Does DC only care about Batman?

[Gurz]

Like most people, i only get Batman and i used to care about DCU but i lost interest 'cause it's handled dumb, Batman is somewhat cool when treated right at least, so DC plays to their best horse. That's the only smart thing that they do... and i'm surprised that DC workers doesn't hit a tree when walking on the street and fall down and get up and hit the tree again and fall, and then get up and hit the same tree again...

[Ascended]

Asking DC to de-prioritize Batman in order to give other characters a bigger spotlight would be like asking the Coca-Cola Company to de-prioritize Coke in favor of Sprite --ain't gonna happen, and it should not happen. Coke is their cash cow that allows other flavors like Sprite to exist in the first place. Every company has to give most of its marketing and promotion muscle to its most popular product. It sounds like it wouldn't be necessary, but it is necessary in order for that number one product to maintain its market share. As that product goes, so goes the whole company.

By and large you're not wrong, a business has to cater to its supply-demand. I don't resent DC for pushing Batman, it's a business necessity that they do so (just as it was a necessity that they push Superman over all others for the fifty years prior to Bruce's rise to the #1 spot).

Where I think DC has failed (and is still failing) is in properly investing creatively in other properties. Yes, you give the lion's share of your talent pool and marketing power to your big product, to ensure your big product stays at the top. But by making all the other characters less than and subservient to the Bat within the product (the creative side), DC undermines their other IP's. Everyone else becomes less cool when the Batman walks into the room. What happens if Batman's popularity takes a nosedive? DC has spent years making sure everyone knows the Bat is the coolest cat on the block, so if suddenly people stop loving the Bat, what do you think their opinion of everyone else will be? DC might find themselves with their biggest gun firing blanks and no one to take his place.

[SiegePerilous02]

Except the way he goes about it would qualify him as a sociopath with no cognizance of the repercussions of his actions.



Actually, Johns tends to have a good grasp on Superman as a character most of the time. But that's beside the point. The point is that things like this...



are not cool and should not be emulated. Does this Clark think about how any confession he got from his victim here would probably be tossed out first chance because it was elicitied under duress? No, he doesn't.

But that is actually what happens, and Clark starts to move away from this approach as the story progresses and works with the army and police towards the end of the arc. He is even given the key to the city by the mayor. He never completely loses the edge, but he had growth. He is even buddies with Batman in the Action run, as oppossed to choking the life out of him in their first encounter (which, as dumb as it was, was also pretty awesome).

Seriously, did you read the run in question or just react to scans and the SM/WW relationship?

Fir five years, the New 52 made Superman into a shoot-first, ask questions later type of person who questioned whether or not he belonged on Earth constantly (heck, his whole relationship with Diana was premised on this). That is not Superman.

All of that is irrelevant in the Morrison run since it doesn't appear, and he has an actual arc where he ditches the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. The original Superman is not a defender of the status quo, he will take action against the corrupt and defend the downtrodden and he doesn't care who he offends or what laws he has to break, because it's the right thing to do. That's Superman. I'd also like to point out that the very first published Superman comic had, among other things, him grabbing an abusive husband and throwing him through a wall. Which is referencesdas happening again in the New 52 run.

Byrne's revamp ended with Clark declaring himself an American and not caring where he came from. That is pretty much a middle finger to Siegel and Shuster. That is NOT Superman. Any good the 90s books did happened in spite of his changes, not because of them.

Nolan's Batman was also the one who let Ra's al Ghul die in front of him. Just saying.

There is still a bit of difference in Nolan's Batman and the sadistic glee Burton's Batman displays. Even then, while allowing Ra's to die is criticizes by fandom, it's not as regarded as extreme as blowing up a dude with dynamite for no reason or gunning down the Joker's henchmen in the first film.

But you're not establishing how he's its not possible to show how he's still relevant with his current, classic boyscout personality. The one that the New 52 and the DCEU tried to ditch.


