Superman fandome thread

[Lokimaru]

Actually the Last Thirty years has been due to This guy (Michael Uslan) owning the Film Rights to Batman. He started the Batman Renaissance and kept it going. Batman gets Pushed because theirs Someone doing the pushing who gets to wet his Beak. Superman needs that but instead has people (Warners) dragging him down. Both party wet their beaks when a Film is made yet one seems to constantly want repeat business whilst the other doesn't. Warners Owns the Film Rights to Superman so can use or Not use the character as they see fit unlike Batman. Uslan loves Batman, That's why we Get Lots of Batman in Film.

[Myskin]

All of that sounds great. Especially liked the comparison to the Mass Effect games, a “Paragon” Shepard is basically Superman. Especially if you rolled a Vanguard and just charged and supernova’d your way through every fight like I did .

Err... I am not familiar with Mass Effect, but I know most of the references this guy uses throughout the pitch. And yes, it's cool. He also includes detailed outlines of Luthor, Brainiac (in this version, Brainiac has no discernible shape and he's basically an artificial God), Doomsday. There was a plan to include an entire section about the B-list villains (Metallo, Parasite, Mxyzptlk, etc), but unfortunately it was never completed. I don't think that every single detail of the pitch works, and of course the execution is even more important than the ideas, but at least 90% of the pitch follows what I consider the right direction. By the way, I found a way to link it. Enjoy...
http://bazzardthebazz.blogspot.com/2...tml?q=superman
http://bazzardthebazz.blogspot.com/2...tml?q=superman
http://bazzardthebazz.blogspot.com/2...tml?q=superman

It's not that this type of relaunch/reboot would necessarily rule out the most surreal elements - but my point is that one of the things Superman needs the most is a paradigm and a recognizable context on which creators could build something interesting, mature and possibly provocative for years. That's where Superman could learn a lot from Batman. You can have a bad Batman run from time to time, but once a new writer is abroad, he/she will always some elements to build a different story. They will have Gotham, Gordon, Arkham, that very specific Gotham atmosphere. On the contrary, once Bendis is off Superman/Action Comics the next writer won't have much to build on (unless they find a way to make President Superman stuff work). And I don't even hate Bendis, I actually think that he's a pretty good writer, I just think that his run never really delivered (our pal Superlad93's speculations about Bendis' run are actually more interesting than the run itself) and Superman still misses the paradigm he desperately needs.

The way I see hard sci-fi doesn't imply that we would need to know maths and physics to read Superman. I actually don't know much about physics myself and I have to take an effort to read Greg Egan's novels, but his short stories are perfectly readable and strongly imaginative. There is a short story of his about a guy who - for unknown reasons - wakes up each day in the body of a different person (a real person, with a real identity). The story has a serious, melancholic tone. Egan describes in detail how this unwilling psychic parasite thinks, what his life has been like since he was born, what normality means for him, etc.. That's what hard sci-fi/Weird Fiction/Cyberpunk/PostCyberpunk is for - more about "extreme" visions of existence, sexuality, alienness than anything else. China Miéville - who is mostly a fantasy writer - is basically a Super Grant Morrison. His works could be the most imaginative I have ever seen in literature - stuff like his Perdido Street Station novel is literally crammed with ideas and concepts, and he also uses a serious tone with a focus on political themes. He also did a celebrated run on Dial H for Hero years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial_H . I actually think that this type of vision could be strongly beneficial for very imaginative but generally underdeveloped Superman concepts, like the 5th dimension, Bizarro World - which isn't generally much more than a comedic device - or the Phantom Zone.

Potentially speaking, Hickman would certainly be able to deliver. But again, even if it sounds like a broken record: time, creative freedom and also interest on Hickman's part are key factors. I doubt we could get much with 5-6 Hickman issues. He should use Superman as a creative-owned character, turning him inside out for at least 4-5 years.

[manwhohaseverything]

When i said scientific competence. sure enough, i didn't mean you absolutely have to for producing an entertaining story. But, it helps. you can do an interstellar which is more impressive or you can do a gravity which is also alright.

Doing the scifi dystopian stuff would be great. But i feel ultimately, it would just be distraction until on a deeper level the character starts reflecting it(i just think, superman has a personality of a stick and sometimes it's preachy) and it starts changing the perception of the "naysayer". Otherwise, it won't matter. Writers will revert the character to what it was with world ."Naysayer" will keep saying the character is boring, now with a new coat of paint. I include myself in that partially.When you read books like these the main attraction is the protagonist character. The world, the theme, executions.. Etc they all come in later. If people feel superman himself is boring. They wouldn't be interested in whatever he can offer. The title of the books is superman and action comics.

