Was postcrisis superman more complex?

[Cyberstrike]

When Alan Moore took over Rob Liefeld's Supreme he remade the character into a homage to Silver Age Superman and was also using the story to comment on the current state of comics and Superman especially. He also made fun of British comic writers (guys like Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, Mark Millar, Grant Morrison, and Alan Moore) trying to make characters like Superman more mature and complex but only on a surface level. He also made concepts like Radar, the Hound Supreme and Suprema, his sister work a LOT better when DC brought back Krypto and original/classic Supergirl.
Plus the concept of the Supremacy a place where all reboots, alternate versions of Supreme go when they fall out of favor is still more interesting than most of the multiverse stuff that DC and Marvel do now of days.

Supreme: The Story of the Year, Supreme: The Return, and Judgement Day shows that weird out there concepts can be used to tell complex stories that deal with real world issues and history and still be extremely entertaining as wel. These are some of the BEST Superman stories not staring Superman ever told.

[Agent Z]

All great points.
I also have to wonder why Superman has to be singled out as a guardian of society's status quos because he's too powerful, but Wonder Woman doesn't get hit with the same reasoning despite being almost as powerful as he is.

She did in Simone's Secret Six. It's also very common to portray the Amazons, including Diana, as arrogant, judgmental jackasses who never helped anyone and only complained about men.

[SiegePerilous02]

She did in Simone's Secret Six. It's also very common to portray the Amazons, including Diana, as arrogant, judgmental jackasses who never helped anyone and only complained about men.

I 100% agree that the Amazon stuff is indeed very bad (and God, that movie sucked), but I wouldn't put it in the same category as being a guardian of the status quo. It's more of the WW franchise's own cross to bear of writers missing the point of the original message.

There was indeed that moment with Jeanette though. But that's a (comparatively) niche book about pretty bad people as protagonists, so the audience is already primed to not take everything they say at face value.

[manwhohaseverything]

It's true that Superman doesn't need the real world, per se... but he's always operated well when his city was like that in some sense. The Golden Age stories, for instance, are (in ways) more gritty and grounded in feel (partly that's due to the rudimentary but dynamic art style, but that's still the effect - at least for me). I love the wilder aspects of Superman, but I'd hate to lose the grounded ones in favor of that. Kinda like TMNT - I really like the space stories and they're part of the lore from the early comics.. but I'd hate to lose the New York stories in favor of just those.

On Superman being political... I think there's a line where it can't matter. Like, Superman should understand, in story, that certain things he'd try to do would have consequences beyond the direct action he want to take - or that Superman shouldn't take a stance on certain issues. But when Superman saves people from being shot/etc and people complain online (in the real world) or on a certain cable news network... at that point, screw those people, because they're just looking for something to make political.

As for the reaction to Superman being an action hero... it depends on how you're looking at it. I do see Superman as being partly an action hero. But I think that him being "just" that is limiting to his potential as a character. That doesn't mean I want "endless soap opera," it just means that I want more for/from Superman than just an action hero. But I agree that aspects of it do need to be a part of him. Part of that is due to what I think an "action hero" means. When I think "action hero," I think of that main characters from Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Demolition Man, etc. And while I love those movies for what they are, I'd hate to see a Superman movie that follows that pattern exactly. So part of the reaction could be due to what we think of when we read those words.

As said, something entirely fictional can be grounded and gritty. It's upto the author. See that's done so that people largely don't get resemblances and get turned off. Authors can tell their tales and tell what they want to say. Superman works better like that in my view. Furthermore, if we are doing gritty realistic route. The character would need some changes as well. The character would at best be at the start action comics #1,powerlevel wise. Ultimately, grittiness isn't a really needed thing. It would be constricting for a character like superman.But,superman having a fictional setting is essential in my opinion.There is so much, the character can tell with imagination and allegories. You can even do the realistic city.

I think it matters. The character has built-in philosophy. He is always gonna have critcs,just take them into account and don't caricaturise. A story in with conflict truly set in the middle doesn't try to do that. Yeh! People will complain. But if superman is entertaining it won't matter and as said tales being entirely allegorical would mitigate most of it.One piece has a philosophy as well, which can be very political. People just skim past through it because of high swashbuckling adventure and the sheer comraderine between the cast.We can't just be afraid of people's reaction always. Unless, the story does something truly offensive. There should be no problems.

