Does DC only care about Batman?

[stargazer01]

Superman definitely has stopped being fun
So has Batman but Batman is a deeply flawed character so it works in his favor
That's a lot of characters problems currently. Their powers used to be cool and were explored in relatable ways that showed you deep down they were just like anyone else. Now they are just "gods" and the iconic image they display(or what they represent) has taken over for a lot of them showing personality(Wonder Woman looking at you).


Supes has sort of turned into this boring god type figure that creates a wall between a lot of new fans that might like him. Its not helped by snyder and other directors reinforcing that image in the public consciousness or even in some cases his own fans saying his symbol is evoking a messianic figure.

Look over at Marvel Thor should have the same problem but Marvel knows how to write their characters very well. They heap tons of flaws and problems onto their characters and never try to let a faded image or perception carry the story.

Superman is a lot of fun in some recent stories and animation like Death and JL Action. He really wasn't in the recent Singer and Snyder films and that hurt his mass appeal, I agree. Superman was fun in the Donner movie and it's no wonder many fans prefer that movie. Still I hope he never turns into a clown..

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

they are beloved as products of their era, but still perceived as out of date. Love for the nostalgia of those movies is what is keeping Superman in the public consciousness, but it is a mistake to depend on that forever, and everyone is really hankering for a classic MODERN movie that remains true to the spirit of the character while being relevant to modern times. Modern generations can love an older generation's Superman, but they still want a good one as their own, and they can never seem to get one on the big screen.

Of course people are hankering for a modern take, but that doesn't mean changing fundamental and core aspects of the character to suit that. Again, the MCU did not change Steve Rogers to make his movies beloved. Steve is very much the "dad" of the Marvel Universe, both in the comics and movies, just like Superman is the "dad" of the DC Universe in the comics. The only difference is that DC, from time to time, feels they need to strip Superman of that position, his age, his personality and make him angsty to make him relevant. That is a mistake.

Cap engaged in pretty brutal, very well choreographed fight scenes and as a solider has taken a few lives and has a movie dealing with modern relevant subjects. That's about as edgy as he gets, and it isn't even that much. I'm not asking for Superman to even go that far as killing anyone, even though there was nothing morally wrong with what he did in MOS, it's generally not what people want with the character. But he doesn't take any bullshit either and the immigrant/social justice angle is just as relevant now as it ever has been, if not more so.

I'm failing to see how fight scenes have much to do with what we're talking about? I mean, the comics and movies have always shown Superman kicking ass. That's never changed and its not going to change. I don't think the thing that was wrong with BvS was the fight scenes. But of course, Superman's fight scenes are not going to be the same thing as Captain America's fight scenes, just by the very nature of the character, unless you're proposing stripping him of his powers.

But, also, I don't see how a classic Superman couldn't tackle those issues. He does in the comics. All the time. I mean, this was the same guy who was made into an enemy of the state by Lex Luthor and resisted the DCU's equivalent of the Iraq War. Superman is alwasy relevant because he's looked at as the world's preeminent superhero, a beloved savior in the vein of Captain America.

We don't need an angsty Superman like New 52 Superman in order for his movies to have an edge. Although, in all honesty, trying to be too angsty is what has been dragging the DCEU films down.

It's usually regarded as OOC by people who don't know much about the wider history of the character, or only accept in character-ness from one version that is 30+ years old. And was neither the first nor the last.

I've been reading Superman for years before the New 52. I know the history. New 52 Superman was OOC.

Of course he needs to get re-invented every once and a while, no character would last as long as he did if he didn't get shake ups. They can't rely only on the old farts who loved him from childhood, they need to make him relevant to a new generation. They did that repeatedly with Batman and the Marvel heroes. They always go back to the core idea and put a twist on it or update it for the times.

Except, they seem to be missing the core idea of Superman. The New 52 did NOT capture the core identity of Superman, namely that he was a hero, not a bully. Also, they didn't really alter the Marvel heroes too much. The Marvel heroes have always had a strong, mostly consistent persona. Batman too, believe it or not. And I'd actually that consistency is much more appealing to the general public than the opposite.

