Is Superman worth it anymore?

[manduck37]

I'd say Superman is still worth it. I say that as a guy who's consuming a lot less Superman these days and as a life long fan. Supes is my favorite and always will be. Though I've stopped reading the comics for the first time in 30 years. I have no interest in Superman in the movies, after the Snyder films. I do really enjoy Superman and Lois though. I still watch the old Superman cartoons with my son. If I hear good things, I may jump back into the comics down the line. If I don't pick up the comics ever again, I'll have plenty of Superman to keep me happy.

By the way, if you can track it down and have something to play it on, the video game Superman: Shadow of Apokolips is a great Superman game. It's based on the animated series and has more than a full episode of animated story. It's a blast, even though it's pretty old.

[HsssH]

But the GA didn't knew them before the movies, Marvel didn't changed the characters to be edgy or shock the audience like the DCEU tried to do with Superman and Batman. Whatever concept the public had about Captain America, Iron Man or Spider-Man was fullfilled by what they saw in the big screen.
Yes, it wasn't a 1:1 translation from comics to movies, but we didn't see CA or Spider doing stuff that contradicted the image the public have of them. Captain America was still the patriot soldier that does what he believe is right no matter the consequences even when it puts him against the goverment of the country he loves and Spider-Man still was the blue collar kid trying to help and do good with the great powers he received.

On the DCEU Superman was a conflicted man who didn't know what or even what he wanted to do, while that may work for the first movie it was still the same thing in BvS and now we know it would still be the same on Snyder's whole cinematic saga until the moment Batman would show him what to do.
The biggest sucess on the DCEU were Aquaman and Wonder Woman, both movies that embraced the characters from the comics, Wan and Jenkins didn't set out to change Aquaman and WW into something different, more cynical or edgy to bring in people who never liked the characters, they just made so the public could see why those characters were cool in the first place.

Very good points and I agree with the bolded part. But then I'd like to rise a further question. Is MCU faithful to comics or is it faithful to the public perception of what these characters are? Now, what forms the public perception of Superman? Is it really the comics or is it Superman 1978? Do we want adaptation of comics or adaptation of... adaptation?

[The Frog Bros]

It blows my mind that people don’t think Superman is relevant anymore. The immigrant’s story is always relevant. His arch nemesis is an egomaniacal billionaire industrialist with occasional political aspirations. Clark is a journalist trying to fight for truth against misinformation. His planet was destroyed because its leaders wouldn’t listen to the scientists’ warnings. This is all practically ripped from the headlines.

Yeah, great point. The character and his basic story is absolutely relevant today. What's frustrating is the brass can't seem to come up with a cohesive plan as to how to use him effectively across all media. But even "effectively" is something of a loaded term because everyone has their own version of what the character should be. Personally, I am pretty optimistic about the immediate future in comics specifically. I was pleasantly surprised by Future State; I enjoyed just about every book to one degree or another, although Superman of Metropolis was certainly my least favorite. Regardless of how the Action or Superman books turn out, if nothing else Red & Blue and the Yang book definitely look like winners. And Superman 78 looks promising as well, so there's no shortage of options out there at the current moment. In short, there's a lot to choose from so there's bound to be something that hits your fancy as a fan these days. At least that's my glass-is-half-full interpretation.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I wonder what Kevin Feige would have done if he was at WB. I truly live in the worst timeline.

By himself alone, Feige wouldn't have done much or anything. Remember he worked on some capacity on the Bryan Singer X-Men films, the Raimi Spider-Man movies, and also ASM Spider-Man, as well as Affleck Daredevil, Ang Lee Hulk and so on.

Feige is ultimately the beneficiary of circumstances and good fortune but not necessarily the creator of those circumstances. The MCU happened not because of Feige but because of David Maisel (https://screenrant.com/marvel-studio...-david-maisel/) the executive who came up with the entire scheme and the way they can find money to get it off the ground.

I dread the idea of public domain. I don't think just anyone should come along and write a character

Yes, I really believe that if Superman was public domain 15-20 years ago, Homelander would be called Superman on The Boys.

