How Would You Improve Superman: The Animated Series?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Trolling. It didn't happen much, but when it did, it was great, e.g. trolling Lois about how he (Clark) is really Superman and steals bylines from her, trolls her when he and Lana explained how he didn't die in the car bomb, punks Mxyzptlk repeatedly throughout Mxy's debut episode, and creeps out Tim Drake by perfectly mimicking his voice. Really could've used more of that.

Those were great moments and the two Mxyzsptlk episodes are maybe my favorites.

STAS actually did lean a lot in the Silver Age, like MONKEY FUN with Titano was amazingly goofy and fun. Another favorite of mine.

It isn't a guarantee, but I don't think that needs to prevent fans from wanting something better. We can recognize that sometimes it results in something like Singer's tepid homage to Donner.

I am just saying that the reasons why a show works or doesn't work doesn't have anything to do with the stated feelings of one producer. Saying that someone has to be a fan of something isn't a panacea.

The Fleischer brothers when they made the '40s Superman Cartoons weren't fans of Superman in that they knew and read all the Superman cartoons, they just saw it as an assignment of work and they created great cartoons (not just great superhero cartoons but in the wider genre).

But why not still wish for something better?

Nobody's saying otherwise. At the same time, people need to express criticism outside of narrow fandom grudges.

In short, when you think the show is OK, or good but not great, or whatever, and you read the creator isn't all that enthusiastic about Superman, it does leave you wondering what could've been if there was someone more passionate about the subject matter.

First of all, Bruce Timm was the main character designer and overall producer but he wasn't a writer, he worked with a huge team of people, not all of whom felt the same way he did. Their primary goal was to tell a cool popular animated show and Bruce Timm worked hard to make STAS a successful cartoon and it was a very successful cartoon. Timm's main interest was to introduce Fourth World Kirby creations and introduce them to a wide audience and since Kirby introduced that in Jimmy Olsen comics, it was a fair choice.

Having passion for your work doesn't guarantee you'll do a good job, but I tend to think more often than not it's a positive thing and leads to more success (frequency) and greater heights.

Mostly it comes to the same thing. The fact is that the two greatest cartoons with Superman -- The Fleischer shorts and STAS -- were made by committed professionals first, and not personal comics fans.

I'd much rather STAS be made by an animated crew who are professionals and who know what they are doing. That comes long before them knowing or naming their favorite Weisinger era stories.

[SiegePerilous02]

Mostly it comes to the same thing. The fact is that the two greatest cartoons with Superman -- The Fleischer shorts and STAS -- were made by committed professionals first, and not personal comics fans.

I'd much rather STAS be made by an animated crew who are professionals and who know what they are doing. That comes long before them knowing or naming their favorite Weisinger era stories.

That's all well and good, but Batman and Spider-Man (with Spec, which in some ways is better than BTAS) get cartoons that have the best of both worlds: professionals who are also passionate for the subject material and love the character without needing to compare them unfavorably to somebody else. So we can appreciate STAS for what it was, but it's also easy to imagine that we could get something far better. For both him, and especially for Wonder Woman once we extend to JLU (a crew of professionals didn't help her from sucking at all).

[DochaDocha]

I'd much rather STAS be made by an animated crew who are professionals and who know what they are doing.

Why have an either/or? Personally, I think part of BTAS' success is that the creators were good at making a cartoon AND they love Batman. I also point out that I think All-Star Superman is a pretty good animated movie because its original story creator, Grant Morrison, is an admitted Superman junkie, and the animation department is good at making animated movies. I guess if there's nobody good at making animated shows and movies who also love Superman, then we take what we can get, but it's not wrong to wish for the right combo of passion and skill.

I know there were a lot of people involved in the cartoon's creation, and Bruce Timm tends to get too much credit/blame for DCAU (I'm guilty of this), but I mostly focused on him because his comments are easy to quote. Also, regarding powering down Superman, my perspective comes from watching one of Alan Burnett's interview comments from one of the DVDs.

