Superman fandome thread

[Jon Clark]

Am I the only one that noticed how Jim Lee kept referring to Batman not Superman when giving the history of DC comics. Publishing for 85 years (1935) and 80 years for Batman. That for me was the final nail in the Superman coffin. Not only os Batman king today, but now they are rewriting history to make him all that ever mattered.

[Vakanai]

And that is basically what I said in that post (which I didn't realize was as long as it is).

WB has screwed up. And people's perceptions are a limitation on what you can get away with. But there's nothing wrong with Clark.

The bit about what AT&T decide to do? Doesn't matter if there's a "problem" with Superman, if AT&T *believe* there is. I'd like to think they're going to be wiser and smarter than WB have been about the character....but we won't know until we know.

I only quoted you to respond to the Mickey Mouse bit, not to agree or disagree on the rest of it (although it seems we do agree). Hopefully AT&T is wiser and greenlights a fun Aquaman styled adventure movie that doesn't over think it or tries to be melancholic or somber. We can only hope.

[Robanker]

Am I the only one that noticed how Jim Lee kept referring to Batman not Superman when giving the history of DC comics. Publishing for 85 years (1935) and 80 years for Batman. That for me was the final nail in the Superman coffin. Not only os Batman king today, but now they are rewriting history to make him all that ever mattered.

That started a while ago. Since the New 52, Bruce predates Clark in-universe. Hell, he's the inspiration for Clark's costume half the time now. Instead of the reverse which is factually what happened.

[SiegePerilous02]

Am I the only one that noticed how Jim Lee kept referring to Batman not Superman when giving the history of DC comics. Publishing for 85 years (1935) and 80 years for Batman. That for me was the final nail in the Superman coffin. Not only os Batman king today, but now they are rewriting history to make him all that ever mattered.

Salt in the wound.

It's not as if they have to downplay Batman mattering all that much. He IS a big deal for the company and should be treated as such in some capacity. But we literally would never have gotten Batman without Superman coming first and being successful, prompting a "what if we mixed Superman with a pulp hero like the Shadow?" brain storm. And Batman's association with Superman as part of the World's Finest doubtlessly played no small part in keeping Batman afloat while other heroes fell by the wayside.

Whether they do it deliberately or not, it's like they keep pitting these IPs against each other and it's wholly detrimental to Superman.

[kingaliencracker]

Someone else alluded to it and another outright stated it, and I'm going to reiterate...

Iron Man, Thor. Captain America, Captain Marvel...these are now billion dollar franchises and 15 years ago that would have been laughed at by the majority of comic book fans.

The issue with Superman has nothing to do with him being too dated or past his prime. He's been horribly mismanaged and disrespected by those in control of the character, point-blank.

[Vordan]

Funnily enough Superman was the one trending on Twitter yesterday, not Suicide Squad. So the idea that the general audience doesn’t care about or have an interest in him is bullshit frankly. There’s interest for sure. Aquaman made a goddamn billion, so **** WB they have zero excuse. When Terrio is namedropping Batman storylines he’s referencing for BvS and for Superman himself all we get is a load of crap about “sun god myths”, I just get so furious. It’s such pretentiousness and such a clear sign that the idiots in charge have no real interest in the character at all. Superman needs an actual comic book writer or someone who has read his stuff to write a movie script. We need a ban similar to MCU Spider-Man on previous elements that have already been used like ****ing Zod and Lex, I do not want to see another movie with those two until I’ve gotten at least three movies with other Superman Rogues.

It’s fine if you don’t like him WB, but then just don’t use him. Quit dumping on us with your dumbass Evil Superman plots.

[scary harpy]

That's basically it.

If you just look at the returns on most of the Superman stuff from the last few decades, it's not a impressive picture. But those "S" t-shirts still fly off the rack. It would not be wrong of AT&T, looking at this data, to conclude that Superman works as a mascot better than he does as a protagonist. Like Mickey Mouse; Disney doesn't make new Mickey movies, but they put his likeness on everything and it sells. Disney makes big money off the Mouse's likeness for very little effort. AT&T might view Clark the same way.