But I don't know if that will happen anytime soon, Disney will keep changing the laws to mantain ownership over Mickey and that will affect Superman.

A public domain Superman *could* churn out some pretty fantastic stories. But it'll also create a lot of really, really bad stories and there are plenty of negative consequences to a major company like AT&T/WB/DC losing the sole rights to one of their IP's.

Like, yeah it's great that any of us could go out there and write a Robin Hood story or make a film. Good for us. But when was the last time Robin Hood got a big, successful adaptation? Kevin Costner and 1991? We're talking about one of the most well known folktale heroes in Western culture, but there's a distinct lack of product being created with the character, in large part because he's public domain and has no corporate protection/investment.

People tend to project extreme attitudes towards public domain based in part on corporate propaganda. Corporations spread lies about public domain so as to make fans handmaidens in their attempt to extend copyright (which they swindled from the original creators...never forget).

1) Superman going Public Domain, isn't going to mean Homelander will outright be called Superman. Sherlock Holmes being public domain hasn't led to "Evil Sherlock" stories. We've had Evil Superman stories in mainline DC continuity well before Ennis wrote The Boys (and in Ennis' original comic, the final villain isn't in fact Homelander).

2) The lack of Robin Hood adaptations owes itself to several other factors, and not being adapted as often or regularly isn't the point. There's also no guarantee that having corporate protection/investment is a better guarantor of the IP's long-term memory. Far from it.

Superman coming into public domain means:
-- Alan Moore will happily do a run on his favorite superhero, now that returns on him will not continue to perpetuate the IP theft by WB/DC on Siegel-Shuster.
-- Marvel Comics and the MCU can automatically feature Superman in their universe. Sony Pictures can do the Superman Vs. the Amazing Spider-Man crossover.
-- People who make a Muhammad Ali biopic can do a fantasy-esque biopic of him fighting Superman.
-- You can have all kinds of different takes on Superman around the world.

Take Dracula, he's in the public domain, as is Frankenstein and there are so many variations and ideas and adaptations of those stories in so many mediums. Lovecraft also PD, and Cthulhu lives. Sherlock Holmes has thrived in the public domain with so many versions and takeoffs on him. There are many other examples. Moby-Dick being quoted and used by Star Trek as well as motifs from that book that filter across mediums. Let's not forget Shakespeare.

[Ra-El]

Very good points and I agree with the bolded part. But then I'd like to rise a further question. Is MCU faithful to comics or is it faithful to the public perception of what these characters are? Now, what forms the public perception of Superman? Is it really the comics or is it Superman 1978? Do we want adaptation of comics or adaptation of... adaptation?

You ask a good question, a very important question. In regards to the MCU, I belive it's faithful to the public perception of these characters, but it's also faithful to what these characters are in the comics. What the MCU isn't faithful to is the comic history and continuity of the characters, we didn't see Uncle Ben in the mcu Spider-Man movies, he may or may not exist in that universe, but Peter acts as someone who learned the things uncle Ben canonicaly taught him, aunt May is played by a super hot Marisa Tomei, but she is still there and represents basically the same as in the comics.

About Superman, the question you raised is one I ask myself with some frequency, and I don't know. My love for the character comes from Superman The Movie, so it's really important to me, and guides a lot of my perceptions about the character.
What I think, is that filmmakers should do what Donner did, consume the character stories, read the comics, watch the movies, tv shows and animations. And then tell a story about Superman adventures, a story where Superman is the main character, the hero, the one who drives the plot and saves the day.
What they should not do is a story about what Superman means, where he feels more like a plot device than a character, don't makes his own choices and is defined by other characters actions and perceptions.

The story could be inspired in Superman 1978, what it should not be is a conversation with it, be to agree or to disagree with it, we already saw both instances with Singer and Snyder, Burton apparently would be doing his own thing, but that didn't happen. I want someone who will do what Donner did in the 70's someone who loves the character and will make a movie about it, not to fix what he thinks don't work, or to redefine the character, but just tell a fun and entertaining superhero adventure.