I don't see him partly, action hero.That's main problem. Action is his main genre.You can't have a superman without action or action comics . Yet, he cannot compete in that genre now. That just boggles my mind. The action being after thought is disservice to the character . The character is a flying brick because of the lack of focus on it. And the market is filled with ton of those. Why should i read superman? He doesn't need to follow something like die hard. He can follow something like rocky series or chinese movies. It would work just as well. See, my problems with superman is mainly is his denial of what he is and his origins.If that's fixed most of the character's contrivances will be gone.There needs to be a heavy look at superman's powers and action. The character was never boring in goldenage regarding with his powers. His movements were really fascinating. But, now he is boring. He doesn't cling on walls, run on electric lines,do those cool flips, do those poses with accentuating his muscles as a strongman...etc.he doesn't even do the workouts. These things were part of the core of the character. I prefer a strongman to sungod. The way they implemented the sun thing is pretty boring and unimaginative .Byrne tried do something with bioelectric aura. But it fell flat. They need to really change that in my opinion. Make it more connected his physiology and innate talent. Stop treating the character like a glorified battery. It's uninspiring and boring.

When Alan Moore took over Rob Liefeld's Supreme he remade the character into a homage to Silver Age Superman and was also using the story to comment on the current state of comics and Superman especially. He also made fun of British comic writers (guys like Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, Mark Millar, Grant Morrison, and Alan Moore) trying to make characters like Superman more mature and complex but only on a surface level. He also made concepts like Radar, the Hound Supreme and Suprema, his sister work a LOT better when DC brought back Krypto and original/classic Supergirl.
Plus the concept of the Supremacy a place where all reboots, alternate versions of Supreme go when they fall out of favor is still more interesting than most of the multiverse stuff that DC and Marvel do now of days.

Supreme: The Story of the Year, Supreme: The Return, and Judgement Day shows that weird out there concepts can be used to tell complex stories that deal with real world issues and history and still be extremely entertaining as wel. These are some of the BEST Superman stories not staring Superman ever told.

@bold Like i said, I have no problem with superman being a simple character as long as he is entertaining. Yeah! Many attempts at complexity has been largely bad. As for moore and superman,he can write a good superman. That's pretty obvious.

[Agent Z]

I 100% agree that the Amazon stuff is indeed very bad (and God, that movie sucked), but I wouldn't put it in the same category as being a guardian of the status quo. It's more of the WW franchise's own cross to bear of writers missing the point of the original message.

There was indeed that moment with Jeanette though. But that's a (comparatively) niche book about pretty bad people as protagonists, so the audience is already primed to not take everything they say at face value.

I've seen a few people siding with Jeanette when she said that. Some of them are, unsurprisingly, fans of the Azzarello run's depiction of the Amazons.

[JAK]

As said, something entirely fictional can be grounded and gritty. It's upto the author. See that's done so that people largely don't get resemblances and get turned off. Authors can tell their tales and tell what they want to say. Superman works better like that in my view. Furthermore, if we are doing gritty realistic route. The character would need some changes as well. The character would at best be at the start action comics #1,powerlevel wise. Ultimately, grittiness isn't a really needed thing. It would be constricting for a character like superman.But,superman having a fictional setting is essential in my opinion.There is so much, the character can tell with imagination and allegories. You can even do the realistic city.

That's true, but when Superman is as powerful as he is now, it's harder to have a fictional city not be changed beyond any possible comparison. It's not impossible, but I don't know how long such a story could keep up all that. But when Superman has more of a Golden Age power level, it's much easier. It's partly why he would tell some criminals to just "get out of town and don't come back" so it keeps the scope smaller. By grit, I don't mean gritty like 90's gritty, just a bit more grounded in feel and less polished.

I think it matters. The character has built-in philosophy. He is always gonna have critcs,just take them into account and don't caricaturise. A story in with conflict truly set in the middle doesn't try to do that. Yeh! People will complain. But if superman is entertaining it won't matter and as said tales being entirely allegorical would mitigate most of it.One piece has a philosophy as well, which can be very political. People just skim past through it because of high swashbuckling adventure and the sheer comraderine between the cast.We can't just be afraid of people's reaction always. Unless, the story does something truly offensive. There should be no problems.

