Is Superman worth it anymore?

[manduck37]

Oh I realize it - that Netflix Dracula isn't talked about much at all, and while I enjoyed the heck out of the first two seasons (still on 3, kind of meh) Castlevania isn't some juggernaut hit in the anime world either. Basically still, as I said, a few works per decade of forgettable quality and no cultural impact...



Sherlock as I said is kind of the exception. Grimm...I don't even know how many of their monster/Wesen of the week were public domain honestly...weren't they largely made up? Not used anywhere outside of Grimm either. Once Upon a Time kind of worked on this weird "Disney all grown up" vibe in bits. But, here's the thing I think you are missing - you're listing ALL public domain uses in recent(ish) times as if that's proving your point, but I never said they were ignored as a whole. Maybe I should have specified, but clearly as were talking about Superman my concern is how often an individual in the public domain gets used. You can't say "Oh well characters from public domain get used all the time" as in as a whole in general while glossing over that most of your examples include characters who don't see much real use of any value in decades except in the one or two instances you mentioned. Sure, you might love if Superman gets as much love as some public domain character who showed up for one episode of Grimm, but I wouldn't! And I loved Grimm! Superman can make a splash getting as much exposure as Jiminy Cricket in Once Upon a Time, but that's not enough for me.

Outside of Sherlock, can you name one, not all lumped together public domain in general, but just one public domain character who's seeing remarkable success?

(I didn't mention the Lovecraft stuff as I'm not a gamer and thus not in the know - but I'm curious how many really feels Lovecraftian or adapts his characters and stories, and how many just use the basic bestiary or influences?)



Name some crowdfunded movies featuring public domain characters that have really taken off in the fandom and seem to be a huge hit. It all is good in theory, but before I can say yeah sure this'd be great for Superman, I want some actual examples. All we got is Sherlock Holmes doing good, Dracula a lackluster second, and maybe general Lovecraftiness in gaming? Where are the crowdfunded Peter Pan movies to make my jaw drop? The kickstarter Scarlet Pimpernel to make my eyes wide?



I don't doubt that - but how many of those creators would actually manage to get anything published? Probably less than half being optimistic. But let's say a miracle happens and they all get their Superman dream projects out - then what? Like skip ahead a decade or two, when the shine of getting sudden access to an icon is gone - do you really think all that will be sustained? That without a company working to keep the ip in the spotlight Superman will maintain anything resembling the level of usage he has enjoyed for 80+ years? There will be a sudden flood of Superman content in the short-term, probably. But after that? Honestly, I'm expecting him to get down to Peter Pan or Hercules over the long haul. Long term public domain is going to be much, much less than what Superman gets today. We can all hope for Sherlock Holmes success, but that's no guarantee. Especially the comics side will taper down to nothing eventually - how many ongoings and minis does Sherlock really get?



I'm not against public domain in some instances (happy birthday song should have fallen into pd long ago...), and it's nice in an ethical, anti-corporate way (let's be honest, the people in corporate power who own Superman today are largely shit). But as a pure geek and fanboy? I see it as an inevitable "less of what I want" in the long run. I love King Arthur, but he hasn't had much "good" in decades. I eventually end up seeing everything (outside of gaming) with Dracula in it - but most recent takes don't impress me (still got to see the Netflix movie, but reviews are mixed so far). And there's actually 3 Dracula projects I know of. Renfield, with Dracula's doomed madman henchman as the focal character (which could be interesting - but it's allegedly a comedy which personally deflates my anticipation a lot), Demeter about the doomed crew during Dracula's voyage to England (the most promising I think of the three), and a future western take on Dracula by the director of Nomadland (the only one by Universal I think, and...eh?)? Even if all 3 pan out and are somehow all good and/or great, it's still a drip in the bucket to what Superman gets now (comics, movies, shows, cartoons, etc). And Frankenstein's Monster? I'm a fan, but now is a dark time for Frank...

Not public domain, but tangentially related to Dracula and Frankenstein - the cereal company wants to make a movie of their monster cereal characters like Count Chocula and Frankenberry - although I haven't heard anything about it in a couple years so might have fallen through.

