Why not Superman Retro movies?

[manwhohaseverything]

The ideal version of Superman that people have was never the reality of the character in the actual period published. If it was, Superman would never have been embraced the way he was in the America of the '40s and '50s. The mainstream of that era was racist and any successful mainstream work in that era has an asterisk mark next to it for that reason.

You know founding fathers are guilty of many of the things you accuse superman of. You do know that gandhi had racist and bigoted views on black People atleast when he was young. Right? Yet, they still have movies on gandhi. What they do is either show how wrong gandhi was and his change. Or don't really focus on that part. That doesn't mean we shove of everything these guys did or had to say. The declaration independence as far as i am concerned is one of the best written things out there.

I know there is no ideal version. If you want superman to be a part of racist war propaganda. I would oblige and tell you how the flawed the racism was. I wouldn't be against superman showing support to the american troops against Nazi's and imperial government that were massacring people in surrounding islands, china, korea... Etc. I would only show that his views on certain things or how he handled certain things were bad or flawed. Moreover, you do know one piece is for young boys as well. The author largely views his story like an imaginary tale or laugh tale as well. The thing is, people have leanings and sometimes authors chose to channel a particular leaning in a character or they channel themselves in the character. It's that simple. I am a manga guy and i read old literature. I do deal with dickens view of the hindus and still read his book. I know the problems with tintins origins and creators as well. So don't bring up that nonsense with me. As far as i am concerned siegel and shuster are just flawed but good enough voices of a bigone era. I see people as they are.It's the principles and ideals that matter.

[SiegePerilous02]

Well your next sentence says...

I think Ascended meant stories like Smashes the Klan or Morrison's Action, which is set in the modern day but looks to the earliest comics for inspiration and do so without the racist propaganda.

And, how does that prove your point? In fact, it proves mine. The title of the story "Smashes the Klan" reflects the fact that nobody wants to do a Superman story set in the 40s without Superman actually addressing the failings of that period of history. There's no audience for the kind of straightforward period idyll you are suggesting. If you were to go ahead and do an actual Superman movie set in the '40s, people are gonna ask "Has he closed Auschwitz yet?" right from the get-go.

He's not suggesting that. Nobody really is.

I disagree completely. The art style for Superman TAS was colorful, bright, sun-shiny exactly the contrast you needed from BTAS. It would never have worked for the DCAU as a whole because it expanded to include groups like Justice League and characters like The Flash and Green Lantern whose versions we see here were created well after the '40s.


Hard disagree.

I think you could have gotten the brighter aspects of STAS without ditching the retro style. It wouldn't have fit the larger DCAU, but I'm not just talking about the retro aspects. BTAS had much more detailed animation and better use of shadows and atmosphere. The more detailed designs didn't animate as consistently well as the more streamlined ones later, but they looked better with the right animations studio behind it. For example, the early Clayface episodes look better than almost anything that came afterward.

The only logical way for Superman to deal with that is, a) release them from the camps, b) take on Uncle Sam and the US Govt, c) be reviled by the American media and American society for being a commie, d) fight the US Army who are armed with Kryptonite, e) Lead a revolution that ultimately topples the government.

The Japanese Internment system was quite popular in its time and had mainstream support, and while there was some murmurs and complaints about it post-war, America never apologized for that officially until the '80s. If you do a story where Superman fights and opposes that as it was happening, the story can't have Superman end the story as an all-American hero. That's the biggest issue dealing with this.

Superman is supposed to be in-universe a beloved, popular hero embraced by American society. That's fine if you do a story with personal takes and genre trappings (i.e. the kind where Superman battles robots and Luthor and Brainiacs i.e. the usual comics stuff). But if you set that against history, you run into a problem, Superman can't be the universally loving and heroic champion of the oppressed and be embraced by mainstream America in the '40s to '60s. This was the entire point of Watchmen, real-life beloved celebrities of that time across entertainment and sports had racist and LGBT views of that time and were embraced by mainstream America in that time. The ones who spoke against that, were condemned.

If he's not going to be lovingly embraced by mainstream American society in such a story...so be it. That doesn't sound like a valid reason not to do it. He's not here to be loved by the American government and society if he thinks there are things wrong with it. He does things because they are the right thing to do, not because he wants to be popular among the mainstream. If we're taking the core ideas that went into the character and bringing them to their logical conclusion from the perspective of our modern society, he's not going to be popular in-universe among the mainstream. He shouldn't be limited by a "America needs to love him and he needs to love America" mentality.