[Vakanai]

Err... I am not familiar with Mass Effect, but I know most of the references this guy uses throughout the pitch. And yes, it's cool. He also includes detailed outlines of Luthor, Brainiac (in this version, Brainiac has no discernible shape and he's basically an artificial God), Doomsday. There was a plan to include an entire section about the B-list villains (Metallo, Parasite, Mxyzptlk, etc), but unfortunately it was never completed. I don't think that every single detail of the pitch works, and of course the execution is even more important than the ideas, but at least 90% of the pitch follows what I consider the right direction. By the way, I found a way to link it. Enjoy...
http://bazzardthebazz.blogspot.com/2...tml?q=superman
http://bazzardthebazz.blogspot.com/2...tml?q=superman
http://bazzardthebazz.blogspot.com/2...tml?q=superman

It's not that this type of relaunch/reboot would necessarily rule out the most surreal elements - but my point is that one of the things Superman needs the most is a paradigm and a recognizable context on which creators could build something interesting, mature and possibly provocative for years. That's where Superman could learn a lot from Batman. You can have a bad Batman run from time to time, but once a new writer is abroad, he/she will always some elements to build a different story. They will have Gotham, Gordon, Arkham, that very specific Gotham atmosphere. On the contrary, once Bendis is off Superman/Action Comics the next writer won't have much to build on (unless they find a way to make President Superman stuff work). And I don't even hate Bendis, I actually think that he's a pretty good writer, I just think that his run never really delivered (our pal Superlad93's speculations about Bendis' run are actually more interesting than the run itself) and Superman still misses the paradigm he desperately needs.

The way I see hard sci-fi doesn't imply that we would need to know maths and physics to read Superman. I actually don't know much about physics myself and I have to take an effort to read Greg Egan's novels, but his short stories are perfectly readable and strongly imaginative. There is a short story of his about a guy who - for unknown reasons - wakes up each day in the body of a different person (a real person, with a real identity). The story has a serious, melancholic tone. Egan describes in detail how this unwilling psychic parasite thinks, what his life has been like since he was born, what normality means for him, etc.. That's what hard sci-fi/Weird Fiction/Cyberpunk/PostCyberpunk is for - more about "extreme" visions of existence, sexuality, alienness than anything else. China Miéville - who is mostly a fantasy writer - is basically a Super Grant Morrison. His works could be the most imaginative I have ever seen in literature - stuff like his Perdido Street Station novel is literally crammed with ideas and concepts, and he also uses a serious tone with a focus on political themes. He also did a celebrated run on Dial H for Hero years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial_H . I actually think that this type of vision could be strongly beneficial for very imaginative but generally underdeveloped Superman concepts, like the 5th dimension, Bizarro World - which isn't generally much more than a comedic device - or the Phantom Zone.

Potentially speaking, Hickman would certainly be able to deliver. But again, even if it sounds like a broken record: time, creative freedom and also interest on Hickman's part are key factors. I doubt we could get much with 5-6 Hickman issues. He should use Superman as a creative-owned character, turning him inside out for at least 4-5 years.

This...is not what I want. To be more specific, stuff like Brainiac not having a form and etc. Because then it's just an Elseworld. Instead of rebooting characters into something completely different, what should be done is organically develop them in creative ways. Show the changes take place as they happen in quality stories. Don't just start from scratch with a new take that feels disconnected from what came before. It should be an evolution of the characters.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with Superman or his rogues. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, we just need to roll the darn thing down the road - aka they need to push him like they push Batman with people who understand his appeal. Frank Miller, Timm and Dini, Burton, Nolan, so many guys in comics and films and animation understood Batman. Singer and Snyder? Less so. Push the guy with the right creatives. All this talk of hard sci-fi is great, but it won't ever fix the problem. The problem isn't Superman, it isn't his rogues, it isn't that he missed some prior revolution or experimentation. It's that WB is loathe to use him, and when they do they're at a loss on how he's supposed to work. But because nothing we post here in this forum can fix that problem, we go off in these radical reimaginings and directions because they're fun to do.