This makes more sense now that you've elaborated a bit on your perspective. I probably should have been more clear too. I'm not saying public domain is the answer for Superman or that it's always a wild success when you tap the public domain. Just that it's used more than people tend to realize in a lot of different industries. Like I said, I don't know if it would work out for Superman or not. I also share your fears about Superman being relegated to guest appearances and fading away. I always want my regular Superman stories.

I think that times are changing too. The days of the big theater movie blockbuster experience seem to be fading. Network/broadcast televising isn't the go to for shows anymore, thanks to streaming. Crowdfunding is really too new to see a lot of success but it does seem to be picking up steam. Part of that is certainly due to corporations, in a round about sort of way. Especially for comics. People like Snyder and Tynion have had successful crowdfunding books, due largely to being able to build an audience and get noticed with corporate work. Films outside of documentaries seem to struggle with crowdfunding so far while comics and games seem to do really well. That could be due to production costs or all sorts of things. I haven't delved into it too much.

I can certainly understand being worried about Superman content. Though honestly, have we gotten a lot of Superman content from WB/DC that it really blows the possibility of public domain projects out of the water? I'm not so sure. How long was it between Superman Returns and MoS? In tv shows, we've had Lois & Clark, Smallville and Superman & Lois most recently and how long between those? I'm not so sure I would even consider Smallville a Superman show since it spent 10 years trying not to be Superman. Superman hasn't had a feature cartoon since Bruce Timm. Cartoons is an area where he really has been relegated to the guest appearance. We've had a few good animated feature films. We've had monthly comics of varying quality. Though 5G was out there with a plan to age Superman out. So we came pretty close to not getting Clark comics from a corporation that owns him.

In a bizarre sort of way, being a Dracula fan seems to be just as lucrative than being a Superman fan. You have several shows that feature him. There have been a few movies here and there. You have a successful series of games that feature him. Dracula is featured in the games more than the Belmonts themselves. It seems like there is almost as much Dracula content in certain media as Superman and in some arenas, more. Which really kind of shows that fans of something will find it and pay for it. If someone doesn't like Superman, him being owned by WB won't bring them to the table. Superman fans will seek him out though. I highly doubt Superman ever really will be in the public domain. So it's probably all just going to be speculation anyway.

Man, I feel like we need to talk more. We like a ton of the same things. Stick with Season 3 of Castlevania. It picks up in a big way as you go. That Count Chocula/cereal series of movies sounds really bizarre.

[SiegePerilous02]

This is my issue with Morrison as well and why I don't hold that Action run in all that high regard. The first arc is good, and in the hands of someone else could make for a great relaunch. But as it stands it only works when read out of order so you don't get the Legion issues messing it up. Beyond that, only the 0 issue is a classic, with the back half being a general mess. They also have pretty well acknowledged shortcomings when writing women characters, and the treatment of Lois in both All Star and Action shows (though I'll give them a little leeway with that due to the obvious editorial meddling there).

As for the public domain issue. There's one big problem with that. Public Domain Superman will never be able to use the S-Shield because that's trademarked. So any public domain Superman would essentially just be an analogue without the branding that says "Superman" anyways.

This is a non-issue when reading the trades. All the trades put the Legion issues after the opening Brainiac arc.

For Lois, I've never felt the treatment was bad in either work, just that more could have been done with her than there was. and any adaptation looking at either All Star or Action for inspiration doesn't have to do a direct translation.

And thanks for that - I don't really pay attention to the creator side of comic news (just who is writing which titles), I'll try and remember that they're going by those pronouns now. I'm guessing this means they're non-binary?

Yes they came out as non-binary recently. But yeah, it's so recent and everyone has been slipping on the pronouns (I still do it too) lol

[Yoda]

This is a non-issue when reading the trades. All the trades put the Legion issues after the opening Brainiac arc.

For Lois, I've never felt the treatment was bad in either work, just that more could have been done with her than there was. and any adaptation looking at either All Star or Action for inspiration doesn't have to do a direct translation.