People think of Superman as synonymous with "boy scout." That is something I think is not really up for much debate. However, IMO, Superman being a boy scout isn't actually a bad thing. Again: Captain America has kind of the same personality.

Cap is not all powerful the way Superman is. That is why you cannot completely compare them, it doesn't work. One of the things people cite about Superman being so boring is that he's so "over powered" and also too much of a boy scout without flaws. Both of these perceptions are false and frustrating to people who actually know about the character, so it's time to break the perceptions. If he is synonymous with it, it is time to make it so he isn't. Batman was once synonymous with being a campy boy scout himself and that perception broke when other media returned to the darker beginnings of the character. It could happen with Superman too, all it takes is one good other media appearance that is built off of. And no, MOS is not proof on its own that it wouldn't work, that just tells us the GA won't readily embrace a flawed movie.

Also, Superman II is regarded as a classic and features a full powered Clark roughing that guy up in the diner at the end. By your logic, that is NOT Superman. And yet, people are fine with it. I'm pretty sure they could handle that if they can handle a dude who roughs up none powered individuals, wipes his girlfriend's mind without her consent, and in at least one cut of the film killed Zod. Superman needs to gain new fans in a younger generation, and the all powerful Big Blue Boy Scout white guy who is always right just might not appeal to the youth who have to live in Donald Trump's America.

I'm pretty sure DC themselves admitted that New 52 was initially the template for their cinematic outings. And honestly, there's not much difference for me bwteen Clark consulting a priest to see if it was a good thing to save humanity and him basically saying to Wonder Woman that he doesn't feel at home with human when he freaking grew up around them and was raised by humans.

This wouldn't be the first time DC displayed a lack of knowledge of their own material. Anyone who has seen both the movie and read at least the Morrison run would come away thinking they weren't alike, only that both are a little more edgy than people typically think of Superman (executed in very different ways). The priest scene instantly brings to mind For Tomorrow, a post Crisis run with the "classic" Superman. Everything else almost all comes from Byrne. A Superman who kills Zod is more line line with Reeve and Byrne than Morrison's Superman, who never kills anyone. And Snyder's Superman had a better reason for killing Zod than those other two.

Clark is very similar to humans, but he is not one of us. He pretty can never be completely, he has different biology. He is an Other. And stripping the "Otherness" from him is very wrong, that is not a narrative that should be pushed in today's age. And the SM/WW comic was bad, but that isn't an attitude he expresses in every comic in the New 52.

Indeed. Superman is a paternalistic supporter of the status quo. He doesn't want to make the world a better place, he hoard knowledge and incredible technologies but refuses to share them because he knows better. hence why All-Star Superman is so loved by many but hated by me, I guess. i'll take the Clark in the picture any day of the week over All-Star's. And the only way the two could be the same character would be if Clark reneged on all he used to believe, like a lot of politicians and peoples do I guess. At what point he isn't deserving of any respect in my book.

He shares some of his technology with Leo Quintum, who is very much a human working towards the betterment of humanity. His paternalism is presented as a flaw at times as well, he is too protective of the denizens of Kandor and needs Leo to come up with an outside the box solution. And he said at his father's funeral that his father taught him "bullies don't like to be bullied back," when he's about 21. Same age as the New 52 run.

They are literally the same guy written by the same author at different stages of his life. One is in his early 20s, the other is about a decade older and wiser. I can't wrap my head around anyone liking one and hating the other, they go together naturally.

