Why not Superman Retro movies?

[Steel Inquisitor]

Who's saying the future of all media is left wing? I'm not talking about all media, I'm talking about a hypothetical superhero movie/show. Oh, just so there's no misunderstanding about any potential agenda here, I'm not a democrat. I'm a political independent and I loathe both parties pretty much equally.

Strange, considering the examples bought up would go along swimmingly with the majority of the Democratic party. Those aren't values confined to the Leftists.

Oh and I don't disagree with your assessment of Black Panther or Captain Marvel, but all that is beside the point; a good chunk of people tried to crush those movies and the films still each broke a billion.

Agreed.

I'm not advocating a movie where, I dunno, Clark fights for open borders and letting non-citizens vote or whatever the SJW talking points are now. What I'm saying is that a return to the Champion of the People would be popular. A Superman who goes after crap bosses and corrupt business/political leaders.....the vast majority of people won't see that as a partisan issue, they'll just see it as a superhero who's actively trying to make life better for the regular person. Whether you vote blue or red, most of us are struggling to pay the bills and are sick of dealing with jackasses above us.

That sort of thing will be more liable to get pushback from conservatives and it matters how it's presented. Another problem is he needs to go about it without being seen as a bully, since he'd be picking on the weak rather than people who are a match for him physically. Superman taking down Lex is accepted but how he does this will impact how he's viewed by the audience, like how in B vs S how Superman threatened to burn lex's face off was met with recoil as opposed to "friendlier" encounters in media. Making Superman an anti-hero also risks going into R-rating territory, when he's been a family super-hero for generations and even that won't guarantee Superman going after wife beaters. Snyder was allowed to do lots of things, but he never touched that. He was barely able to hint at Batman stopping sex slavery.

But if you have Superman take down a corrupt politician in a modern setting, there's some very vocal people who would spin it as an attack on donald trump, whether there's actually a basis for that claim or not. The same story set in the 40's? Won't get the same kind of heat; the different setting, even though it's based on actual history, shifts the narrative into the realm of allegory and people don't usually take that as personally. Worked for Star Trek in the 60's, it'd work for Clark today.

True, but Superman wasn't meet with resistance that much with Lex in the movies. Even not! Zuckerberg Lex. It varies on how they do this. Is he doing it because they're involved in setting Earth for alien invasions? A Lex scheme to conquer a country? Plain old white collar criminality will bore the audience to tears, that's why super-heroes don't get into that even when the audience would agree with that political stance.

Here's an example; not too long ago one of the monthlies had Clark save some Mexicans from getting hurt. No political statement, no big commentary, Clark just saved some people. The right wing talking heads lost their f*cking minds about it, because they thought it was an attack on their politics. Smashes the Klan, on the other hand, is an actual commentary and damn few people have bitched about it. Why? Because saving Mexicans in 2018 or whenever it was hits a lot closer to home than saving a Chinese family in 1944. Of course, Smash is a much higher quality book anyway but the people who bitch about stuff like this aren't reading in the first place.

Agreed.

Allegory. That's all it boils down to. The more removed from the modern day, the stronger the allegory can be. Such a tale could be told with blue aliens, or monsters living in the center of the earth, or whatever. But a period piece is a hell of a lot cheaper to make.

Except it's not just allegory, when you take out the allegory and have Superman interfering with real issues, like domestic abuse or corrupt bosses that's not allegory and that comes with its own problems because not everything can be solved by punching someone through a wall. If Superman is too mean like that he'd unintentionally risk the audience turning on him because they have lines he crossed even if they agree the criminal should pay for their crimes. Batman's able to get away with that because he's just a man dressed like a rodent, Superman bench presses trucks. The power dymamic goes away when he has all the physical power and it gets boring since there is no tension in the story because what's a politician going to do? He can maybe ruin his reputation with the press but if Superman is being that much of an anti-hero he might not care anyway.

[manwhohaseverything]

Allegorical tales don't require blue aliens like fantastical things.All it requires is a world that's different enough.for example,
Full metal alchemist is an allegorical tale examining religion,science,morality..etc.what's happening there is relevant to real world as well.That is the requirement.relavence.