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by "it can't matter." What I mean is that there are things that it's just best not to get into (what religion, if any, does Clark believe) just because no good can generally come of it, vs times when people go overboard to politicize something - the writers can't care about the latter. That's what I meant by "it can't matter" - sorry for not making that clearer. Essentially, I'm agreeing with you, just noting a few exceptions.

I don't see him partly, action hero.That's main problem. Action is his main genre.You can't have a superman without action or action comics . Yet, he cannot compete in that genre now. That just boggles my mind. The action being after thought is disservice to the character . The character is a flying brick because of the lack of focus on it. And the market is filled with ton of those. Why should i read superman? He doesn't need to follow something like die hard. He can follow something like rocky series or chinese movies. It would work just as well. See, my problems with superman is mainly is his denial of what he is and his origins.If that's fixed most of the character's contrivances will be gone.There needs to be a heavy look at superman's powers and action. The character was never boring in goldenage regarding with his powers. His movements were really fascinating. But, now he is boring. He doesn't cling on walls, run on electric lines,do those cool flips, do those poses with accentuating his muscles as a strongman...etc.he doesn't even do the workouts. These things were part of the core of the character. I prefer a strongman to sungod. The way they implemented the sun thing is pretty boring and unimaginative .Byrne tried do something with bioelectric aura. But it fell flat. They need to really change that in my opinion. Make it more connected his physiology and innate talent. Stop treating the character like a glorified battery. It's uninspiring and boring.

Action's his main genre, sure, but it's not his only one. It can't be. Imo, he's too well-rounded of a character for that. Even the Golden Age one, although pure action would be easier with that version. To be clear, I love the Golden Age Superman a lot - I've even come up with a movie outline for that version. And I do think it would do very well, if done right - it'd be refreshing as heck to audiences. But I recognize that there are also a great number of things the more modern Superman could be doing that would look just as good - it's just that most live-action interpretations are too focused on using him as little more than symbolism and allegory (which we both agree is hurting the character). Maybe now that Didio is out at DC, we can see a change in that overall presentation. I hope so, anyway. I feel that Superman can compete just fine - he simply needs to be given a decent chance, which we haven't seen because WB has still been stuck in "the character is the problem" mode when it comes to Superman.

As for the bioelectric aura part.. why exactly do you feel it "fell flat"? Because all it was done for was to give a reason why a ceiling doesn't collapse when he holds it up. It's only mentioned a handful of times over those books. It wasn't made into more than that, so it never was pushed to the forefront enough to fall in any manner (flat or otherwise). I've often thought it should be expanded upon in more media, that it'd make for more interesting stories - it just hasn't been utilized. Similarly, the battery angle is still, imo, quite good - they just need to put more into it than "supercharge by flying into the sun" as the only reason that exists. That's been my main contention with modern live/animated interpretations: the source info that's there to grab isn't bad, it's just the way it's utilized that's repetitive to the point of boredom. It's like having prime rib available to a chef, and all he does is cut it up and put it into stew, lol - some variety would be nice! lol

[Ascended]

Maybe now that Didio is out at DC, we can see a change in that overall presentation. I hope so, anyway. I feel that Superman can compete just fine - he simply needs to be given a decent chance, which we haven't seen because WB has still been stuck in "the character is the problem" mode when it comes to Superman.

I'd like to hope you're right about this, but Didio wasn't the root of the problem, he was just a symptom. This mindset was in place before he came in, and it goes well beyond DC's publishing division all the way up to whoever it is that approves of adaptations at WB.

Seems to me, there's two factors working against Clark. First, the legend of Superman itself. The perception of Superman has outgrown the character and become a detriment. People all around the world think of Superman as "Jesus in a cape" and those expectations are crippling him; the character itself has never been that, has never wanted to or tried to be that yet that's how people view the IP. And you need look no further than the first common complaint leveled at his adaptations to see the danger it poses; "It wasn't inspiring enough." What the f*ck does that even mean? Yet it's among the first complaint people will throw at Superman projects. If audiences don't leave a Superman project feeling like they saw the face of god, they think it's a failure. Overcoming this means changing people's preconceived notions about who and what and *why* Superman is. On a global scale. Changing that is virtually impossible, the only option is to make quality Superman product that's so fun it overcomes these flawed expectations and, gradually, people will stop expecting a "I saw the light!" experience and start expecting just a fun, interesting story.