I think the IDEA of N52 Superman (starts off as a rough and ready golden age, "smash the system for the better of others" kind of guy who evolves into the post crisis "Rocking the boat leads to too many problems, humanity has to sort itself out, we don't know better") is great. The execution was awful though beyond Morrison

Yeah, I have no strong feelings about the New 52 era as a whole, but that run is the best Superman comics we've had in recent memory. All the criticisms we see of it don't have a leg to stand on and basically just boil down to missing the 90s guy. Which is fine, but saying it's "not Superman" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

RE: New52 Morrison's Action. Anyone who claims the t-shirt and jeans Superman wasn't true to the character lacks a working knowledge of history. That version was far more loyal to the character's past than the abomination of a reboot Byrne brought us in 86 (there was some good stuff in there, but Clark himself? Byrne missed the mark almost 100% there). The disconnect some fans experienced with it comes from the fact that DC spent two decades trying to suck all the fun, all the fantastical, and all the macho out of Superman and people who never went back to read older material had no idea that Superman was more than a pacifist who'd turn the other cheek. Yes, he was rough and tumble and didn't care if he offended you with his heavy handed justice. Just like Superman was meant to be.

And then the fans tend to ignore all the development and change Nuperman went through. Outside of Morrison's "rookie year" the differences between Nuperman and the version/s that had come before were minimal. The guy mellowed and found a more effective approach to things by like, issue 7. But yes, let's all focus on the one incident where he forces a confession in issue 1.

Preach. All of this is 100% accurate.

[manwhohaseverything]

You know what's funny. Zack even named his movie "man of steel" after the byrne reboot. And still people don't see dceu superman as byrne superman. I mean, does it get anymore on the nose than that.And People compare that guy to morrison's superman who is goldenage guy. The irony is its their "classic" superman and still they rejected it.

[SiegePerilous02]

You know what's funny. Zack even named his movie "man of steel" after the byrne reboot. And still people don't see dceu superman as byrne superman. I mean, does it get anymore on the nose than that.And People compare that guy to morrison's superman who is goldenage guy. The irony is its their "classic" superman and still they rejected it.

I think he also carried around a copy of All-Star on set, but not much of that ended up in the final product. It's not pure Byrne, but it definitely leans more towards that than the Golden Age or New 52.

Even with the flawed execution and divisive reaction, MOS still did well. It was seriously let down by its follow ups though.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

You know what's funny. Zack even named his movie "man of steel" after the byrne reboot. And still people don't see dceu superman as byrne superman. I mean, does it get anymore on the nose than that.And People compare that guy to morrison's superman who is goldenage guy. The irony is its their "classic" superman and still they rejected it.

I love Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, and I will defend it to my dying day.

Anyway, I think Warners called the movie Man of Steel, not because of the John Byrne reboot, but in order to piggyback on MOS producer Chris Nolan's "Dark Night" movies that are among the most popular Warner Bros. flicks in its history and to let movie fans know that MOS would be the Superman version of that.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think he also carried around a copy of All-Star on set, but not much of that ended up in the final product. It's not pure Byrne, but it definitely leans more towards that than the Golden Age or New 52.

Even with the flawed execution and divisive reaction, MOS still did well. It was seriously let down by its follow ups though.

He did read it. But, he just used a couple of lines. Birthright and year one are bigger influence. Henry absolutely loves for tomorrow. People just don't seem to look past the superficial. They don't see the trunks and they automatically say "not superman" . Postcrisis superman really struggled with accepting his kryptonian side. So there was enough angst there.
We can say that any golden age or silverage influence is next to none. And that all star line is the best received thing in the movie. Especially, with the flight scene. Waid said he absolutely loved that part, i believe.

[kjn]

Where I think DC has failed (and is still failing) is in properly investing creatively in other properties. Yes, you give the lion's share of your talent pool and marketing power to your big product, to ensure your big product stays at the top. But by making all the other characters less than and subservient to the Bat within the product (the creative side), DC undermines their other IP's. Everyone else becomes less cool when the Batman walks into the room. What happens if Batman's popularity takes a nosedive? DC has spent years making sure everyone knows the Bat is the coolest cat on the block, so if suddenly people stop loving the Bat, what do you think their opinion of everyone else will be? DC might find themselves with their biggest gun firing blanks and no one to take his place.

Exactly.