Mickey Mouse might not have any movies, but he's had quite a few cartoons for the last 20 years. Especially the past decade. I mean sure they're all for really little kids, but I think it would be good for Superman to at least get some cartoons for that age group.

And Superman does have all these recent DTV movies. That's not nothing.

Look, for some reason people like to make excuses for why Superman can't work, as if it can explain why we don't have great Superman movies. But after Aquaman I think we should just acknowledge it as bullcrap. Superman doesn't work because he's been mismanaged, end of story. All he needs is a James Wan type like Aquaman got who gets the character and can make a fun movie, and for the executives to approve it. Done. That's it, simple as that. Obviously not easy, practically have to get the stars to align just right to do it, but simple. Everything else is just a bid to justify the bad luck we've had as fans. There's nothing wrong with Superman, never was.

I agree with this post

And that is basically what I said in that post (which I didn't realize was as long as it is).

WB has screwed up. And people's perceptions are a limitation on what you can get away with. But there's nothing wrong with Clark.

The bit about what AT&T decide to do? Doesn't matter if there's a "problem" with Superman, if AT&T *believe* there is. I'd like to think they're going to be wiser and smarter than WB have been about the character....but we won't know until we know.

Yes, please!

Make Superman into ATT/WB/DC's Mickey Mouse!

With Krypto, Supergirl and Superboy, the Superfamily would appeal to children. Much of the Silver Age goofiness would also appeal to children.

You can tune into Disney Junior and watch all types of Mickey Mouse cartoons and animations. Disney knows how to market to children.

We Need Children...To Enjoy Superman. We Need Superman to introduce children to the DCU.

(If PJ Masks can do it, then it can be done.)

[The_Lurk]

Am I the only one that noticed how Jim Lee kept referring to Batman not Superman when giving the history of DC comics. Publishing for 85 years (1935) and 80 years for Batman. That for me was the final nail in the Superman coffin. Not only os Batman king today, but now they are rewriting history to make him all that ever mattered.

No, and now I'm even more glad I did not. Its disappointing; borderline heartbreaking . Weirdly as I do like both characters this constant bolstering of the Bat, now with doubling down on the cost of other characters, makes me more and more fed up with him. I mean its not the characters fault but I cannot see the Bat symbol anymore without rolling my eyes instead of having the nerdy grin from a decade ago.

[Myskin]

But Superman *is* flexible. This is where I disagree with my man Myskin. You can put him in any kind of narrative and make him work while still providing audiences with a Superman they'll recognize and accept.

Potentially speaking, you are right. But how many times have you seen this happen in reality in the latest 20, 30 years? And how many real chances are there that this may happen in the future?
I mean, OK, we have all seen, or even contributed to, potential Superman pitches. If you are a Superman reader and you have some imagination you can think of a potential way to make it work. How many times have we talked about Cyberpunk Metropolis, or Jon/Jor-El as Super Rick and Morty, or Lana Lang the explorer of the Fifth Dimension or something like that? But it's just in the realm of the possibilities. To make it work in a real story you would need a lot of efforts, creative freedom, interest on DC's or AT&T's part. And you still don't know whether the audience would accept it.

And there's another major factor: time. I agree with Sacred Knight regarding his point about Batman movies, and I'll take the opportunity to reiterate again my personal opinion regarding why Superman has become so problematic. My theory can be summarized in one sentence: Superman has missed the 1980s train.
There was one specific moment in 1980s when they started experimenting with Batman (both in comic books AND movies) but kept playing relatively safe with Superman. So we had Dark Knight Returns, Burton's Batman, TKJ, Arkham Asylum etc. IMHO it was something that could be started only in the 1980s because of a series of unique and unrepeatable circumstances (popularity of comic books, influence from Watchmen etc). Anyway, I like to think of all these books and movies as steps outside Batman's safe zone (something Dennis O'Neil had already partially started before the 1980s, not that radically though). With each step, they went a bit further.