[Robanker]

Part of the problem is that America is very much into binary choice, so if Clark does his best to offend nobody he also speaks to nobody. Sticking to the facts and no spin is almost certainly a way to ensure he gains no new fans. The character fights for the little guy. Honestly? Anyone who thinks that he's taking an annoying political stance by fighting for people who can't protect themselves from the world they live in probably should look at what is wrong with themselves more than Superman.

I have no sympathy for someone who looks at Superman saying "corrupt politicians and landlords are a problem" and think "why is Superman coming after my people?"

[Ascended]

Strange, considering the examples bought up would go along swimmingly with the majority of the Democratic party. Those aren't values confined to the Leftists.

Well the examples I'm using are from the original source material, and Clark has often been written as socially progressive, especially back then. But in those same early stories he shows no problem (that I can recall) with the death penalty, which would align with the basic Republican line, and while no story I know of has tackled the subject Clark is likely pro-life as well. And he's used guns and has never expressed a problem with them so we know he supports the 2nd, if not where he stands on details like background checks and common sense gun law.

If things like Clark going after a corrupt politician are internalized as an attack on the right (and in some minds it would be regardless of plot or execution), then the people thinking that need to seriously consider where they went wrong. This isn't a problem with the approach to the character, it's a problem with the crazy bastards who would think this.

That sort of thing will be more liable to get pushback from conservatives and it matters how it's presented. Another problem is he needs to go about it without being seen as a bully

Execution and presentation always matter, of course. Nobody here is advocating a movie that has Superman going after a political party, but standing up for basic human decency and defending the average person who can't defend themselves from abuses of power, something which has broad appeal across party lines because we're all getting screwed here, and if the talking heads on Fox (or CNN or whoever) take issue with that then they're creating a problem where there isn't one.

Regarding Clark being a bully....I'm actually not sure if that's something to avoid. People are angry, they're fed up, and they feel powerless. One of the things that made Superman such a huge success originally was that he did what the common man wanted to do, but couldn't. He was the bully of bullies; giving the corrupt a taste of their own medicine, and while that's not a PC approach today it's still cathartic as hell. And this is another reason why such a tale would benefit from being a period piece, or otherwise set outside the "real" modern world; a period piece tells audiences that this isn't the "real" Superman, and therefore eases some of the expectations and limitations put on him. In the same way a Val-Zod or Calvin Ellis movie would change expectations, so would this because "1940's Superman" is different in the minds of people than "modern 'real' Superman."

There would, of course, be some who bitch and moan but that's gonna happen no matter what. Better for a few people to bitch because they internalized the film as an attack on their politics, then have everyone bitching because the film was bland and said nothing at all.

True, but Superman wasn't meet with resistance that much with Lex in the movies.

Lex is accepted because he's grandfathered in; he's been Clark's nemesis for so long it's part of the buy-in and isn't seen as an attack on the wealthy, it's viewed as a personal rivalry and not a political statement. But assuming you're right, then there's little fear of a "Superman v. corruption" film/show pissing off people.

Except it's not just allegory, when you take out the allegory and have Superman interfering with real issues, like domestic abuse or corrupt bosses that's not allegory

No, this is exactly what allegory is; using a setting that is not meant to be the contemporary, real world to tackle real, contemporary issues. Like manwhohaseverything said, using blue aliens in a story that's *really* about black people and race relations (for example) isn't the only way to do allegory, it's just the most blatant.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Well the examples I'm using are from the original source material, and Clark has often been written as socially progressive, especially back then. But in those same early stories he shows no problem (that I can recall) with the death penalty, which would align with the basic Republican line, and while no story I know of has tackled the subject Clark is likely pro-life as well. And he's used guns and has never expressed a problem with them so we know he supports the 2nd, if not where he stands on details like background checks and common sense gun law.

Like I said none of what your examples weren't controversial in centre left circles. Democrats support gun control, not banning guns completely - that's a Republican straw man. Believing in the Second amendment is non-partisan. How is Golden Age Superman likely pro-life? Again, none of that is really any problem with Democrats.