Farm boy with a mostly normal idealic childhood who stands in front of an American flag and eats apple pie just may not cut it anymore. DC's problem is they don't know how to go about updating him.

That's a gross oversimplification. The classic Superman is the same Superman who resisted an unjust war, denounced his American citizenship, was made into a public enemy of the state, etc.

And again, Captain America literally wears the American flag colors with a giant A for America on his forehead and is made fun of in one of the Avengers movies for not cursing. If he can sell movies and be beloved with that personality, I don't see how its such a stretch for Superman, the original comics "dad", to have the same thing.

A topical film similar to the New 52 run with a charismatic Superman who was ballsy and toppled the corrupt, without going into dour territory or truly bleak subject matter, would crush it at the box office if it was well made. People say they want a safe, bright Superman but I don't think they do. Not on it's own anyway, they want classic mixed with new that still feels true to the character. The other extreme is the DCEU thus far, and they definitely don't want that either.

ANY superhero movie would crush it at the box office if well made, whether the film featured classic Superman or not. The idea that classic Superman needs to be fundamentally altered to appeal to the general masses is such a fallacy, repeated by those who don't understand the character. And yes, we do know that people want a brighter Superman because they told us that they do!!

Any time he's around Batman, pretty much. it didn't happenen within the issues themselves, but the solicits for King's bromance two parter described him as a naive farmboy.

Not really. At least, not anymore than other characters. But there's also a lot of examples where Superman gets the upper hand on Batman.

[Restingvoice]

We're having Batman Day every year if that's any indication
Unless I miss them I don't think they have an annual Day for the other characters

[SiegePerilous02]

Of course people are hankering for a modern take, but that doesn't mean changing fundamental and core aspects of the character to suit that. Again, the MCU did not change Steve Rogers to make his movies beloved. Steve is very much the "dad" of the Marvel Universe, both in the comics and movies, just like Superman is the "dad" of the DC Universe in the comics. The only difference is that DC, from time to time, feels they need to strip Superman of that position, his age, his personality and make him angsty to make him relevant. That is a mistake.

I didn't read any comics where he was only angry. At least not angry at things he shouldn't be at. Not in the take we're talking about anyway, there were probably others.

I'm failing to see how fight scenes have much to do with what we're talking about? I mean, the comics and movies have always shown Superman kicking ass. That's never changed and its not going to change. I don't think the thing that was wrong with BvS was the fight scenes. But of course, Superman's fight scenes are not going to be the same thing as Captain America's fight scenes, just by the very nature of the character, unless you're proposing stripping him of his powers.

But, also, I don't see how a classic Superman couldn't tackle those issues. He does in the comics. All the time. I mean, this was the same guy who was made into an enemy of the state by Lex Luthor and resisted the DCU's equivalent of the Iraq War. Superman is alwasy relevant because he's looked at as the world's preeminent superhero, a beloved savior in the vein of Captain America.

We don't need an angsty Superman like New 52 Superman in order for his movies to have an edge. Although, in all honesty, trying to be too angsty is what has been dragging the DCEU films down.

I don't think you really know was constitutes "angsty" because he wasn't angsty barring like a couple scenes where it was appropriate. And the DCEU Superman was nothing like the New 52 one. Poor Cavill would have been allowed to have more spoken dialogue and display a wider range of emotions if it had and be the confident Superman people wanted him to play.

And hell, I wouldn't even say MOS Superman was overly angsty either.

I've been reading Superman for years before the New 52. I know the history. New 52 Superman was OOC.

I've been reading him off and on for years too. There was nothing OOC about New 52 Superman, nothing there that didn't have it's basis in something else. It boils down to "not muh Superman" which is something all sides are guilty of. it was OOC for some versions, but certainly not all of them.

Except, they seem to be missing the core idea of Superman. The New 52 did NOT capture the core identity of Superman, namely that he was a hero, not a bully. Also, they didn't really alter the Marvel heroes too much. The Marvel heroes have always had a strong, mostly consistent persona. Batman too, believe it or not. And I'd actually that consistency is much more appealing to the general public than the opposite.

