Is Superman worth it anymore?

[HsssH]

I don't know, when people talk about Superman's villains and how important they are my mind goes to Fleischer's Superman. Would it be sustainable in the long run? Probably not, but Superman and Lois are good enough to deliver bunch of stories without any established villains. To me bigger issue is shield not being available and things like that since at that point it would be hard to distinguish him from some not-Superman variants that we have now.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

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).

The Disney version and the Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood were very successful. They may not be "recent" recent, but considering how long Robin Hood has been around (literally hundreds of years at this point), the fact his last successful version was just three decades ago is very impressive. The same is true of Zorro and the success he's had with the Antonio Banderas films (granted Zorro hasn't been around anywhere near as long as Robin Hood, but still - almost 100 years since his inception and he is still able to make bank like that). There is no reason why Superman in the near or far future wouldn't be able to do the same.

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.

Which superheroes are you referring to that are older than Superman, though?

[Vakanai]

The Disney version and the Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood were very successful. They may not be "recent" recent, but considering how long Robin Hood has been around (literally hundreds of years at this point), the fact his last successful version was just three decades ago is very impressive. The same is true of Zorro and the success he's had with the Antonio Banderas films (granted Zorro hasn't been around anywhere near as long as Robin Hood, but still - almost 100 years since his inception and he is still able to make bank like that). There is no reason why Superman in the near or far future wouldn't be able to do the same.

Holy crap - I didn't name those because I in no way consider them recent. Kevin Costner's movie is 30 years old and the Disney one is from the 70s. That's impressive maybe compared to his long history, but as fans of the character that's a long time without some good entries. I don't want to wait 30 years. Maybe Superman having a great film in 30-40 year intervals would be acceptable for you, but if that's the promise of public domain I am not sold.

Which superheroes are you referring to that are older than Superman, though?

I didn't say older than Superman, I said that they were in the public domain. Something can become public domain earlier than older examples, depending on various things (when did the creator die, is there a company renewing the trademark and copyright, etc.). You can google public domain superheroes. No one you're likely to have heard of, but they exist. And yes, I know Superman has more of an inherent draw than any of them - but the point is just being a superhero doesn't safeguard one from disappearing once they go into public domain.

[9th.]

This seems like a gross over exaggeration.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That's impressive maybe compared to his long history, but as fans of the character that's a long time without some good entries.

It's weird to discuss Robin Hood as if he's a franchise, lol.

I mean where's the online message boards discussing their favorite Robin Hood ballads, and how one ballad from the 18th century f--ked with the continuity or the fights between illustrators in terms of N. C. Wyeth versus others. Or which is the best Robin Hood (Fairbanks v. Flynn v. Costner v. Elwes v. Crowe).

Modern fandom is a condition of corporate driven IPs because they see fans as a market. You know, morons.

Maybe Superman having a great film in 30-40 year intervals would be acceptable for you, but if that's the promise of public domain I am not sold.

Superman hasn't had a consensually popular movie since 1978 and a generally successful film since Superman II. So a case can be made that if there had been no more Superman movies after say Superman II (which is seen as good but not as good as the first one), his franchise might have better off because the failed movies after that keep being underwhelming and unimpressive.

Corporate-driven IPs in fact let franchises be dormant for decades for creative reasons. Star Wars for instance ended with Return of the Jedi and then some 15 years before The Phantom Menace and the Prequel Trilogy. Then another decade plus interval before the Sequel Trilogy arrived. In the case of Disney, they had a successful TV show called DuckTales released in 1987 and then three decades later, they revived it in a sequel series that's actually going to end next Monday.

So a thirty year time-gap between movies isn't such a big thing even with Corporate IPs leave along Public Domain.

[Kuwagaton]

Holy crap - I didn't name those because I in no way consider them recent. Kevin Costner's movie is 30 years old and the Disney one is from the 70s. That's impressive maybe compared to his long history, but as fans of the character that's a long time without some good entries. I don't want to wait 30 years. Maybe Superman having a great film in 30-40 year intervals would be acceptable for you, but if that's the promise of public domain I am not sold.

Damn, Men in Tights is about to hit 30 and Hook is basically there.

[Stanlos]

After reading about the original plans zack snyder had for justice league aswell as how screwed over superman was and might still get in the upcoming snyder cut https://bleedingcool.com/movies/zack...equel-jim-lee/

Aswell as the news that jj abrahams and coates will helm solely a black superman movie with no plans for anything regarding the traditional superman, it makes me really wonder what the point is in being a fan of superman anymore. Apart from the superman and lois series, there is hardly any good portrayals for superman in the mainstream media. There is still superman is the villian schtick going on relentlessly and if zacks take on the original justice league is proof of anything, supermans sole reason for existance as far as dc and warner bros is concerned is to be used as a tool to help reinforce their love and appreciation for batman.