If things like Clark going after a corrupt politician are internalized as an attack on the right (and in some minds it would be regardless of plot or execution), then the people thinking that need to seriously consider where they went wrong. This isn't a problem with the approach to the character, it's a problem with the crazy bastards who would think this.

Except how Superman does this is within DC's power to control, he's not helpless in this. And it's not about appeasing the right, because they'd hate what he does anyway - it's making him be sympathetic to a broader audience rather than making him come off like a psychopath. This is about marketing, not psychology. This is Superman is poorly received when he looks like he's going to burn Lex alive with his heat vision, while most renditions just have him make a forceful talk because as soon as he lays hands on a human the power dynamic shifts and he becomes the bad guy unless it's done tastefully. There's a reason Superman never physically touches Lex violently. Do this wrong and it'll make Lex sympathetic, or turn millions of people against Superman despite the fact they would be on his side under normal circumstances. That's why Superman must value restraint, he's not Midnighter. It's also a problem for WB, who will squash any idea they think are too out there for Superman's brand.

Execution and presentation always matter, of course. Nobody here is advocating a movie that has Superman going after a political party, but standing up for basic human decency and defending the average person who can't defend themselves from abuses of power, something which has broad appeal across party lines because we're all getting screwed here, and if the talking heads on Fox (or CNN or whoever) take issue with that then they're creating a problem where there isn't one.

The devil is in the details, how is this any different from how classic Superman does what he does? It's too vague to argue against because there are no clear examples of what you want him to do. The talking head can create problems for DC, Marvel edited out a plane in Brubaker's Cap when he had right wing protesters caused a mini-scandal. WB will buckle just like Marvel does, assuming something controversial even gets passed the editors.

Regarding Clark being a bully....I'm actually not sure if that's something to avoid. People are angry, they're fed up, and they feel powerless. One of the things that made Superman such a huge success originally was that he did what the common man wanted to do, but couldn't. He was the bully of bullies; giving the corrupt a taste of their own medicine, and while that's not a PC approach today it's still cathartic as hell. And this is another reason why such a tale would benefit from being a period piece, or otherwise set outside the "real" modern world; a period piece tells audiences that this isn't the "real" Superman, and therefore eases some of the expectations and limitations put on him. In the same way a Val-Zod or Calvin Ellis movie would change expectations, so would this because "1940's Superman" is different in the minds of people than "modern 'real' Superman."

We've seen the public react to Superman being a bully, in Snyder's Superman. It hurt the brand significantly on the movie side, and made Superman as a character very polarising. Superman being a bully has a short shelf life, even in the 40's all it would take would be the years before that transformed him into a Superman we know today and it's worse now since Superman has a massive pop culture icon history behind him with certain expectations - it's why that sort of storytelling does better with expies, like Homelander. The Boys was able to do that because it's not the actual Superman. The time period is not really going to matter how he's being written, he could do all those things in any time period and people will react to him with the same expectations, because he's Superman. He'd be an adaption of Superman, and the bigger profile the project is the bigger the risk is. If this was an Elseworld comic nobody would care, it's just a one off the public won't read - but WB isn't going to spend millions on a one-off they'd want it to be template for their new movie Superman. Val-Zod and Ellis have more flexibility since they're not Clark Kent/Kal-El, every expectation Superman has they don't and any Superman who uses that name won't be getting that privilege. The time period is just aesthetics.

You might find it cathartic, but WB will be making a project like this for everyone. How they do this will matter, because they make any mistakes the property's again and he'll be sitting on the cinema shelf for another decade.

I'm going to need more details on exactly how far you want to go with Superman so far it's been far too general.

There would, of course, be some who bitch and moan but that's gonna happen no matter what. Better for a few people to bitch because they internalized the film as an attack on their politics, then have everyone bitching because the film was bland and said nothing at all.

Maybe, but WB's going to choose the latter of the former since it allows them more freedom to rebound if it fails.