The Omnibus that just came out actually put them back in publishing order which annoyed me more than the blank page. The World Against Superman trade did reorder them and makes that first arc a lot better. That's not that big of an issue for me compared to the way it gets so convoluted as it progresses. It's not a good introduction to Superman in any way given how meta and convoluted it

Their interpretation of Lois in the Action started from the point of her just being a contrarian to her father and looked at Lady Gaga for inspiration of all places, which doesn't work for me or the modern take on Lois at all. The editorial nonsense that they were "best friends" only muddled it further and is probably a major factor in her being a non-entity in many ways in that whole run. All Star is definitely better, but across the board Morrison has been met with a good amount of criticism for the way they write women in general. I think it's more of an obvious issue with Talia's treatment (and there are criticism of Wonder Woman Earth One too), but Lois does suffer somewhat for it as well.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I'm not a fan of Morrison in general, nor his Action Comics - but that's due to his complete inability to tell a straight-forward, simple to understand, not trying to befuddle his readers plot. His actual characterization of Clark/Superman in a plotless vacuum I'll agree is spot on.

But don't let that man near a script!

I agree that a lot of stuff plot-wise in Morrison's run is confusing, but I think the first arc with Brainiac is easy to understand and would translate into a film script easily. After that I wouldn't mind if the sequels don't take from Morrison's run as much.

[SiegePerilous02]

The Omnibus that just came out actually put them back in publishing order which annoyed me more than the blank page. The World Against Superman trade did reorder them and makes that first arc a lot better. That's not that big of an issue for me compared to the way it gets so convoluted as it progresses. It's not a good introduction to Superman in any way given how meta and convoluted it

Their interpretation of Lois in the Action started from the point of her just being a contrarian to her father and looked at Lady Gaga for inspiration of all places, which doesn't work for me or the modern take on Lois at all. The editorial nonsense that they were "best friends" only muddled it further and is probably a major factor in her being a non-entity in many ways in that whole run. All Star is definitely better, but across the board Morrison has been met with a good amount of criticism for the way they write women in general. I think it's more of an obvious issue with Talia's treatment (and there are criticism of Wonder Woman Earth One too), but Lois does suffer somewhat for it as well.

The first arc is a good introduction to Superman, at least with some if its ideas. That's all an adaptation has to look to for inspiration, it doesn't have to take the meta stuff whole sale (especially as the meta stuff takes digs at DC comics, but that would be pretty great to see in a movie).

Lois was described as only partially doing it to piss off her parents (tongue in cheek), and her inspirations are Woodward and Bernstein, not Lady Gaga. Morrison compares her to Lady Gaga, which isn't the worst comparison. Gaga's pretty cool.

Morrison definitely isn't the best writer for women. But the latest volume of Earth One is better than the last couple, and personally their Talia doesn't seem out of the ordinary for Talia. Though I've never cared for Talia in general and just like her as a villain.

[HsssH]

In a bizarre sort of way, being a Dracula fan seems to be just as lucrative than being a Superman fan. You have several shows that feature him. There have been a few movies here and there. You have a successful series of games that feature him. Dracula is featured in the games more than the Belmonts themselves. It seems like there is almost as much Dracula content in certain media as Superman and in some arenas, more. Which really kind of shows that fans of something will find it and pay for it. If someone doesn't like Superman, him being owned by WB won't bring them to the table. Superman fans will seek him out though. I highly doubt Superman ever really will be in the public domain. So it's probably all just going to be speculation anyway.

While I think that majority of the content that Dracula gets is trash... I think that he is perfect character for PD because you can do anything you want with him. Need some boss battle in a video game? No problem. Want some short cameo in a movie about monsters? No problem. Want to create action movie with Dracula? No problem. Horror movie? No problem. Comedy? Go ahead. Want to make a tragic story and humanise him a bit? Sure.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

To be fair, characters like Dracula and Frankenstein are usually portrayed as villains and in a lot of cases are forces of nature before they are actual people.

A character like Sherlock Holmes is a much better indication of how a character like Superman would be treated in the public domain.

[Vakanai]

This makes more sense now that you've elaborated a bit on your perspective. I probably should have been more clear too. I'm not saying public domain is the answer for Superman or that it's always a wild success when you tap the public domain. Just that it's used more than people tend to realize in a lot of different industries. Like I said, I don't know if it would work out for Superman or not. I also share your fears about Superman being relegated to guest appearances and fading away. I always want my regular Superman stories.

Glad we kind of straightened out more where we're coming from and our concerns. The debate over public domain is easier here when we're discussing more how an individual character is used versus public domain as a whole. And that ultimately we both just want regular stories to feed our interest.