Maybe it'd be easier to just find a director who gets Superman and wants to do him and petition the bejesus out of AT&T and start a social media hashtag thing. Probably won't work, but then we'd at least be trying to tackle the real problem head on.

[Myskin]

This...is not what I want. To be more specific, stuff like Brainiac not having a form and etc. Because then it's just an Elseworld. Instead of rebooting characters into something completely different, what should be done is organically develop them in creative ways. Show the changes take place as they happen in quality stories. Don't just start from scratch with a new take that feels disconnected from what came before. It should be an evolution of the characters.

If you are referring to the pitch I posted, that's a fan proposal for a possible revamp/reboot in the same vein of New52 or postCrisis or whatever.
If you'd like a development in-story instead of a reboot, there would be no reason not to do it and follow this very same direction - I actually fail to see the utility in any effort spent in trying to reconcile the different versions in-story, since Superman continuity doesn't make sense anyway.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel

I actually think they should. in the same vein of how Frank Miller reinvented the wheel when he basically rebuilt Batman with DKR.
Whether Frank Miller actually reinvented the character or expanded what was already there is a matter of opinion and ultimately irrelevant. The point is doing something equally important and innovative (and IMHO they can't anymore, 40 years after the 80s' revolution, but maybe I am wrong).

All this talk of hard sci-fi is great, but it won't ever fix the problem.

Look, it's pretty clear that we are not on the same page here, but I am pretty sure that finding a right tone and a completely new paradigm would be a HUGE step forward in making the character relevant or at least interesting. I wouldn't read Superman comics because of Superman. I would read Superman comics if they were interesting.

Maybe it'd be easier to just find a director who gets Superman and wants to do him and petition the bejesus out of AT&T and start a social media hashtag thing.

It won't work. For three reasons:
1- Petitions like this never work. We got the Snydercut because of completely unique circumstances.
2- Fans don't agree on what kind of Superman they would want. Everyone has his or her vision of what the character would be. For someone, getting JJ Abrams (who'd probably like to do Superman) would be a big deal. For someone else, Abrams would be a scourge.
3- Fans don't KNOW what they want. Even when they think they do, they don't - not really. I really don't think that it should be the fans' job to give creative directions (yes, I include myself in the number, even if I am not sure that I am a fan - these days, I am mostly an occasional reader). A lot of what DC has been doing with Superman - including Superman & Lois and Superman Returns - is actually WB's clumsy attempt at doing something fan-friendly. Fans may get their own idea of what the character should be, but it is exclusively WB's task to do something interesting. Even - especially - when it is something no fan has ever thought about.

[Vakanai]

If you are referring to the pitch I posted, that's a fan proposal for a possible revamp/reboot in the same vein of New52 or postCrisis or whatever.
If you'd like a development in-story instead of a reboot, there would be no reason not to do it and follow this very same direction - I actually fail to see the utility in any effort spent in trying to reconcile the different versions in-story, since Superman continuity doesn't make sense anyway.


I actually think they should. in the same vein of how Frank Miller reinvented the wheel when he basically rebuilt Batman with DKR.
Whether Frank Miller actually reinvented the character or expanded what was already there is a matter of opinion and ultimately irrelevant. The point is doing something equally important and innovative (and IMHO they can't anymore, 40 years after the 80s' revolution, but maybe I am wrong).


Look, it's pretty clear that we are not on the same page here, but I am pretty sure that finding a right tone and a completely new paradigm would be a HUGE step forward in making the character relevant or at least interesting. I wouldn't read Superman comics because of Superman. I would read Superman comics if they were interesting.


It won't work. For three reasons:
1- Petitions like this never work. We got the Snydercut because of completely unique circumstances.
2- Fans don't agree on what kind of Superman they would want. Everyone has his or her vision of what the character would be. For someone, getting JJ Abrams (who'd probably like to do Superman) would be a big deal. For someone else, Abrams would be a scourge.
3- Fans don't KNOW what they want. Even when they think they do, they don't - not really. I really don't think that it should be the fans' job to give creative directions (yes, I include myself in the number, even if I am not sure that I am a fan - these days, I am mostly an occasional reader). A lot of what DC has been doing with Superman - including Superman & Lois and Superman Returns - is actually WB's clumsy attempt at doing something fan-friendly. Fans may get their own idea of what the character should be, but it is exclusively WB's task to do something interesting. Even - especially - when it is something no fan has ever thought about.

