Evil Supermen

[Jim Kelly]

Where's MAD magazine in all of this? It used to be you could count on MAD for these ridiculous take-offs on the traditional super-heroes, skewering them in delightful ways. And as part of the DC family, MAD had carte blanche access to the DC characters that they didn't enjoy with other publishers' properties. But I haven't even looked at an issue of MAD in a donkey's age, so maybe they've become irrelevant.



Failing that DC should bring back PLOP! where they could do all kinds of parodies and send ups. Maybe instead of just one title, PLOP! could be an imprint like with Wonder Comics and Young Animals, where creators would have the freedom to go wild with the DC universe. I could see Plastic Man, Ambush Bug and the Inferior Five belonging under that umbrella.

[PyroTwilight]

It's not doing well? That sucks, it's a good film. And again, it's a ripoff, not really Superman, it doesn't ruin the Superman brand anymore than say Gamera could ruin Godzilla or Green Arrow could ruin Batman (true you admitted and recognize it's petty and childish, but still...).

Brightburn's actually doing pretty well by all indicators. It's just not a huge comic book blockbuster like other established characters but it's already earned on a 6 million budget: 9.6 million in domestic revenue and 7.8 internationally. So it's definitely making a profit already.

[Vakanai]

Brightburn's actually doing pretty well by all indicators. It's just not a huge comic book blockbuster like other established characters but it's already earned on a 6 million budget: 9.6 million in domestic revenue and 7.8 internationally. So it's definitely making a profit already.

Yay! I'm glad, it's really good movie I think. Not great, but you can definitely tell a lot of effort was put in and people were bringing their A game. And despite such a low budget when it came to the special effects you couldn't tell they didn't have blockbuster money. It definitely deserves to be profitable.

[Adekis]

That is just another problem imo. In the end they brought a Superman from ma reality where Lois was still alive and Metropolis was ok, so Superman was still good. It would be much more powerful if they have brought a Superman from a reality where the Joker still acomplish his plan, but Superman remained good, I mean, maybe he kill the Joker, let the beard grow, give up on super heroics, but didn't decided to conquer the world.
The way they did on the game, they just reinforced that Superman could snap at any time, I think the game even end with Batman making some threat that if the Good Superman ever turned evil he would end him.

Yeah, that would have been better. A real "Ending Battle" scenario where Lois turned out to be really dead, a Return of Superman where Metropolis got blasted off the map instead of Coast City. But of course, all the things that make your suggestion better are the reasons they never would have wanted to do it. They wanted to show a Superman who really would turn evil from suffering enough, and your idea stands as a stark and meaningful counterpoint. They'd never have gone for it.

[The Overlord]

That only works when it goes both ways, though. If the Superman in Injustice isn't bound by the characterization in Superman #1000, then no one should use anything from Injustice as an example of Superman outside of that series/game.

But most casual fans tend to just view any presentation of a character be it comic, TV, video-game, Elseworld, movie, etc as equally valid. So the whole idea of who Superman is boils down to the ideas they liked most. If an Elseworlds tale had Superman's powers affected by whether he was id direct sunlight, then in their mind that limit is as valid as a hundred issues where Superman is just as powerful in a dark cave as he is in a sunny field. And if necessary they will be joined by someone who saw that idea in a single episode of Lois & Clark, a Batman fan, someone using a panel with one of Marvel's Pseudo-Sipermen, and a guy using Science and Superheroes in arguing that Superman's powers work that way. And a dozen posters claiming that all views are equally valid, DC can write a story based on this definition, and that a good story trumps consistency anyhow.

In short, every evil Superman story; Elseworld, pastiche, or the end result of a precise series of events; is going to be used to argue against Superman as a guy with strong morals that he won't violate.

Are you saying James Gunn should not have made Brightburn or Mark Waid should not have written Irredeemable, simply these pastiches may reflect badly on Superman himself in a small number of people?

[Robanker]

Are you saying James Gunn should not have made Brightburn or Mark Waid should not have written Irredeemable, simply these pastiches may reflect badly on Superman himself in a small number of people?

Personally speaking, I don't care that it gets made or doesn't. I even read Irredeemable for a while. I'm just done with evil Superman stories. I think they very well have a right to exist, obviously, but if they must be done then I hope for them to actually make sense given the character or context. I'd rather DC doesn't publish them while they're still struggling to make Superman proper work, because they need to save the IP from being the current mishmash that it is. They need to establish a status quo that works, is financially viable and leads to a lot of successful multimedia excursions, but it seems like they want to do that with Injustice or something. I find that deplorable in practice. The subversion should never become the norm. But, if they actually were able to re-establish a Superman that works for a generation and get him on screen and maybe leading video games again? Sure, bring on an Injustice movie. I don't care at that point.

Think of Batgod as the Batman analogue. I personally detest Batgod, I prefer a more bronze age approach to Batman. He's not compelling as preptime Jesus. I don't care for how that's become the norm for Bruce now, so my enjoyment of modern Batman stories has diminished and I think it's overall poor for the IP. I don't want evil, dickhead Superman to ever become the norm, but if DC/WB can literally only make that iteration compelling then eventually a new swathe of writers will come in and it will gain more traction. That sucks. Will it supplant proper Clark? Probably not, but it will influence the character in a way I find unhealthy.

For what it's worth, Brightburn does seem like that. He's not Clark. I just don't personally care to go see it.

[Jon Clark]

Are you saying James Gunn should not have made Brightburn or Mark Waid should not have written Irredeemable, simply these pastiches may reflect badly on Superman himself in a small number of people?

No, they are at least different characters. But DC should try to steer away from using the actual Superman this way.