[Superfly Frankenstein]

Superman should be and has the ability to be the best. Regardless of what is to come, he will always be my favorite fictional character. Yes, Abrams neutered Star Trek (at least it’s an alternate reality) and yes, he threw up on Star Wars (I blame The Last Jedi), but maybe....juuuuuuuust maybe, he can pull off Superman (unless he recycles Flyby). I’ll always have MY Superman (and it seems they are pretty close with the CW show).

[Ascended]

People tend to project extreme attitudes towards public domain based in part on corporate propaganda. Corporations spread lies about public domain so as to make fans handmaidens in their attempt to extend copyright (which they swindled from the original creators...never forget).

It's true that people tend to go to extremes with public domain, and I'm not saying no good would come of it. Simply that it wouldn't blast open the doors to an endless stream of high-quality content like some folks believe it would.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Simply that it wouldn't blast open the doors to an endless stream of high-quality content like some folks believe it would.

Would it be a fairy-wand that instantly creates a Godfather level movie the morning it goes into public domain? No.

Given reasonable time you would see a Super-Renaissance for sure. You will also see some bad stuff but that's neither here nor there.

[Frontier]

Superman coming into public domain means:
-- Alan Moore will happily do a run on his favorite superhero, now that returns on him will not continue to perpetuate the IP theft by WB/DC on Siegel-Shuster.
-- Marvel Comics and the MCU can automatically feature Superman in their universe. Sony Pictures can do the Superman Vs. the Amazing Spider-Man crossover.
-- People who make a Muhammad Ali biopic can do a fantasy-esque biopic of him fighting Superman.
-- You can have all kinds of different takes on Superman around the world.

Take Dracula, he's in the public domain, as is Frankenstein and there are so many variations and ideas and adaptations of those stories in so many mediums. Lovecraft also PD, and Cthulhu lives. Sherlock Holmes has thrived in the public domain with so many versions and takeoffs on him. There are many other examples. Moby-Dick being quoted and used by Star Trek as well as motifs from that book that filter across mediums. Let's not forget Shakespeare.

None of that really sounds all that appealing to me to be honest.

I guess maybe the Spider-Man and Superman crossover, but I view that more like Batman vs TMNT (and neither of which are public domain).

[LifeIsILL]

It bothers me that we never get enough "evil Batman" stories (Dark Knights Metal was a corrective on this admittedly) because at the end of the day a dude with superpowers granted by solar radiation taking over the world isn't gonna happen. Billionaires with a streak of self-righteousness and god complexes however are a major ongoing threat to human civilization in the current century.

There are lots of stories where Batman became evil, he just got defeated immediately, and those ones are not worth talking about. Metal just gives casual fans more batwank because they think Batman is the end all be all.

[HsssH]

1) Superman going Public Domain, isn't going to mean Homelander will outright be called Superman. Sherlock Holmes being public domain hasn't led to "Evil Sherlock" stories. We've had Evil Superman stories in mainline DC continuity well before Ennis wrote The Boys (and in Ennis' original comic, the final villain isn't in fact Homelander).

We have evil Superman stories not because Public Domain leads to such stories, but because there are lots of people who find evil Superman more interesting than regular Superman. Its not like someone from DC comes to video game studio and says that we need a game with evil Superman in it. No, most likely what happens is that these studios figure that evil Superman will make their game more interesting. Or take number of evil or just "edgier" not-Superman that we have in comics among various publishers, does DC force them to create such characters? Or is there a wide spread belief that classic Superman is boring? Why do you think Superman going PD will change this perception?

-- Alan Moore will happily do a run on his favorite superhero, now that returns on him will not continue to perpetuate the IP theft by WB/DC on Siegel-Shuster.

Would he? He already did Supreme at Image and his Tom Strong can be considered a variation of Superman. Funny how Superman not being in public domain didn't stop him from writing around 50 issues of Superman stories.

Take Dracula, he's in the public domain, as is Frankenstein and there are so many variations and ideas and adaptations of those stories in so many mediums. Lovecraft also PD, and Cthulhu lives. Sherlock Holmes has thrived in the public domain with so many versions and takeoffs on him. There are many other examples. Moby-Dick being quoted and used by Star Trek as well as motifs from that book that filter across mediums. Let's not forget Shakespeare.

