Is Superman worth it anymore?

[Vakanai]

That's treating characters and stories as if it was some kind of favorite juice or candy, that's not making any real argument.

Why? What would be a "real" argument? I mean, it's about what we want isn't it? Why is the reason why I like or want something not a "real" argument? What's so different from characters and stories than juice or candy? We consume both for our own enjoyment do we not?

So basically this is about status, about being talked about, and about being on the cool kids' table. That's it? Sheesh.

No, and honestly -how the hell did you even get to that conclusion from that?
I thought this would be obvious, but - I mentioned that superheroes are popular now only to argue that the reasons why we only had a shot of a good portrayal on the screen once or twice in forty years is different now. That this genre is appreciated more now, financially, by the people who own these characters, makes it more likely that we'll get more projects and shots at good Superman movies than we had in the past.

No I'm serious, how did you take this being about "being on the cool kid's table"? Like just from context I'm not seeing it.

That's actually true of Robin Hood and Peter Pan as well, lol. After the Costner movie of the '90s, you had the Russell Crowe Robin Hood of the 2000s directed by Ridley Scott, in the 2010s you had the Robin Hood movie of Taron Egerton.

True, and maybe getting 3 Batman movies or 3 Iron Man movies in one decade has skewed my view here. On the flip side, there's also tv shows, cartoons and animated DTVs, as well as the comics and games and other content. Even the marketing push is a world of difference - I don't even recall the 00's movie you mentioned. Like even now I'm drawing a blank on it.

For King Arthur, you had the Clive Owen one in the 2000s and in the 2010s the one with Tom Hardy.

I definitely think getting superhero trilogies and team ups and such in a short time span has skewed my view, and definitely the impact and hype is important to note here. In this case I remember the 00's film, but didn't know the 10's film even existed until I saw part of it on like Syfy last year (I...did not like what little I saw).

Also Peter Pan has had adaptations in recent years, two adaptations in the 2010s, one with Jason Isaacs as Hook, another which came later with Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard and the villain. Also the biopic Finding Neverland about the author J. M. Barrie.

Were those both in the 2010's? Thought one was from the 00's.

And in the case of Superman, there hasn't been a major Superman cartoon since STAS ended. There's been DTV stuff, there's been a Legion of Superheroes cartoon that's really obscure but nothing that explores Superman and his mythos and so on.

True, but there's been TV shows. Smallville, Supergirl, Krypton, Superman and Lois. And there have been quite a few animated DTV movies. That's more than most.

There's just no evidence to back that up.

After all, there are more great, excellent, and entertaining Robin Hood and King Arthur movies than there are Superman movies.
With Robin Hood you have,
-- The Silent Douglas Fairbanks movie.
-- Errol Flynn's The Adventures of Robin Hood
-- Richard Lester's Robin and Marian (which is also like the first Deconstruction ever, with Old Man Robin Hood).
-- Robin Hood Prince of Thieves
-- Robin Hood Men in Tights
-- The Disney Robin Hood cartoon.

With King Arthur you have,
-- Excalibur
-- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
-- The Sword in the Stone
-- First Knight
-- The Kid Who Would Be King (more recent, and underrated).
[Also if you like French movies],
--Perceval le Gallois
--Lancelot du Lac

Peter Pan is more mixed. Spielberg's Hook is flawed but it's probably the best we got. The Disney Peter Pan is racist but excellent animation. But Robin Hood and King Arthur and Sherlock Holmes, and also I gather, Zorro, have better batting averages.

I disagree and kind of feel like this bit illustrates my point - the years between many if not most of what you are listing here is somewhat daunting. True, Superman in live action films of quality is lacking, but I don't believe that will remain inevitable, quite the contrary. With the modern obsession with superhero media, I think we'll see it sooner than later. Whereas in public domain...I don't have a century to wait for his list to reach those numbers frankly.

[Vakanai]

As I said coming into the PD won't bring a Godfather Level masterpiece to the theaters on the morning of the next day, or provide the next Watchmen run on your coffee-table the evening of the same, but in the long run it will be better, and for me that applies to all superheroes. I would want Batman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman (especially!) to all enter the Public Domain as early as possible.

What's the evidence that it'll be better in the long run? I mean, your lists of movies of public domain characters isn't that convincing. Compared to where many of these superhero characters are now, and whittling it down to such a small list over such long time periods...it isn't something I find exciting honestly. It looks like after maybe a brief initial surge, I'd just get less content. Why is less better?

[Vakanai]

It's not about "perfect" it's about consistency, variety, freshness, and freedom.

And it's also about time. We're in a generational shift where these characters are getting more and more content faster thanks to them being viewed as valuable marketable IPs. Public Domain would take that momentum and crawl it out over the century if your own examples are anything to go by.

