course DC will never admit to this. So it just looks like Batman is the more popular character.

[Jim Kelly]

Batman's creators didn't make a legal nightmare for WB. The time when Superman entered development hell was when the creators' estates were battling with DC over their rights. It was probably easier to put more focus on Batman, without having to worry about what the courts would decide.

The twisted fate of BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE and the failure of JUSTICE LEAGUE must have given WB some pause. Sure, Superman was in those movies, but so was Batman. And yet Wonder Woman and Aquaman, who also appeared in those productions, had great success in their solo pictures.

[stargazer01]

Batman's creators didn't make a legal nightmare for WB. The time when Superman entered development hell was when the creators' estates were battling with DC over their rights. It was probably easier to put more focus on Batman, without having to worry about what the courts would decide.

The twisted fate of BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE and the failure of JUSTICE LEAGUE must have given WB some pause. Sure, Superman was in those movies, but so was Batman. And yet Wonder Woman and Aquaman, who also appeared in those productions, had great success in their solo pictures.

This. I think it has to do with the quality and tone of those stories and the mainstream appeal. For some reasons, general audiences weren't so captivated by the Zack Snyder DC movies. I think it's easy to see why.

Meanwhile, Man of Steel sold a lot more in home media discs than Batman V Superman (which had Batman as the main protagonist), even though BvS 's Box office was higher. It still didn't have strong legs like Wonder Woman and Aquaman.

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Ma...el#tab=summary

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Ba...ce#tab=summary

I really feel that WB simply don't understand Superman and want him to be something he's not. Weird, because the comics should tell them which stories are more popular than others and why. The success of more joyful movies like WW and Aquaman should show them something hopefully... And soon Shazam will show them even more. At least they recently admited that each character needs a different tone...


At least we still have Superman at the center here..

maxresdefault.jpg

[Vordan]

I don’t believe for a second that The Dark Knight Returns was primarily responsible for Batman over-taking Superman as DC’s prime seller/ brand.

One story however good doesn’t have that degree of influence.

I think..for example..the fact that last 30 years the average quality of Batman stories being substantially better than the average Superman story has been far more influential. In that period there have been several really good long Batman runs, and quality rarely drops below good. Against that there has been little top end Superman comics..All Star and naff all else..and a fair amount of dire stuff.

Another factor..maybe...is that more of the present fan base see a “normal” human achieving great things as more intrincally heroic than some one with the powers of a god doing great things.

I agree with the first part. Batman has had a long stretch of great creators whereas the Superman titles have struggled. Rebirth was the first time in a long time that all of the Superman titles were at least decent imo. Not sure I agree with second part. I think Batman’s appeal has less to do with being human, his fan base loves to talk about how he can beat ANYONE with prep time after all, and more to do with the fact that he’s an unapologetic badass. He doesn’t put himself down like people have constantly had Superman do. Batman gets what he wants other people be damned, and I think that power fantasy appeals to people.

Batman “always” wins. He always gets the last word. He verbally “owns” everyone and all the other heroes now and scrape before him. Hot women throw themselves at him and yet Bruce never gets tied down. He’s dark and brooding and the smartest guy in the room. He’s a power fantasy through and through and no one has “deconstructed” him like they did Superman.

[Netherman14]