[SiegePerilous02]

Why have an either/or? Personally, I think part of BTAS' success is that the creators were good at making a cartoon AND they love Batman. I also point out that I think All-Star Superman is a pretty good animated movie because its original story creator, Grant Morrison, is an admitted Superman junkie, and the animation department is good at making animated movies. I guess if there's nobody good at making animated shows and movies who also love Superman, then we take what we can get, but it's not wrong to wish for the right combo of passion and skill.

I know there were a lot of people involved in the cartoon's creation, and Bruce Timm tends to get too much credit/blame for DCAU (I'm guilty of this), but I mostly focused on him because his comments are easy to quote. Also, regarding powering down Superman, my perspective comes from watching one of Alan Burnett's interview comments from one of the DVDs.

Didn't Timm say at one point that he wished All-Star was out when he did STAS, because it would have been good material to draw from?

But yes, if we have the head producer saying Superman isn't that interesting compared to Batman, and in it makes our feelings on the portrayal make sense in hindsight (as in, the lack of passion bled into the work)....I think it's fair for Superman fans to come away thinking "meh' on it. The professionalism doesn't really matter that much if we're not connecting to the adaptation.

We can think it's a good cartoon, but it's also the only modern serialized solo Superman cartoon we have. So it's "great" mostly be default

[Comics N' Toons]

I would stick with their original plan of setting it in the 1940s as a quasi-continuation of the Fleisher cartoons and I would make Marv Wolfman one of main producers so that there was always a legit Superman fan in the room to steer the show away from the worst ideas.

IF Wolfman had been in charge with the people who did BTAS perhaps under him, I think this could have been great. I dunno why, but I get the feeling Wolfman by himself wouldnt have been enough. Didn't he do the Ruby Spears show too? Apart from Gil Kane's character designs, it was pretty awful.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

IF Wolfman had been in charge with the people who did BTAS perhaps under him, I think this could have been great. I dunno why, but I get the feeling Wolfman by himself wouldnt have been enough. Didn't he do the Ruby Spears show too? Apart from Gil Kane's character designs, it was pretty awful.

Wolfman did work on the Ruby-Spears cartoon, but he was bound by some pretty strict rules for children's cartoons that were loosening substantially by the time BTAS rolled around. The audience these cartoons were aimed at were also quite different.

[Kuwagaton]

The power thing doesn't bother me because I found Christopher Reeve turning back time by reversing the axis laughably silly and absurd when I saw it (and to me it totally kills the movie) that I didn't mind you know.

The pop-culture version of Superman in terms of strength is 'turn back time' and anything less than that will be a comedown.

I think people don't care so much about these kind of things as many Superman fans seem to believe so.

I don't think most people necessarily care about how strong. What I mean is terms of exposure. A cartoon would reach a larger audience than any comic. Batman was huge because that show got very much of what makes the character both cool and capable. Maybe it's shallow but for me it's as simple to sum up as looking at the differences between the show intros. Superman doesn't come off as interesting as what what happens to him or around him. He's also not as capable, which you wouldn't know just watching the show but you basically get one shot at these things with such a large audience, so you might as well try to really impress them.

I was a Superman fan but I was more into Freakazoid as a cartoon hero.

*Shrug*

I will say though, the fight you posted looks great even now. Such a big difference from the other cartoons, like Marvel ones where a fight would be the characters running up and throwing each other. No bullets, punches, blood, etc

[DochaDocha]

Wolfman did work on the Ruby-Spears cartoon, but he was bound by some pretty strict rules for children's cartoons that were loosening substantially by the time BTAS rolled around. The audience these cartoons were aimed at were also quite different.

Yeah, it was a product of its time. The age of "smart" cartoons that teens and adults could follow along with kids wasn't for another few years. In the 1980s, the only "smart" cartoons I can really think of are English-dubbed adaptations of anime, and even some of those would get dumbed down a bit. Also, the Ruby-Spears cartoons tended to aim for younger kids, which is really evident in the "Family Album" short segments at the end of each weekly episode. Out of their shows I can think of off the top of my head, probably the only one from the 80s that's decidedly more thoughtfully written might've been something like Thundarr the Barbarian, since it started with a darker tone (post-Apocalyptic world) as its premise. Otherwise, I think R-S figured after watching Superman the viewers would then switch to something like Alvin and the Chipmunks.