The second problem is DC/WB. They buy into this idea of Superman as a "modern-day religious figure without the religion" too, but also seem to think that he's too vanilla, too boring, and needs a healthy dose of Batman angst rubbed into him to make him spicy enough for modern audiences. It's complete and utter, self-defeating BS, but it's what they seem to think. Fixing that is easy enough, fortunately; WB/DC just have to realize they're wrong and change their approach....or at least hire somebody who actually understands Superman and how to apply his character.

With Didio gone, the best we can hope for is that better creators come onto Superman and they can shift WB's opinion. From there, the larger media stuff can start using a new/better approach, and that'll eventually start to nudge the public's perception towards something more viable where the character can actually be what it's meant to be and flourish.

[SpideyCeo]

I wish superman was more than good guy with spiderman problems.

[manwhohaseverything]

As for the bioelectric aura part.. why exactly do you feel it "fell flat"? Because all it was done for was to give a reason why a ceiling doesn't collapse when he holds it up. It's only mentioned a handful of times over those books. It wasn't made into more than that, so it never was pushed to the forefront enough to fall in any manner (flat or otherwise). I've often thought it should be expanded upon in more media, that it'd make for more interesting stories - it just hasn't been utilized. Similarly, the battery angle is still, imo, quite good - they just need to put more into it than "supercharge by flying into the sun" as the only reason that exists. That's been my main contention with modern live/animated interpretations: the source info that's there to grab isn't bad, it's just the way it's utilized that's repetitive to the point of boredom. It's like having prime rib available to a chef, and all he does is cut it up and put it into stew, lol - some variety would be nice! lol

Battery angle is bad. it adds the savior motif and clark is seen as an embodiment of sloth or worse an elite, which he is currently . All he does is sun bathe and gets stronger.That's basically making a working class character into an Elite. I like the character on his toes.finally, bioelectric aura was basically a plot device in story to explain stuff. The bioelectric aura is great in concept. It hasn't moved past that. The character still comes of a lazy guy sipping sun supplements and it actually baring fruit. Furthermore, it is not even a limiter. How much energy he absorbed is miniscule compared to the energy and work he does.it takes tension right out, if all superman needs is to bathe in sun to heal, powerup and beat his opponents. Moreover, bioelectric aura isn't detailed enough Nor does it add anything to the story. It isn't a cool intricate or diverse mechanism like nen, bending technique, breaths or breathing techniques,.. Etc. It doesn't even act as limiter. The amount energy clark absorbs in miniscule compared what he dishes out which not only doesn't create tension and takes the tension right out. See, even flash and greenlanterns have begun to diversify and put more emphasis on the lantern spectrum or the force. I would admit it's kinda bad. But, the idea isn't.I don't want superman as a battery. I want him to be the sun in his own right. Superman shouldn't be getting stronger by sitting on his ass. It's also disgusting that the guy who whales around like doofus beats the best soldiers like zod, Darkseid, orion,.. Etc. These guys are on superman's powerlevel and trained their whole life. I would take a proud failure over a guy with no passion winning.It does'nt feel like superman wins his fights. It feels like the power and sun does.
In superman vs goku, fight they basically call superman boring and asks goku if you want to be boring?Goku says being superman,is boring. I tend to agree. I would prefer to keep testing my limits as well. here at, 12:00

Goku feels more working class than superman.
Superman has no limits. Cough! Cough! Savior!Messiah!There is a difference between an overdog and whatever the heck! Limitless power implies.

[JAK]