Frankenstein did so well in public domain that there are 0 good movies with him and general public is not even aware that Frankenstein is the doctor and not the creature. Dracula is a bit more complex case, but most of the stuff that has used him has been crap as well. Kinda funny that Nosferatu is arguably the best Dracula movie and he looks what he looks due to Dracula not being in PD at the time. Lovecraft and Sherlock I agree, they had great success in PD.

I'm not sure about the others, but I'm not against PD or for corporations holding onto these characters forever. My belief is that property being or not being in PD has nothing to do with quality and amount of work that gets created.

[Vakanai]

I get that. Superman & Lois is...not my cup of tea. It's, well...decent. Not good, certainly not great, just "decent" aka "good enough for now" or "ok" or "better than nothing" or "could be worse." At least for me. Beggars can't be choosers and all that, but I have a hard time seeing how this forum seems awash in love for the show. The film side is obviously worse - and unlike all the other posters not in love with Snyder's take on the character I also happen to be one of the rare few here not charmed by Cavill. I think he's overrated, and would rather just reboot and ditch the baggage of bringing Cavill back. Except now that we're getting that apparently, it'll be with a script by a writer who's comic work no one has nothing nice to say at all, and they'll probably make Clark Kent black to boot. So...I'm not even cautiously optimistic. Maybe not super pessimistic just yet, cautiously pessimistic seems to be the holding pattern for now.

Basically, it sucks.

But every couple of years it seems some great or at least damn good book comes along, and there's still a lot I haven't read yet, and there's some decent animated movies. So, there's still something for me to truly enjoy, even if the tv show is just tolerable rather than exciting, and my hopes in film for the character are dead.

Here's to more YA Superman books like Smashes the Klan!

I will say that Superman should enter the public domain and that if Superman becomes PD and officially joins the ranks of Robin Hood, King Arthur, Allan Quatermain and other Public Domain folk-icons, then I think things would change and be different. It's very clear that WB and for that matter DC, have not been good custodians of a character (which they swindled from its creators...Never Forget) and that the time has come for him to become folk property.

When was the last time any of those characters were in something good? Much less great? The only public domain character who seems to be getting some good showings in the past couple decades is Sherlock Holmes. I...do not hold out hope that public domain is the answer for getting great shows and movies. So many characters are already being forgotten in the public domain as is. If Superman was in the place Robin Hood and King Arthur are now...we'd get nothing but mediocre and failed attempts maybe once or twice a decade that comes and goes with not much fanfare, and that's if we're lucky. Only Sherlock Holmes is seeing good use. I'd use to include Dracula as a close second, but he's a very dim distant second these days.

[HsssH]

Dracula has very big volume of adaptations and new works, but as far as quality goes I think he was never close to Sherlock. And I'd probably put Lovecraft as #1 now. His work (or work based on his work) now gets put in everywhere and I think it has become a part of wider "western" culture in a more significant manner than Sherlock.

[Agent Z]

Would it be a fairy-wand that instantly creates a Godfather level movie the morning it goes into public domain? No.

Given reasonable time you would see a Super-Renaissance for sure. You will also see some bad stuff but that's neither here nor there.

That will happen regardless of whether or not Superman is public domain.

[Vakanai]

Dracula has very big volume of adaptations and new works, but as far as quality goes I think he was never close to Sherlock. And I'd probably put Lovecraft as #1 now. His work (or work based on his work) now gets put in everywhere and I think it has become a part of wider "western" culture in a more significant manner than Sherlock.

We don't really have much in the way of Lovecraft adaptations so much as we do Lovecraft influences. Honestly, most of the Lovecraftian stuff in film you could do even if it wasn't public domain. Rarely is Cthulhu up on screen. Although that is somewhat changing in the past decade. Also disagree on the Dracula remark - there were a number of really great quality Dracula adaptations that could be held up to the best Sherlock ones - not as many, true, but there were some greats. Of course, personal tastes vary.