You're right, we're not on the same page here, but most importantly on this aspect - you keep bringing up TDKR by Miller and how Superman missed getting some paradigm shift, but he did - All Star. And maybe because it's not the 80s anymore it's too late, I don't know. But what I do know is that it isn't the 80s anymore. Getting anything in the comics like you're asking for won't have any effect. Because all the comics are today is movie pitches. That's it. And they don't seem willing to give him a movie right now. Why are you so sure that the problem is him, when we haven't had a Superman movie where Superman was allowed to act like Superman since the 80s. Where is the evidence that the current or previous takes won't resonate with people? That a real good Superman movie won't work? Shouldn't we have one good and honest attempt at Superman that gets him right before we write him off and change him? If they actually pushed him like they should with creators who get him and he fails, then you'd have a point. But right now it just feels like you think he needs a new and radical change in the comic books just because that's what you want to read. And obviously I'm not going to agree with that.

[Vordan]

And you killed a **** ton of people too. Still a Hero.

Shepard is a soldier. Superman is not. They’re not the same.

[Myskin]

You're right, we're not on the same page here, but most importantly on this aspect - you keep bringing up TDKR by Miller and how Superman missed getting some paradigm shift, but he did - All Star..

This is something I have already talked about some posts ago, but I'll repeat it. All-Star is an excellent story in every aspect, and quality-wise I personally consider it on the same level with DKR. But it can hardly be used as a paradigm, because its mood and its atmosphere are so incredibly specific that they can work only within that specific narrative universe. It's as if Winsor McCay had created Superman. If you try to bring All-Star's atmosphere into an in-continuity work it is very likely that you'll fail. As a matter of fact, All-Star has never been really used as a paradigm since its final issue was released, that is 12 years ago. Even Morrison on his AC run did something completely different from All-Star instead of using it as a model. AC Jimmy Olsen and Krypto have nothing to do with their All-Star counterparts, for example.
DKR is an out-of-continuity story too, but it's a bit easier to use as a paradigm. And as a matter of fact, that's what they did. Of course, there is stuff which you can't use (like aging Selina Kyle), but the mood, the nature of Bruce's obsession, his relationship with Superman and the Joker which you see in DKR have been used in regular series thousands of time. And wherever DKR couldn't be used, the equally important (but just less extreme) Batman: Year One could. YO is an excellent example of a story you can build a lot on. Even by making some elements of the original story evolve and move away from Miller's vision.

Why are you so sure that the problem is him

Because I don't see the character as something separate from the stories we got in reality. Of course, there are some Superman stories which, personally speaking, I can vaguely imagine and I'd like to see in real books too. The same as everyone else. But it's not that I have an idealized vision of the character which lives independently of the stories. What we get is what the character is. It's like the whole thing about "Socialist Superman" or "Champion of the Oppressed" stuff. There are readers who strongly believe that Superman's real nature is the "Champion of the Oppressed" characterization Siegel & Shuster gave him in early stories. It's a position I can respect, but I don't really understand. For one simple reason: Superman was the Champion of the Oppressed for just a handful of stories, with a different characterization (he was basically Popeye in a cape) and - more importantly - in a moment when comic books were way more simplistic and naive than they are now, and in which Superman physically kicking Hitler's ass was something that could be accepted by the reader.
However, for the vast majority of the rest of his career, Superman has been mostly a defender of status quo and upper-middle class American values. The "Champion of the Oppressed" moments have been EXTREMELY rare. So at this point, in 2020, my only conclusion is that the "Champion of the Oppressed" stories have been the exception, and the "Defender of status quo" has been the rule. And that's why I fail to see the "Champion of the Oppressed" characterization as Superman's REAL personality. If anyone will ever bring that specific characterization into contemporary stories, in a convincing way and for enough time to make it Superman's paradigm, I will share the idea that "Socialist Superman" is the new rule and "Defender of status quo" is a dated characterization which belongs to the past. But those contemporary, "Champion of the Oppressed" stories, or movies, or TV series, don't exist. And IMHO they never will.

It's not that I don't see any potential in the character - I guess that if a very specific set circumstances became a reality, it could become interesting again (and no, it's not that I'd like to impose MY vision of sci-fi, even if - obviously - it's something I'd like to see. But I am open to different approaches). But there are so many flaws and problematic aspects in so many versions of the character - including versions a lot people are fond of, like Chris Reeve's - and these problems have been crippling the character for so many years that I strongly believe that a radical reinvention should be really necessary at this point. By the way, it's not that they never did it. They have already reinvented Superman's wheel with Byrne, even if not everyone is fond of that specific version.

