Does DC only care about Batman?

[SiegePerilous02]

Like people wouldn't be crying for Snyder's blood if he put Superman in a jacket and jeans.

Initially probably. I think they'd get over it if the movie was well made.
Snyder just isn't capable of putting out a solid crowd pleaser movie. He's ambitious and does some individual scenes very well and has some interesting ideas, but lacks the overall talent to put it together.

[LP22]

Even if it's true at the end of the day it's a business and Batman is the top seller so they should focus on his brand the most(and I'm saying that as a Batman hater).

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

It's created the perception that Superman cannot be too macho, passionate, fantastical or tough or or be anything other than the Nice Dad or else people think he's acting OOC. People who have a wider knowledge of the character's history know better.

Except, Pre-Flashpoint Superman was almost all of those things. He's not "macho" or " tough" in the way someone like Wolverine is, but he's tough in the way Captain America is. There are different ways of being a badass.Pre-Flashpoint Superman maintained his "dad" demeanor but at the same time literally wrestled a rogue angel in the street. You don't have to have an "edge" to be cool. That's something that the New 52 and the DCEU missed the mark on.

When he thinks of himself chiefly as a human first, like "Clark Kent is who I am, Superman is what I do" it makes him conform more to human standards and makes him less unique....

He did live up to both. That's the point. Post-Crisis didn't think of Krypton as unimportant to his identity. He acknowledged that it made up a part of his identity. It just wasn't the main part. The main part was Clark Kent...which makes sense because he was literally raised as Clark Kent. Treating the Kryptonian part of who he is as the dominant entity (i.e. Superman is who I am and Clark Kent is just a mask) is misguided because it would mean that Clark grew up discounting all of the lessons and all of the love the Kents gave him. It would basically mean he viewed the Kents as temporary guardians, as opposed to seeing them as his parents.

And yet, there are still clear differences between the likes of Adam West, Michael Keaton and Christian Bale, and the DCAU and Arkham verse takes, and they are all beloved. I think they could handle multiple takes on Superman that don't all conform to one thing, because he's been many things in his 80 years.

Again, Batman is widely regarded as someone who can more easily go dark than Superman just because of basic concept as a character. Batman wears a cowl and hides in the shadows, while Superman shows his face and flies through the sky. Gotham is a crime-infested cesspool, whereas Metropolis for the most-part is a futuristic capital of progress. A lot of Batman's rogues are humans with mental disorders, while a lot of Superman's rogues are either mad scientists or alien powerhouses. So, yes, it makes sense that Batman and Superman evolved to be the opposites to one another.

Also, I don't know if presenting a live-action Batman that is campy and fun-loving would really work with today's audience. The only modern Batman movies that tried to show Batman as campy and light hearted were the animated Adam West features and those were literally just throwbacks harkening back to a time when Batman could be campy.

Your continued mistake is declaring the edgier Superman as "new". He's actually older than the one your championing. All of this is at the core of the character.

Except I wouldn't say its at the core of the character because he was able to survive and thrive without that "edge" for decades. What's at the core of Superman is that he's a modern-day Hercules. He fights for the oppressed but he doesn't abuse his powers. You want to take someone like what-his-face down? Use your x-ray vision to find where he keeps the records of illegal activity, steal them with superspeed, and then publish them as Clark Kent, the reporter.

Actually, as SK pointed out, the initial New 52 sold well.

Initially, as all relaunches do. But it petered out very fast.

MOS did very well for a non-Marvel solo film despite not reaching expectations, even in home media sales. it did well enough that WB thought they could have Snyder build up the DCEU, and the failures came after. Neither one of them was shunned right out of the gate. So who are these "most people" you speak of.

Not really. This is superhero films. In 2013, the public didn't really have a bias toward Marvel or DC (the bad rep of DC wouldn't come until BvS). However, that was also the year that Iron Man 3 made over a billion at the global box office. Man of Steel made only about 600 million. Iron Man was largely unknown before 2008. Superman is a pop culture icon with multiple generations having an intimate familiarity with him. If you're telling me that a movie with the former makes over a billion while one with the latter makes about half that much, I'd tell you something is wrong.

Superman did often feel alone in the pre-Crisis era. His Clark Kent identity was putting up a wall around himself. He belonged to two worlds and didn't completely belong to either, but he didn't mope.

I'm saying that doesn't make sense because Clark was raised on Earth. There's a difference between putting a wall around yourself and splitting yourself into two people. The mistake I think you're making is that you're setting Superman apart from Clark Kent. The Kryptonian part of Clark is just as Clark as the rest of him. And, again, to have Clark look at his Clark Kent identity as just a way to hide who he truly is just means that he essentially didn't see his life as Clark with the Kents and Lana and Pete as part of his true life. It means he saw the Kents as nothing more than surrogates. That's not relatable.