There is nothing wrong with pushing Batman, Harley Quinn, or other successes. In fact, it's the right thing to do: reinforce success.

But I think what has happened to DC is that right now, they only understand Batman. He is a power fantasy for white successful men. But along the way I think DC has lost the understanding of the way Superman is a power fantasy not only of flight and super-strength, but of passing as white. Or that Wonder Woman is a representative from a feminist utopia (or near-utopia).

Now, this might not be a huge issue in and of itself, but I think DC to a degree has lost another trait: the ability to recognise good or great stories. Right now, the top leadership at DC are made up of fans of Batman and Superman and other DC characters, but I'm not sure they understand stories and storytelling like say Julie Schwarz or Karen Berger did, who might not be superhero fans, but who understood and could recognise good stories.

[manwhohaseverything]

I love Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, and I will defend it to my dying day.

Anyway, I think Warners called the movie Man of Steel, not because of the John Byrne reboot, but in order to piggyback on MOS producer Chris Nolan's "Dark Night" movies that are among the most popular Warner Bros. flicks in its history and to let movie fans know that MOS would be the Superman version of that.

Sure, there is that. But, they did go for specifically. He has read byrne reboot. So, i think he also had reboot in mind. Zack does put Easter eggs and such. And higher ups might have agreed because of the marketability . Ultimately, we don't know.

[Konja7]

All of that is irrelevant in the Morrison run since it doesn't appear, and he has an actual arc where he ditches the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. The original Superman is not a defender of the status quo, he will take action against the corrupt and defend the downtrodden and he doesn't care who he offends or what laws he has to break, because it's the right thing to do. That's Superman. I'd also like to point out that the very first published Superman comic had, among other things, him grabbing an abusive husband and throwing him through a wall. Which is referencesdas happening again in the New 52 run.

I hadn't read about Superman in Golden age, but I must say that the descriptions you give do not appeal to me (I don't like that kind of character very much). Although I understand that maybe it can be more popular than the current Boy Scout perception.

That said, a extremely powerful character who does what he thinks is right regardless of the rules or what others think can be complicated to handle.

I mean the character almost always has to be right. If he does something wrong with that attitude, it could generate a terrible impression between young people living in Trump's America.

[kjn]

That said, a extremely powerful character who does what he thinks is right regardless of the rules or what others think can be complicated to handle.

I mean the character almost always has to be right. If he does something wrong with that attitude, it could generate a terrible impression between young people living in Trump's America.

There are ways to handle that. One is to go the route of a picaresque hero, where the narrative of the story distances itself from the actions of the protagonist, that is the story doesn't present the "hero" as someone to emulate. Another is to have the stories go as moral tales, where the protagonist learns something new and realises they did something wrong earlier.

However, both require storytelling beats that are foreign to a lot of superhero storytelling right now.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Indeed. Superman is a paternalistic supporter of the status quo. He doesn't want to make the world a better place, he hoard knowledge and incredible technologies but refuses to share them because he knows better. hence why All-Star Superman is so loved by many but hated by me, I guess. i'll take the Clark in the picture any day of the week over All-Star's. And the only way the two could be the same character would be if Clark reneged on all he used to believe, like a lot of politicians and peoples do I guess. At what point he isn't deserving of any respect in my book.

You really, really miss the point of Superman. And honestly, I can't take anything that argues that Superman is some tool of the status quo when:

1) his main nemesis is a corrupt businessman and manu stories have focused on him taking down said corrupt businessman;
2) he was declared an enemy of the state;
3) he renounced his American citizenship to be a hero of the people; and
4) he has straight up defied the actions of the U.S. government many times

The way that Superman resists authority may not be as you like it (i.e. akin to a terrorist) but he does resist authority. And its kind of ironic that you like this Superman and yet shun All-Star because this Superman is engaging in a lot of the paternalistic behavior you claim the All-Star version was engaged in. He's decided this guy is corrupt and that he deserves punishment. He is basically acting as a judge and jury of one. That's not a hero. That's one step away from a supervillain.