The result is that now, 30 years later, creators (in all fields) have a LOT of unique source material they can use to recreate Batman all the times they want or need (and the list of experiments hasn't ended yet - I am thinking of Black Label) and the audience is ready to accept it. But to create this specific situation they needed time. I seriously doubt that if they had proposed something as radical as Reeves' The Batman in 1995 anyone (fans or powers that be) would have accepted it. It was just too soon. On the contrary, in 2020 you see Psycho Batman against Zodiac Killer Riddler and you think: cool, The Long Halloween meets Nolan's Batman meets David Fincher. It's more familiar and acceptable. It works also for stuff like Gotham - which I consider more or less terrible, but was made possible thanks to Gotham Central and Tim Burton (for some of the visuals).

Corporations like At&T will hardly ever get it, but in the long-term, more experimental/unrestrained creative approaches work as well as, and maybe better than, comic book events which are entirely motivated by sales. There still are shades from Knightfall/Quest/End on modern-day Batman (Dark Knight Rises etc.), but a lot of it seems to be completely obliterated (does anyone remember about Shondra Kinsolving?). On the contrary, 100% visionary stuff like Morrison's Arkham Asylum still works great as a source of inspiration for videogames, books and movies.

It's not that Superman couldn't have followed the same route. Again, we are in the realm of possibilities, and I would say that maybe, just maybe, if we had had Steve Gerber's and Frank Miller's Superman in the 1980s and creators had continued working on him the way they did with Batman, now Superman would be in a better position. But they didn't. I mean, to me it's not that surprising that we didn't have many Superman-focused Black Label books. Just look at the back catalogue - how many vaguely experimental OGNs or miniseries have we had about Superman in the latest 30 years? Superman basically never went out of the safe zone. It didn't happen in books (yes, All-Star is great, but it's ONE story and I am not sure that it would work as a source of inspiration) and it didn't happen in movies (yes, Snyder had Superman kill, but it's not that his contribution to the character was so important or acclaimed or even interesting, for that matter). So it's no wonder that we are still stuck with Death & Return or Donnerism, or nostalgic ridden remakes of stuff we have seen one million times.

I mean, everything is possible - it's just a fanboy dream, but concretely speaking nothing would prevent At&T from hiring, I don't know, Dennis Villeneuve or Tim Miller and create bizarre, completely crazy visuals à la Métal Hurlant or Love, Death & Robots for a new Superman. But I really can't see it happening. Mostly for two reasons : 1- Creative revolutions don't happen overnight and Superman has missed those essential 30 years, and 2- Superman is in a bizarre position now, he's basically too iconic to be completely forgotten or even radically revamped (it's not the 1980s anymore), but at the same time he's so stuck in a specific version of himself that it's almost impossible to use him in a creatively interesting way. And by the way, if anyone had some hopes in that regard, the revamp/creative revolution/whateveryouwanttocallit will definitely NOT come from Superman & Lois.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say the last time we got really, really close to something really new and unique about Superman was when Burton's Superman was in the works. Nothing which came after Burton can be compared to that specific project, including the aborted FLYBY movie pitch. I mean, it's quite easy to look at Burton's sketches and say "BUUUT... IT'S SUPER-EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, WE DODGED A BULLET!". But if the film had become a reality and had been successful, I am pretty sure that a lot of Superman-related things would have changed for the better. It would have opened the doors to a lot of interesting stuff in books and comics. And if something from the movie had been too out-of-place or simply unusable for future Superman works, well, it would have simply been forgotten and maybe they would have kept the good stuff, like the techno-organic alien visuals and atmosphere. As it often happens. I mean, I am not really fond of 1978 Superman, but a lot people still remember about Superman and Lois flying through the night, and no one remembers Gene Hackman's collection of wigs.