Lex is accepted because he's grandfathered in; he's been Clark's nemesis for so long it's part of the buy-in and isn't seen as an attack on the wealthy, it's viewed as a personal rivalry and not a political statement. But assuming you're right, then there's little fear of a "Superman v. corruption" film/show pissing off people.

Lex's presence isn't important in itself, it's how Superman responds to him and villains like him. That's ambiguous, since it's not the theory that's the problem it's how its done in practice. Lex was always political, especially post-Crisis.

No, this is exactly what allegory is; using a setting that is not meant to be the contemporary, real world to tackle real, contemporary issues. Like manwhohaseverything said, using blue aliens in a story that's *really* about black people and race relations (for example) isn't the only way to do allegory, it's just the most blatant.

That's not an allegory, that's just a political statement. The corruption isn't representing anything, there is no second layer underneath. Time periods have nothing to do with it, even on FMA their corruption was just average political things, it was the magic which was the allegory. Contemporary issues remain contemporary whatever they're in a story, the time and planet don't impact that. It's what makes movies like Blade Runner timeless.

[kalai]

Honestly they could do the whole Superman Batman:Generations thing by John Byrne.
The idea is that a retro movie wouldn't need that much of blue sky beam and end of the world situation.

[Ascended]

Like I said none of what your examples weren't controversial in centre left circles. Democrats support gun control, not banning guns completely - that's a Republican straw man. Believing in the Second amendment is non-partisan. How is Golden Age Superman likely pro-life? Again, none of that is really any problem with Democrats.

Yeah right now a Golden Age Superman would be more likely to piss off the right, though I could see some on the left getting bitchy about the bully tactics. And the pro-life thing, sorry I lost focus on the particular version we're discussing and slipped into a generalized kind of Superman. The OG never had any stories that would even give us a hint of his opinion on the topic, I don't think. Hell was it even a hot button issue back then?

So I've tried to avoid getting into particulars since I'm trying to discuss the general "retro" concept and not how *I'd* do it, but to put more detail into it so you have a better idea of where I'm coming from....keep in mind I'm talking thematics here more than specifics, and this is a much less powerful Superman than we're used to. Gonna be a big post, sorry.

We'd have a Superman who's a little tougher on crime than we're used to; instead of wrapping someone up in chain-link fence, that dude is unconscious on the ground. The worst you're likely to get from him is some cracked ribs and bruises, so he's far removed from the Frank Millar type of vigilante violence, but is definitely a little meaner than usual. There's two main rules here; Clark doesn't hit first, and he doesn't kill. He relies on intimidation and scare tactics, and will destroy your stuff, toss you in a river, leave you hanging from a building....he'll destroy your meth lab (was that a thing in the 40's?) to such a degree you'll never be able to afford getting back into the drug trade, and leave you so scared of getting him *really* angry you wouldn't dare anyway. But you won't die, you won't spend eight months recovering in a hospital, and if you're a "talker" like Lex, Morgan Edge, or Glennmorgan, he's not gonna do anything more physical than grab you by your shirt and growl.

Balancing that is how he treats the average people. He'll tear down your crappy apartment building and build a better one, then intimidate your awful landlord into not raising the rent. He'll take money from gangs and give it to the poor in Suicide Slum. He's actively trying to make life better for people in a clear, quantifiable way, and they love him for it. Very much a Robin Hood kind of vibe; the cops chase him, authority is scared of him, but the average person look to him as their champion.

But he hasn't been active long enough for the long-term consequences to set in. That new building with the low rent? Well Clark re-building it raised the taxes but the landlord, too scared to raise the rent, couldn't pay them and loses the building. The wife beater who got a broken arm? Couldn't work and now the family is on the street. That's about where I'd start the story; Superman has been around 6 months or so, has cleaned up all the bottom rung crooks, and is setting his eyes on the big fish of Glen Glennmorgan, CEO and city councilman (or use Morgan Edge, someone other than Lex), with the consequences of his actions just barely starting to become noticeable.