Why not? The guy is corrupt and tramples the weak. Superman hates bullys.

So, he becomes a bully in the process. And again, its not like the method is effective. That's basically like saying torture is effective. Yes, you could say that the people you're torturing are bad guys, but that doesn't mean you stoop to their tactics or tactics worse than theirs. Just because Superman doesn't like bullies doesn't mean he is suddenly robbed of his empathy and compassion.

This is exactly what the original would have done.you are not getting the point of that. He was using "fear". He was making sure that guy knew that if he ever took advantage of his position of power. A guy more powerful than him will be after him.

That is not what Superman, at least the character Superman has evolved into over his many decades in media, would have done. The Superman here is acting more like Manchester Black, the guy who was created to serve as an antithesis of a superhero, than he is behaving like Superman.

You have no problem when batman does it. do you?

Batman is an entirely different character. That's the point. Batman is supposed to be the antithesis of Superman in many ways: Superman is the light and Batman is the dark. The words of DCAU Batman exemplify this the best. He says that Superman showed him that "justice didn't have to come from the shadows." In other words, justice can be attained through peaceful methods of resistance. Superman is like MLK or Ghandi.

Its also worth noting that Batman isn't a god-like superbeing. There's quite a different standard applied to his behavior. But at the same time, I don't want Batman being an overtly violent dick who threatens to throw people off buildings before attempting to solve things another way. Batman should be the world's greatest detective who tries to first suss out the truth, and threatens violence only when necessary. After all, even examples of an overly violent Batman have been derided by fans and critics. Look at All-Star Batman and Robin.

As for his confession,it is mere formality.Clark doesn't care about the court. He is a vigilante.

That's the point. Superman should be smarter and more concerned with how his actions could be perceived as a hostile god attacking society.

He wants people treated right and results.this superman is the champion of the people. He doesn't care for rules that puts the weak down. He decided to break the rules for them. That's why people started calling him "superman" .

Except its a thin line between Superman being a "champion of the people who breaks the rules for them" and Superman the god-like overlord who flouts the rules of our society and acts as a judge, jury, and executioner. I'm sure the Superman of the Injustice universe also thought the rules got in the way of a just society.

Morrison's superman didn't do any of that. Sure, he had felt like the outsider. Because guess what he is. And hello " man of action" ring any bell. Ofcourse he shoots first and asks questions, later. That doesn't mean he is reckless. And superwonder is an editorial dictate. That aside that superman is great Mordern take on "golden age" guy.

That doesn't necessarily mean he was reckless, but he was still acting reckless. He not only attacked people less powerful than himself, but he also attacked other heroes on first sight without even talking to them at first.

Your problem is that, you can't reconcile the original vision for superman with your preconceived notion of the Superman. Tell me, who is "classic" superman in your eyes. Is it the golden age " champion of the oppressed"? Is it the silverage "man of tomorrow"? Is it the postcrisis byrne "man of steel"? Even then, if you are fan late2000's version that guy is not just post crisis superman. he began mix with silverage guy and donner superman with secret origins take.

I'm a fan of the Superman who only uses his godlike power when necessary. The one who punches up, but never punches down.

Geoff johns can write a superman, alright . Donner superman and a wierd silverage version (not good) , not the golden age superman. Heck! He can't write postcrisis version . And he is no morrison. The best writers who absolutely gets superman are waid, morrison.. Etc.these guys can write almost any version of superman.jurgens can write a great post crisis version . But, he can't write the other too that well.

In your opinion. IMO, Johns writes a damn fine Superman. And its ironic you bring up Mark Waid because Waid also hates New 52 Superman and is very vocal about it.

Correction,a generation of people know him as boyscout. The generation after crisis on infinite earths. He was a badass who leapt tall buildings in a single bound before that. Have you ever heard of the phenomenon called "superdickery".