I think that times are changing too. The days of the big theater movie blockbuster experience seem to be fading. Network/broadcast televising isn't the go to for shows anymore, thanks to streaming. Crowdfunding is really too new to see a lot of success but it does seem to be picking up steam. Part of that is certainly due to corporations, in a round about sort of way. Especially for comics. People like Snyder and Tynion have had successful crowdfunding books, due largely to being able to build an audience and get noticed with corporate work. Films outside of documentaries seem to struggle with crowdfunding so far while comics and games seem to do really well. That could be due to production costs or all sorts of things. I haven't delved into it too much.

I really disagree on the theater/blockbuster experience. With billion dollar movies becoming commonplace in the past decade+, I really don't see theaters going anywhere. It may be easy to feel that way when covid has kept us from theaters for a year now, but China's already seeing a rebound in theater attendance, and I think much of the world is going to follow suit once this is finally contained. I think a lot of people who've ditched theaters for streaming only like to say theaters will become smaller and less important, but I think that's just personal experience clouding judgement since they're no longer in the theater themselves with the huge crowds for the summer blockbuster (and I hope we get back to that sooner rather than later - really hating the pandemic). Certainly the blockbusters planned for last year that've gone straight to streaming haven't done well enough to count cutting theaters out as viable just yet for big blockbusters...

I'm not knocking streaming though - I just view it more as an addition to the media landscape rather than a replacement. I don't see streaming dealing the deathblow to theaters any more than radio vs print (physical books are seeing an uptick!) or television to radio (hell, with some podcasts you can argue even serial storytelling in pure audio format has made a comeback!). If streaming is the death knell to anything, it's the death knell of the satellite/cable channel television model. Not even the death of tv, just the evolution of it - and made for tv movies are older than me and probably you. Definitely some great stuff has come from streaming (I finally watched Stranger Things!), and some masterpieces and blockbusters are going to come from there, guaranteed. But again, I see this as an evolution of television, and an addition, more than a replacement. Just another source for some great entertainment.

Crowdfunding on the other hand? I'm iffy about. I have nothing against it, I truly believe some great things will come from it, and I own a movie that was made because of it (the blu-ray for Howl from Beyond the Fog, a kaiju puppet period piece short film that is frankly a work of art). I think it's here to stay, I'm looking forward to what it'll produce, but it's got one inherent flaw - money. I don't imagine any crowdfunded film will ever raise the $100-300 million some blockbusters receive to make their film. No making a movie with the budget of the Avengers films. Can still make great films, but the spectacle will have to be less. Either the effects have to be stretched thing and used sparingly for a movie, or the runtime must be less (like Howl from Beyond the Fog's 30 minute runtime). Crowdfunding isn't going to get us a Man of Steel or Superman Returns effects budget, it just won't. Not unless CGI takes a nosedive in price and complexity to make in the next 20 years...

Crowdfunded books, sure. But still, it'll be less and fewer books overall.

I can certainly understand being worried about Superman content. Though honestly, have we gotten a lot of Superman content from WB/DC that it really blows the possibility of public domain projects out of the water? I'm not so sure. How long was it between Superman Returns and MoS? In tv shows, we've had Lois & Clark, Smallville and Superman & Lois most recently and how long between those? I'm not so sure I would even consider Smallville a Superman show since it spent 10 years trying not to be Superman. Superman hasn't had a feature cartoon since Bruce Timm. Cartoons is an area where he really has been relegated to the guest appearance. We've had a few good animated feature films. We've had monthly comics of varying quality. Though 5G was out there with a plan to age Superman out. So we came pretty close to not getting Clark comics from a corporation that owns him.

It's still better than most public domain characters however. Hercules had the Kevin Sorbo series and Disney movie/cartoon in the 90s, about nothing in the 00's, and 2 or 3 movies in the 10's no one talks about. Peter Pan largely less. Frankenstein's Monster, some movies not worth mentioning. Outside Sherlock Holmes, and arguably maybe Dracula, no public domain character really stacks up to where Superman is right now in terms of content. Is it where you and I would like it? No. But I still feel like it'd be less if it was in the public domain.