I'd adapt Morrison's Glennmorgan plot from the early Action issues, combined with a loose adaptation of the Mechanical Menace Flechier cartoon with Ultra-Humanite set up as the big bad. We'd open the story with "Superman" going after Glennmorgan while "Clark" investigates some big robots that're robbing medical/tech R&D labs. We get a taste of what Superman is like and what he's accomplished, but then begin to work in the consequences of his bully tactics as the First Act begins to wrap up; Glennmorgan spins the PR against Superman, and Superman loses the respect of the average person and all his efforts begin to unravel. Clark is failing in his investigation and gets in trouble at work. I'd have Clark at the Daily Star while his best friend Jimmy and biggest rival Lois work at the Planet. Glennmorgan gets Superman hit by a train, or smuggles in some rockets that mess Clark up....something to establish that he's far from invulnerable, even if he's bulletproof.

Second Act hits, Clark does a little soul searching while he heals, realizes the bully tactics aren't working, and "Clark" and "Superman" switch targets; Clark begins to investigate Glennmorgan, Superman hunts down the robots. This time, it works and he starts to make progress on both fronts. Finds a paper trail to follow on Glennmorgan, which coincidentally starts to narrow down where the robot's lair is at. Superman's reputation hits rock bottom and without the regular folk backing him, the vultures (city government, PD, etc.) begin to circle. Maybe the PD bring in some heavy ordinance from the military and Superman gets the crap knocked out of him again and narrowly escapes arrest. Maybe Superman finds some robots, halfway loses the fight, and they escape. Whatever, the point being that Superman continues to struggle (because Clark doesn't bleed enough in the movies, if you ask me).

Third Act, Clark finally tracks the robots to their lair, where he learns Glennmorgan is funding Ultra's brain-swapping experiments so he can sell the tech to Germany for spies (or something). You get a proper final battle with Superman taking on robots and a super genius albino ape with rocket launchers in a pitched battle Clark very nearly loses. The hero wins the day and finds the last bits of evidence needed to take down Glennmorgan. The villains all end up in jail, the public love and trust Superman more than ever, and Clark's learned a few things about restraint and how to achieve his goals as Superman and *really* help the average citizen. Clark *doesn't* get the girl but gets his first front page expose, and our hero leaps tall buildings off into the sunset. Roll credits.

That's roughly the kind of tale I'm talking about with the "retro" thing. Not crazy heavy with the social commentary but far more than the usual genre film gets into, the bully tactics are shown to be a bad idea but are fun while they last, and the concepts in play like Ultra and big robots have a fun retro flair to them. The stakes aren't as high as the typical fully-powered modern Superman so the budget's much smaller and the story is more intimate and the danger's more relatable. The social commentary is a bit removed from the present day because it's *not* the present day, despite the problems of corruption remaining the same. There's nothing about Lex, Zod, or Krypton so it's fresh ground audiences haven't seen, and an approach to Superman that helps get him away from the boy scout image (which is becoming toxic, as much as I hate the term) while still having historic precedent to lean on (which audiences are still vaguely aware of thanks to those old cartoons and such). It's getting Superman away from the messiah parallels and playing into the folklore "people's hero" vibe. Clark's job can get more attention without the "print is dead" elephant in the room.

[manwhohaseverything]

The corruption isn't representing anything, there is no second layer underneath. Time periods have nothing to do with it, even on FMA their corruption was just average political things, it was the magic which was the allegory.

No, corruption was not the theme of fma. It was just a mild part of it. The state itself was false. It was designed for violence and blood shed so that the homucules could achieve what he believes to be "god" . So there was no concept of corruption being a thing.What the heroes did was lie to make everyone believe state was only corrupt as they tried to use the structure to good of the people. There by turning lie into truth. But, state control was scrutinised with elric brothers being military "dogs" so to speak. It was just miniscule part of fma.

Main theme of fma was religion and science. What place do they have in society Is the question asked. Also, it wasn't a period piece. It just had settings of it. Normally, writer creates their own worlds in shonen, seinen,... Etc with their own rules, societies, problems... Etc. Not everyone does ofcourse like yu yu hakusho or bleach. Even then, bleach focuses on soul society, not our mundane world.I believe the former is what superman needs(world of his own. Superverse) .Metropolis doesn't even feel like it needs superman.