R-S Superman isn't a show I'd recommend for new Superman fans today, but when you weigh all the context, I wouldn't say it's particularly bad, either. I also wouldn't mind showing it to younger kids.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Why have an either/or?

Because reality.

Personally, I think part of BTAS' success is that the creators were good at making a cartoon AND they love Batman.

The success of Batman had a lot of reasons other than its quality (which is indeed very good). It was the first superhero series of its kind, done with that kind of seriousness and polish. It had voice-acting that was a cut above any other dramatic animation production, a unique art style for the time, and BATMAN in the late-80s and early-90s was riding the Tim Burton wave from 1989 to 1992 and a huge part of the pop.culture landscape.

Whereas Superman had a kind of arid desert in the media. There was the Reeve movie and its sequel but then the disappointing third film in the '80s and then the most recent one was "The Quest of Peace" which was even worse. The big splash in the time was "The Death of Superman" which remember only became big because a lot of people really did think it was the true death of Superman and the end of his comics for good.

The culture was already set for Superman being unfashionable well before Timm arrived. It's lucky we got a Superman TAS that captured the Bronze to Byrne era well.

Also, regarding powering down Superman, my perspective comes from watching one of Alan Burnett's interview comments from one of the DVDs.

Again when you have an extreme like rotating axis to turn back down, aka Superman's jumping-the-shark moment in terms of his powers, you have to scale stuff down somewhat.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

IF Wolfman had been in charge with the people who did BTAS perhaps under him, I think this could have been great. I dunno why, but I get the feeling Wolfman by himself wouldnt have been enough. Didn't he do the Ruby Spears show too? Apart from Gil Kane's character designs, it was pretty awful.

Wolfman hated Supergirl and killed her off in COIE...yep he was the real custodian of the Superman mythos, lol.

[SiegePerilous02]

Because reality.

Reality can allow for both since it has happened with other characters.

We can accept the reality that STAS is what we have and that it has some good points. But reality is there is always the chance we can get something better or it will be surpassed.

Wolfman hated Supergirl and killed her off in COIE...yep he was the real custodian of the Superman mythos, lol.

While I wouldn't look to Wolfman for inspiration for super mythos in general, he didn't kill Kara because he hated her.

[DochaDocha]

Because reality.

Maybe guys who are good at cartoons and know/like Superman are some sort of unicorns.

Again when you have an extreme like rotating axis to turn back down, aka Superman's jumping-the-shark moment in terms of his powers, you have to scale stuff down somewhat.

Why does it seem as though whenever someone critiques the nerfed Superman of STAS, the default retort is always to point out that the extremeness of the Silver Age or turning back time in the Donner movies is the only alternative? There are degrees, and as I mentioned earlier, if they settled on S2 of Justice League from the very beginning I would've been fine with that. As an aside, that general level is what they've been doing in DC animation for the past 18 years or so, and I think it largely works well. STAS levels is a no-go, however.

By the way, I think it's interesting to point out that after STAS aired, they brought back Superman for Batman Beyond to be a guest character/secret villain (spoilers!), and to me it seems like they intuited how nerfed Superman from STAS would not be interesting enough as a primary villain, so they amped him up to approximately the aforementioned levels of recent animations. But, when they brought Superman back for Justice League, they decided that wasn't convenient for their stories so they brought him all the way back down to STAS level, and it really made Superman action scenes on the show a lot more dull and uninteresting. Then the fan complaints really started coming in, and as a result, they brought him back up to his Batman Beyond levels. Credit to the creators for responding to fan observations here, and making the correction.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Why does it seem as though whenever someone critiques the nerfed Superman of STAS, the default retort is always to point out that the extremeness of the Silver Age or turning back time in the Donner movies is the only alternative?

Because it's a valid response and criticism.

