Does DC like Superman?

[stargazer01]

I think DC likes $$. They will do anything for easy money. I don't think they actually dislike Superman, but they just don't understand him and what's special and wonderful about him. Same thing for WB. Those people are too cynical and small-minded to understand all the wonder of Superman. The success of Wonder Woman and Aquaman in the movies has nothing to do with them. They just were lucky to have found truly creative and enlightened creators who showed how awesome they are and can be. Superman hasn't had the same luck in the last 20 years in TV or the movies, not truly.

[Agent Z]

I think DC likes $$. They will do anything for easy money. I don't think they actually dislike Superman, but they just don't understand him and what's special and wonderful about him. Same thing for WB. Those people are too cynical and small-minded to understand all the wonder of Superman. The success of Wonder Woman and Aquaman in the movies has nothing to do with them. They just were lucky to have found truly creative and enlightened creators who showed how awesome they are and can be. Superman hasn't had the same luck in the last 20 years in TV or the movies, not truly.

They hired the people who made those movies in the first place.

[stargazer01]

They hired the people who made those movies in the first place.

They were lucky they found the right people who could make successful movies that most people liked.

[manwhohaseverything]

They hired the people who made those movies in the first place.

Actually,discounting batman the track record with with dc properties is nothing to brag about.At best they get passable marks.when it comes to superman. Their track record is whooping zero.Everything superman that was successful was outsourced as far as I am aware.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Actually,discounting batman the track record with with dc properties is nothing to brag about.At best they get passable marks.when it comes to superman. Their track record is whooping zero.Everything superman that was successful was outsourced as far as I am aware.

The classics.



People liked Routh's Superman, not the movie itself.



DCEU fans loved Snyder's Superman.



DC fans didn't like the movie, they did like that Superman.

Outsourcing? You mean hiring directors and actors? That's just show business, they're not paid employees.

Superman tv shows are hits: Lois and Clark, Smallville, Superboy, Supergirl.

[manwhohaseverything]

The classics.

Superman of the seventies is outsourced.salkinds is the reason that movie existed and donner ofcourse.They bought the rights to the character .I would reiterate what I said.zero.Nada.none.

Superman is alive because of past success by outsourced preductions who bought rights to the character.

I don't care if routh or cavil were embraced.the movies itself were boring as heck.they were not homeruns to say the least.

As for jl superman,he sucked. The only reason most people latched on to that terrible waste of space is because they had an alternative that's less serious compared to snyder's lumbering slow giant that falls apart.Currently,people say as much.

Those TV shows only cemented superman as drama and romance characters.

[Agent Z]

They were lucky they found the right people who could make successful movies that most people liked.

That's not luck. That's doing their jobs. These people would not have had the opportunity to make these movies if not for WB so if anything they're the lucky ones.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Superman of the seventies is outsourced.salkinds is the reason that movie existed and donner ofcourse.They bought the rights to the character .I would reiterate what I said.zero.Nada.none.

Again, that's not unusual for movie studios to do with their properties. They own the character, the studios are just leased to them.

Superman is alive because of past success by outsourced preductions who bought rights to the character.

Except you're omitting all the media that made him a worldwide icon, the comics weren't the only thing keeping him relevant.

I don't care if routh or cavil were embraced.the movies itself were boring as heck.they were not homeruns to say the least.

This isn't about you, it's about whether various Supermen were embraced by the public and every example I listed was. They are to those fans with that rendition of Superman.

As for jl superman,he sucked. The only reason most people latched on to that terrible waste of space is because they had an alternative that's less serious compared to snyder's lumbering slow giant that falls apart.Currently,people say as much.

Again, not about you. It was the most faithful adaption of Superman in years, so they liked it. People being who? "Some people say" proves nothing.

Those TV shows only cemented superman as drama and romance characters.

Lois and Clark was the only romance focused example there. All of them were action/adventure. This is simply justification to hate on any Superman who wasn't an exaggerated version based on the narrow timeframe Siegel and Shuster comics.

[manwhohaseverything]

This is simply justification to hate on any Superman who wasn't an exaggerated version based on the narrow timeframe Siegel and Shuster comics.

It isn't about me,superman hasn't produced anything of quality under wb like btas, Nolan movies,...etc.heck!superman animated outings pales in comparison to something like samurai jack.

Dude!those guys asked and bought the rights.wb didn't find them.Donner superman is actually pretty cool for it's time.So,there goes the time frame theory.

If mos or superman returns were that regarded.Why is it that superman struggles to get sequels and reboots.while ,spiderman and batman is gone back to again and again.
Jl superman public opinion is what I said as well.

Heck!now the character is typecasted .that is another big hurdle.

He is flipping superman. I expect excellence. Not mediocrity.Superman has never produced a game,animated series,movie...etc that is excellent.you honestly think the cw drama series like smallville,superman and Lois..etc are quality?I got nothing to say to that and action is the last thing these shows are or is going to be ,blah!. If wb had producedone something of quality, people would be celebrating it's anniversary or something like they do Adam West batman,tas,...etc.he hasn't even gotten a Hollywood walk of fame star like batman,Mickey mouse,bugs...etc as far as I know.Why?cause the performance of the character under wb is mediocre to abysmal.