[Robanker]

The fact that everyone is tiptoing over who they'll piss off if Superman just takes a stance akin to the intent of his creators is kind of proof that he needs to.

Superman fights for the little guy. If any political party feels that's a problem, well frankly they can eat it.

[Steel Inquisitor]

No, corruption was not the theme of fma. It was just a mild part of it. The state itself was false. It was designed for violence and blood shed so that the homucules could achieve what he believes to be "god" . So there was no concept of corruption being a thing.What the heroes did was lie to make everyone believe state was only corrupt as they tried to use the structure to good of the people. There by turning lie into truth. But, state control was scrutinised with elric brothers being military "dogs" so to speak. It was just miniscule part of fma.

Government corruption isn't a theme in FMA, but it is a huge element in what the heroes have to fight to win the day. The Humuclus plans derisive from subverting the government, without it they lose tonnes of political and raw power over the heroes, that's why have to go underground and create a civil war when they strike. It's not an allegory for something else.

Main theme of fma was religion and science. What place do they have in society Is the question asked. Also, it wasn't a period piece. It just had settings of it. Normally, writer creates their own worlds in shonen, seinen,... Etc with their own rules, societies, problems... Etc. Not everyone does ofcourse like yu yu hakusho or bleach. Even then, bleach focuses on soul society, not our mundane world.I believe the former is what superman needs(world of his own. Superverse) .Metropolis doesn't even feel like it needs superman.

FMA's not "present day," it's heavily influenced by WW1 Germany in the secondary world of the creator. But they could have put the setting in the far future or the present and not changed much, the setting's just decoration. It'd just be harder to hide what the villains do when everyone has a cell phone and the internet.

[manwhohaseverything]

Government corruption isn't a theme in FMA, but it is a huge element in what the heroes have to fight to win the day. The Humuclus plans derisive from subverting the government, without it they lose tonnes of political and raw power over the heroes, that's why have to go underground and create a civil war when they strike. It's not an allegory for something else.



FMA's not "present day," it's heavily influenced by WW1 Germany in the secondary world of the creator. But they could have put the setting in the far future or the present and not changed much, the setting's just decoration. It'd just be harder to hide what the villains do when everyone has a cell phone and the internet.

Dude! Corruption requires the state creation itself to be for the people. Here it ain't. Corruption occurs when something created for something changing with time so much for non-altruistic reason that it value system becomes compromised . For example, superman becoming royalty and el family nonsense. That's a corruption. Superman is a working class guy fighting a never ending battle for truth and justice. That's his original concept. Superman siding with the strong instead of the weak would be another corruption of the concept. Here ,state is doing its purpose which was killing people for transmutation. So, it wasn't corrupt. Homoculus wasn't subverting government. They were the government.They made the state. It was mere puppet for blood shed. The brothers and mustang changed the purpose itself. They decided to create something for the people. In time, by the people and of the people.

Everything has an influence. That doesn't mean it's set in our world. It's done for a reason. Berserk has kanishka and kushans. Does that mean it's the real world kushan empire? Nope. Its not a period piece. It's not set in our world or anything close to it. The future of that world would different from ours. They have prosthetics that are far advanced. They have alchemy. They even have a way to meet god or the universe or whatever itself.

[DochaDocha]

Even though it would feel like it's ripping off concepts like Captain America (WW is already kind of doing that...), I would like a Superman trilogy that took first took place in 1938, then in modern day, and then one in the not-too-distant future. Alternatively, I'd accept 1) 1938 2) 1960s-ish 3) modern day or NTDF. I figured Superman is from space, so they could have part of his first movie take place in deep space, and due to theory of relativity by the time he got back to Earth a lot of time would elapse (like 80 years, for instance) though from his perspective it's only a couple of years. Anyway, this idea stems from wanting to cover the historical aspect of Superman while making his movies more sci-fi among a sea of movies with super-powered people punching one another.