And I still think Didio got fired for trying that 5G stunt...

In a bizarre sort of way, being a Dracula fan seems to be just as lucrative than being a Superman fan. You have several shows that feature him. There have been a few movies here and there. You have a successful series of games that feature him. Dracula is featured in the games more than the Belmonts themselves. It seems like there is almost as much Dracula content in certain media as Superman and in some arenas, more. Which really kind of shows that fans of something will find it and pay for it. If someone doesn't like Superman, him being owned by WB won't bring them to the table. Superman fans will seek him out though. I highly doubt Superman ever really will be in the public domain. So it's probably all just going to be speculation anyway.

I'm a huge Dracula fan - most of my favorite Dracula works are older than me. Stuff I loved from my lifetime? Bram Stoker's Dracula, Dracula 2000, first two seasons of Castlevania. And Helsing, but that's so wildly different hard to say it counts. Two of those things are old enough to drink now. Again, can't speak for the gaming side of this equation, but on the tv/film/animation side, it is slim pickings. There's content, but honestly I'd settle for much less of it just to get the quality of the straight to video animated Superman movies. And the animated films aren't a high bar really...

Man, I feel like we need to talk more. We like a ton of the same things. Stick with Season 3 of Castlevania. It picks up in a big way as you go. That Count Chocula/cereal series of movies sounds really bizarre.

I know, that's the thing I love about fandom! Even when you're arguing and debating against people, it's because we all love the same stuff! Your foe on the trunks vs no trunks debate may be your best friend on all things classic horror or kaiju. No more how heated, it's all civil and in good faith. Well, definitely around here and most of the spots I frequent.

And yeah, I'm kind of curious how a Monster Cereals - The Movie would even work. It'd probably be an awful, awful cash grab...but on the slim chance it's either genuinely good or so bad it's good I'm super curious...

And will finish Castlevania after I get through a few more older anime I've had on my list for years. Watched Toradora, mostly through Ouran Host Club, started Devil is a Part-Timer...

[Vakanai]

Yes they came out as non-binary recently. But yeah, it's so recent and everyone has been slipping on the pronouns (I still do it too) lol

To be fair language is kind of gender based. There's not really a non-gendered pronoun as such - it's him or her, them and they traditionally we're used to thinking of as plural usage rather than singular usage. Language is hard. But being cognizant and trying is a simple and respectful thing.

To be fair, characters like Dracula and Frankenstein are usually portrayed as villains and in a lot of cases are forces of nature before they are actual people.

A character like Sherlock Holmes is a much better indication of how a character like Superman would be treated in the public domain.

While you have a point, Hercules, Tarzan (I think), Peter Pan, King Arthur, the Scarlet Pimpernel (I really should read that and learn who this character is...), the Three Musketeers, and more are in the public domain, are more characters than forces, and yet have less to show than Superman.

And even as a force of nature people could do better. Godzilla is a force of nature and Japan does some great stuff with him sometimes. Maybe Toho should helm a Frankenstein movie...other than Frankenstein Conquers the World...

[Kaitou D. Kid]

While you have a point, Hercules, Tarzan (I think), Peter Pan, King Arthur, the Scarlet Pimpernel (I really should read that and learn who this character is...), the Three Musketeers, and more are in the public domain, are more characters than forces, and yet have less to show than Superman.

And even as a force of nature people could do better. Godzilla is a force of nature and Japan does some great stuff with him sometimes. Maybe Toho should helm a Frankenstein movie...other than Frankenstein Conquers the World...

I don't know if any of those characters (except for maybe Hercules) can be compared to superheroes. I think writers like Morrison and Peter David have a point when they say that superheroes have essentially replaced the role that Gods used to play in society. People don't literally believe in them the way they believed in the Greek Gods but they arguably derive just as much meaning from them and from their stories.

I don't know if something like that can become irrelevant to people as easy as Peter Pan and King Arthur kinda did. I mean, Superman's story arguably pushes a lot of the same emotional buttons that the story of Moses does, which (whether we believe it to be true or not) is a story still relevant in our culture today.

The closest public domain IP to superheroes are probably Robin Hood and maybe Zorro? Those characters push a lot of the same emotional buttons that Gods/religious figures and superheroes do, and have had some decent versions in recent years.