Superman, at one time, stood up to bullies by bullying them back when no one else dared. He was the embodiment of the incorruptible working man's spirit. That core was very much on display, he'd just been too nice and vanilla for so many years and letting Batman be a dick to him that people just forgot what he could be about. And he was a hero too who realized his earlier methods weren't sustainable in the long run and he would evolve into the mature "dad" as his powers grew.
Character's should have arcs. I wouldn't want an older, wiser and more powerful Superman acting like this, but a new Superman take likely wouldn't be starting him out as mid-30s with a wife and kid anyway.

Also, the various on screen Batman are more inconsistent with each other than New 52 Superman is with the Golden and Silver age versions. Burton's was a psychopath compared to Nolan's, everyone still loved them both.

That's a gross oversimplification. The classic Superman is the same Superman who resisted an unjust war, denounced his American citizenship, was made into a public enemy of the state, etc.

So is calling the other Superman a bully and a psychopath.
the Superman you are talking about isn't the classic Superman. That would be the one Siegel and Shuster created. if anything he's a classic one, not the. And that's something he has in common with his older self and New 52 self. We need more of that, less so the other stuff that came with the Byrne version. In today's times, where American citizens don't feel welcome in their country anymore and are disillusioned by it, we need a Superman who loves his country but doesn't blindly stand only for "the American Way." it's also a time where being weird and different is to be celebrated. Bring back Superman's weird childhood where he felt like an outsider at times, that is something true to the character and something everyone can relate to. No more boring childhoods. Even MOS touched upon this, but it would need to be executed better and be even weirder.

And again, Captain America literally wears the American flag colors with a giant A for America on his forehead and is made fun of in one of the Avengers movies for not cursing. If he can sell movies and be beloved with that personality, I don't see how its such a stretch for Superman, the original comics "dad", to have the same thing.

he also questioned his country thus proving he wasn't a one note patriot, and didn't have to carry any of his movies by himself. His third movie was essentially Avengers 2.5.
he was beloved, but Superman has to do more on his own with a much bigger set of preconceived notions against him.

ANY superhero movie would crush it at the box office if well made, whether the film featured classic Superman or not. The idea that classic Superman needs to be fundamentally altered to appeal to the general masses is such a fallacy, repeated by those who don't understand the character. And yes, we do know that people want a brighter Superman because they told us that they do!!

But what you're calling the classic Superman isn't agreed upon by everyone within the Superman fandom to be the classic Superman, or the at least far from the only one. A take based off of the Golden Age/New 52 or a Ragnarok style crazy-as-balls adventure with a Silver Age style Superman are all classic Superman style tales. Let him be versatile.

To say calling for either of those things is the same as calling for a completely different character or an ultra dark Batman-like Superman is a fallacy. neither of those possible approaches are even remotely close to dark.
Wonder Woman fought in WWI and dealt with that subject matter, and I'm pretty sure she killed a few dudes. No one cared, and nobody is asking for Superman to even go to that extreme.

[manwhohaseverything]

Of course people are hankering for a modern take, but that doesn't mean changing fundamental and core aspects of the character to suit that. Again, the MCU did not change Steve Rogers to make his movies beloved. Steve is very much the "dad" of the Marvel Universe, both in the comics and movies, just like Superman is the "dad" of the DC Universe in the comics. The only difference is that DC, from time to time, feels they need to strip Superman of that position, his age, his personality and make him angsty to make him relevant. That is a mistake.



I'm failing to see how fight scenes have much to do with what we're talking about? I mean, the comics and movies have always shown Superman kicking ass. That's never changed and its not going to change. I don't think the thing that was wrong with BvS was the fight scenes. But of course, Superman's fight scenes are not going to be the same thing as Captain America's fight scenes, just by the very nature of the character, unless you're proposing stripping him of his powers.

But, also, I don't see how a classic Superman couldn't tackle those issues. He does in the comics. All the time. I mean, this was the same guy who was made into an enemy of the state by Lex Luthor and resisted the DCU's equivalent of the Iraq War. Superman is alwasy relevant because he's looked at as the world's preeminent superhero, a beloved savior in the vein of Captain America.