[Vakanai]

This is something I have already talked about some posts ago, but I'll repeat it. All-Star is an excellent story in every aspect, and quality-wise I personally consider it on the same level with DKR. But it can hardly be used as a paradigm, because its mood and its atmosphere are so incredibly specific that they can work only within that specific narrative universe. It's as if Winsor McCay had created Superman. If you try to bring All-Star's atmosphere into an in-continuity work it is very likely that you'll fail. As a matter of fact, All-Star has never been really used as a paradigm since its final issue was released 12 years ago. Even Morrison on his AC run did something completely different from All-Star instead of using it as a model. AC Jimmy Olsen and Krypto have nothing to do with their All-Star counterparts, for example.
DKR is an out-of-continuity story too, but it's a bit easier to use as a paradigm. And as a matter of fact, that's what they did. Of course, there is stuff which you can't use (like aging Selina Kyle), but the mood, the nature of Bruce's obsession, his relationship with Superman and the Joker which you see in DKR have been used in regular series thousands of time. And wherever DKR couldn't be used, the equally important (but just less extreme) Batman: Year One could. YO is an excellent example of a story you can build a lot on. Even by making some elements of the original story evolve and move away from Miller's vision.


Because I don't see the character as something separate from the stories we got in reality. Of course, there are some Superman stories which, personally speaking, I can vaguely imagine and I'd like to see in real books too. The same as everyone else. But it's not that I have an idealized vision of the character which lives independently of the stories. What we get is what the character is. It's like the whole thing about "Socialist Superman" or "Champion of the Oppressed" stuff. There are readers who strongly believe that Superman's real nature is the "Champion of the Oppressed" characterization Siegel & Shuster gave him in early stories. It's a position I can respect, but I don't really understand. For one simple reason: Superman was the Champion of the Oppressed for just a handful of stories, with a different characterization (he was basically Popeye in a cape) and - more importantly - in a moment when comic books were way more simplistic and naive than they are now, and in which Superman physically kicking Hitler's ass was something that could be accepted by the reader.
However, for the vast majority of the rest of his career, Superman has been mostly a defender of status quo and upper-middle class American values. The "Champion of the Oppressed" moments have been EXTREMELY rare. So at this point, in 2020, my only conclusion is that the "Champion of the Oppressed" stories have been the exception, and the "Defender of status quo" has been the rule. And that's why I fail to see the "Champion of the Oppressed" characterization as Superman's REAL personality. If anyone will ever bring that specific characterization into contemporary stories, in a convincing way and for enough time to make it Superman's paradigm, I will share the idea that "Socialist Superman" is the new rule and "Defender of status quo" is a dated characterization which belongs to the past. But those contemporary, "Champion of the Oppressed" stories, or movies, or TV series, don't exist. And IMHO they never will.

It's not that I don't see any potential in the character - I guess that if a very specific set circumstances became a reality, it could become interesting again (and no, it's not that I'd like to impose MY vision of sci-fi, even if - obviously - it's something I'd like to see. But I am open to different approaches). But there are so many flaws and problematic aspects in so many versions of the character - including versions a lot people are fond of, like Chris Reeve's - and these problems have been crippling the character for so many years that I strongly believe that a radical reinvention should be really necessary at this point. By the way, it's not that they never did it. They have already reinvented Superman's wheel with Byrne, even if not everyone is fond of that specific version.

I only kind of skimmed through the post, but it's definitely an agree to disagree situation. You keep talking about the stories as if the comics are the important piece of the puzzle here, and they just aren't. And sure the comics constantly revert back to the defender of the status quo. But you never stop to consider the impact of having the Golden Age champion of the oppressed up on the big screen. The comics aren't going to change the comics. But something millions of people watch could. And that's assuming that you are right and how he is now couldn't work on screen if done right. But I don't think that is the problem. Basically we're talking about him like people did Aquaman. What he needs is just a damn fun movie. He hasn't had one in decades. I'd look there first.

[manwhohaseverything]

There are readers who strongly believe that Superman's real nature is the "Champion of the Oppressed" characterization Siegel & Shuster gave him in early stories. It's a position I can respect, but I don't really understand. For one simple reason: Superman was the Champion of the Oppressed for just a handful of stories, with a different characterization (he was basically Popeye in a cape) and - more importantly - in a moment when comic books were way more simplistic and naive than they are now, and in which Superman physically kicking Hitler's ass was something that could be accepted by the reader.