[Powerboy]

Unfortunately, the reality that we, as fans, find hard to accept, is that DC is a company, not a person with personal feelings. Superman is a product to them. He's one of their two biggest products. In that sense, the company "likes" him. But they aren't sure what to do with him.

Though a lot of us don't like to deal with it as a reality, "Smallville" was very successful (ten seasons) and appealed to an audience that would never normally be interested in a superhero show. BUT, that is a success from the point of view of a company promoting the character. This new CW show looks like another successful marketing of the character to an audience that largely is not the traditional audience though a CW success is small potatoes in terms of the audience.

In the movies, they know they miscalculated with M o S and B v S. Obviously, they thought it would work or they wouldn't have done it. The problem is that executives often have no idea why one thing works and another doesn't. Even at that, it worked. By any reasonable scale, they were very successful, just not MCU successful.

But the core question was "Does DC like Superman?" The answer is they like money. They just don't always have the best formula for getting it.

[Morgoth]

They like money first of all. And Superman, anyway, one of their biggest characters, question is how to use him. And they don't know how.
And we must remember that the rules are dictated by the media outside of comics, as sad as it may be. Batman has Nolan's trilogy, which is set on a film pedestal, and Arkhamverse, which is in the same place in the game industry. Even in BvS, many people liked Affleck. And now there are high expectations from Reeves' film.
And Superman had Superman Returns, which was a flop, and Man of Steel, which was received very controversially, and there were BvS and League, which ... Well, you know. Of the more successful projects for a mass audience, he has Injustice, in which he is a tyrant psychopath. In the Suicide Squad game, he is also an enemy killing people, albeit under the control of Brainiac.
Superman needs a good movie. A really good movie from someone who understands the character and knows how to present him to a mass audience. He doesn't even need a recast, just a good director who will make a strong, successful movie. This will improve the entire Superman situation.

[stargazer01]

That's not luck. That's doing their jobs. These people would not have had the opportunity to make these movies if not for WB so if anything they're the lucky ones.

The fans are the lucky ones.

[Ascended]

Not reading all these pages, but my two cents?

There's certainly individuals within the company that don't like him, or have no opinion on him at all, or love him, whatever. DC's employees are not a monolith with a single shared viewpoint.

As a whole I don't think DC dislikes Superman (insofar as a company "likes" or "dislikes" anything), he's still their second biggest IP by a wide margin (maybe third if you count Harley as a separate entity from the Bat franchise) and he still gets a lot more attention than most other characters. He makes money, so DC still likes him.

But DC doesn't understand him, or what makes him appealing to readers. And in truth, the answer to his appeal is likely somewhat murky anyway, given some of the radically different (but still successful) approaches the character has seen over the years. Or rather, it's likely murky from the corporate perspective, those of us "on the ground" who don't have the business side of comics coloring our perceptions are likely more in tune with what makes Clark tick, but imagine being an executive, looking at this character and trying to nail down which approach works best....you'd be tearing your hair out after half an hour.

I think it's likely more a matter of DC being frustrated that they can't find the sweet spot with Superman, more than active dislike. It's clear that DC thinks the property is somehow broken, otherwise we wouldn't have the constant stream of reboots, retcons, new origins, new directions, and gimmicks they've been throwing at us since Doomsday. But I also think if DC didn't care about the character or actively disliked him, they wouldn't keep trying to "fix" him.

[Stanlos]

Not reading all these pages, but my two cents?

There's certainly individuals within the company that don't like him, or have no opinion on him at all, or love him, whatever. DC's employees are not a monolith with a single shared viewpoint.

As a whole I don't think DC dislikes Superman (insofar as a company "likes" or "dislikes" anything), he's still their second biggest IP by a wide margin (maybe third if you count Harley as a separate entity from the Bat franchise) and he still gets a lot more attention than most other characters. He makes money, so DC still likes him.

But DC doesn't understand him, or what makes him appealing to readers. And in truth, the answer to his appeal is likely somewhat murky anyway, given some of the radically different (but still successful) approaches the character has seen over the years. Or rather, it's likely murky from the corporate perspective, those of us "on the ground" who don't have the business side of comics coloring our perceptions are likely more in tune with what makes Clark tick, but imagine being an executive, looking at this character and trying to nail down which approach works best....you'd be tearing your hair out after half an hour.

I think it's likely more a matter of DC being frustrated that they can't find the sweet spot with Superman, more than active dislike. It's clear that DC thinks the property is somehow broken, otherwise we wouldn't have the constant stream of reboots, retcons, new origins, new directions, and gimmicks they've been throwing at us since Doomsday. But I also think if DC didn't care about the character or actively disliked him, they wouldn't keep trying to "fix" him.

This.

Studio Execs have very odd thought processes. Consider the bizarre case of Joel Silver and the purchase of Wonder Woman film rights way back when. He did not do it because he liked WW but rather because of fan response to Carrie Anne Moss' Trinity over in the Matrix. In Silver's thought process the acquisition of WW would provide a means of capitalizing on market opportunities around the moviegoing audience's affinity for Trinity.

Which to a comics fan is very WTF the two are not remotely similar.

[KC]

DC and WB don't seem to like what Superman is, an honest and good character who will always do what is right. Or rather, they don't seem to think that's what audiences like. That's why they subvert him by making him a villain or make him glum and unsure. It's nonsense of course and that type of hero can still be good if done well.