Everyone feels like an outcast at some point and so did he, but he still grew up with friends like Lana, Pete and the Legion

Of course they do, but even if someone feels like an outcast, they don't equivocate on whether or not the human race deserves saving because, you know, they've likely grown up with the human race and don't want to see friends or family die. I mean, in MoS, he goes home to visit his mom, who is very much a member of the human race. They also wouldn't say things like "I have another identity" like how he does in New 52 Justice League. They would say "my real name is Clark Kent."

Somebody should go back in time and tell Siegel and Shuster how wrong they were for making him super powered and roughing up normal criminals. The tyrant.

Yeah. Maybe. Just because someone created a character doesn't mean everything they did with them was a good idea.

And they have kids of their own who may be old enough to buy tickets and go see these superhero movies without adult supervision. Nobody who bought the Byrne or saw the Reeve film at the ground floor can be considered the current generation. Hell I will be 30 in couple months, and the Byrne run is still older than me by a few years. I guarantee you that most of the younger kids who are buying tickets have never bought the post-Crisis comics and never will, because they're not buying comics in general. They don't have a Superman yet to call their own.

The Post-Crisis era ended, what, 8 years ago? That is, if we can even say its over. There are kids who are 20 who grew up with the Post-Crisis era.

Byrne is pretty much the equivalent of Morrison's run in the New 52, which is why they get compared a lot. For better or worse, it was the foundation that the post-Crisis Superman didn't really escape from. And even with the pre-Crisis elements back in place, the era from the 2000s to right up to Flashpoint is often considered one of the character's lowest points. After Death of Superman (which is a classic largely due to its attention grabbing gimmick and the last few iconic pages than its merits as a story) and the Return, there aren't many classic stories to come out of the mainline Superman comics. All the classics after that are elseworlds (All-Star, Red Son, For All Seasons, etc).

It wasn't the foundation of the character that was making the stories in that period bad. It was just badly written stories. You're conflating the two.

Yeah DC brought him back, but they will drop him like a sack of bricks the minute they think they can do something else to get attention and sales.

And they'll eventually have to bring him back again.

It's one thing to not like it, but you keep saying it was present in MOS and pulling details from thin air that are not actually in the run.

The characterization was very New 52. I think he eventially reached a point where he did drift away from that (mainly the questioning of whether humans "deserved" to be saved), but that doesn't erase the damage.

Lol "normal people"? You make it sound like he barges into the homes of average civilians and instead of corrupt crime lords who have innocent people killed. Those are the exact type of people Superman should be putting the fear of god into.

Okay, so, if someone commits a crime or is even the most corrupt person in the world, its okay then for us to drop a bomb on their house? Because that's the equivalent of sicking someone like Superman on a non-powered individual (not counting when Lex has some form of super-suit or something). And like I said, there are ways for Superman to use his powers to take these people down without being the one who punches down. Again, for Superman to adopt those methods would be presenting Superman as someone like the people he fought for decades, namely like Manchester Black.

Of course he feels he was above the rules. Because the rules and the system are broken and designed to keep the corrupt in power and oppress the weak. He is an ally and protector of the weak who says "**** the rules, I'm doing what's right."

And again, there are ways to fight that system without turning into essentially a terrorist. There are plenty of people who would like to "**** the rules" and do what they think is right. That's how you get groups like the Weather Underground or even the KKK. The point about Superman is that he is just as much about keeping peace as he about changing the system to be more fair.

[Sacred Knight]

Morrison could write a better Superman than anyone, even if he were bound and gagged underwater. Dude is the king of modern Super-writers to the point there's not even any competition.

Agreed. Well, given more time with the character I think Greg Pak had the opportunity to become an heir apparent. He was the only one with either A, the desire, B, the capability, or both, to expand even a little bit on his foundation. But of course DC ended that chance.

[Frontier]

Haha well I’m happy for you man. Arkham Knight was it for me. Far as I know WBM was never making a WW game. They were at various points making a Damian Batman game, a Suicide Squad game, and a Superman game but they scrapped each one. Rocksteady is making a GAAS DC game from what I hear.

I can't remember if it was debunked or not but there were a few recent WBM games with codenames and one of them was "Princess" or "Diana."

[Vordan]

I can't remember if it was debunked or not but there were a few recent WBM games with codenames and one of them was "Princess" or "Diana."

Did some digging and it looks like that was debunked. But WBM is working on another DC game besides the upcoming Batman game so who knows? I’ll cross my fingers for WW or Supes or anyone besides Bats.

[Dr. Ellingham]

Batman is an IP which does not require huge amounts of heavy lifting to get right. It's street level, visceral, no powers, vengeance and colorful psychotic villains.