[manduck37]

I don't know if any of those characters (except for maybe Hercules) can be compared to superheroes. I think writers like Morrison and Peter David have a point when they say that superheroes have essentially replaced the role that Gods used to play in society. People don't literally believe in them the way they believed in the Greek Gods but they arguably derive just as much meaning from them and from their stories.

I don't know if something like that can become irrelevant to people as easy as Peter Pan and King Arthur kinda did. I mean, Superman's story arguably pushes a lot of the same emotional buttons that the story of Moses does, which (whether we believe it to be true or not) is a story still relevant in our culture today.

The closest public domain IP to superheroes are probably Robin Hood and maybe Zorro? Those characters push a lot of the same emotional buttons that Gods/religious figures and superheroes do, and have had some decent versions in recent years.

I think that superheroes have become our kind of modern mythology. In a lot of ways they occupy the same space as the fables and legends of old. Larger than life characters doing impossible things in stories that can be morality tales or discuss what's important to a culture. Robin Hood and Zorro do kind of fit the bill here. Plus they've been inspiration for superheroes. So there's' a connection there.

I think HsssH touched on something when discussing Dracula. As stated, you can do all kinds of stories with the character. I think Dracula has both an interesting enough core to still get people interested and enough flexibility to do a lot with. The quality of the product can certainly be debated. Though if you want Dracula, then it's likely for the feel, themes or star power of the character. He's immortal, so you have the potential to tell unending stories with him. Even when killed, he somehow manages to come back. So you have a solid base to work with and endless potential on stories. That certainly makes him appealing.

Same can be said with Superman. You can tell any kind of story you want with him. He's a recognized and loved character. He was designed for serialized entertainment. He's not really meant to end. So trying different takes or different stories with him always gives you plenty of room to grow and continue.

That core element, or elements, with room to grow could be what hurts characters like King Arthur. The core is there for sure. Though everyone knows how Arthur's story ends. The fall of Camelot is one of the biggest parts of his myth. You can explore how it got there or different characters in the myth. You can even explore Arthur's personal journey and his emotions. Though if it doesn't end a specific way, it doesn't feel genuine. The most recent attempts were a more fantasy based King Arthur move and that show Merlyn. Robin Hood and Sherlock both eventually die too, sure. Though with Sherlock, you can always tell another mystery. Robin Hood can always have another adventure. It's easier to fit stories into their myths. Peter Pan, Tarzan and The Three Musketeers all kind of fall into the same category as King Arthur.

Though with Superman, there is something else to consider. His villains. If he were to ever enter into public domain and the villains didn't, I think it would hurt his stories. Same with his supporting cast. Superman has been around so long that his villains and supporting cast are almost as iconic as he is. A good villain and supporting cast say something about the hero. If you can't use them, I think you'd end up with a lot of pale copies. I want to see Superman battling Lex and the others. I want the Daily Planet staff around. Sure, they'd get to public domain eventually. Though it would be rough for Superman until they did. Lois would be there from the start. I certainly don't need another origin or something while waiting for stories with the characters I'd like to see again.

[manduck37]

Glad we kind of straightened out more where we're coming from and our concerns. The debate over public domain is easier here when we're discussing more how an individual character is used versus public domain as a whole. And that ultimately we both just want regular stories to feed our interest.



I really disagree on the theater/blockbuster experience. With billion dollar movies becoming commonplace in the past decade+, I really don't see theaters going anywhere. It may be easy to feel that way when covid has kept us from theaters for a year now, but China's already seeing a rebound in theater attendance, and I think much of the world is going to follow suit once this is finally contained. I think a lot of people who've ditched theaters for streaming only like to say theaters will become smaller and less important, but I think that's just personal experience clouding judgement since they're no longer in the theater themselves with the huge crowds for the summer blockbuster (and I hope we get back to that sooner rather than later - really hating the pandemic). Certainly the blockbusters planned for last year that've gone straight to streaming haven't done well enough to count cutting theaters out as viable just yet for big blockbusters...