[manwhohaseverything]

Am I the only one that noticed how Jim Lee kept referring to Batman not Superman when giving the history of DC comics. Publishing for 85 years (1935) and 80 years for Batman. That for me was the final nail in the Superman coffin. Not only os Batman king today, but now they are rewriting history to make him all that ever mattered.

Well, they don't mention dr. Occult as dc's first superpowered character either. They wouldn't say that phantom was the first costumed hero. Zoro was the first masked vigilante . Whatever makes money, has a long history they can use to sell and make money. They will use it.

Funnily enough Superman was the one trending on Twitter yesterday, not Suicide Squad. So the idea that the general audience doesn’t care about or have an interest in him is bullshit frankly. There’s interest for sure. Aquaman made a goddamn billion, so **** WB they have zero excuse. When Terrio is namedropping Batman storylines he’s referencing for BvS and for Superman himself all we get is a load of crap about “sun god myths”, I just get so furious. It’s such pretentiousness and such a clear sign that the idiots in charge have no real interest in the character at all. Superman needs an actual comic book writer or someone who has read his stuff to write a movie script. We need a ban similar to MCU Spider-Man on previous elements that have already been used like ****ing Zod and Lex, I do not want to see another movie with those two until I’ve gotten at least three movies with other Superman Rogues.

It’s fine if you don’t like him WB, but then just don’t use him. Quit dumping on us with your dumbass Evil Superman plots.

I agree, with this sentiment.

[Vordan]

Heh you sound like Dispenser of Truth, Myskin. He’s written on his tumblr that Byrne’s revamp, DKR, and the Reeve Superman films are what’s crippled Superman in the long run. I definitely think the Byrne run bears a lot of the blame, it’s an incredibly dated work that is far too entrenched in the 80s Reagan Era compared to Batman Year One or even Perez WW, but I disagree that Superman doesn’t get experimental stuff. What is Morrison’s New 52 Action Comics run if not exactly that? Or Landis American Alien mini which has Supes getting drunk and having premarital sex (Remember kids there’s no masturbation in the DCU, straight from Neil Gaiman)? Or Yang’s Superman Smashes The Klan which is a period piece based on the old radio show? Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen was basically a All-Star Jimmy Olsen series and Superman was wonderful in that.

Also your assumptions about Black Label seem to be based on the belief that writers aren’t pitching Superman OGNs to DC, which isn’t the case. Before WW Dead Earth, DWJ pitched an OGN revolving around Pa and Clark about Pa dealing with his Christian faith in light of knowing aliens are real. DC said no. Another artist on Twitter a while back posted art from his post apocalyptic Superman story he pitched DC. DC passed. It’s just like a Superman video game: Devs pitch but WB always passes. People do want to do stories with him, but WB doesn’t. They’ve got no faith in him and don’t want to invest more than the bare minimum in him.

[manwhohaseverything]

Heh you sound like Dispenser of Truth, Myskin. He’s written on his tumblr that Byrne’s revamp, DKR, and the Reeve Superman films are what’s crippled Superman in the long run. I definitely think the Byrne run bears a lot of the blame, it’s an incredibly dated work that is far too entrenched in the 80s Reagan Era compared to Batman Year One or even Perez WW, but I disagree that Superman doesn’t get experimental stuff. What is Morrison’s New 52 Action Comics run if not exactly that? Or Landis American Alien mini which has Supes getting drunk and having premarital sex (Remember kids there’s no masturbation in the DCU, straight from Neil Gaiman)? Or Yang’s Superman Smashes The Klan which is a period piece based on the old radio show? Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen was basically a All-Star Jimmy Olsen series and Superman was wonderful in that.