And it's not a small number of people- it's a large vocal contingent who can't separate Snyder's Man of Steel, Bendis' Man of Steel and Byrne's Man of Steel and assume they all are equal representations of Superman.

[Dog of War]

Speaking of evil Supermen, I really liked this little look into Ultramans head

[PyroTwilight]

Neat! What's that Ultraman from?

[Kuwagaton]

That's from the recent Superman story arc from Bendis.

I was surprised to see Edge in that parody panel Jim posted, but I guess that's what comes from involving Murphy Anderson

[Jim Kelly]

I was surprised to see Edge in that parody panel Jim posted, but I guess that's what comes from involving Murphy Anderson

That was from PLOP! No. 5 (May-June 1974), when Clark's boss was Morgan Edge--so it made sense for him to be there at that time. Murph also included gags with the Flash and Batman for that issue.

[DochaDocha]

Since I watched a video documentary on Superman III yesterday, I felt like commenting on the "evil" Superman in that movie. I have a greater appreciation for what they tried to accomplish in that movie, if indeed that evil Superman was meant to be an allegory to the depths we can sink to if we get overcome by depression or addiction. Also, to add to the point others have made in this thread, it works in the sense that this evil Superman is the foil to the redeemed Superman we all love. It's certainly better than, say, emo Peter in Spidey 3.

Also, I've been revisiting the Dark Phoenix storyline after the cinematic bomb that recently released in theatres. Boy, I wish Jim Shooter was the editor in charge of Injustice, so that Harley Quinn wouldn't be let off the hook so easily after assisting Joker in nuking Metropolis.

Furthemore, I do think that fridging Lois is good shorthand for explaining why Superman went bonkers, considering how much the games went into explaining Lois' death was the straw that broke the camel's back. It's like if it were just the nuking, Superman would've eventually recovered, but if it were just Lois and unborn Jon's death then Superman would've gone off the deep end regardless.

I honestly had my fill of Evil Superman stories, and if I never saw another one again I'd be pretty thrilled. However, before I hit my breaking point, I think there were certain circumstances in which Evil Superman worked just fine. The key issue was that you have to tell Evil Superman's story from his point of view, and not someone else's (it's always Batman's...). Red Son is okay, Superman III is ok. Beyond that, you're getting inferior Superman stories. It's a story involving Superman starring [Batman].

EDIT: Oh yeah, can't wait to see the next adventure of Evil Superman in the animated "Hush" movie. Seriously, I do like the story, and I think it actually narrated an acceptable Batman v Superman fight. I hope the animated movie does Superman some justice there and doesn't just resolve the issue with "Batman comes prepared so of course he wins."

[phantom1592]

Since I watched a video documentary on Superman III yesterday, I felt like commenting on the "evil" Superman in that movie. I have a greater appreciation for what they tried to accomplish in that movie, if indeed that evil Superman was meant to be an allegory to the depths we can sink to if we get overcome by depression or addiction. Also, to add to the point others have made in this thread, it works in the sense that this evil Superman is the foil to the redeemed Superman we all love. It's certainly better than, say, emo Peter in Spidey 3.

Also, I've been revisiting the Dark Phoenix storyline after the cinematic bomb that recently released in theatres. Boy, I wish Jim Shooter was the editor in charge of Injustice, so that Harley Quinn wouldn't be let off the hook so easily after assisting Joker in nuking Metropolis.

Furthemore, I do think that fridging Lois is good shorthand for explaining why Superman went bonkers, considering how much the games went into explaining Lois' death was the straw that broke the camel's back. It's like if it were just the nuking, Superman would've eventually recovered, but if it were just Lois and unborn Jon's death then Superman would've gone off the deep end regardless.

I honestly had my fill of Evil Superman stories, and if I never saw another one again I'd be pretty thrilled. However, before I hit my breaking point, I think there were certain circumstances in which Evil Superman worked just fine. The key issue was that you have to tell Evil Superman's story from his point of view, and not someone else's (it's always Batman's...). Red Son is okay, Superman III is ok. Beyond that, you're getting inferior Superman stories. It's a story involving Superman starring [Batman].

EDIT: Oh yeah, can't wait to see the next adventure of Evil Superman in the animated "Hush" movie. Seriously, I do like the story, and I think it actually narrated an acceptable Batman v Superman fight. I hope the animated movie does Superman some justice there and doesn't just resolve the issue with "Batman comes prepared so of course he wins."

My favorite Superman vs. Batman fight. The only legitimate ending.

[phantom1592]

That only works when it goes both ways, though. If the Superman in Injustice isn't bound by the characterization in Superman #1000, then no one should use anything from Injustice as an example of Superman outside of that series/game.

That's a pet peeve of mine. I keep seeing all these lists like 'TOP 10 Worst things Batman has ever done!!!" and every SINGLE one of them is an alternate universe/elseworlds or alternate media thing... Nothing that the core 'Real' Batman has done... just alternates and that doesn't count.

I haven't played the game but in the comics, she's on Batman's team. BATMAN! She straight up helps Joker nuke an entire city and Batman's like, "Eh, she's redeemed herself". I don't care how much she helped out the resistance, she's a straight up murderer. Batman, of all people, wouldn't let her walk. There was a thread a while back about what makes someone a Superman fan and the biggest question that came up was: Are you a fan if you only like the Injustice Superman?

I hate Harley with a passion. I am so sick of the company and 'popularity' deciding who gets their crimes ignored. Harley and Ivy are both straight up villains and killers. Have been from the beginning... but what the heck, they have fans... why not call them 'anti-heroes' and ignore their trails of corpses and crimes...