[HsssH]

It is getting hard to follow this thread with some people repeating same arguments in different words multiple times now so I apologise if this was mentioned already, but 1991 Robin Hood movie got mentioned few times and I'd like just to point out that it has lower critics and audience score than Snyder's Man of Steel.

[Vakanai]

The Douglas Fairbanks Robin Hood. The Erroll Flynn Robin Hood.

Then ROBIN AND MARIAN, directed by Richard Lester with the all-time great cast of Sean Connery as Robin Hood and Audrey Hepburn as Maid Marian, Robert Shaw as Sheriff of Nottingham, and Richard Harris in a brief cameo as Richard the Lionheart. Three masterpieces of cinema there.

Those are great movies. You'll never hear me badmouth classics. But how much good are they doing Robin Hood right now? Most people aren't like me and you, most people won't watch silent movies or black and white movies. Heck, many people won't watch movies older than they are. And if they're not being watched, how does that benefit the character? We'll future generations be talking about Superman like this, as a bygone film star who had a nice return to glory once 30 years ago?

[CosmiComic]

It is getting hard to follow this thread with some people repeating same arguments in different words multiple times now so I apologise if this was mentioned already, but 1991 Robin Hood movie got mentioned few times and I'd like just to point out that it has lower critics and audience score than Snyder's Man of Steel.

Costner didn't even try an English accent. Of course, that might actually better thsn a bad attempt!

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It is getting hard to follow this thread with some people repeating same arguments in different words multiple times now so I apologise if this was mentioned already, but 1991 Robin Hood movie got mentioned few times and I'd like just to point out that it has lower critics and audience score than Snyder's Man of Steel.

You mean on RottenTomatoes?
-- Well looking at the site, Prince of Thieves has a 51% score based on 55 Reviews (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rob...nce_of_thieves)
-- Man of Steel has a 56% score based on 336 Reviews
(https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel)

What that means is that a broader consensus exists for consigning Man of Steel to be mediocre and sub-par than Prince of Thieves, which after all came out before Internet and Social Media (which multiplied the number of review sites and review platforms) and had to rely on criticism from traditional outlets.

And in any case this was about the popularity and viability of Robin Hood and Superman in a comparative timeframe where commercially speaking Kevin Costner's movie was in terms of profit margin (budget to returns, in comparison to others in years of release), adjusted for inflation a bigger deal than any Superman sequel. The 2010 Russell Crowe movie also earned a lot of money.

Public Domain would take that momentum and crawl it out over the century if your own examples are anything to go by.

Momentum? As soon as cinema and technology achieved a peak, Robin Hood and King Arthur among many other PD works were adapted to the new medium. You make it sound that people had to wait decades for good Robin Hood content. That's not true at all. I mean people had to wait a longer time for a feature film Superman adaptation. A live-action movie where you saw Superman fly, in color and with good special effects took 40 years between Superman's first appearance and his first feature film adaptation.

What's the evidence that it'll be better in the long run?

The benefits of Public Domain, seriously? Wow, do people not like free stuff anymore?!

King Arthur being in Public Domain has led to iconic and legendary creations like PRINCE VALIANT by Hal Foster, a landmark comic strip immensely influential on Steve Ditko, Kirby, among many other comics creations. It led to CAMELOT 3000, a legendary graphic novel by Mike Barr and Brian Bolland, and most recently Kieron Gillen and Dan Mora's ONCE & FUTURE. That's some of the comics. I can also list adaptations like Richard Wagner's opera Parsifal. I can list the movies, and also the numerous references and takes on Arthuriana across the fantasy genre. These creations being in public domain means that artists from a wider array of backgrounds could tackle the same material without being corralled into the narrow fields of Superman fandom, DC fandom, superhero genre conventions, bring in a wider range of references. Whereas say if you want a cool idea for a Superman graphic novel or so on, in order to do it you have to make a pitch to DC, then editorial will have a say about if it fits their interests or not, and then they will decide if it fits the brand or not, and then of course you get a pittance compared to what you would get adapting public domain material on your own, where you get to own your adaptation and draw royalties from your work.

Walt Disney's Empire was built entirely on the Public Domain. He adapted public domain fairy tales and children's stories -- Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinnocchio, (in that case the movie was released just under the line of it falling into public domain), Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Cinderella, and later on The Jungle Book, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pocahontas, Mulan, Hercules. The entire Disney Princess thing which draws far more money and merchandise than superhero stuff is all drawn from the public domain. I can also cite "The Sorceror's Apprentice" the iconic short from Fantasia which was based on a poem by the German writer Goethe. If there had been no public domain, you would have no Disney Empire, and now because you have a Disney Empire we're in danger of not having anything enter Public Domain again.