I'm not knocking streaming though - I just view it more as an addition to the media landscape rather than a replacement. I don't see streaming dealing the deathblow to theaters any more than radio vs print (physical books are seeing an uptick!) or television to radio (hell, with some podcasts you can argue even serial storytelling in pure audio format has made a comeback!). If streaming is the death knell to anything, it's the death knell of the satellite/cable channel television model. Not even the death of tv, just the evolution of it - and made for tv movies are older than me and probably you. Definitely some great stuff has come from streaming (I finally watched Stranger Things!), and some masterpieces and blockbusters are going to come from there, guaranteed. But again, I see this as an evolution of television, and an addition, more than a replacement. Just another source for some great entertainment.

Crowdfunding on the other hand? I'm iffy about. I have nothing against it, I truly believe some great things will come from it, and I own a movie that was made because of it (the blu-ray for Howl from Beyond the Fog, a kaiju puppet period piece short film that is frankly a work of art). I think it's here to stay, I'm looking forward to what it'll produce, but it's got one inherent flaw - money. I don't imagine any crowdfunded film will ever raise the $100-300 million some blockbusters receive to make their film. No making a movie with the budget of the Avengers films. Can still make great films, but the spectacle will have to be less. Either the effects have to be stretched thing and used sparingly for a movie, or the runtime must be less (like Howl from Beyond the Fog's 30 minute runtime). Crowdfunding isn't going to get us a Man of Steel or Superman Returns effects budget, it just won't. Not unless CGI takes a nosedive in price and complexity to make in the next 20 years...

Crowdfunded books, sure. But still, it'll be less and fewer books overall.



It's still better than most public domain characters however. Hercules had the Kevin Sorbo series and Disney movie/cartoon in the 90s, about nothing in the 00's, and 2 or 3 movies in the 10's no one talks about. Peter Pan largely less. Frankenstein's Monster, some movies not worth mentioning. Outside Sherlock Holmes, and arguably maybe Dracula, no public domain character really stacks up to where Superman is right now in terms of content. Is it where you and I would like it? No. But I still feel like it'd be less if it was in the public domain.

And I still think Didio got fired for trying that 5G stunt...



I'm a huge Dracula fan - most of my favorite Dracula works are older than me. Stuff I loved from my lifetime? Bram Stoker's Dracula, Dracula 2000, first two seasons of Castlevania. And Helsing, but that's so wildly different hard to say it counts. Two of those things are old enough to drink now. Again, can't speak for the gaming side of this equation, but on the tv/film/animation side, it is slim pickings. There's content, but honestly I'd settle for much less of it just to get the quality of the straight to video animated Superman movies. And the animated films aren't a high bar really...



I know, that's the thing I love about fandom! Even when you're arguing and debating against people, it's because we all love the same stuff! Your foe on the trunks vs no trunks debate may be your best friend on all things classic horror or kaiju. No more how heated, it's all civil and in good faith. Well, definitely around here and most of the spots I frequent.

And yeah, I'm kind of curious how a Monster Cereals - The Movie would even work. It'd probably be an awful, awful cash grab...but on the slim chance it's either genuinely good or so bad it's good I'm super curious...

And will finish Castlevania after I get through a few more older anime I've had on my list for years. Watched Toradora, mostly through Ouran Host Club, started Devil is a Part-Timer...

You're right about blockbusters and movie theaters. Theaters have been struggling but ultimately I think they'll make it. I certainly don't' want them to go anywhere. Going to the movies is one of my favorite things. Plus making a movie is too expensive to really crowdfund or do on your own, like you said. There's a lot of fun in getting that communal, theater experience too. It's also good for the genre as it can add to the fanbase. Thanks to Lord of the Rings, Marvel and WB superhero movies everyone wants to talk nerdy stuff with me all the time. It's great! Certainly a big change from when I was a kid and being caught with a comic meant getting bullied. A local radio host described the superhero movies as being his new rock concerts. He just couldn't wait for the next one and going out for it was a big event. That makes a lot of sense to me. I feel the same way.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I think that superheroes have become our kind of modern mythology. In a lot of ways they occupy the same space as the fables and legends of old. Larger than life characters doing impossible things in stories that can be morality tales or discuss what's important to a culture. Robin Hood and Zorro do kind of fit the bill here. Plus they've been inspiration for superheroes. So there's' a connection there.