Audiences get it right away, and it sells itself. And Batman is a flexible concept; it can be bent into other genres, other story types.
.
It's why there are so many classic Batman stories, and why he's so popular. Everything else at DC is harder to translate.

[manwhohaseverything]

Batman is an IP which does not require huge amounts of heavy lifting to get right. It's street level, visceral, no powers, vengeance and colorful psychotic villains.

Audiences get it right away, and it sells itself. And Batman is a flexible concept; it can be bent into other genres, other story types.
.
It's why there are so many classic Batman stories, and why he's so popular. Everything else at DC is harder to translate.

What about green arrow, the crimson avenger, the question.. Etc? Other street level guys as flexible as batman.

[Dr. Ellingham]

What about green arrow, the crimson avenger, the question.. Etc? Other street level guys as flexible as batman.

Green Arrow, yes to a good extent. He worked in JLA, as Green Lantern's partner, and later on as a solo hero a la Batman. It even became a successful TV show, using the same operating model as Batman.

The others? Spottier publishing histories, but potentially they could have success in other media.

[Robanker]

Did some digging and it looks like that was debunked. But WBM is working on another DC game besides the upcoming Batman game so who knows? I’ll cross my fingers for WW or Supes or anyone besides Bats.

Red Hood and the Outlaws, but instead of Starfire, Arsenal, Artemis or Bizarro, you'll be getting Cass Cain and Azrael.

"It's not Batman," they exclaim as they pat themselves on the back.

[Vordan]

Batman is an IP which does not require huge amounts of heavy lifting to get right. It's street level, visceral, no powers, vengeance and colorful psychotic villains.

Audiences get it right away, and it sells itself. And Batman is a flexible concept; it can be bent into other genres, other story types.
.
It's why there are so many classic Batman stories, and why he's so popular. Everything else at DC is harder to translate.

I can’t buy that there’s something inherently harder to translate about other properties when Marvel has had great success making A-Listers out of Z-Listers like GotG and characters like Superman and WW have had great success in the past. The problem is WB and the people they chose to handle the properties not the properties themselves.

What’s so hard about GL compared to GotG? What’s so hard about Flash compared to Quicksilver? GL and Flash have a much higher number of good stories than those two have had. No it’s that the people in charge have no respect or understanding of the characters and **** it all up.

[skyvolt2000]

I can’t buy that there’s something inherently harder to translate about other properties when Marvel has had great success making A-Listers out of Z-Listers like GotG and characters like Superman and WW have had great success in the past. The problem is WB and the people they chose to handle the properties not the properties themselves.

What’s so hard about GL compared to GotG? What’s so hard about Flash compared to Quicksilver? GL and Flash have a much higher number of good stories than those two have had. No it’s that the people in charge have no respect or understanding of the characters and **** it all up.

Thank you.

Batman is where he is because no ONE limits what can be done with him. He has FREEDOM to be whatever he wants to be. People are allowed to think outside the box with him and there is little push back to it.

The issue at DC are the FOLKS in charge.

Everything else at DC is harder to translate.

Really?

What is so hard to translate about Bumblebee? She is an original creation. She's smart, a mother and a wife.
What is so hard to translate about Black Lighting? Original creation, father, jock, EMPLOYED and a hero.
What is so hard to translate about Vixen? Original creation, model, business woman, has powers of animals and a link to Africa.
What is so hard to translate about Cyborg? Original creation, mother box, ultimate computer & so on.

Don't tell me Bumblebee is hard to translate with Antman & Wasp running around.
Cyborg seems to work in EVERY tv or movie he is in.
Vixen & Black Lightning have their own SHOWS.

It is an insult to say everyone else is harder to translate at Dc when you got Squirrel Girl-a New York Times best seller.
Miles Morales was NOT suppose to work.
Help us all if the Eternals blow up.

It all boils down to EFFORT. However why try when you can flood the world with Batman?

[Robanker]

It all boils down to EFFORT. However why try when you can flood the world with Batman?

This. We buy it, so how much can we really whine about it? If Batbooks stop selling so much, another character will rise.

[Dr. Ellingham]

I can’t buy that there’s something inherently harder to translate about other properties when Marvel has had great success making A-Listers out of Z-Listers like GotG and characters like Superman and WW have had great success in the past. The problem is WB and the people they chose to handle the properties not the properties themselves.

Not at all.

First, we are in the middle of a multimedia content boom, which will likely continue on its current pace another 5-10 years before contracting a bit. And we are likely nearing the tail end of the Marvel Universe era, which was an amazing achievement - which WB knows they cannot replicate. Even a little.

DC Comics was the king of superheroes from it's infancy through at least the late 1960s. They cornered the market behind the brand power of Superman. But that has eroded - dramatically - over time.

