Does DC only care about Batman?

[Konja7]

No, that's exactly my point. Nightwing's got the soul of a Super (personality) in the body of a Bat (skillset/powers, setting, general story tones). And the Bat office cannot figure the character out. Because he's not really a Bat. He's just living in a Bat world.

The funny thing is that Grayson as Nightwing wasn't really the fun and bright character until his solo (when he returns to the Batman line).

In his time as Teen Titans leader, he was pretty serious and calm (he was more like Batman), while other characters were the fun and bright characters.

I suspect DC become Nightwing in the fun and bright character for his solo, because they want to differentiate him from Batman.

[warzon]

YES and that's why I don't collect his book.i'll read Justice League and that's it.sometime you eat too much pizza sooner or later you're going to get tired of eating it.don't get me wrong I like batman and some of his family but you don't wanna keep seeing the same people over n over again.

[Ascended]

The funny thing is that Grayson as Nightwing wasn't really the fun and bright character until his solo (when he returns to the Batman line).

In his time as Teen Titans leader, he was pretty serious and calm (he was more like Batman), while other characters were the fun and bright characters.

I suspect DC become Nightwing in the fun and bright character for his solo, because they want to differentiate him from Batman.

I think he was "fun" during his time as Robin too. Not "quippy" like Spider-Man, but still fun and he had his fair share of witty comebacks. Which, granted, we're talking Golden and Silver Ages where character personalities were rather cookie cutter. But still, Robin wasn't silly, but he wasn't grim and dark either.

The NTT era....yeah, Dick's definitely more calm, serious, and solemn there.

Once he leaves and returns to the Bat-office.....he becomes more fun again. And while he's got a lot of emotional range so virtually any presentation can read as "correct" (angsty, angry, fun, etc), by and large I think he's remained the "bright and optimistic" member of the Bat clan.

[The tall man]

DC puts out dozens of non bat related books a month but most don't sell well or have relatively low stable numbers. Plus how many new books are announced and put out but fails to find an audience and is cancelled after a few issues. And by the way all those books have absolutely nothing to do with Batman. But then you see a bat related book like The Batman Who Laughs that sells well over a 100k an issue, so what's DC to do? They are a company in the business of making money, and any smart company that wants to continue making money will stick with what sells. Batman and bat related books for the most part sell well. If the same DC readership that complains about too much Batman actually put their wallets where their mouths are and buy more non bat related books then maybe DC wouldn't have to rely so much on Batman.

[SiegePerilous02]

DC puts out dozens of non bat related books a month but most don't sell well or have relatively low stable numbers. Plus how many new books are announced and put out but fails to find an audience and is cancelled after a few issues. And by the way all those books have absolutely nothing to do with Batman. But then you see a bat related book like The Batman Who Laughs that sells well over a 100k an issue, so what's DC to do? They are a company in the business of making money, and any smart company that wants to continue making money will stick with what sells. Batman and bat related books for the most part sell well. If the same DC readership that complains about too much Batman actually put their wallets where their mouths are and buy more non bat related books then maybe DC wouldn't have to rely so much on Batman.

There is some truth to this. But they also have to make the books worth buying.

Like I want a new great Titans run, and I'd support it in a heartbeat if I thought it was worth my money, but they keep releasing dumpster fires. Why would I reward that by buying it?

[Konja7]

I think he was "fun" during his time as Robin too. Not "quippy" like Spider-Man, but still fun and he had his fair share of witty comebacks. Which, granted, we're talking Golden and Silver Ages where character personalities were rather cookie cutter. But still, Robin wasn't silly, but he wasn't grim and dark either.

The NTT era....yeah, Dick's definitely more calm, serious, and solemn there.

Once he leaves and returns to the Bat-office.....he becomes more fun again. And while he's got a lot of emotional range so virtually any presentation can read as "correct" (angsty, angry, fun, etc), by and large I think he's remained the "bright and optimistic" member of the Bat clan.