[bat39]

Yeah right now a Golden Age Superman would be more likely to piss off the right, though I could see some on the left getting bitchy about the bully tactics. And the pro-life thing, sorry I lost focus on the particular version we're discussing and slipped into a generalized kind of Superman. The OG never had any stories that would even give us a hint of his opinion on the topic, I don't think. Hell was it even a hot button issue back then?

So I've tried to avoid getting into particulars since I'm trying to discuss the general "retro" concept and not how *I'd* do it, but to put more detail into it so you have a better idea of where I'm coming from....keep in mind I'm talking thematics here more than specifics, and this is a much less powerful Superman than we're used to. Gonna be a big post, sorry.

We'd have a Superman who's a little tougher on crime than we're used to; instead of wrapping someone up in chain-link fence, that dude is unconscious on the ground. The worst you're likely to get from him is some cracked ribs and bruises, so he's far removed from the Frank Millar type of vigilante violence, but is definitely a little meaner than usual. There's two main rules here; Clark doesn't hit first, and he doesn't kill. He relies on intimidation and scare tactics, and will destroy your stuff, toss you in a river, leave you hanging from a building....he'll destroy your meth lab (was that a thing in the 40's?) to such a degree you'll never be able to afford getting back into the drug trade, and leave you so scared of getting him *really* angry you wouldn't dare anyway. But you won't die, you won't spend eight months recovering in a hospital, and if you're a "talker" like Lex, Morgan Edge, or Glennmorgan, he's not gonna do anything more physical than grab you by your shirt and growl.

Balancing that is how he treats the average people. He'll tear down your crappy apartment building and build a better one, then intimidate your awful landlord into not raising the rent. He'll take money from gangs and give it to the poor in Suicide Slum. He's actively trying to make life better for people in a clear, quantifiable way, and they love him for it. Very much a Robin Hood kind of vibe; the cops chase him, authority is scared of him, but the average person look to him as their champion.

But he hasn't been active long enough for the long-term consequences to set in. That new building with the low rent? Well Clark re-building it raised the taxes but the landlord, too scared to raise the rent, couldn't pay them and loses the building. The wife beater who got a broken arm? Couldn't work and now the family is on the street. That's about where I'd start the story; Superman has been around 6 months or so, has cleaned up all the bottom rung crooks, and is setting his eyes on the big fish of Glen Glennmorgan, CEO and city councilman (or use Morgan Edge, someone other than Lex), with the consequences of his actions just barely starting to become noticeable.

I'd adapt Morrison's Glennmorgan plot from the early Action issues, combined with a loose adaptation of the Mechanical Menace Flechier cartoon with Ultra-Humanite set up as the big bad. We'd open the story with "Superman" going after Glennmorgan while "Clark" investigates some big robots that're robbing medical/tech R&D labs. We get a taste of what Superman is like and what he's accomplished, but then begin to work in the consequences of his bully tactics as the First Act begins to wrap up; Glennmorgan spins the PR against Superman, and Superman loses the respect of the average person and all his efforts begin to unravel. Clark is failing in his investigation and gets in trouble at work. I'd have Clark at the Daily Star while his best friend Jimmy and biggest rival Lois work at the Planet. Glennmorgan gets Superman hit by a train, or smuggles in some rockets that mess Clark up....something to establish that he's far from invulnerable, even if he's bulletproof.

Second Act hits, Clark does a little soul searching while he heals, realizes the bully tactics aren't working, and "Clark" and "Superman" switch targets; Clark begins to investigate Glennmorgan, Superman hunts down the robots. This time, it works and he starts to make progress on both fronts. Finds a paper trail to follow on Glennmorgan, which coincidentally starts to narrow down where the robot's lair is at. Superman's reputation hits rock bottom and without the regular folk backing him, the vultures (city government, PD, etc.) begin to circle. Maybe the PD bring in some heavy ordinance from the military and Superman gets the crap knocked out of him again and narrowly escapes arrest. Maybe Superman finds some robots, halfway loses the fight, and they escape. Whatever, the point being that Superman continues to struggle (because Clark doesn't bleed enough in the movies, if you ask me).