The idea that is Superman will never NOT be worth it. We are just living out Joe Els words from the MOS film

[CosmiComic]

I don't get doing the whole Superman is the villain thing all the time.

Also, while I like Batman, propping him at Superman's expense in the DCEU was a poor decision

[Vakanai]

It's weird to discuss Robin Hood as if he's a franchise, lol.

I mean where's the online message boards discussing their favorite Robin Hood ballads, and how one ballad from the 18th century f--ked with the continuity or the fights between illustrators in terms of N. C. Wyeth versus others. Or which is the best Robin Hood (Fairbanks v. Flynn v. Costner v. Elwes v. Crowe).

Modern fandom is a condition of corporate driven IPs because they see fans as a market. You know, morons.

True - but that's not really such a bad thing as long as you get what you want out of the deal. I prefer modern fandom and getting my superhero/favorite characters fix readily than, well, not getting it.

Superman hasn't had a consensually popular movie since 1978 and a generally successful film since Superman II. So a case can be made that if there had been no more Superman movies after say Superman II (which is seen as good but not as good as the first one), his franchise might have better off because the failed movies after that keep being underwhelming and unimpressive.

Maybe - but that was before superhero movies were seen as cool largely. So the last several movies haven't been good. They're still making an attempt once a decade at least, not counting shows and cartoons. And the books are still there.
I don't know, I still think Superman is in a better position ultimately to get more and better films out of the public domain than in.

Corporate-driven IPs in fact let franchises be dormant for decades for creative reasons. Star Wars for instance ended with Return of the Jedi and then some 15 years before The Phantom Menace and the Prequel Trilogy. Then another decade plus interval before the Sequel Trilogy arrived. In the case of Disney, they had a successful TV show called DuckTales released in 1987 and then three decades later, they revived it in a sequel series that's actually going to end next Monday.

Yes, but how much of that is really planned, and just nostalgia turning some heads that, hey, there's money to be made coming back to these? I don't think they plan to leave a property stagnant for three decades for creative reasons - I think they never planned to bring them back at all ever again until fans grew up got in positions where they could do it and said "Nope, these characters shouldn't be left to rot so long!"

So a thirty year time-gap between movies isn't such a big thing even with Corporate IPs leave along Public Domain.

But are such gaps really going to be the norm going forward, or were they just a product of different thinking and mindsets that have experienced a generational changeover now?

Damn, Men in Tights is about to hit 30 and Hook is basically there.

Yep. Hook is my childhood right there! Not what I'd call modern though. I don't know how long "modern" is, but it isn't the bulk of my life on earth to date, I know that.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I prefer modern fandom and getting my superhero/favorite characters fix readily than, well, not getting it.

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

Maybe - but that was before superhero movies were seen as cool largely.

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

So the last several movies haven't been good. They're still making an attempt once a decade at least, not counting shows and cartoons.

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.

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

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.

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.

I don't know, I still think Superman is in a better position ultimately to get more and better films out of the public domain than in.

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.

[Ascended]

You guys are still on the public domain thing? Wow.

I still don't think it'd be the saving grace some of you believe it would be. WB would still own all the trademarks on all things Superman, and this is uncharted legal water because America has never had to deal with active IP's partially entering the public domain while still being used by their original owners. That's new ground with no set precedence so you're betting that America's legal system will side with the people over the lobbying corporations (good luck). The material that would enter the public domain wouldn't really resemble what the general populace considers "Superman" and that's a whole bundle of problems too, essentially giving you a brand new character with little obvious resemblance to Superman as we know him. And there's likely other factors I'm not awake enough to think of too (still drinking my coffee).

And...what are the best examples here? Robin Hood had one beloved film thirty years ago with Costner, a Disney cartoon before that, and a whole lot of underperforming/forgettable crap ever since. Peter Pan hasn't really set the cinema world on fire since Hook, which was what, also about thirty years ago? King Arthur is even worse off, without a really popular adaptation in I don't know how long. Sure, Clark's track record with movies isn't much better, but if the argument is that one successful film every generation or two is better than what we have now, I gotta call BS on that. Seems like a zero sum gain if you ask me.

Clark in the public domain would give us some quality content, don't get me wrong. But there's a *lot* of problems, questions, and hurdles to overcome and I see no clear evidence that the IP would be better off in the end.

Look, I'm a small business guy. I managed small businesses for over a decade, focused my college degree on small business concerns, I'm all about it. And a public domain Superman has a lot of appeal to me on a personal level. Hell, I'd be able to make my own Superman comics without having to deal with a giant company like AT&T! But the public domain is not the thing that's gonna save Superman or usher in a new Renaissance of high-quality content that'll improve and evolve the IP. If the public domain were capable of doing that, then we'd have better examples than a handful of films that came out before this century even started.

Maybe Clark would be an exception to the general rule and would actually get a steady stream of (quality) content under the public domain. Sherlock, in recent years, has had a few tv shows and films and some of those are even worth watching, so it's not impossible. But it's not something I'd bet money on.