This much i can understand, agree and know of. I am not stupid enough to not realise the man of action as concept did change. But, as an allegorical character i do believe it is that simple for superman to have that conviction without being corrupted. If luffy can still punch "racists" and entertain me that way. I do believe i can get my superman in some ways or forms, someday or maybe not.Hey! There is always other avenues to get that flavour out there. But, still advocating for that is all i could do.

[Myskin]

I only kind of skimmed through the post, but it's definitely an agree to disagree situation. You keep talking about the stories as if the comics are the important piece of the puzzle here, and they just aren't.

Allow me to quote myself:

But those contemporary, "Champion of the Oppressed" stories, or movies, or TV series, don't exist. And IMHO they never will.

I am focusing on comic books just because the discussion took that direction. If they made a successful "Champion of the Oppressed" movie about Superman, maybe it would influence the comic books as well, and it would surely influence the audience's perception of the character. Burton's Batman '89 is at least as influential as Miller's DKR.

But you never stop to consider the impact of having the Golden Age champion of the oppressed up on the big screen.

Read above.
For the record, I'd watch a "Champion of the Oppressed" Superman movie with the right director and cast. I just don't think they'll do it. .
But if they did it, it would surely be a reinvention of the character. For a lot of reasons - you must make this specific version work in a contemporary context, you must adapt Superman into a movie AGAIN, etc. Basically, they should reinvent the Superman wheel to make him work in a very specific version, which is more or less the idea I have been supporting in my posts, even if not for the "Champion of the Oppressed" version.

[Ra-El]

This...is not what I want. To be more specific, stuff like Brainiac not having a form and etc. Because then it's just an Elseworld. Instead of rebooting characters into something completely different, what should be done is organically develop them in creative ways. Show the changes take place as they happen in quality stories. Don't just start from scratch with a new take that feels disconnected from what came before. It should be an evolution of the characters.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with Superman or his rogues. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, we just need to roll the darn thing down the road - aka they need to push him like they push Batman with people who understand his appeal. Frank Miller, Timm and Dini, Burton, Nolan, so many guys in comics and films and animation understood Batman. Singer and Snyder? Less so. Push the guy with the right creatives. All this talk of hard sci-fi is great, but it won't ever fix the problem. The problem isn't Superman, it isn't his rogues, it isn't that he missed some prior revolution or experimentation. It's that WB is loathe to use him, and when they do they're at a loss on how he's supposed to work. But because nothing we post here in this forum can fix that problem, we go off in these radical reimaginings and directions because they're fun to do.

Maybe it'd be easier to just find a director who gets Superman and wants to do him and petition the bejesus out of AT&T and start a social media hashtag thing. Probably won't work, but then we'd at least be trying to tackle the real problem head on.

I don' think we need to reivent the wheel neither, what we need is someone that will come to Superman and look at the character from a new angle. And again I will talk about Hickman here, more specifically about what he did with the X-Men.

He didn't changed their entire history, he didn't rebooted them, he only did one small retcon, that changed almost everything and he gave the X-Men a new status quo because of it. One character got a powerr that is nothing more than a low level time travel and everything changed. It certainly helped that Marvel gave him total control over the franchise, so he won't get dragged to every change in other books.

What I think Superman needs is not someone that will come and fix the character, but someone that will come and do something interesting and innovative. Do this person exist? I hope so, but probably not among the usual suspects, we hear writers, like Donny Cates talking about their 5 years plan for Batman or their notebooks full of Green Lantern ideas, but we rarely hear anyone talking about what they would do with Superman, the exceptions are guys like Mark Russel and Mark Waid, but DC don't want ot given a chance apparently.

But one think I certain, the boy scout and naive farm boy approach need to be put down for a while.

[Vakanai]

Allow me to quote myself:

I am focusing on comic books just because the discussion took that direction. If they made a successful "Champion of the Oppressed" movie about Superman, maybe it would influence the comic books as well, and it would surely influence the audience's perception of the character. Burton's Batman '89 is at least as influential as Miller's DKR.

