Is the push for Jon as Superman motivated by ownership and legal wrangling?

[Bored at 3:00AM]

There's been rumors for years that the many changes Superman has undergone have been motivated by DC's fears of losing exclusive rights to the character. This was reportedly the reason behind Superman's costume change and the sidelining of Lois Lane in favor of Wonder Woman and the loss of the Clark Kent identity, so that the elements contained within Action Comics #1 would be less prominent, leaving only the aspects of Superman's lore that DC retain a firm legal hold of.

Could this be part of the motivation behind the Jonathan Kent character being promoted so quickly into the main character of the franchise? Or does it simply come down to DC's inability to make the classic Superman resonate with enough readers so they are replacing him with his son in hopes of attracting a larger audience?

[The World]

I don't think so. I remember hearing way back that the N52 Superman might have been created to swerve around legal roadblocks or at least impending legal roadblocks but my understanding is that a lot of that has been resolved since then.

I think it's as simple as wanting to let the franchise move on. Post-Crisis Superman was created to update the character who DC felt was becoming out of date by the mid 80's and Byrne is on record saying that DC brought him in specifically to make everything different. His changes were a big success and stayed for a while but it's no longer the late 80's-early 90's and the world has moved on but the fans who grew up or were introduced to that version of Superman have not. Many of the old Superman qualities prior to Byrne have come back into vogue while a lot of Byrnes changes seem in hindsight sort of odd. I think they're really just using Jon as a way to get back to a Silver Age style Superman without having to deal with an uproar of Bryne/Triangle Era people who have an understanding of Clark Kent as a farmer from Smallville who happens to have powers.

It's definitely not what I want but when you've got people like Thor, Captain America, Captain Marvel basically doing a lot of the stuff Superman use to Pre-Crisis while Superman's withering fanbase of today demand he stay with the confines of what was set in '87 you start to make cuts when real money is on the table.

[Frontier]

I don't think so. I remember hearing way back that the N52 Superman might have been created to swerve around legal roadblocks or at least impending legal roadblocks but my understanding is that a lot of that has been resolved since then.

I think it's as simple as wanting to let the franchise move on. Post-Crisis Superman was created to update the character who DC felt was becoming out of date by the mid 80's and Byrne is on record saying that DC brought him in specifically to make everything different. His changes were a big success and stayed for a while but it's no longer the late 80's-early 90's and the world has moved on but the fans who grew up or were introduced to that version of Superman have not. Many of the old Superman qualities prior to Byrne have come back into vogue while a lot of Byrnes changes seem in hindsight sort of odd. I think they're really just using Jon as a way to get back to a Silver Age style Superman without having to deal with an uproar of Bryne/Triangle Era people who have an understanding of Clark Kent as a farmer from Smallville who happens to have powers.

It's definitely not what I want but when you've got people like Thor, Captain America, Captain Marvel basically doing a lot of the stuff Superman use to Pre-Crisis while Superman's withering fanbase of today demand he stay with the confines of what was set in '87 you start to make cuts when real money is on the table.

If anything Jon seems like an attempt to return to New 52 Superman rather than just the Silver Age, even if the Golden Age and Silver age impacted New 52 Superman to a degree.

[Yoda]

Those issues were resolved via settlements and a few appellate court decisions sometime around 2013 I believe. I'm sure any settlement contracts are about as confidential and airtight as they can be right now. There is no longer any question regarding the rights to Superman, Lois, etc. Whatever decisions they are making with Superman, etc. are not being influenced by that any longer.

[JAK]

No, I think this is just something new they're playing with, same as "Future's End," "Superman Blue," or anything else. If it's popular enough, we might see more of it, though.

If this has to do with rights at all, I'd put more money on Superman eventually going into the public domain. When that happens, having a Superman with an entirely different situation would be a way to have a version they have all rights to.

Again, I don't think it's a rights thing, just saying that's the more compelling rights argument, imo.

[superduperman]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't fully understand public domain law but my understanding is that, unless the law is changed, the elements in Action #1 become public domain in little over a decade. This may very well be DC testing the waters, so to speak, on if the public is willing to buy a Superman that isn't Clark Kent. Obviously I don't know if this is true but, as you pointed out, this isn't the first time that DC has tried to alter the character to hold onto the "official" Superman. If this is the case, no one at DC is going to just come right out and admit it. My guess is that some of Didio's "5-G" plans were already in the works prior to his firing and they had to salvage something from them. But if they can get the public to buy a Superman that isn't tied directly to Action #1, I don't think they'll complain.