Third Act, Clark finally tracks the robots to their lair, where he learns Glennmorgan is funding Ultra's brain-swapping experiments so he can sell the tech to Germany for spies (or something). You get a proper final battle with Superman taking on robots and a super genius albino ape with rocket launchers in a pitched battle Clark very nearly loses. The hero wins the day and finds the last bits of evidence needed to take down Glennmorgan. The villains all end up in jail, the public love and trust Superman more than ever, and Clark's learned a few things about restraint and how to achieve his goals as Superman and *really* help the average citizen. Clark *doesn't* get the girl but gets his first front page expose, and our hero leaps tall buildings off into the sunset. Roll credits.

That's roughly the kind of tale I'm talking about with the "retro" thing. Not crazy heavy with the social commentary but far more than the usual genre film gets into, the bully tactics are shown to be a bad idea but are fun while they last, and the concepts in play like Ultra and big robots have a fun retro flair to them. The stakes aren't as high as the typical fully-powered modern Superman so the budget's much smaller and the story is more intimate and the danger's more relatable. The social commentary is a bit removed from the present day because it's *not* the present day, despite the problems of corruption remaining the same. There's nothing about Lex, Zod, or Krypton so it's fresh ground audiences haven't seen, and an approach to Superman that helps get him away from the boy scout image (which is becoming toxic, as much as I hate the term) while still having historic precedent to lean on (which audiences are still vaguely aware of thanks to those old cartoons and such). It's getting Superman away from the messiah parallels and playing into the folklore "people's hero" vibe. Clark's job can get more attention without the "print is dead" elephant in the room.

I have to say, I quiet like your idea! If this is how they do a period Superman film that's got political subtext then count me in.

That said, I dunno if I've mentioned this earlier (on this thread or elsewhere) but more than Superman its Power Girl that interests me as a period piece. I'd love to see a comic book, movie or TV show which shows Power Girl arriving on earth in 1938 and how the Golden Age of superheroes as well as other historical events that followed would have played out - and how seeing a female superhero (one who wasn't adorned in the garb of the American flag and necessarily bound by 'the American Way' or the limits of American society imposed on women at the time) would shake up the United States and eventually the world.

[Ascended]

The fact that everyone is tiptoing over who they'll piss off if Superman just takes a stance akin to the intent of his creators is kind of proof that he needs to.

Superman fights for the little guy. If any political party feels that's a problem, well frankly they can eat it.

And you know I'm with you on that. But beyond the "message" there's issues of business that have to be considered. It's one thing to make a statement that'll offend some ******* or other, but quite another to make a statement that'll offend an ******* that also costs you several million dollars to create.

It's just risk assessment. You gotta have an idea of who's gonna support your project and what kind of backlash you might get, and from where. Not so you can avoid it, but so you can make it work for you. A period piece film would be way cheaper to make than the usual Super-film but would still be a big investment, and the franchise doesn't have a lot of goodwill behind it right now thanks to the failure of the DCEU. So you gotta at least factor in who might get pissed off by the film and how they'll respond so you have your counter-argument and marketing strategy in place.

I have to say, I quiet like your idea! If this is how they do a period Superman film that's got political subtext then count me in.

Thanks. But yeah, I'm not advocating a story where Clark goes out and rips up posters of donald trump or gets into a deep exploration of the failure of modern journalism. But the struggles of the average person and the abuse of power are central of the original structure and those are elements the character has lost, and I believe it'd be good for everyone if he found that socially aware passion again. In normal days, what I'm suggesting wouldn't even be considered a political issue, much less a partisan one....but these are not normal days and you can't wear a f*cking mask without it being turned into a political statement by one idiot or another.

[Flash Gordon]

The fact that everyone is tiptoing over who they'll piss off if Superman just takes a stance akin to the intent of his creators is kind of proof that he needs to.

Superman fights for the little guy. If any political party feels that's a problem, well frankly they can eat it.

I'm with you. It's ridiculous, especially from 'fans'.

A totally innocuous take on the character that stands for nothing and means nothing is not worth wasting time on. Narratives are powerful, and the more we push for appeasement the more danger there is.