I don't know, that to me was never the appeal of Superman.

It doesn't have to be the only appeal, but I think it's essential. What do you think the main appeal is?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

He shouldn't be limited by a "America needs to love him and he needs to love America" mentality.

A number of important Superman stories do in fact run on that premise. It's the entire reason why Superman was raised in Kansas and had a Norman Rockwell childhood. It's behind stories like "What's so funny about Truth Justice and the American Way?"

The point is that any attempt to do a period film with Superman, whether it's the '40s and '60s invites a range of historical questions that the character isn't build to address...or to be specific, Superman isn't-built-to-address-these-questions-and-remain-Superman-as-people-will-accept-him-and-know-him.

You would have to change and transform the character in such a way that you would basically be making a movie for no one which says nothing. All it would say is "Wow Superman really doesn't work in reality, or for grownups" and it would double down and reinforce the idea of Superman as old fashioned and unfitting for the times.

It doesn't have to be the only appeal, but I think it's essential. What do you think the main appeal is?

The main appeal of Superman is...he has cool costumes, cool logo, cool powers. That's it.

Superman merchandise does well, and merchandise is the real true introduction of the character for new audience. Young kids know Superman's Shield and his costume long before they ever read up wikipedia or see any media with Superman. The toys, the stickers, the posters, the bedspreads, and so on...that's Superman as he first appears to a new set of eyes. Superman comics in the golden and silver age were made for children, they weren't intellectual stuff. So a lot of this fancy high falutin' ideas people attach to Superman and the reasons for doing the story in a period setting, that was entirely apart from the true reasons for his popularity and endurance in the Golden Age.

Just do Superman as a genre character and genre stories. Approach him as you would any character. People need to get over the fact that Superman was the first hero, and biggest hero for a big stretch. He was then, what is he now? Now Spider-Man is the biggest hero by merchandise and overall IP reach. Batman is biggest in DC. Shazam's first movie was more profitable than his most recent outings. So Superman needs to get back to the genre and work in that vein. In the actual 40s, Fawcett Captain Marvel was the biggest superhero, and he outsold Superman. So it's not like even in the Golden Age, it was inevitable that Superman would have been what he became or the current status of Superman is so far apart from the actual '40s. To make him be that guy, he needs to work as a character first. Whereas for a long time, people have made him work as this icon and so on. He has to be a character first before he becomes an icon again.

[SiegePerilous02]

A number of important Superman stories do in fact run on that premise. It's the entire reason why Superman was raised in Kansas and had a Norman Rockwell childhood. It's behind stories like "What's so funny about Truth Justice and the American Way?"

The point is that any attempt to do a period film with Superman, whether it's the '40s and '60s invites a range of historical questions that the character isn't build to address...or to be specific, Superman isn't-built-to-address-these-questions-and-remain-Superman-as-people-will-accept-him-and-know-him.

You would have to change and transform the character in such a way that you would basically be making a movie for no one which says nothing. All it would say is "Wow Superman really doesn't work in reality, or for grownups" and it would double down and reinforce the idea of Superman as old fashioned and unfitting for the times.

I actually think the mentality in your first couple sentences is reinforcing the idea that he's old fashioned and unfitting for the times without you realizing it. The idealic Kansas Norman Rockwell childhood didn't really start to be cemented until the post-Crisis version. Before that his childhood either wasn't focused on that much (Golden Age) or it was put through the same weird filter as everything else and certainly wasn't normal (Silver Age). He also couldn't return home for Apple Pie with Ma and Pa because they were dead, and he didn't angst about it like a modern hero would. "What's so funny" has frequently been criticized as a strawman story in which Superman comes across as naïve and doesn't actually prove his point in a convincing way, he just asserts his dominance against the villains he disagrees with. The post-COIE take doubled down on a lot of tropes that made Clark a naïve farmboy, which has done damage to his popularity overtime and one of the reasons Batman has overtaken him in popularity. Modern audiences can't relate to a Norman Rockewell childhood and they have no interest in it. And it's not even something intrinsically tied to Superman so why burden him with it?