I think HsssH touched on something when discussing Dracula. As stated, you can do all kinds of stories with the character. I think Dracula has both an interesting enough core to still get people interested and enough flexibility to do a lot with. The quality of the product can certainly be debated. Though if you want Dracula, then it's likely for the feel, themes or star power of the character. He's immortal, so you have the potential to tell unending stories with him. Even when killed, he somehow manages to come back. So you have a solid base to work with and endless potential on stories. That certainly makes him appealing.

Same can be said with Superman. You can tell any kind of story you want with him. He's a recognized and loved character. He was designed for serialized entertainment. He's not really meant to end. So trying different takes or different stories with him always gives you plenty of room to grow and continue.

That core element, or elements, with room to grow could be what hurts characters like King Arthur. The core is there for sure. Though everyone knows how Arthur's story ends. The fall of Camelot is one of the biggest parts of his myth. You can explore how it got there or different characters in the myth. You can even explore Arthur's personal journey and his emotions. Though if it doesn't end a specific way, it doesn't feel genuine. The most recent attempts were a more fantasy based King Arthur move and that show Merlyn. Robin Hood and Sherlock both eventually die too, sure. Though with Sherlock, you can always tell another mystery. Robin Hood can always have another adventure. It's easier to fit stories into their myths. Peter Pan, Tarzan and The Three Musketeers all kind of fall into the same category as King Arthur.

Though with Superman, there is something else to consider. His villains. If he were to ever enter into public domain and the villains didn't, I think it would hurt his stories. Same with his supporting cast. Superman has been around so long that his villains and supporting cast are almost as iconic as he is. A good villain and supporting cast say something about the hero. If you can't use them, I think you'd end up with a lot of pale copies. I want to see Superman battling Lex and the others. I want the Daily Planet staff around. Sure, they'd get to public domain eventually. Though it would be rough for Superman until they did. Lois would be there from the start. I certainly don't need another origin or something while waiting for stories with the characters I'd like to see again.

You hit on another key difference: Superman and other heroes by extension were intentionally created for serialized ongoing storytelling, while Dracula (and to a lesser extent Sherlock Holmes) wasn't.

But you're right about it being a bit tricky if only Superman becomes public domain and not the rest of his world.

[CosmiComic]

[QUOTE=Kaitou D. Kid;5422686But you're right about it being a bit tricky if only Superman becomes public domain and not the rest of his world.[/QUOTE]

I can see the appeal of public domain forcing DC to better use him, but as you said, what about the rest of his world? And will he interact with the JL?

I'm coming in a bit late to this discussion, but from a general public perspective, it's disappointing to see how poorly he's been handled in the DCEU. I mean, he died in the second movie! And he barely had any chance for characterization.

[Vakanai]

I don't know if any of those characters (except for maybe Hercules) can be compared to superheroes. I think writers like Morrison and Peter David have a point when they say that superheroes have essentially replaced the role that Gods used to play in society. People don't literally believe in them the way they believed in the Greek Gods but they arguably derive just as much meaning from them and from their stories.

I don't know if something like that can become irrelevant to people as easy as Peter Pan and King Arthur kinda did. I mean, Superman's story arguably pushes a lot of the same emotional buttons that the story of Moses does, which (whether we believe it to be true or not) is a story still relevant in our culture today.

The closest public domain IP to superheroes are probably Robin Hood and maybe Zorro? Those characters push a lot of the same emotional buttons that Gods/religious figures and superheroes do, and have had some decent versions in recent years.

I...can't think of a recent version of Robin Hood that really took off. There was that one movie a few years back that seemed to fall flat, and I think there might've been a canceled BBC series? Not sure how decent any of those are. And the only thing Zorro I can think of is the Antonio Banderas movies, which I don't really consider all that recent at this point (albeit they were fun/good).

Anyways, does it matter here that Superman is a superhero? They're not famous, they're very obscure (I'm aware they exist, but can't name one, so yeah, obscure), but there are free to use superheroes in the public domain that are not getting any use. Sure, fame and icon status counts for a lot - but if we're not getting public domain superhero content now when such characters do exist, when the market is still very much DC/Marvel, corporate owned heroes, you can't claim that being a superhero will automatically make things different. Sure, Superman will do better than the public domain heroes no one has ever heard of, but we can't assume he won't fade into the background like so many others.