And despite the fact that Superman was the 20th century's most enduring fictional character, 1980 was the last time WB made a well-received movie out of him. 39 years ago.

Compare that to Batman. Circa 1980-81, Batman was almost over. Detective Comics sold cancellation numbers, and nobody wanted a Batman toy license - until the Tim Burton movie came along in 1989.

Despite DC's erosion over the 1980s-1990s, Batman rose as a brand, selling everything. Even his crappy films did well.

Batman is the most workable IP DC has. The rest of their brands - the main ones - don't even come close, save Superman. And again, even well-intentioned, talented filmmakers have tried, and failed, to make Superman work onscreen.

It's just not an easy property to do right. Look at the last 50 years of comics - there are way more classic Batman comics than Superman comics - despite the same talent pool being involved in some cases. Ever read Dennis O'Neil's Superman? Woof.

WB grasps this - it's why there won't be a DC film universe, and it's why there's no Superman films in development. Batman works, so we're getting more Batman.

[Vordan]

Not at all.

First, we are in the middle of a multimedia content boom, which will likely continue on its current pace another 5-10 years before contracting a bit. And we are likely nearing the tail end of the Marvel Universe era, which was an amazing achievement - which WB knows they cannot replicate. Even a little.

DC Comics was the king of superheroes from it's infancy through at least the late 1960s. They cornered the market behind the brand power of Superman. But that has eroded - dramatically - over time.

And despite the fact that Superman was the 20th century's most enduring fictional character, 1980 was the last time WB made a well-received movie out of him. 39 years ago.

Compare that to Batman. Circa 1980-81, Batman was almost over. Detective Comics sold cancellation numbers, and nobody wanted a Batman toy license - until the Tim Burton movie came along in 1989.

Despite DC's erosion over the 1980s-1990s, Batman rose as a brand, selling everything. Even his crappy films did well.

Batman is the most workable IP DC has. The rest of their brands - the main ones - don't even come close, save Superman. And again, even well-intentioned, talented filmmakers have tried, and failed, to make Superman work onscreen.

It's just not an easy property to do right. Look at the last 50 years of comics - there are way more classic Batman comics than Superman comics - despite the same talent pool being involved in some cases. Ever read Dennis O'Neil's Superman? Woof.

WB grasps this - it's why there won't be a DC film universe, and it's why there's no Superman films in development. Batman works, so we're getting more Batman.

Oh please. Flash has an extremely successful TV show but his movie has languished in development hell. GL has had some great animated movies and a cartoon series but his movie flopped because the people in charge were incompetent. Superman III and IV had their budgets repeatedly slashed but it was expected they would make MORE money than Superman II which is an idiotic assumption in and of itself.

Guardians of the Galaxy were all freaking dead in the comics before Gunn made his movie. His respect and love for the source material allowed him to succeed. The Avengers were freaking B and C-Listers before the MCU. The JL has had numerous successful adaptions in cartoons, yet you’re trying to tell me its “too hard” to make a good movie? That’s bullshit, utter bullshit. If DC’s franchises are oh so hard to adapt why do people even like them? Why did Superman have so many successful adaptions in the realms of TV and cartoons and yes movies? The 1970s were not some magical time where Americans were somehow “purer” dude, maybe go take a look at what was going on when Superman The Movie came out.

And just look at WW! She’s the one practically keeping the DCEU afloat because Snyder botched Batman and Superman so bad. I’m sure you’d have told me Aquaman was going to flop before it came out because “everyone thinks Aquaman is a joke” and now he went and made a billion $. The problem is and remains the suits at WB don’t get the characters and the people they chose to handle them did a poor job. How the hell is Suicide Squad a hard property to adapt? It reviewed so terribly because Ayer and the studio butchered it.

Blaming the IPs is utterly insane. We’re about to have a goddamn ETERNALS movie and you want to tell me that DC’s mainstream IPs known throughout the world are simply not workable. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. There are more classic Superman comics than freaking ETERNALS or Ant-Man, or Cap America, or Iron Man of Hulk dude. Maybe get some perspective: Batman has the most classic stories of any other character but Superman is literally right behind him. How the hell is it a mark against anyone to not have as many classic stories as Batman? Should NO ONE other than Batman get adaptions? I don’t even know where to begin.

“Well-intentioned” maybe, but “talented”? Go check out Zack Snyder’s RT scores some time, dude has coasted off 300 and Watchmen for his whole career. He had a bunch of flops between Watchman and MOS like that crappy Owls movie. And Snyder still failed even with Batman! BvS made less money than solo Batman movie sunder Nolan. That’s because of the quality of the films not the quality of the IPs. Snyder and WB dunk those movies.