Also your assumptions about Black Label seem to be based on the belief that writers aren’t pitching Superman OGNs to DC, which isn’t the case. Before WW Dead Earth, DWJ pitched an OGN revolving around Pa and Clark about Pa dealing with his Christian faith in light of knowing aliens are real. DC said no. Another artist on Twitter a while back posted art from his post apocalyptic Superman story he pitched DC. DC passed. It’s just like a Superman video game: Devs pitch but WB always passes. People do want to do stories with him, but WB doesn’t. They’ve got no faith in him and don’t want to invest more than the bare minimum in him.

It's not that they aren't doing experimental stuff. They just don't impact the character in the long run and become the status like say allstar. Evem allstar has people learning wrong lessons like grounded. Morrison's action didn't, Yang’s klan isn't and american alien isn't . Moreover, these aren't being translated well into other media as well.
And they soemtimes overestimate superman's revenue as well. both mos and superman returns had bloated budgets.

[Myskin]

Heh you sound like Dispenser of Truth, Myskin. He’s written on his tumblr that Byrne’s revamp, DKR, and the Reeve Superman films are what’s crippled Superman in the long run. I definitely think the Byrne run bears a lot of the blame, it’s an incredibly dated work that is far too entrenched in the 80s Reagan Era compared to Batman Year One or even Perez WW, but I disagree that Superman doesn’t get experimental stuff. What is Morrison’s New 52 Action Comics run if not exactly that? Or Landis American Alien mini which has Supes getting drunk and having premarital sex (Remember kids there’s no masturbation in the DCU, straight from Neil Gaiman)? Or Yang’s Superman Smashes The Klan which is a period piece based on the old radio show? Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen was basically a All-Star Jimmy Olsen series and Superman was wonderful in that.

Also your assumptions about Black Label seem to be based on the belief that writers aren’t pitching Superman OGNs to DC, which isn’t the case. Before WW Dead Earth, DWJ pitched an OGN revolving around Pa and Clark about Pa dealing with his Christian faith in light of knowing aliens are real. DC said no. Another artist on Twitter a while back posted art from his post apocalyptic Superman story he pitched DC. DC passed. It’s just like a Superman video game: Devs pitch but WB always passes. People do want to do stories with him, but WB doesn’t. They’ve got no faith in him and don’t want to invest more than the bare minimum in him.

Of all the Superman works you have mentioned, the only one I'd really consider experimental is Fraction's Jimmy Olsen. But it's not a Superman story, even if Superman appears in it. Moreover, Fraction's experimentation is mostly about the storytelling. It's not something you could really use in a movie (well, unless you go 100% Wes Anderson, and no, it won't happen), and you can't build anything upon it in comic books. As a story it is, and probably will always be, its own thing. To a lesser degree, that's the same problem All-Star has. It's probably the best Superman story ever, but a lot of elements can exist only within that specific universe. Put All-Star Lex Luthor into continuity, and as a character he doesn't work anymore. A lot of Byrne-related stuff is dated and not as original as some Frank Miller/Alan Moore stuff, but you could build a lot on his version of Krypton. In fact, that's what they did. Most of what they did in Superman book for at least two decades is built on Byrne's mythology.

Morrison's Action Comics is not nearly as experimental as All-Star is, or even as a lot of classic Batman books are. Some AC issues are good, some issues aren't particularly original and other issues are all over the place. Some of the best parts are about specific and not really usable versions of Superman, like President Superman. Some parts, like Captain Comet, have been forgotten more or less immediately. American Alien and Smashes the Klan are fine, but it's mostly because of the execution. Again - they are more like nice variations on a familiar theme than anything else. I doubt that anyone outside of Nerdville would care about Superman's premarital sex. And if they did, well, boy is Superman in even deeper troubles than I had ever imagined. However, Batman has the upper hand here too. When the classic Legends of the Dark Knight series still existed, Batman got his average Smashes the Klan story on a monthly basis. And it lasted for more than 200 issues.