We don't need an angsty Superman like New 52 Superman in order for his movies to have an edge. Although, in all honesty, trying to be too angsty is what has been dragging the DCEU films down.



I've been reading Superman for years before the New 52. I know the history. New 52 Superman was OOC.



Except, they seem to be missing the core idea of Superman. The New 52 did NOT capture the core identity of Superman, namely that he was a hero, not a bully. Also, they didn't really alter the Marvel heroes too much. The Marvel heroes have always had a strong, mostly consistent persona. Batman too, believe it or not. And I'd actually that consistency is much more appealing to the general public than the opposite.



That's a gross oversimplification. The classic Superman is the same Superman who resisted an unjust war, denounced his American citizenship, was made into a public enemy of the state, etc.

And again, Captain America literally wears the American flag colors with a giant A for America on his forehead and is made fun of in one of the Avengers movies for not cursing. If he can sell movies and be beloved with that personality, I don't see how its such a stretch for Superman, the original comics "dad", to have the same thing.



ANY superhero movie would crush it at the box office if well made, whether the film featured classic Superman or not. The idea that classic Superman needs to be fundamentally altered to appeal to the general masses is such a fallacy, repeated by those who don't understand the character. And yes, we do know that people want a brighter Superman because they told us that they do!!




Not really. At least, not anymore than other characters. But there's also a lot of examples where Superman gets the upper hand on Batman.

You are not understanding the problem, here. What you term as "classic" ain't the original. What i believe he wants is more of the goldenage take on the character. Golden age superman is fun, even to this day. Morrison's take on tshirt and jeans superman was great modern interpretation of the goldenage supes, who was the "champion of the oppressed".what you term as classic superman isn't @SiegePerilous02 's superman take.
Goldenage superman did bully those who let their power corrupt them. And before "superman" was a hero or a superhero. He was a vigilante strongman.

His opinion are as valid as yours. He wants a superman that is more golden age in attitude. And in action,He is more like

This is all might. The symbol of peace. Golden age superman action scenes should be like this.Getting upperhand on batman is besides the point."classic" version doesn't satisfy his tastes. Wanting captain america to punch hitler is reasonable in my opinion. So, saying his prefered version of superman(new52) is too edgy to be "superman" when the original take on "superman" is the above, will make you wrong.i know characters evolve and all. But, golden age superman will always be siegel and shuster's superman. And should be regarded as such. So, Morrison's tribute in New52 should have been given more due in my opinion.

[stargazer01]

We're having Batman Day every year if that's any indication
Unless I miss them I don't think they have an annual Day for the other characters

DC doesn't have a Day for Superman?


I remember when Wonder Woman film was about to premiere, they announced a Day to celebrate her..

[Restingvoice]

DC doesn't have a Day for Superman?


I remember when Wonder Woman film was about to premiere, they announced a Day to celebrate her..

Yeah on their 75th and 80th anniversary and the movie but as far as I know only Batman is celebrated annually even when there's nothing happening in between his 75th and 80th anniversary

[cranger]

DC doesn't have a Day for Superman?


I remember when Wonder Woman film was about to premiere, they announced a Day to celebrate her..

There is an annual Superman Day, but I don't know if it ever has any promotion tied to comic book stores.

[manwhohaseverything]

June 12 is superman day. It is celebrated every year.

[stargazer01]

Yeah on their 75th and 80th anniversary and the movie but as far as I know only Batman is celebrated annually even when there's nothing happening in between his 75th and 80th anniversary

ok.

There is an annual Superman Day, but I don't know if it ever has any promotion tied to comic book stores.

June 12 is superman day. It is celebrated every year.

I've seen that one.

[manwhohaseverything]

We are talking about Superman in a thread related to batman. Isn't this of topic?

[SiegePerilous02]

You are not understanding the problem, here. What you term as "classic" ain't the original. What i believe he wants is more of the goldenage take on the character. Golden age superman is fun, even to this day. Morrison's take on tshirt and jeans superman was great modern interpretation of the goldenage supes, who was the "champion of the oppressed".what you term as classic superman isn't @SiegePerilous02 's superman take.
Goldenage superman did bully those who let their power corrupt them. And before "superman" was a hero or a superhero. He was a vigilante strongman.