[Kuwagaton]

I mean for all the talk in this thread about public domain though, it's entirely hypothetical. Superman being public domain isn't happening any time soon... we won't be getting anything like generic ol' Robin hood.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I mean for all the talk in this thread about public domain though, it's entirely hypothetical. Superman being public domain isn't happening any time soon... we won't be getting anything like generic ol' Robin hood.

I am still plenty young, and I expect to live to see the centenary of the Reeve movie. By that time, Superman ought to have entered the public domain and the Reeve film certainly will.

So I am talking about something that is expected to happen in my lifetime. Earlier this year The Great Gatsby (1925) entered the public domain. So if someone wants to do sequels or versions based on the POV of Daisy or a movie where Gatsby gets converted into a supervillain or heck have Gatsby be a character that Wolverine hung out with in the 1920s and so on, that can now happen. Gatsby is basically as far away from Superman's first appearance as the first RDJ Iron Man is to us. Oh and Steamboat Willie (1928) is 3 years away.

In any case the discussion wasn't about the legal and technical issues for why superheroes won't enter PD but that entering PD would be bad for the characters. I really don't think there's anything to warrant the second proposition.

[Pinsir]

Man, Superman fans have the biggest chips on their shoulders. I see people wearing Superman shirts and other memorabilia all the time, but according to you lot, he's a dead character.

Also, about the IP thing, uh, sure maybe Superman does go into the public domain, but that isn't the same for his supporting cast and world and his his symbol is probably trademarked as well (which doesn't expire), so, yeah, enjoy "Superman" without that S logo.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Also, about the IP thing, uh, sure maybe Superman does go into the public domain, but that isn't the same for his supporting cast and world and his his symbol is probably trademarked as well (which doesn't expire), so, yeah, enjoy "Superman" without that S logo.

The Fleischer cartoons did fine without it.

[HsssH]

You mean on RottenTomatoes?
-- Well looking at the site, Prince of Thieves has a 51% score based on 55 Reviews (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rob...nce_of_thieves)
-- Man of Steel has a 56% score based on 336 Reviews
(https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel)

What that means is that a broader consensus exists for consigning Man of Steel to be mediocre and sub-par than Prince of Thieves, which after all came out before Internet and Social Media (which multiplied the number of review sites and review platforms) and had to rely on criticism from traditional outlets.

And in any case this was about the popularity and viability of Robin Hood and Superman in a comparative timeframe where commercially speaking Kevin Costner's movie was in terms of profit margin (budget to returns, in comparison to others in years of release), adjusted for inflation a bigger deal than any Superman sequel. The 2010 Russell Crowe movie also earned a lot of money.

It is good that we can look at previous posts:

After all, there are more great, excellent, and entertaining Robin Hood and King Arthur movies than there are Superman movies.
With Robin Hood you have,
-- The Silent Douglas Fairbanks movie.
-- Errol Flynn's The Adventures of Robin Hood
-- Richard Lester's Robin and Marian (which is also like the first Deconstruction ever, with Old Man Robin Hood).
-- Robin Hood Prince of Thieves
-- Robin Hood Men in Tights
-- The Disney Robin Hood cartoon.

Point is that Prince of Thieves is not great, excellent or even good. As for entertaining, many people find bad movies entertaining so this is rather meaningless label. Also, just a reminder that Costner got Raspberry award for his performance in that movie. We could also talk about Costner's career in late 80s and early 90s. Or we could wonder why asides of Men in Tights parody Robin Hood has been pretty much dormant since that movie. But I'm not sure if there is any point to that since I have no desire to start arguing about how many reviews movie should get before we get broad consensus.

One last thing, Robin Hood 2010 did not make much if any money at all. It has much lower budget multiplier than Man of Steel.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Point is that Prince of Thieves is not great, excellent or even good.

I'd argue that Prince of Thieves is fairly entertaining. Alan Rickman is a delight as the Sheriff. It's got some neat sword-fights, Morgan Freeman appeared as Robin's Saracen Best Friend (arguably an early shot for injecting diversity in historical entertainments against strict realism). It had this Bryan Adams pop song that was a huge hit in its time and got a lot of MTV coverage and so on.

It does all the things a disposable 90s blockbuster was supposed to do. And did it well. The same can't be said of the Superman movies near its era -- Superman III and Superman IV or Superman Returns, or Man of Steel.

Also, just a reminder that Costner got Raspberry award for his performance in that movie. We could also talk about Costner's career in late 80s and early 90s.

Costner was actually in a good place in that time -- Bull Durham, Silverado, Dances with Wolves, The Untouchables, A Perfect World -- among others.

Or we could wonder why asides of Men in Tights parody Robin Hood has been pretty much dormant since that movie.

Well unless you discount Shrek. There's also Time Bandits in the 1980s.