Superdickery is not what you think it is. Its a reference to Silver Age comics where Superman did insensitive things that definitely would've painted him as a jerk.

And yeah, the generation after COIE is the current generation.

Zack's supes had zilch in common with morrison's superman .Anybody who actually watched the movie and read new 52 morrison superman will tell you that.

I watched the movie and read the New 52 comics. It was New 52 Superman.

That superwonder talk happened in geoff johns run. You have to understand geoff john's vision for the character was different from Morrison's or even paks. If you take Morrison's superman run as a standalone. It's a clean tribute to siegel and shuster's superman.

Except when talking about New 52 Superman, we're not just talking about Morrison's version. That is such a deflection from the issue. The DCU is a shared universe. So, when talking about New 52 Superman, we're also talking about the guy who was super-violent in Justice League and who was reduced largely to nothing but the team's muscle. The one who basically said he didn't "get" humans despite being raised in freaking Kansas.

[Restingvoice]

You know what's funny. Zack even named his movie "man of steel" after the byrne reboot. And still people don't see dceu superman as byrne superman. I mean, does it get anymore on the nose than that.And People compare that guy to morrison's superman who is goldenage guy. The irony is its their "classic" superman and still they rejected it.

Haven't actually watched the movie, but if pop culture osmosis can tell me about how people see Man of Steel, is that the lack of red pants, the drab color compared to Donner's Superman, the property damages and potential civilian victims, and the killing no matter how justified distract people from whatever Snyder intended to do.

Well, we can just say that people based their view on Donner's Superman and leave it at that...

I've seen the reaction from people who don't watch Donner's Superman and read Byrne (they're grandmas and middle age women) and they're fine. They like the movie. They understand that killing Zod is necessary, they worry about the property and civilians but don't blame Superman for it, and they even understand the purpose of Pa Kent's sacrifice even though they disagree with it.

[manwhohaseverything]

I hadn't read about Superman in Golden age, but I must say that the descriptions you give do not appeal to me (I don't like that kind of character very much). Although I understand that maybe it can be more popular.

That said, a extremely powerful character who does what he thinks is right regardless of the rules or what others think can be complicated to handle.

That's the thing, though.it is supposed to be complicated. Don't get me wrong clark isn't like batman. He isn't brooding. His smile is assuring to the weak and oppressed. But, scary for the corrupt.
Clark is vigilante strong man. He takes the law into his own hands because he has no other choice.his first chest symbol is shaped like police badge for the same reason.

essentially, he does what in Darknight returns bruce accuses him of not doing. Taking authority and setting things right. Of not bowing to whims of the corrupt and not to give them that power. Goldenage Metropolis is corrupt as hell. He needs to protect the weak. The strong uses these laws and twist it to their advantage.so, clark has to be aggressive.
The point of the character, was that him being powerful doesn't necessarily mean he will be enemy of the weak. Goldenage superman will always protect the weak.That is context of "the right thing" in golden age superman stories.law doesn't matter to him. remember the "structure becomes shackles" speech dark knight trilogy. Well, clark breaks those shackles.

Conner of young justice has some goldenage superman vibe.

[manwhohaseverything]

Haven't actually watched the movie, but if pop culture osmosis can tell me about how people see Man of Steel, is that the lack of red pants, the drab color compared to Donner's Superman, the property damages and potential civilian victims, and the killing no matter how justified distract people from whatever Snyder intended to do.

Well, we can just say that people based their view on Donner's Superman and leave it at that...

I've seen the reaction from people who don't watch Donner's Superman and read Byrne (they're grandmas) and they're fine. They like the movie. They understand that killing Zod is necessary, they worry about the property and civilians but don't blame Superman for it, and they even understand the purpose of Pa Kent's sacrifice even though they disagree with it.

He has taken some donner influence as well. Its not pure post crisis.