If he wasn't built to address these issues and remain Superman, why did the "Clan of the Fiery Cross" radio serial help negatively impact the KKK's reputation (https://www.inverse.com/entertainmen...hes-the-klan)? There are certain types of people the character SHOULD be pissing off and taking stands against and a Superman story shouldn't be afraid to attempt to be controversial. Wonder Woman is another, if we're being true to her character she should be raising discussions that would generate strong opinions and upset some people. Her best modern run had her wright a book that had the nation divided. Not doing this with either is holding them back and part of why 2/3 of the DC Trinity don't get the attention they deserve.

The main appeal of Superman is...he has cool costumes, cool logo, cool powers. That's it.

Superman merchandise does well, and merchandise is the real true introduction of the character for new audience. Young kids know Superman's Shield and his costume long before they ever read up wikipedia or see any media with Superman. The toys, the stickers, the posters, the bedspreads, and so on...that's Superman as he first appears to a new set of eyes. Superman comics in the golden and silver age were made for children, they weren't intellectual stuff. So a lot of this fancy high falutin' ideas people attach to Superman and the reasons for doing the story in a period setting, that was entirely apart from the true reasons for his popularity and endurance in the Golden Age.

Just do Superman as a genre character and genre stories. Approach him as you would any character. People need to get over the fact that Superman was the first hero, and biggest hero for a big stretch. He was then, what is he now? Now Spider-Man is the biggest hero by merchandise and overall IP reach. Batman is biggest in DC. Shazam's first movie was more profitable than his most recent outings. So Superman needs to get back to the genre and work in that vein. In the actual 40s, Fawcett Captain Marvel was the biggest superhero, and he outsold Superman. So it's not like even in the Golden Age, it was inevitable that Superman would have been what he became or the current status of Superman is so far apart from the actual '40s. To make him be that guy, he needs to work as a character first. Whereas for a long time, people have made him work as this icon and so on. He has to be a character first before he becomes an icon again.

You say he needs to be a character again, but also say his main appeal is costume, powers and logos? That doesn't go together.

And again, it doesn't even have to be a direct period setting. It can be a modern setting that looks to the older stuff for inspiration. Morrison's New 52 Superman was the perfect model for what a contemporary Superman should be and they foolishly cut the legs out from under him. That was a marriage of the Golden and Silver ages, he was a genre hero doing a lot of bizarre, cool and high concept stuff but had the Champion of the Oppressed thing at his core. When they tone him down where he can't do anything cool or bizarre or exciting anymore but also doesn't stand for anything in particular he's been left in a tough spot. Most of the stuff you are saying he should have, be the guy America loves and have a Normal Rockwell childhood that nobody in the modern day can relate to and isn't do anything to rock the boat, is holding the character back. The character needs to hook people beyond their initial exposure to the merchandise he's moving.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If he wasn't built to address these issues and remain Superman, why did the "Clan of the Fiery Cross" radio serial help negatively impact the KKK's reputation (https://www.inverse.com/entertainmen...hes-the-klan)?

First of all, the impact of that Superman serial on the KKK's status is heavily exaggerated and disproportionate in comics' press, because obviously it validates them if a Superman story had impact on real world villainy. So they take a sliver and morsel and make it bigger than it was.

The KKK remained active and a force, and still does to some extent, well after that. Have you seen the movie BlackKklansman? That was set in the '70s and what it showed was that the KKK adapted and tried to make its white supremacy evolve to dog whistle, and they went on to try and infiltrate US law enforcement. And you know what, the KKK is still active, David Duke is still alive.

You say he needs to be a character again, but also say his main appeal is costume, powers and logos? That doesn't go together.

Yeah it does. Superman works best as a genre story and character, and the trappings of that genre are fine. Make us care when he fights Brainiac and sell those emotions, emotions which give weight and purpose to the trappings of the "costume, powers, and logos".

[SiegePerilous02]

First of all, the impact of that Superman serial on the KKK's status is heavily exaggerated and disproportionate in comics' press, because obviously it validates them if a Superman story had impact on real world villainy. So they take a sliver and morsel and make it bigger than it was.