His opinion are as valid as yours. He wants a superman that is more golden age in attitude. And in action,He is more like

This is all might. The symbol of peace. Golden age superman action scenes should be like this.Getting upperhand on batman is besides the point."classic" version doesn't satisfy his tastes. Wanting captain america to punch hitler is reasonable in my opinion. So, saying his prefered version of superman(new52) is too edgy to be "superman" when the original take on "superman" is the above, will make you wrong.i know characters evolve and all. But, golden age superman will always be siegel and shuster's superman. And should be regarded as such. So, Morrison's tribute in New52 should have been given more due in my opinion.

yes, exactly this, thank you.

The reason why new 52 worked so well for me (at least the initial run) is because it was a fusion of the Golden Age and the Silver Age. He was the Super God who did and saw all the most insane stuff in the DCU, but he had the champion of the oppressed thing at his core. he was one of the nicest guys on the planet, the most heroic, but he didn't accept any BS and had a bit of an edge. All of it is true to the spirit of Superman. I want a Superman who can start out as the new 52 guy and grow organically into the All Star guy.

And it's a classic take with all the character's optimism at his core. it would be just what Superman needs in a cinematic take if it's done well. I'm sick of people thinking of Superman only as the dad, and that he can be cool but never as cool as Batman, who gets to be the rebel who does all the fun stuff. he really should be a fusion of MCU Steve and Thor, he really isn't a 1:1 comparison for either on their own.

There's also no way for mainstream DC icons to "evolve" organically. The modern Superman that existed from the 80s-90s came about because an older version was wiped from existence and he started over from scratch. That is nothing like a natural progression.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I don't think you really know was constitutes "angsty" because he wasn't angsty barring like a couple scenes where it was appropriate. And the DCEU Superman was nothing like the New 52 one. Poor Cavill would have been allowed to have more spoken dialogue and display a wider range of emotions if it had and be the confident Superman people wanted him to play.

I'd say overly angsty is anyone who is looking for an excuse to fight with the world. That is something New 52 Supes did multiple times.

I've been reading him off and on for years too. There was nothing OOC about New 52 Superman, nothing there that didn't have it's basis in something else. It boils down to "not muh Superman" which is something all sides are guilty of. it was OOC for some versions, but certainly not all of them.

It was mostly the fact that he just overly aggressive in general. Heck, the entire JL Origin arc is just him punching things, and attacking random strangers on first sight. The point is, I could never imagine New 52 Superman taking the reigns of the superhero community and being a figure of leadership. He acted more like Namor than classic Superman.

Also, the various on screen Batman are more inconsistent with each other than New 52 Superman is with the Golden and Silver age versions. Burton's was a psychopath compared to Nolan's, everyone still loved them both.

Burton's and Nolan's versions weren't really that different.

So is calling the other Superman a bully and a psychopath.
the Superman you are talking about isn't the classic Superman. That would be the one Siegel and Shuster created. if anything he's a classic one, not the. And that's something he has in common with his older self and New 52 self. We need more of that, less so the other stuff that came with the Byrne version. In today's times, where American citizens don't feel welcome in their country anymore and are disillusioned by it, we need a Superman who loves his country but doesn't blindly stand only for "the American Way." it's also a time where being weird and different is to be celebrated. Bring back Superman's weird childhood where he felt like an outsider at times, that is something true to the character and something everyone can relate to. No more boring childhoods. Even MOS touched upon this, but it would need to be executed better and be even weirder.

he also questioned his country thus proving he wasn't a one note patriot, and didn't have to carry any of his movies by himself. His third movie was essentially Avengers 2.5.
he was beloved, but Superman has to do more on his own with a much bigger set of preconceived notions against him.

Again, Pre-Flashpoint Superman was the Superman who was deemed an enemy of the state for defying Luthor while he was President and renounced his U.S. citizenship when he felt he should stand for more than just U.S. interests. He didn't just blindly follow authority. He wasn't some vanilla, one-note patriot just like MCU Cap was not a one-note patriot. So, the question stands: why would bringing THAT Superman to the screen be against the characters' long-term interests???