Battery angle is bad. it adds the savior motif and clark is seen as an embodiment of sloth or worse an elite, which he is currently . All he does is sun bathe and gets stronger.That's basically making a working class character into an Elite. I like the character on his toes.finally, bioelectric aura was basically a plot device in story to explain stuff. The bioelectric aura is great in concept. It hasn't moved past that. The character still comes of a lazy guy sipping sun supplements and it actually baring fruit. Furthermore, it is not even a limiter. How much energy he absorbed is miniscule compared to the energy and work he does.it takes tension right out, if all superman needs is to bathe in sun to heal, powerup and beat his opponents. Moreover, bioelectric aura isn't detailed enough Nor does it add anything to the story. It isn't a cool intricate or diverse mechanism like nen, bending technique, breaths or breathing techniques,.. Etc. It doesn't even act as limiter. The amount energy clark absorbs in miniscule compared what he dishes out which not only doesn't create tension and takes the tension right out. See, even flash and greenlanterns have begun to diversify and put more emphasis on the lantern spectrum or the force. I would admit it's kinda bad. But, the idea isn't.I don't want superman as a battery. I want him to be the sun in his own right. Superman shouldn't be getting stronger by sitting on his ass. It's also disgusting that the guy who whales around like doofus beats the best soldiers like zod, Darkseid, orion,.. Etc. These guys are on superman's powerlevel and trained their whole life. I would take a proud failure over a guy with no passion winning.It does'nt feel like superman wins his fights. It feels like the power and sun does.
In superman vs goku, fight they basically call superman boring and asks goku if you want to be boring?Goku says being superman,is boring. I tend to agree. I would prefer to keep testing my limits as well. here at, 12:00

Goku feels more working class than superman.
Superman has no limits. Cough! Cough! Savior!Messiah!There is a difference between an overdog and whatever the heck! Limitless power implies.

See, what you're describing isn't the thing itself, but the execution of it. That's my point. You see them as the same, but they're not. Bioelectric aura could be used in a much more nuanced way than it has - it just hasn't. Heck, they haven't often even used it to the potential Byrne thought of. I mean, if we look at the battery angle from another way... batteries have capacities. And some can be damaged functionally if they're overcharged. There's something that was actually delved into in the Post-Crisis stories in an interesting way. They actually needed Parasite to help drain him. That's something we've never seen in live action.

I guess one could say that the whole "solar flare" idea was an attempt to do that, but while certain aspects of the concept (or more accurately the after-effect on Clark) could have been interesting... it just comes off as not well thought-out.

And as you said yourself, Flash and Green Lantern Corps have taken things and used them to diversify and make new ideas. That "could" be done with this aspect of Superman... it just isn't. Taking what you said: "the character still comes off".. that isn't the info, it's how they're doing/using it. That's all in the execution.

Here's another example: I think the fight between Superman and Batman in BvS is partly very good, and partly an insult to the character (both characters tbh). But I recognize that I could keep the major beats of the fight, particularly the outcome, and still make a more compelling 2nd half. While the story outline and the execution are linked because both were used to make that part of the movie, that doesn't mean both are all bad. As a matter of fact, that's my take on the whole film.. but that's another story.

I'd like to hope you're right about this, but Didio wasn't the root of the problem, he was just a symptom. This mindset was in place before he came in, and it goes well beyond DC's publishing division all the way up to whoever it is that approves of adaptations at WB.

It was, but it seemed to really take the forefront after Didio came on. I think it might have something to do with wanting the character to "match" the general public perception and with Reeve still in people's heads, that was the direction they chose to go.

Seems to me, there's two factors working against Clark. First, the legend of Superman itself. The perception of Superman has outgrown the character and become a detriment. People all around the world think of Superman as "Jesus in a cape" and those expectations are crippling him; the character itself has never been that, has never wanted to or tried to be that yet that's how people view the IP. And you need look no further than the first common complaint leveled at his adaptations to see the danger it poses; "It wasn't inspiring enough." What the f*ck does that even mean? Yet it's among the first complaint people will throw at Superman projects. If audiences don't leave a Superman project feeling like they saw the face of god, they think it's a failure. Overcoming this means changing people's preconceived notions about who and what and *why* Superman is. On a global scale. Changing that is virtually impossible, the only option is to make quality Superman product that's so fun it overcomes these flawed expectations and, gradually, people will stop expecting a "I saw the light!" experience and start expecting just a fun, interesting story.

I see it as a difference between what people want and what they "think" they want. They think of "Jesus in a cape" because that's the major thrust of how he's been presented. The allegory has been HEAVY handed to the point of parody. However, they also don't respond to a character that's ineffectual, and I'd argue that Superman has (in live interpretations) often been represented that way on at least some level in most recent interpretations. Manwhohaseverything is, imo, dead right when he say people would respond to a live-action Golden Age interpretation of Superman. He doesn't have to be positive all the time, but he does have to have a general sense of optimism to him. It also doesn't help that WB was making movies in 2013-2015 that would have played better when the first Brian Singer X-Men was in theaters. There's a reason why Flash's buzz (at least from what I saw) quickly eclipsed Arrow not long after it came out - times are changing.