From what I've understood, turning Superman from a social crusader into a flag-waving conformist was the crucial turning point. however, it's also when Hitler and his Nazi party rose to forcefully brainwash the majority of German citizens and have them believe the Nazi ideology. it was the WWII 1939-1945 period, so I'll be a bit more lenient because it was a necessity for Superman to become a marketing tool for war bonds even if I believe Siegel and Shuster should have turned the character back into the social crusader he was pre-WWII. the approach of Superman being a symbol of Americana stuck from then on, which made Superman truly widely-popular in the eyes of US citizens. that made it's way into the 1952-1958 Adventures of Superman live-action tv show, where the Last Son of Krypton was depicted as a symbol of hope in a post-Watergate and post-Vietnam war world as well as a bastion of better times. the true start of this paradigm shift (this is going to sound controversial and I fully acknowledge it as such) was the first Donner Superman movie with Christopher Reeve in the main role, with a mostly clean-cut Superman performing clean-cut retro super-heroics. and truly feeling more than comfortable enough to say that he's here to fight for "Truth, Justice and the American Way", even as he fixes Lois when she says that means he's getting ready to fight every elected official in the country. and saying that he never lies to her, but even Reeve's Superman wasn't truly perfect what with his selfish streak and tendency to shirk his responsibilities & powers for his own comfort, where the damage is truly and honestly done is with 1986's The Man of Steel post-crisis reboot written by John Byrne. Dystopian sterile Krypton that deserved to be destroyed, the lame birthing matrix concept containing what is basically Kal-El. thus ensuring he's born on Earth. jocky Clark Kent playing Football and legitimately cheating (though he does realize this is a wrong thing to have done, so 0.5 points to Byrne), mopey Clark creating the Superman identity because of fear gets introduced here. making Clark as courageous as Superman is not a bad idea by itself, but it's not capitalized nowhere near enough here and doesn't allow you to be invested enough in the character beyond going like "wow he's such a good person" while making him kind of boring to read about. it took away too much of any emotional range he used to have Pre-crisis, leaving behind only calm beneficence. affection for us humans, and determined seriousness. which makes Superman a bland cipher of good and virtue who comes off as a stuffy dick while attempting to maintain the status quo, there's a weird Franken-Bizarro who dies after only one appearance. Clark Kent as the real person does make sense (and has been made to work at the hands of other writers), but it means the whole "balancing the Superman, Kal-El/real Clark Kent of Smallville and dorky (to an extent) Metropolis Clark personas) dynamic is fundamentally missing. there's creepy old man Kingpin-esque Lex with a creepy sexual attraction for the far-younger Lois, he was scaled back to exactly the wrong degree so he becomes super-strong (but not too super-strong) guy fighting generic villains in a generic realistic city. his continuity and supporting cast of characters got streamlined too much (especially considering other fellow Kryptonians like Kara Zor-El and Krypto were already off-planet by this era pre-COIE reboot). and The Dark Knight Returns (even if it still somewhat good even nowadays) is responsible for Superman being viewed as a government-pawn who'd do whatever the President would tell him to do.

So this is why Superman is no longer DC's lead character, with Batman having taken over the role instead.

[Vordan]

The simple answer is 1989.

Tim Burton's Batman was a pop-culture phenomenon. Batman Returns, not as much, but still kept things hot. Then Batman: The Animated Series hit (with Batman Forever coming out towards the end of the BTAS run).

Superman's loss of status had little to do with comics; the character has never had the kind of run in visual media and merchandising like Batman did from 1989-95. The comics merely followed the pop culture trend, and while books like The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke influenced the film and cartoon adaptations, the strength of the films and cartoon is what changed things.

This I also feel has been key. Movies, TV shows, cartoons, video games, Batman has dominated all of these outside mediums. Supes has had success in some of these ventures as well but it was a long time ago. I liked Man of Steel but it was divisive. Smallville was 8 years ago. Injustice casts him as the villain. He’s being ignored in the DCEU. S:TAS was almost 20 years ago. Supes biggest outside comics success was the two animated movies he had recently one of which was yet another retelling of Death.

[DrNewGod]

Batman's creators didn't make a legal nightmare for WB.

I would submit that it was actually DC (National Comics, as it was then) that created WB's legal nightmare, through their inequitable treatment of S&S. Sure, National was within their legal rights, which is not the same thing as doing the right thing.

[Sacred Knight]

It was kinda hard to notice in the 90s that Superman was supplanted though in the comics. He was still pretty front and center in the verse. Big crossover events and all that, Superman was still usually the "go-to guy". Batman had yet to take that mantle as well.

[DrNewGod]

It was kinda hard to notice in the 90s that Superman was supplanted though in the comics. He was still pretty front and center in the verse. Big crossover events and all that, Superman was still usually the "go-to guy". Batman had yet to take that mantle as well.

That's a good point. Somebody else also pointed out that the '90s were when Death of Superman gave him a big bounce.

[Timothy Hunter]

I suspect TECHNICALLY he still is DC's MAIN character, but no one at DC acts like this is the case.

[Vordan]

I suspect TECHNICALLY he still is DC's MAIN character, but no one at DC acts like this is the case.

No Batman is the MC now, everyone acknowledges that. Do you remember when people used to say that Marvel was dark, gritty, and realistic while DC was lighthearted, upbeat, and fantastical? Now it’s reversed. That’s a direct result of Batman becoming the mascot character for DC.

[Kuwagaton]

I think that the fact that for a good chunk of the last 30 years there's been this constant drive to "fix" Superman for whatever reason while with Batman there's this "business as usual, keep chugging onward" vibe, really I think speaks volumes.