Yeah. I heard Grayson was "fun" as Robin when he was Batman's partner. That's why I especifically mentioned him as Nightwing (although he was serious as Robin in NTT era).

I hadn't read much about Grayson before NTT, was he serious as leader of Teen Titans before NTT era?

There is some truth to this. But they also have to make the books worth buying.

Like I want a new great Titans run, and I'd support it in a heartbeat if I thought it was worth my money, but they keep releasing dumpster fires. Why would I reward that by buying it?

I understand your point. The problem is a book being worth buying doesn't mean it could be more successful in the current market. It's pretty possible Titans won't sell a lot better even with a better writer.

In fact, it is very likely that a very bad book with an extremely popular character sells better than a much better book with a less popular character.

That situation causes DC will put more effort in Batman.

[manwhohaseverything]

Yeah. I heard Grayson was "fun" as Robin when he was Batman's partner. That's why I especifically mentioned him as Nightwing (although he was serious as Robin in NTT era).

I hadn't read much about Grayson before NTT, was he serious as leader of Teen Titans before NTT era?




I understand your point. The problem is a book being worth buying doesn't mean it could be more successful in the current market. It's pretty possible Titans won't sell a lot better even with a better writer.

In fact, it is very likely that a very bad book with an extremely popular character sells better than a much better book with a less popular character.

That situation causes DC will put more effort in Batman.

There is absolutely nothing to prove that titans won't sell. Even if it does it is because of constant mismanagement of the property has alienated the fans. For instance, take superman sales of his books always go back down. Does that mean the character doesn't sell? No, it means the mismanagement(constant direction changes) of the property has caused fans to get turned of by it.
Titans when an effort is put on them have been dc's best sellers. Even more so than justice league

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

He's ready to fight the corrupt. And more importantly help people. Often with a smile on his face and people rallying behind him.

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

That is, as usual, Geoff Johns not doing that great with the Trinity characters regardless of what is going in their own books. He doesn't need the excuse of a new universe or origin to dio it, he did it pre-Flashpoint as well. Look at how Diana treats Cassie and Kon in his TT run, vs. how Rucka does in his WW run. It's two completely different people.
Compare it to the scene later in the Morrison run where he is meeting with the League, is having a discussion but being civil, and asking any of them they want to adopt some hamsters.

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.

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.

Nolan's Batman tried to adhere to a no-kill code and saved the Joker.
Burton's Batman killed the Joker and then deliberately set a villainous circus man on fire. And then stuffed dynamite down another's pants.

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

Nothing wrong with bringing that stuff to screen. I don't think that's the perception people already have of Superman though if we're talking "Truth, Justice and the American Way."
If anything, that is moving away from what Byrne established and back towards the character's roots. More of that, but other shake ups are needed. It doesn't even have to be anything discussed here, but we need to remind people he's still relevant and can do other things besides rehash what was done with Reeve.

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.

Doubtful, it's not like the pre-vs.-post crisis divide is some new thing. And wider audiences haven't really been given an opportunity to know anything else, despite being able to with Batman.

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.

Don't equate the New 52 and the DCEU as the same takes. At no point did Morrison's Clark ever need to consult a priest or need to be convinced the world needed saving. He was not mororse or angsty. You are describing things that are nowhere on the page, which makes your argument very unconvincing.

The DCEU take didn't work, but even then, despite how divisive and flawed MOS was, it was successful for what it was. They didn't use the New 52 as a template at all. Nobody who has watched/read both and understood them would say that. A film based on the New 52 wouldn't be a rehash of what Snyder did, you have no idea if it would succeed or fail based on how that did. The only similarity between them is that they do not conform to what YOU think Superman should be.

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.

[Korath]

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.

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.

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.

[jetengine]

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

[manwhohaseverything]

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.

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.



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



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.




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.