Glad you agree that the movies are at least as influential as the books, because that's what we need to get Superman back up in popularity where we want him

Read above.
For the record, I'd watch a "Champion of the Oppressed" Superman movie with the right director and cast. I just don't think they'll do it. .
But if they did it, it would surely be a reinvention of the character. For a lot of reasons - you must make this specific version work in a contemporary context, you must adapt Superman into a movie AGAIN, etc. Basically, they should reinvent the Superman wheel to make him work in a very specific version, which is more or less the idea I have been supporting in my posts, even if not for the "Champion of the Oppressed" version.

Here is my main problem with that - Aquaman. I've been wanting a fun adventure movie with Superman for a nice long while. Most fans think he's a great fit for it. And then they make the Superman movie I and others have wanted, and they made a billion dollars. So I need a much better argument on why they need to reinvent Superman when it seems like the obvious thing to do is to make the movie they should have done with Superman already years ago but made for Aquaman instead.

That's where I am at. What I wanted them to do all along they did with another character instead to massive success. And yet we're to believe that's all wrong for Superman when it's never been tried and that we need to radically reinvent him instead?

That just doesn't resonate. I want my bombastic fun Superman adventure movie.

I don' think we need to reivent the wheel neither, what we need is someone that will come to Superman and look at the character from a new angle. And again I will talk about Hickman here, more specifically about what he did with the X-Men.

He didn't changed their entire history, he didn't rebooted them, he only did one small retcon, that changed almost everything and he gave the X-Men a new status quo because of it. One character got a powerr that is nothing more than a low level time travel and everything changed. It certainly helped that Marvel gave him total control over the franchise, so he won't get dragged to every change in other books.

What I think Superman needs is not someone that will come and fix the character, but someone that will come and do something interesting and innovative. Do this person exist? I hope so, but probably not among the usual suspects, we hear writers, like Donny Cates talking about their 5 years plan for Batman or their notebooks full of Green Lantern ideas, but we rarely hear anyone talking about what they would do with Superman, the exceptions are guys like Mark Russel and Mark Waid, but DC don't want ot given a chance apparently.

But one think I certain, the boy scout and naive farm boy approach need to be put down for a while.

Agreed. Clark went to school, he's traveled the world, he's been living in the big city for years now, and actual farm boys haven't acted like that in decades. Superman doesn't need a reinvention, but he needs to be written like he didn't just step off the farm and through a time vortex from the 1950s.

[Myskin]

That's where I am at. What I wanted them to do all along they did with another character instead to massive success. And yet we're to believe that's all wrong for Superman when it's never been tried and that we need to radically reinvent him instead?

That just doesn't resonate. I want my bombastic fun Superman adventure movie.

If you want a bombastic Superman movie, you'll probably get it at some point. If you want a movie with Superman as the Champion of the Oppressed, you probably won't.
Whenever and if they make a Superman movie again, they will probably play safe and create a popcorn blockbuster in which Superman will smile a lot, won't kill anyone and will have no social relevance in his world whatsoever, so no Champion of the Oppressed. It will probably be very similar to Superman - The Movie. Basically, a new version of Superman The Movie/Superman II - not a remake nor a sequel, so no Marlon Brando nor crystal fortress. But probably nothing as unique as Reeves' The Batman.
For a lot of people it will be everything they need. Personally speaking, I am not sure I would really care. It would depend on the director. A "Champion of the Oppressed" approach would probably be more interesting and relevant.

[Vakanai]

If you want a bombastic Superman movie, you'll probably get it at some point. If you want a movie with Superman as the Champion of the Oppressed, you probably won't.
Whenever and if they make a Superman movie again, they will probably play safe and create a popcorn blockbuster in which Superman will smile a lot, won't kill anyone and will have no social relevance in his world whatsoever, so no Champion of the Oppressed. It will probably be very similar to Superman - The Movie. Basically, a new version of Superman The Movie/Superman II - not a remake nor a sequel, so no Marlon Brando nor crystal fortress. But probably nothing as unique as Reeves' The Batman.
For a lot of people it will be everything they need. Personally speaking, I am not sure I would really care. It would depend on the director. A "Champion of the Oppressed" approach would probably be more interesting and relevant.

Didn't Aquaman kill some peeps in his movie? I could have sworn he did.

And all I want is for Superman to be a relevant superhero to the masses again, like all the MCU heroes and freaking Aquaman. The occasional champion of the oppressed would be nice to see from time to time again too, and I don't think it's all that impossible. Man can dream of two things.