But what you're calling the classic Superman isn't agreed upon by everyone within the Superman fandom to be the classic Superman, or the at least far from the only one.

I'd say he's probably the one most people are familiar with.

A take based off of the Golden Age/New 52 or a Ragnarok style crazy-as-balls adventure with a Silver Age style Superman are all classic Superman style tales. Let him be versatile.

Yeah, exactly, but being overtly aggressive and untrusting of people are traits that Superman is better off without.

Wonder Woman fought in WWI and dealt with that subject matter, and I'm pretty sure she killed a few dudes. No one cared, and nobody is asking for Superman to even go to that extreme.

And Superman can touch on his narrative of being the ultimate immigrant...without being the "edgy" and morose guy we've seen in the DCEU or New 52 comics. I mean, he really had to go to a priest to ask whether or not humanity was worth saving.

The point is that the New 52 and the DCEU took the wrong track with Superman. They made him more alien than human, constantly viewing himself as the outsider and not trusting humans. That's the thing: Clark doesn't see himself as an outsider. He sees himself as part of the human race and has adopted Earth as his home. He protects Earth because he loves Earth. Its his home. He grew up here. That was a fundamental misstep that DC made when they made the New 52 the template for their movies. People don't really want to root for a guy who needs convincing that they're worth saving.

[The Darknight Detective]

And it's a classic take with all the character's optimism at his core. it would be just what Superman needs in a cinematic take if it's done well. I'm sick of people thinking of Superman only as the dad, and that he can be cool but never as cool as Batman, who gets to be the rebel who does all the fun stuff. he really should be a fusion of MCU Steve and Thor, he really isn't a 1:1 comparison for either on their own.

I agree. The "dad" image is fairly new and developed after COIE (though its roots can be seen in the Donnerverse). I certainly never thought of Supes as "The Big Blue Boy Scout" as a kid, at any rate.

[manwhohaseverything]

yes, exactly this, thank you.

The reason why new 52 worked so well for me (at least the initial run) is because it was a fusion of the Golden Age and the Silver Age. He was the Super God who did and saw all the most insane stuff in the DCU, but he had the champion of the oppressed thing at his core. he was one of the nicest guys on the planet, the most heroic, but he didn't accept any BS and had a bit of an edge. All of it is true to the spirit of Superman. I want a Superman who can start out as the new 52 guy and grow organically into the All Star guy.

And it's a classic take with all the character's optimism at his core. it would be just what Superman needs in a cinematic take if it's done well. I'm sick of people thinking of Superman only as the dad, and that he can be cool but never as cool as Batman, who gets to be the rebel who does all the fun stuff. he really should be a fusion of MCU Steve and Thor, he really isn't a 1:1 comparison for either on their own.

There's also no way for mainstream DC icons to "evolve" organically. The modern Superman that existed from the 80s-90s came about because an older version was wiped from existence and he started over from scratch. That is nothing like a natural progression.

The thing is, i have my issues with new52. Especially, regarding superman's support characters(mainly lois). But, what morrison was trying to do was never an issue.my issues are and still is the editorial dictates regarding the character and cast.The reason it was so jarring for people was because they have never seen superman like that. But, a generation of people grew up with this guy.instead, marketing with few panel of the golden age superman side-by-side with new52 promo materials. To make people realise this is still superman . Their marketing was entirely based on this isn't your daddy's superman. No, it wasn't. it was probably my great grandfather's superman. Many changes like the new52 suit which lacked simplicity of Superman's suit or pairing superman with wonder woman(i have no problems with the pair. But, they should have avoided it in this reboot. It made the feeling of jarring worse. Especially, after how John's introduced it) . All these made people think this isn't superman at all. When that wasn't the case at all. There are great stuff in there. It just got lost because management was bone headed.After establishing and easing audiences in. They should have then launched the jimmy olsen and lois lane book like we have right now. Lois with a noir flavour leading "superman" movement would have been great. It would have signalled that morrison or pak's superman isn't some betrayal. Just going back to some basics.