Why not? The guy is corrupt and tramples the weak. Superman hates bullys. 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. You have no problem when batman does it. do you? . As for his confession,it is mere formality.Clark doesn't care about the court. He is a vigilante. 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" . Because he protects the weak no matter what.



See the similarities, in the above images.

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.

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.

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.

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".

zack's superman isn't based on golden age supes. It is based on amalgamation of postcrisis(man of steel byrne reboot) , for tomorrow , earth one, donner movie, couple of lines from allstar with alterations and maybe birthright (i say maybe because waid isn't a fan of zack's movie). Morrison's superman was based on the original guy. So, they are different characters altogether.He was a badass through and through. he is a bit aggressive. But, the smile on his will make good innocent people be relieved and make the corrupt fear

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. 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.

What you are insisting is that with this "classic boyscout" thing, is that "golden age" superman is not the real superman. And only your notion of "classic" superman which might be byrne postcrisis superman or secret origins superman is the "real" superman . I am sorry as a Superman fan that is not exceptable. Without goldenage supes there will be no "superhero" or your "classic" superman.

[kjn]

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.

I'm not sure I see Superman as a boy scout. I rather think Kansas farm boy.

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.

To me these are different questions. The first one is basically the one that Wonder Woman had in her movie, and I think it was handled really well there on a thematic level. But it's a question which fit Wonder Woman, not Superman.

But to me one of the keys that makes Superman interesting is that he was raised among humans, all his friends are human, he passes as human, but he is not human and he knows it. He simultaneously is one of us and not one of us. Now, maybe the way it was expressed there wasn't the best way, but to me it is one of the ways it really expresses the dichotomy between Clark Kent and Superman (something which King also managed to dig into in one of the booth sessions in Heroes in Crisis).

[manwhohaseverything]

I'm not sure I see Superman as a boy scout. I rather think Kansas farm boy.



To me these are different questions. The first one is basically the one that Wonder Woman had in her movie, and I think it was handled really well there on a thematic level. But it's a question which fit Wonder Woman, not Superman.

But to me one of the keys that makes Superman interesting is that he was raised among humans, all his friends are human, he passes as human, but he is not human and he knows it. He simultaneously is one of us and not one of us. Now, maybe the way it was expressed there wasn't the best way, but to me it is one of the ways it really expresses the dichotomy between Clark Kent and Superman (something which King also managed to dig into in one of the booth sessions in Heroes in Crisis).

Well, golden age clark wasn't human. He knew that. He didn't know what he was or where he came from or the name given to him by his birth parents.he sure as heck was an american. His mother tongue is english.but, he had ideas for an america itself. He wanted an america where people who are weak in any manner are not trampled upon by the strong. Where the weak has a chance of getting strong rather than getting trampled on when they are merely figurative eggs. Where the strong started following the lead of his actions to help the weak rather than exploit them.so, its natural morrison's superman has outsider tendencies.

[Ascended]

Yeah. I heard Grayson was "fun" as Robin when he was Batman's partner. That's why I especifically mentioned him as Nightwing (although he was serious as Robin in NTT era).

I hadn't read much about Grayson before NTT, was he serious as leader of Teen Titans before NTT era?

Honestly I've never read any of the original Titans material, so I don't know how Dick was with the team before Wolfman and Perez. Most of what I've heard from that era isn't very positive.

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.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

Yes, DC prioritizes Batman -- and they should.

That doesn't mean that they "only care" about Batman, but the Batman franchise makes the most money for DC, and so that has to be nurtured and protected.

Even though Batman is not my favorite character, I can't be resentful of how DC keeps pimping him. It's the same way Marvel pimped the X-Men franchise during the 1980s.

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.

The only two times in comics history when a media adaptation led to increased comics sales were both Batman-related. First, in 1966 with the Adam West show, and second in 1989 with the Tim Burton movie. There is something about the Batman character -- that perfect storm of cool costume, gadgets, the Batmobile, the villains, etc. -- that really connects with the public and can even bring new fans into the stores, however briefly.