The KKK remained active and a force, and still does to some extent, well after that. Have you seen the movie BlackKklansman? That was set in the '70s and what it showed was that the KKK adapted and tried to make its white supremacy evolve to dog whistle, and they went on to try and infiltrate US law enforcement. And you know what, the KKK is still active, David Duke is still alive.

I'm well aware they are still active (unfortunately) and it was made a bigger deal than it was. But if they and other hate groups are still around, that means updated but relevant stories can still be told with these characters that resonate.

Yeah it does. Superman works best as a genre story and character, and the trappings of that genre are fine. Make us care when he fights Brainiac and sell those emotions, emotions which give weight and purpose to the trappings of the "costume, powers, and logos".

He can work best that way and he should be fun, exciting and entertaining first and foremost. But he has to stand for other things too or else he's gonna be hollow. There are only so many big, dumb alien invasion stories with Brainiac we can consume before it gets to be "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

You're selling the character short a bit if we're narrowing it down to that being all he can be or stand for, or stories he can be part of. If we're not allowing him to be versatile or have risks taken, he's not going to get anywhere.

[bat39]

Dunno about live-action, but I've always wanted an animated project (either a series or a film) which would set Superman in a sort of retro-futuristic world - basically a 1930's conception of what the future would like, inspired by the 1939 World's Fair perhaps.

For me, Superman as a period piece is more about the aesthetic of a more 'classic' take on Superman - not so much the socio-political context of an era. I said this over on another thread about DC character who work best in period settings - with Superman, the time period he's set in doesn't matter nearly as much as what he's supposed to stand for, which no one seems to agree with.

Morrison demonstrated that you can do a Golden Age Superman in 2011 as easily as 1938. Superman Returns brought Donner's Superman to the 21st century without really changing anything about him. The vision for the character is really more important than a period setting IMO.

[SiegePerilous02]

Dunno about live-action, but I've always wanted an animated project (either a series or a film) which would set Superman in a sort of retro-futuristic world - basically a 1930's conception of what the future would like, inspired by the 1939 World's Fair perhaps.

For me, Superman as a period piece is more about the aesthetic of a more 'classic' take on Superman - not so much the socio-political context of an era. I said this over on another thread about DC character who work best in period settings - with Superman, the time period he's set in doesn't matter nearly as much as what he's supposed to stand for, which no one seems to agree with.

Morrison demonstrated that you can do a Golden Age Superman in 2011 as easily as 1938. Superman Returns brought Donner's Superman to the 21st century without really changing anything about him. The vision for the character is really more important than a period setting IMO.

Yeah, sort of like BTAS was but for Superman. I don't think it fits the DCU as a whole, but it works really well for those two (and Gotham and Metropolis) and wouldn't be a problem if it was a self contained series.

Superman needs to be two things, IMO, to work: either the more grounded, rough and tumble version of the Golden Age who fought against corruption (updated for the times) or the most powerful superhero who sees, does and owns the craziest/coolest **** around. If we're not dealing with some topical issues in his movie, he needs something off the wall and purely entertaining like Thor Ragnarok. Ideally, you would marry the two takes to create a more well rounded version, but he can work as one or the other. But the middle of the road approach we get in a lot of post-Crisis takes and adaptations inspired by them don't really work. He's neither grounded/de-powered enough to make it interesting, and he's not doing or seeing anything out of the ordinary that makes him stand out from the crown and live up to his legend. He's just a boring flying brick who is sometimes mischaracterized as old fashioned and naïve and only around to save us from disaster, but otherwise leaving the world to function as it is.

In the other thread you mentioned, I have to agree with something one of the other posters said. You can't say the characters are difficult to use if you're not engaging with or cutting out key parts of them. As he said, Superman is at his core an immigrant (specifically one that "passes" as one of us) who loves his adopted home world and country but has ideas about how it should be better.

[Powerboy]

The point is again, why? There's really nothing to be gained from doing a take just for that reason. These characters were never intended to fit in a single period.

That's a bit fairer of an ask

I disagree completely. The art style for Superman TAS was colorful, bright, sun-shiny exactly the contrast you needed from BTAS. It would never have worked for the DCAU as a whole because it expanded to include groups like Justice League and characters like The Flash and Green Lantern whose versions we see here were created well after the '40s.

Hard disagree.