The second problem is DC/WB. They buy into this idea of Superman as a "modern-day religious figure without the religion" too, but also seem to think that he's too vanilla, too boring, and needs a healthy dose of Batman angst rubbed into him to make him spicy enough for modern audiences. It's complete and utter, self-defeating BS, but it's what they seem to think. Fixing that is easy enough, fortunately; WB/DC just have to realize they're wrong and change their approach....or at least hire somebody who actually understands Superman and how to apply his character.

True. But then, they liked rubbing Bat-rubber on everything for decades. They're a fairly lazy company with few good in-house ideas - it's telling that the most enduring semi-"modern" interpretation came from people who basically had nothing to do with them (the Salkinds). I agree that they're the bigger problem - I just hope that others there are sick of it, too, and that those people have some amount of power/influence on things.

With Didio gone, the best we can hope for is that better creators come onto Superman and they can shift WB's opinion. From there, the larger media stuff can start using a new/better approach, and that'll eventually start to nudge the public's perception towards something more viable where the character can actually be what it's meant to be and flourish.

Absolutely. And if WB can get out of the way, I honestly don't think changing public perception would be all that hard. Superman can still have plenty of aspirational aspects without getting into religiosity territory.

[Kuwagaton]

Tbh bioelectric aura was used better than any "superpower" invented after the core set in making the character easier to draw. No one needed a contrived reason to show his clothing intact or needed the same attention to detail in figuring out how to depict a man holding real world objects with his palms. They could also show battle damage while keeping the blood and gore neater, given the implications of being able to rip his suit.

As far as exploration goes Ron Marz, Peter David, and the Kesels all did a great job in the 90s with Superboy. For Superman it works if you take into account that his powers all relate to his force of will, but sure it hasn't come up a whole lot in many years.

[JAK]

Tbh bioelectric aura was used better than any "superpower" invented after the core set in making the character easier to draw. No one needed a contrived reason to show his clothing intact or needed the same attention to detail in figuring out how to depict a man holding real world objects with his palms. They could also show battle damage while keeping the blood and gore neater, given the implications of being able to rip his suit.

As far as exploration goes Ron Marz, Peter David, and the Kesels all did a great job in the 90s with Superboy. For Superman it works if you take into account that his powers all relate to his force of will, but sure it hasn't come up a whole lot in many years.

Those are good points, all-around! I agree. Especially in regards to Superboy.

I think the aura idea went away as more of the Silver Age aspects came back in the early 2000's. It may have still been around, but they didn't make it a "thing" anymore.

[Ascended]

It was, but it seemed to really take the forefront after Didio came on. I think it might have something to do with wanting the character to "match" the general public perception and with Reeve still in people's heads, that was the direction they chose to go.

I imagine that's exactly what it was, yeah. Didio seemed keenly aware of general public consensus and the benefits of brand synergy. Which's usually smart business, but I think he failed to take into account the trajectory Superman's popularity has been on; I think he'd have been better off looking at the books at the height of their popularity and adapting it for contemporary sensibilities.

I see it as a difference between what people want and what they "think" they want. They think of "Jesus in a cape" because that's the major thrust of how he's been presented. The allegory has been HEAVY handed to the point of parody.

That's exactly what it is. People *think* they want Cape Jesus, and leave the theater complaining that they didn't see the face of god. Which they never will, because Superman's not suppose to elect that kind of response.

As I said, Superman's legend has grown beyond the character, to the detriment of us all.

However, they also don't respond to a character that's ineffectual, and I'd argue that Superman has (in live interpretations) often been represented that way on at least some level in most recent interpretations.

I'll have to take your word for it. I've heard pretty awful things about the CW's Superman but have never watched it. Though apparently the CW actor, Tyler whatever, did the voice lines for Sephiroth in FF7 Remake (so good!), so the dude can't be all bad.

It seems that everyone is stuck on that "god makes man.....man kills god" narrative cycle (gods know Snyder was when he made BvS), but all of that kinda misses the point of Superman; he's not the god that makes man or the god that man kills, he's "man becomes god."

