Why not Superman Retro movies?

[Steel Inquisitor]

Not really, i was talking about the corruption of the former from the get go. Even that definition is very much in favour of my reasoning . Why? Cause fraudulent behaviour and dishonesty is relative.if there exists a city where you are supposed to lie and steal. Being honest and never stealing will infact be stealing and dishonest.Finally,who used there position of power to hide the real truth of creation of amestras state?mustang,elric brothers... Etc. If goku isn't about bushido ethics. Then he is corrupted. It's that simple for me. Not really, original character is always alive. He was in silverage and bronze age. Even byrne superman and donner superman wouldn't exist without goldenage superman. Silverage superman (kal el) had fairly been just a working class guy and immigrant to boot. It was in donner movies onwards that superman became more connected with jesus/knight superman became a thing. Others, took it and ran with that nonsense and ran it to the ground.

Which was a response to my post about ordinary political corruption not being allegory of anything. Except the argument being made as against a specific form of "corruption." No, that's not relative.
With that example being honest and not stealing would make them outsiders and marks for those who do, "not stealing" and being "dishonest" is also a really tough thing to police and it make the whole place a house of cards because humanity needs trust and community to survive. Father and his followers cover everything up and force the Elric's not going along with it by convincing the public that all is as it should be, it's a secret about the country's real purpose. That's the point. Corruption has a specific meaning, it's not just because a character is writing in a certain way. Except the Golden Age Superman as we know him didn't stay like the Siegel and Shuster made him, he changed long before Donner made his movie. It's true that that Superman built what they became but those are also separate individuals in their own right in their own universes. Every Superman was a reporter at the Daily Planet, that's a holdover from Siegel and Shuster. Reporters don't just stay in one class, they're like actors in that sense. I'm not talking about what Christianity had an impact on his character, he was doing things like fighting aliens before Donner.

Maybe not, but amestrus is made for that.furthermore, You are kidding yourself if you think state doesn't conduct any form of violence to keep its borders safe and have stability . I am not saying its unjustified or not. State has disadvantages.

Didn't say it wasn't, its just the concept of government isn't supposed to be that - ergo, corruption. Not your argument, that was what Father was doing wasn't corrupting the government. That has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Good for you mate, cause all i here is platitudes and drama worth nothing. Absolutely without essence . That ain't my jam and nor do i believe anyone who isn't looking for fluff or drama would want that for entertainment from action comics.It's boring. I want an action hero,not some wet towel. Siegel and shuster might not be the only voice. But, any writer that doesn't consider those voices aren't really writing superman. It's that simple. Punching robots and giant lizards was very much focus in the old comics. Superman had a personality. His powers weren't just taking a stiff pose. The guy used to do some cool looking things even when doing something mundane as taking care of a baby. You know, action in action comics.it was damn entertaining. Action in action comics is consistently subpar now. There is no showmanship. The choreography, the use of power, the scale of battles,strategies ... Etc is just underwhelming.

Those are facts. Millions disagree even when Golden Age Superman was in print. There's nothing in my description that doesn't fit "action" and that wasn't all he does fighting crime. Superman been all about social relationships and drama since S & S. I didn't say writers should ignore their interpretation, just that they weren't the final word. Those are incredibly vague complaints. Which is subjective, not fact.

[Prime]

We can just adapt the first arc of Morrison's AC

[manwhohaseverything]

Superman been all about social relationships and drama since S & S. I didn't say writers should ignore their interpretation, just that they weren't the final word

I am just going to have this and be done with it.No,siegel and shuster had tackled societal issues in their comics.Those old comics rarely had any drama of soap opera kind.The tone was different.When was the last time superman had a good creative action sequence?when was the last time people actually complained about sub par action in action comics and not some trivility like clark's mundane parents not being alive ?Yeah;it never happens cause people read action comics for getting fluff and drama.Imagine that an action hero that does not take action seriously.That's superman.Nope!superman is still siegel and shuster's creation every writer from morrison,moore ,maggin to byrne will tell you that without goldenage firecracker who kickstarted superheroes and was the pinnacle of a pulp hero there would not be a superman at all.So,they have the final say like toriyama does for dragon ball.who else does?the company?please.why?every superman is an adaptation of the original. Dcau? Yes. Donner? Yes. Postcrisis? Yes. It's just these aren't anywhere close to the success of the original. It's just writers now a days find action set pieces to be "not deep". Blah!

There is a reason batman suceeds .Even as a subversion, the guy brings the old western,samurai,pulp noir action hero feel and tone.While,Superman does a non-cute et version of "be good and hope harder" in a condescending stupid way.Superman has lost his roots as an action hero who was inspired by zorro,tarzan,john carter,doc savage ,harold llyod,hercules...etc.He is just a stupid savior and stereotypical "aw shucks!" naive farmboy.ta

[dianaminter93]

I don't think retro movie will do anything good for the man of steel, a powerful script might increase some chances of washing away the bad reviews. If that does happen than i will definitely call my friends who live in toronto condos to gather at my home for a movie.