I think ultimately Warner's/DC's management just prefers Batman over Superman for a myriad of reasons, both in terms of being profitable in terms of media adaptations since 1989 and of course Warner's spent the better part of the 2000's and the 2010's in a protracted copywrite Battle with the heirs of Superman's creators while they owned Batman free and clear with no legal headaches.

No disrespect to fans of other characters, but yeah this basically becomes Batman or Superman as the others aren't close. Some great movies comics, and popular tv shows. But Superman is ahead by a few decades.

Where Batman's appeal and fixing goes though, it's awfully hard to say he hasn't been molded for profit over nature. The changes with each decade are really more than Superman has handled, which I think is why you get "remember this? This is in continuity for sure guys." Admittedly this works very well for comic readers. So many people stop and ask what's canon so regularly.

On the movie side, I just have to add that one of those reasons would be the plain as day success and reception of Batman Begins, versus Superman Returns and its notably higher budget. For whatever went on legally, SR wasn't much worthy of a fight.

I agree with the first part. Batman has had a long stretch of great creators whereas the Superman titles have struggled.

There's been something like that maybe since 2003 or going forward. Because for Dixon, Grant, Moench, and others, Batman is or was rather an outlier success. I guess Brubaker and Rucka would be the exceptions. But speaking of Rucka... you have the fact that pretty much all of these Batman superstars have tried Superman. They didn't last as long, garner as many fans, deep stroll through the character's history, and/or meet the same sales.

He’s a power fantasy through and through and no one has “deconstructed” him like they did Superman.

I think King has been on top of that.

that made it's way into the 1952-1958 Adventures of Superman live-action tv show, where the Last Son of Krypton was depicted as a symbol of hope in a post-Watergate and post-Vietnam war world as well as a bastion of better times.

Is there a typo here?

doesn't allow you to be invested enough in the character beyond going like "wow he's such a good person" while making him kind of boring to read about. it took away too much of any emotional range he used to have Pre-crisis, leaving behind only calm beneficence. affection for us humans, and determined seriousness. which makes Superman a bland cipher of good and virtue who comes off as a stuffy dick while attempting to maintain the status quo

Less emotional range and investment? Less of a fleshed out world around him? What exactly is being compared?

Is responsible for Superman being viewed as a government-pawn who'd do whatever the President would tell him to do.

So he was defiant of the president... when?

[Jim Kelly]

I would submit that it was actually DC (National Comics, as it was then) that created WB's legal nightmare, through their inequitable treatment of S&S. Sure, National was within their legal rights, which is not the same thing as doing the right thing.

Well, yeah, from my perspective, I agree with that. I was talking from the p.o.v. of WB and DC executives--or what I assume must be their perspective. To me whatever they gained by dragging this through the courts was not worth what they lost. Look what Marvel gained with Stan Lee and what DC gained with Bob Kane. They treated the other creators dirty, but by having these celebrity creators, they had pitchmen who were invested in seeing everything do well.

Had someone at DC been smart--a long long time ago--they would have signed a contract similar to the one with Bob Kane (although that unfortunately left Bill Finger high and dry)--and then they could have had Siegel and Shuster from 1948 until their deaths as good-will ambassadors for Superman and DC. The value of that is far greater than what they gained by stinting on royalties.

But I take it that a lot of executives working for DC and WB are not in that head-space. They could only see an inch in front of their face--and believed that the longer they could keep money out of someone else's pocket, the longer they can keep it in theirs. It's like the legal case in BLEAK HOUSE that stretches on for generations, so the people involved now aren't the people that began it, but they feel like they have no option but to continue it. It was bad for the people who fought S&S in the first place, but it was just as bad that no one at some point saw the madness in continuing the argument.

[superduperman]

I would also notice that Batman weathers change better than Superman does. DC ditched his trunks in the mid-nineties and almost no one noticed. He loses his yellow oval and not only do most fans not complain, they prefer it. Batman fans have come to accept change whereas Superman fans fight it. This might actually make Batman easier to work with than Superman in some ways. Batman fans are perceived as being more open to new ideas. Not that Superman fans don't have good reason to be suspicious of too much change. How many origins has he had? Writers also aren't afraid to try out new villains and taking stories in different directions than Superman writers are. Superman just seems to fight the alien of the month over and over again.

[Buried Alien]

WB/DC favors Batman because there's a truckload of Bat-merchandise they can move: Batmobiles, utility belts, assorted gadgets...all in toy form.

Superman is popular, but the only Super-merchandise that's really marketable is his logo on clothing. The character generally isn't known for driving around in cars, using utility belts, etc.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)