The only logical way for Superman to deal with that is, a) release them from the camps, b) take on Uncle Sam and the US Govt, c) be reviled by the American media and American society for being a commie, d) fight the US Army who are armed with Kryptonite, e) Lead a revolution that ultimately topples the government.

The Japanese Internment system was quite popular in its time and had mainstream support, and while there was some murmurs and complaints about it post-war, America never apologized for that officially until the '80s. If you do a story where Superman fights and opposes that as it was happening, the story can't have Superman end the story as an all-American hero. That's the biggest issue dealing with this.

Superman is supposed to be in-universe a beloved, popular hero embraced by American society. That's fine if you do a story with personal takes and genre trappings (i.e. the kind where Superman battles robots and Luthor and Brainiacs i.e. the usual comics stuff). But if you set that against history, you run into a problem, Superman can't be the universally loving and heroic champion of the oppressed and be embraced by mainstream America in the '40s to '60s. This was the entire point of Watchmen, real-life beloved celebrities of that time across entertainment and sports had racist and LGBT views of that time and were embraced by mainstream America in that time. The ones who spoke against that, were condemned.

I don't know, that to me was never the appeal of Superman.

People act as if Superman became big for this reason and this reason alone. The answer is he didn't. Superman's primary audience in the 30s, the '40s, and the '50s were small children who knew nothing about politics, about history, or anything. To young kids they wouldn't think of their time as "the 40s" (mostly because the concept of the decade hadn't caught on yet), they'd see it as the present. Today the main introduction of characters to young children is merchandise...toys, stickers, and so on. Children know who Superman is from seeing that, and they know him and recognize his logo long before they ever find out he was created in the 30s by two Jewish guys who got swindled by First National. That's the real audience of Superman the IP, remember that always, and that has nothing to do with history, period, setting.

Superman in the '40s and '50s was embraced and became the biggest hero in comics but in that time his comics had many racist stories and elements. The Fleischer cartoons had racist elements. In the '50s, there was a time travel story where Superman swindled the original land of Metropolis from the native tribes who lived there...our hero folks!! And that's the beloved SA era of comics. And don't get me started on foolishness like Lois Lane changing her skin and so on that came later.

The ideal version of Superman that people have was never the reality of the character in the actual period published. If it was, Superman would never have been embraced the way he was in the America of the '40s and '50s. The mainstream of that era was racist and any successful mainstream work in that era has an asterisk mark next to it for that reason.

Children were the primary and almost exclusive audience for comics in that 1930's through early 60's era. In that time, racist elements would go right over our head- if we were white, that is. We only knew he was a hero in the world he lived in.

It also raises the sad reality that the very concepts of racism, justice, right and wrong, are social concepts that evolve or devolve. You absolutely could not present the Superman of the forties exactly as he really was because people are not going to accept that, from the view of that time, most people did not consider it racism. The social concepts of our time are the ones by which the good or evil of all human beings throughout history must be judged. And, yes, from a historical perspective, I'm being sarcastic.

Of course, I think the height of our current morality is superior but it took time to get there. But it won't work in a story. You have to deal with the reality that this is an early 21st century audience reading it no matter what time period it is set in. It's why there are people who call Samuel Clemens a racist because his attitudes and knowledge in 1850 are not as advanced as those of 2020.

Edit: Let me make it clear that I have zero desire to see stories set in 1938 that are THAT true to the era. Just conveniently ignore that stuff and focus on stuff like Superman smashing the Klan.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

For me, Superman as a period piece is more about the aesthetic of a more 'classic' take on Superman - not so much the socio-political context of an era.

You mean Superman a la "The Brave and the Bold" cartoon or Alan Moore's Supreme...yeah that might work.

I actually think that they should take a leaf out of Into the Spider-Verse which kind of is the nearest thing a mainstream story has done with Silver Age concepts like multiverses and so on. Superman and versions of Superman can totally accommodate that.

The vision for the character is really more important than a period setting IMO.

Agreed on this.

If we're not dealing with some topical issues in his movie, he needs something off the wall and purely entertaining like Thor Ragnarok.

THIS. I want Superman movies to be in that spirit. Bring in Bizarro (the greatest clone character in comics history), Brainiac, Parasite, Toyman, and above all Mr. Mxyzsptlk. Bench Luthor and Zod. Give me the Superman of Alan Moore's "The Jungle Line", the one who is divided about whether Clark Kent or Superman is the real him or if they are both fake identities and the real guy is someone else entirely. Make Superman work as a character. Which people have abandoned doing in general.