Manwhohaseverything is, imo, dead right when he say people would respond to a live-action Golden Age interpretation of Superman.

Oh, completely agreed. I'm honestly kinda surprised it hasn't been done yet. With all the civil unrest the country has been in these last two decades it seems like an obvious thing to try, especially considering the lower budget requirements....I can only assume WB shoots the proposals down, because if *we're* saying this, there's professionals out there saying it too.

True. But then, they liked rubbing Bat-rubber on everything for decades. They're a fairly lazy company with few good in-house ideas - it's telling that the most enduring semi-"modern" interpretation came from people who basically had nothing to do with them (the Salkinds). I agree that they're the bigger problem - I just hope that others there are sick of it, too, and that those people have some amount of power/influence on things.

Well, once again we have to confront that overbearing, global legend. Maybe WB is sick of rubbing the Bat all over everything but that doesn't mean they get what makes Superman appealing, or would recognize the people to hire that do.

Absolutely. And if WB can get out of the way, I honestly don't think changing public perception would be all that hard. Superman can still have plenty of aspirational aspects without getting into religiosity territory.

One movie. That's all it would take to get the ball rolling; one successful movie that left people stumbling out of the theater riding a yellow sun high, saying "I didn't think that's who Superman was, but it should be!" A trilogy of films like that, and you've more than halfway won the war. And the irony is, a Superman movie that dealt with the actual character instead of the legend would probably do the job. You don't need to change Superman, you just have to write Superman and not the *idea* of Superman, or what you think he represents.

It's almost a shame Clark's not at Marvel (words I never thought I'd say); Fiege and the Russos would probably give us a damn good Superman film. Or at least one with wide appeal and great scores. I still maintain that MoS was a damn good film, but calling it "polarizing" is an understatement. Clark needs a big Avengers level win.

[Vordan]

A movie or anything really. A good video game or TV show would do wonders for his popularity. But none of that’s going to happen if WB keeps putting people who don’t care in charge. I don’t want to rehash Donner forever, but neither do I want such a total 180 from Donner that we get Supes crying in the ashes of Metropolis due to all the people he couldn’t save (and we still got Jesus imagery except somehow it was even LESS subtle than Donner).

The MCU Spider-Man movies offer a good way forward in terms of ground rules:
1. Show people stuff they haven’t seen already. That means no Lex and no Zod, we’ve seen that already. Brainiac or Metallo are my picks.
2. Focus on the core of the character. Drop the Jesus imagery and use the damn source material. It’s clear that people like Terrio who have never read a Superman comic in their life are ill-suited to make a story for him from scratch. Really I’d rather we just get Morrison or Johns to write it, Johns isn’t too my taste but he’d be Jesus-analogy free
3. Stop acting so damn ashamed of Superman. Let him have his Fortress, his Superdog, his Legion childhood friends, his MYTHOLOGY. No more “realistic” or “grounded” takes, it’s time to go high concept.

[SiegePerilous02]

A movie or anything really. A good video game or TV show would do wonders for his popularity. But none of that’s going to happen if WB keeps putting people who don’t care in charge. I don’t want to rehash Donner forever, but neither do I want such a total 180 from Donner that we get Supes crying in the ashes of Metropolis due to all the people he couldn’t save (and we still got Jesus imagery except somehow it was even LESS subtle than Donner).

The MCU Spider-Man movies offer a good way forward in terms of ground rules:
1. Show people stuff they haven’t seen already. That means no Lex and no Zod, we’ve seen that already. Brainiac or Metallo are my picks.
2. Focus on the core of the character. Drop the Jesus imagery and use the damn source material. It’s clear that people like Terrio who have never read a Superman comic in their life are ill-suited to make a story for him from scratch. Really I’d rather we just get Morrison or Johns to write it, Johns isn’t too my taste but he’d be Jesus-analogy free
3. Stop acting so damn ashamed of Superman. Let him have his Fortress, his Superdog, his Legion childhood friends, his MYTHOLOGY. No more “realistic” or “grounded” takes, it’s time to go high concept.

I don't know if I'd want Morrison writing a script, but Hell Yeah on him being an advisor. Though he produced and co-wrote some screenplays for Happy!, and that was pretty great, so maybe he could co-write a script?