There are degrees, and as I mentioned earlier, if they settled on S2 of Justice League from the very beginning I would've been fine with that.

In STAS, Superman fought Darkseid, Brainiac, Titano, Bizarro, Jax-Ur and Mala and several other threats near his level or a little greater. The enemies he struggled with were ones with Kryptonite or had Red Sun energy. Or they were Lobo. Or Parasite who could drain Superman's powers (and also his memories).

He also fought Luthor's tech which was so advanced that it unmasked Batman and it would have killed had Superman not come and bailed him out. He also figured out and saved Batman from Brainiac.

So Superman in STAS was established as immensely powerful and dangerous and dealt with stuff out of Batman's league. Likewise, that cool bit in Legacy, where Superman imprisoned under red-sun lamps headbutts Luthor into a neck-brace shows how stacked the dude is.

Likewise, nerfing Superman for the sake of the story isn't a bad thing. When Superman tussled with Spider-Man and Muhammad Ali, both of them being classic iconic stories, red sun was introduced to nerf Superman.

I am going to be honest, I feel people who complain about Superman being nerfed are holding the show to an inconsistent standard. Go back and read Superman comics over the ages, his power-levels on page have always fluctuated up and down to serve the interests of the story.

[DochaDocha]

Because it's a valid response and criticism.

Likewise, wondering out loud what a show would be like created under a different set of circumstances is also valid.

In STAS, Superman fought Darkseid, Brainiac, Titano, Bizarro, Jax-Ur and Mala and several other threats near his level or a little greater. The enemies he struggled with were ones with Kryptonite or had Red Sun energy. Or they were Lobo. Or Parasite who could drain Superman's powers (and also his memories).

He also fought Luthor's tech which was so advanced that it unmasked Batman and it would have killed had Superman not come and bailed him out. He also figured out and saved Batman from Brainiac.

I generally consider "Knight Time" a pretty good episode. I recommend it for most fans. I may have issues with the show, in general, but I'm not afraid to point out some stuff I liked, too.

Likewise, nerfing Superman for the sake of the story isn't a bad thing. When Superman tussled with Spider-Man and Muhammad Ali, both of them being classic iconic stories, red sun was introduced to nerf Superman.

But that's being specific toward one issue/story instead of completely changing the baseline. STAS pretty much takes whatever the baseline (even if it was moving around quite a bit) established in the few preceding decades and said let's lower it, because that helps us tell OUR story instead of adapting to the material.

Anyway, I feel because they stayed somewhat consistent by setting Superman to the S2 Justice League reset for about 18 years, they implicitly agree that's better for telling stories, or at least they know fans would likely prefer that. I know I do. In STAS, there's just too much emphasis on making everything stronger than a peak human a physical handful for Superman that it's just a bit distracting, and that problem magically disappeared once they didn't put that constraint on their Superman in the latter stages of Justice League and Justice League Unlimited.

I am going to be honest, I feel people who complain about Superman being nerfed are holding the show to an inconsistent standard. Go back and read Superman comics over the ages, his power-levels on page have always fluctuated up and down to serve the interests of the story.

I don't think many fans will monotonically agree with every single creative decision in every single comic, movie, cartoon episode, whatever. And I think most fans find that kind of capricious fluctuation as a little bit frustrating. And even if it's not most fans and just some, I don't think fans in general find that to be particularly good.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I generally consider "Knight Time" a pretty good episode. I recommend it for most fans. I may have issues with the show, in general, but I'm not afraid to point out some stuff I liked, too.

Fact is across the DCAU, Batman was always shown struggling against stuff Superman dealt with. Like Luthor and his tech always get the upper hand on him. In JLU the episode where he confronts Luthor solo has him (secretly powered by Brainiac) punch him out of the building, Batman tries to grapple but finds out Luthor's skyscrapers have anti-grapple designs and Superman has to come and pick him up. In the Injustice Gang episode in JL season 1, Luthor also sucker punches Batman.

So it's not like DCAU constantly downplays Superman in favor of Batman. He's given due respect and it's shown to us that he deals with stuff above Batman's pay-grade.