I'm not sure if there is any point to that since I have no desire to start arguing about how many reviews movie should get before we get broad consensus.

At the very least a critical reception in 1990s is different from critical reception in 2010s because there are now far more reviewers and most of them aren't professional film critics, but more a mix of fan, influencer, and critic, largely on social media. A Professional Film Critic is someone who is paid to cover all kinds of movies -- popular, oscar-bait, foreign, etcetera. Whereas now you have people on Rotten Tomatoes who basically just review whatever they want to review and specialize in niches. Also at that time it was generally understood that a genre film or a popular movie would be graded lower (because genre snobbism but also to keep standards set) whereas now any half-way decent superhero movie gets ratings like it's Schindler's List or something.

One last thing, Robin Hood 2010 did not make much if any money at all. It has much lower budget multiplier than Man of Steel.

Robin Hood 2010 did pretty well considering that medieval genres in that time underperformed. And it had a lower marketing budget compared to Man of Steel and was primarily made to sell as a movie rather than sell movie and move merchandise. Man of Steel was a bigger failure. Robin Hood's underperformance also owes itself to the fact that it departed rather far from what defined the character and setting (whereas Prince of Thieves was a more traditional movie).

Both movies earned far lower on domestic grosses than internationally, and in general the profitability of a movie, an American movie, is tied to domestic grosses primarily.

[Kuwagaton]

I am still plenty young, and I expect to live to see the centenary of the Reeve movie. By that time, Superman ought to have entered the public domain and the Reeve film certainly will.

So I am talking about something that is expected to happen in my lifetime. Earlier this year The Great Gatsby (1925) entered the public domain. So if someone wants to do sequels or versions based on the POV of Daisy or a movie where Gatsby gets converted into a supervillain or heck have Gatsby be a character that Wolverine hung out with in the 1920s and so on, that can now happen. Gatsby is basically as far away from Superman's first appearance as the first RDJ Iron Man is to us. Oh and Steamboat Willie (1928) is 3 years away.

In any case the discussion wasn't about the legal and technical issues for why superheroes won't enter PD but that entering PD would be bad for the characters. I really don't think there's anything to warrant the second proposition.

Actually it's not that either. The real topic in the OP has nothing to do with public domain, it's an impractical tangent. By the time we could see anything more significantly accurate to the franchise than the pastiche works already done, we'll mostly be well outside of a target demographic, but again that's not what this thread is really about.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Actually it's not that either. The real topic in the OP has nothing to do with public domain, it's an impractical tangent.

Just want to point out, that this tangent was spurred more be reactions to others than my original point.

The OP was lamenting how poorly Superman has been handled especially in light of ZS' stated original plans (which was Bat-Lois Baby) and wondering if it's worth liking Superman. My second response to that was,

I am enough of a fan of Superman that if there were not another Superman adaptation, another Superman cartoon and so on, and no other comic, and we have just the stuff that's published, I'd be happy with that. I have my Alan Moore, I have my Timm Cartoons on the box-set, my Fleischer collection, I have Superman vs. The Amazing Spider-Man. That's enough. My spotify has a playlist of all the songs with Superman references from The Kinks to Eminem, from REM to 3 Doors Down.

I never got entirely this sense that something you like has to be the popular dominant thing on the planet. There are so many books, movies, TV, games and music I love that is unlikely to ever become a franchise, and while I'd be happy if they get more popular and interest, I'm not someone who's gonna pine forever for that, you know.

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.

So my PD suggestion was just a modest incidental thing which others basically reacted to in rather disproportionate fashion.

And in any case, I was merely trying to give people something to look forward to and making them thing about why they feel low about the state of Superman.

By the time we could see anything more significantly accurate to the franchise than the pastiche works already done, we'll mostly be well outside of a target demographic, but again that's not what this thread is really about.

To bring it back, let me say that for me Superman is worthwhile regardless of how well or poorly his adaptations are doing. Whatever that I find appealing about Superman exists in stuff that's on my shelf and no amount of bad adaptations going forward will take that away.

I don't personally tie my fandom based on how the current stock is going and I'd like a good adaptation rather than the most dominant pop. culture entity on the planet. Like one of my favorite books is Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast, a major inspiration for modern fantasy (Tolkien to Gaiman, Pratchett to Martin) and I don't think it will ever get a faithful adaptation because it kind of defies it, and I am fine with that. I like being fans of things when it's unfashionable and not when it's in demand. The Superman media that actually means most to me is in fact music. Songs by the Kinks and R. E. M among others, where Superman is treated already like a piece of folklore. Superman's biggest impact is the way he entered language...Kryptonite has replaced Achilles Heel, "up in the sky...it's a bird it's a plane..." are phrases the live on still, the word brainiac is in the dictionary, as is bizarro. No other character has that level of reach and impact.