You have to deal with the reality that this is an early 21st century audience reading it no matter what time period it is set in.

Exactly.

[manwhohaseverything]

Do people actually understand that ragnarok had a theme about corrupt leaders?Thor was a freaking gladiator in that movie with giant green goliath of an outcast friend. Either way superman would be making the same kinda statements.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Do people actually understand that ragnarok had a theme about corrupt leaders, ... Etc?Thor was a freaking gladiator in that movie with giant green goliath of an outcast friend. Either way superman would be making the same kinda statements.

And he did against Mongul in the War World story.

But the thing is Ragnarok is a fun story.

There's that trash line in that trash Geoff Johns story where Batman says, "When was the last time you inspired anyone? When you died?" or words to the effect.

A more pertinent question is "When was the last time Superman was fun?"

Superman should be fun. And there's not been any fun in any Superman live-action movie since forever.

[manwhohaseverything]

And he did against Mongul in the War World story.

But the thing is Ragnarok is a fun story.

There's that trash line in that trash Geoff Johns story where Batman says, "When was the last time you inspired anyone? When you died?" or words to the effect.

A more pertinent question is "When was the last time Superman was fun?"

Superman should be fun. And there's not been any fun in any Superman live-action movie since forever.

Yeah! Yeah! I get that, but superman is still basically saying the same thing only in a more literal sense in story than in allegorical sense which was goldenage . I mean, a modern day gladiator for truth and justice thing.

Anyways, i wonder maybe they should create one piece like world for superman. I said, this before superman punching a celestial dragon type person would be pretty damn awesome. Allegories help. why have a chirade of normal metropolis?

[SiegePerilous02]

THIS. I want Superman movies to be in that spirit. Bring in Bizarro (the greatest clone character in comics history), Brainiac, Parasite, Toyman, and above all Mr. Mxyzsptlk. Bench Luthor and Zod. Give me the Superman of Alan Moore's "The Jungle Line", the one who is divided about whether Clark Kent or Superman is the real him or if they are both fake identities and the real guy is someone else entirely. Make Superman work as a character. Which people have abandoned doing in general.

It's kind of astounding that creatively they can't see beyond Lex and Zod. His rogues gallery isn't as good as Batman or Spider-Man, but he's got more than enough classic foes to fill up a film series that they don't need to rely on those two. Brainiac and Bizarro especially need to make appearances.

Lex should sit out at least one movie. But he's too big to leave out entirely, every cinematic Superman should have a Lex. BUT, no more solo Lex outings. He should be absent from whatever new movie we get, and if he's the main villain for a sequel another villain who hasn't been adapted before should be in it too. No Zod though. If we ever do the Phantom Zone again, no Zod. Use Dr. Xa-Du or Jax-Ur instead.

[Zero Hunter]

I've been saying for years now, that the way to save Superman in cinema is to do a Golden Age period piece.

Making the film a period piece would solve a lot of problems; you can include social commentary and have Superman actually say something worth hearing without making it a direct condemnation of the current political climate. Setting it in the past would help audiences separate themselves a bit from their expectations and signal that this should be viewed as "a" Superman, and not what they consider to be "the" Superman, helping avoid some of the baggage that Superman's name now carries with it in the social subconscious. It'd help keep the budget down, making it easier for the film to churn out a respectable profit. Focusing specifically on one particular era, rather than trying to capture the entirety of the character, means a tighter, more well defined personality, motivations, etc. Placing the film in a more "rough and tumble" era means Clark can be more rough and tumble, with less demand that he be some kind of saint.

And there's tons of quality source material to mine, from the original comics to the radio serial to the newspaper strips to more modern revisits like Smashes the Klan, Morrison's Action, and Tom DeHaven's "It's Superman!" novel.

Such a film, assuming it's handled well, could easily end up being the most popular Super film to date. It'd also likely be wildly popular as a big budget HBO show, which would be my preference between the two.

The problem is that would appeal to such a limited demographic. I know there are a lot of die hard golden age lovers on this sub, but by and large you guys are very tiny minority when it comes to Superman fans. The general public would hate a SJW Superman and rip the movie to shreds.