It's probably all a moot point anyway. None of these giant corporations tried to extend copyright law (again) a couple years ago....but Mickey and Clark and Bruce weren't on the chopping block then. The argument for extending copyright is pretty weak and there's a substantial movement in favor of public domain among the populace, but we're talking IP's that generate billions annually, and no company is going to let that go without a fight and I expect Disney and Warners to lobby (successfully) for another extension before Steamboat Willie hits public domain in 2024.

[Agent Z]

I don't get doing the whole Superman is the villain thing all the time.

Also, while I like Batman, propping him at Superman's expense in the DCEU was a poor decision

They didn't do that.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I still don't think it'd be the saving grace some of you believe it would be.

Again record speaks for itself, more good to great King Arthur and Robin Hood movies than Superman movies.

WB would still own all the trademarks on all things Superman, and this is uncharted legal water because America has never had to deal with active IP's partially entering the public domain while still being used by their original owners.

I was simply suggesting that Superman enter the public domain and be free from the grasp of his obviously incompetent custodians, DC/WB. The actual legal and political technicalities of how it should happen, that's secondary and quite apart from everything else.

That's new ground with no set precedence so you're betting that America's legal system will side with the people over the lobbying corporations (good luck).

Well Teddy Roosevelt broke up the trusts of Standard Oil and the Railroad Company. There are a lot of cases of the government siding with the people over corporations in US history, it's just that the media has a vested interest in making us forget the successes to discourage and dishearten people from organizing in the future. As the Romani proverb goes, those who want to oppress you will never tell you the truth about your forefathers.

It's probably all a moot point anyway. None of these giant corporations tried to extend copyright law (again) a couple years ago....but Mickey and Clark and Bruce weren't on the chopping block then. The argument for extending copyright is pretty weak and there's a substantial movement in favor of public domain among the populace, but we're talking IP's that generate billions annually, and no company is going to let that go without a fight and I expect Disney and Warners to lobby (successfully) for another extension before Steamboat Willie hits public domain in 2024.

It depends on the 2022 Midterms (if the Republicans win then it might be easier for Disney, so expect some Disney officials to fund state and down-ballot campaigns then), but I think the movement against public domain will be difficult to marshal against because unlike the 90s when the Mickey Mouse law went into effect, we have internet and social media now, and the stakes of public domain (which in practice extend and affect stuff not tied to entertainment, like actual life-saving stuff dealing with patents and so on) are more alive than before.



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.

[Agent Z]

Again record speaks for itself, more good to great King Arthur and Robin Hood movies than Superman movies.

We haven't had a good Robin Hood movie since 1991 and the number of "good" King Arthur and Robin Hood movies isn't that much larger. Not to mention Superman generally having them beat when it comes to well written comics and popular t.v. shows.

For another example, the most memorable Hercules movie is the one from Disney and that one is pretty much Hercules in Name Only. We had two forgettable Hercules movies in 2014, one of which starred The Rock. No one cared about either of them.

DC/WB don't have a perfect track record but neither does public domain.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

We haven't had a good Robin Hood movie since 1991

Objection, your honor, Men in Tights is an excellent movie and it came out after 1991.

...and the number of "good" King Arthur and Robin Hood movies isn't that much larger.

Superman has two good theatrical movies. King Arthur has eight (5 in the English language, 2 in French, 1 Disney), Robin Hood has 6 (5 Live-action, 1 Disney).

Numbers don't lie my dude. 8>2, 6>2. You could binge-watch King Arthur and Robin Hood and have a good satisfying feeling whereas bingeing Superman is this great sadness.

Not to mention Superman generally having them beat when it comes to well written comics and popular t.v. shows.

First of all, run up the list of the vast numbers of King Arthur and Robin Hood comics across the world, and also the larger number of TV shows. It's not possible for anyone here to have seen all of them and come to the conclusion that they are all good or all bad.

Like for instance as a kid I loved YOUNG ROBIN HOOD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LdeQS4yO8g

It was produced by smaller companies and partly funded by Hanna-Barbera Productions in the '90s. On the whole it was a good show made for a lower budget than what Timm had or Disney Afternoon had, but I enjoyed it a lot more than say Gummi Bears (roughly the same kind of genre).

For another example, the most memorable Hercules movie is the one from Disney and that one is pretty much Hercules in Name Only.

Hercules is immortalized in countless classic sculptures in major museums, he's featured in iconic dramas by Euripides, and in the 20th Century he appeared in classic movies like Jason and the Argonauts as well as many Italian action movies like Hercules Against Atlantis that are great entertaining fun.

Some freaking Disney cartoon from the '90s and failed Dwayne Johnson movies aren't slam dunk arguments by any stretch.

DC/WB don't have a perfect track record but neither does public domain.

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