I wouldn't put too much interest in aborted Superman books or videogames, mostly because we don't know much about them. Regarding videogames, we have mostly rumors and a couple of sketches/screenshots. There are no facts to talk about. The same could be said about the potential Superman books. We don't know much about the quality of the pitch, nor about the reasons why they got canned. For all we know, maybe the plans were just not convincing or well-done enough to become a reality. By the way, I am pretty sure that there are a lot of Batman pitches which never become reality either. However, if I had to take a bet, well, I'd say that there are generally way more Batman pitches than Superman pitches.

[GreatKungLao]

[Ascended]

Potentially speaking, you are right. But how many times have you seen this happen in reality in the latest 20, 30 years? And how many real chances are there that this may happen in the future?

Over the last thirty years? Rarely. But that's not a mystery, this is when the mismanagement of the IP really began to manifest in obvious ways.

In the future? Well that's a question. And being the cynical son of a bitch that I am I wouldn't start placing bets on it happening. But I wouldn't totally rule it out either. If you and I can see this, and if we can read the data and come to these conclusions (and I don't disagree with your points) then people who are actually in a position to do something about it could see it too. There's an obvious discrepancy at play here when you compare the revenue stream to the (lack of) success in adaptation. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that someone at AT&T would like to fix that and bring that revenue back up. And since the typical approach doesn't work, the only real avenue left is experimentation.

And there's another major factor: time. I agree with Sacred Knight regarding his point about Batman movies, and I'll take the opportunity to reiterate again my personal opinion regarding why Superman has become so problematic. My theory can be summarized in one sentence: Superman has missed the 1980s train.

Corporations like At&T will hardly ever get it, but in the long-term, more experimental/unrestrained creative approaches work as well as, and maybe better than, comic book events which are entirely motivated by sales.

Yeah, Clark missed the 80's era of experimentation and re-imagining and that's hurt him. But he's not dead yet either.

Totally agree about comic Events. Far as I'm concerned those do more damage than anything, actually. For the most part they have no real impact on most IP's, and the ones they do impact tend to be in big, shock value gimmick-y ways that don't add anything and only detract from the development of the property.

But I really can't see it happening. Mostly for two reasons : 1- Creative revolutions don't happen overnight and Superman has missed those essential 30 years, and 2- Superman is in a bizarre position now, he's basically too iconic to be completely forgotten or even radically revamped (it's not the 1980s anymore), but at the same time he's so stuck in a specific version of himself that it's almost impossible to use him in a creatively interesting way.

Like I said, I wouldn't bet on a Super revolution either. I don't even disagree with the points you're making really, but I don't think we're past the point where the IP's trajectory can be changed...and I think right now, we're looking at an opportunity to see improvement. In the last year we've had two relatively experimental stories in Smashes the Klan and Year One. Hell, even Bendis has been making some pretty big changes to the status quo and experimenting with things to a point. DC is about to make huge changes to the way it produces content, and in this, a degree of experimentation is almost a necessity.

And one thing I think you might be neglecting; how cultural shifts impact a IP's treatment and appeal. The 80's wasn't a decade that naturally gravitated to Superman's brand of heroism/entertainment. It was a very material-driven, selfish era and it lent itself easily to the lowest common denominator of entertainment and this helped make the "grimdark" approach to Batman so popular (Batman 89 and DKR wouldn't have worked nearly so well in the 60's, for example). And I think we're possibly approaching a new cultural shift in America now. If so, then that presents a new opportunity for Clark. Maybe he missed the cultural revolutions of the 80's but he could still ride the next wave.

Like I said, I wouldn't bet on anything. And maybe I'm just feeling a little optimistic right now, given that Nightwing's treatment is starting to improve, but while it might be long odds I do think Superman has a chance here, between the unrest in the country, the chaos at AT&T/DC, etc., to gain some of the ground he's lost. Will he become DC's #1 again? Probably not. Could we get some better Superman material across media platforms, and some real legit successes, in the next few years? Possible.

And Superman *is* all about beating the long odds, right?