[SiegePerilous02]

We can just adapt the first arc of Morrison's AC

It is tailor made for a modern Superman origin movie that shows him as still relevant while doing cool, crazy ****.

This and Rucka's Wonder Woman: Year One are my "just turn those into a movie' comics for future versions of those characters.

[bat39]

I've been thinking a bit about some of the earlier posts on this thread about the possibility of a Golden Age social crusader style Superman, and if its possible to do that without getting too deep into partisan politics and making the character or story divisive. And I think there just might be the template to do this kind of Superman...in CW's Arrow.

I'm talking specifically Season 1 of Arrow, though Season 2 and beyond do have some interesting points to contribute.

Now, unlike the comic-book Oliver Queen (well, the most iconic version of him anyway), the show's Oliver Queen is pretty apolitical. He's not a liberal or a left-winger or a self-proclaimed SJW (a totally cringe-worthy line from the first issue of Ben Percy's Rebirth run).

That said, at least at the start of the show, he's not someone content with basically playing a glorified cop. He's out to actively make a difference in the lives of people, especially Starling City's most vulnerable citizens.

For those who aren't familiar with the show...the overarching story-arc of Season 1 is that Oliver has a List of powerful and corrupt people in Starling City who have, through their actions, screwed over ordinary, and in some cases underpriveleged, citizens - be it through fraud, violent crimes or anything else. And his crusade at the start of the show is to make his way through the List by bringing those people to justice. And this justice doesn't necessarily involve handing them over to the cops. In some cases, its to force them to make retribution, and in other cases it's by killing them (though this happens less often than people tend to think when they discuss the show online these days).

In one episode, Oliver steals $40 million back from a corrupt financier who'd swindled pensioners, and returns them to all the people he ripped off. In another early episode, he works to get evidence to save a man on death row who'd been framed for murder by a CEO.

Since most of the people on the list are wealthy and powerful, there is a perception, in-universe, that the Arrow is a 'Robin Hood' figure who's targeting the wealthy, and he quickly gains a following among the ordinary citizen.

Now the truth is that Oliver's crusade isn't political. He isn't targeting these people because he's rich (hell, in Season 1, he's still a billionaire and by all accounts proud of his family legacy, even if he wants to atone for some of his father's misdeeds)...he's targeting them because they have used their wealth and influence to commit crimes that hurt innocent (and usually less priveleged) people, and then used that wealth and influence to stay above the law.

But the fact is that he's clearly someone who's trying to make a difference in the life of the ordinary person, to punish the guilty when the criminal justice system fails. And he isn't too bothered about due process or the law...though he avoids killing if he can help it.

I can see this working as a template for a Golden Age Superman, and its very much in the vein of the Siegal/Shuster stories. He'll beat the crap out of a domestic abuser. He'll violently interrogate a corrupt politician. He'll break into the Governor's mansion to save an innocent man from death row. He'll expose and punish corrupt businessmen who swindle the poor. And so on. Without bothering too much about upholding the law or due process.

Now this works well with an early Superman who's just starting out. He can lift a war, punch through a war, rip apart a steel door with minimal effort, leap across buildings etc. Its not really sustainable as he grows more and more powerful and literally has the power to take over the country (if not the world). Plus, while he gains support in the short term, in the long term, his actions do make him a bigger threat (or at least, perceived to be one), than the criminals and the corrupt people he's taking down.

Arrow gives a good example of how to gradually transition the protagonist from a ruthless vigilante towards a more heroic and inspirational figure - one who earns the wider support of citizens and whom the authorities can at least have an arms-length relationship with, if not a partnership. Now I'm not saying that the show didn't falter along the way, but by and large, it did a great job with Oliver Queen's character arc and transformation from vigilante to hero. And this is the same kind of arc we could see a Golden Age Superman have towards his more 'iconic' later interpretations. In fact, Morrison did this to some extent in his arc (though his focus was more on the scope and scale of Clark's adventures transitioning from the grounded Golden Age to the sci-fi wonders and horrors of the Silver Age).

Thoughts about this?

[DeancainSuperman]

So Warner Bros often times claim that superman is outdated or so on. Which I personally don't agree.
But then why don't they just make retro movies of superman, that seem like a perfectly logical conclusion.
Think about it, Ready Player One was a retro, It was a retro, Wonder Woman and Wonder Woman 1984 are both retro.
Honestly they could do a 1980s retro as homage to the Donner movies,
or even better, do a retro back to 1938 and show the decades of history for the man of steel.
Food for thoughts.

That would be awesome man pitch that to WB/DC!