Would You Want Marvel To Use A Public Domain Superman? Others?

[Ascended]

If you're not familiar with the public domain, for our purposes it's a list of intellectual properties and characters that anyone can use, and includes notable names such as Santa Claus, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Zeus, Thor, Snow White, and Aladdin. And under current law, in a few years Steamboat Willie and then Action Comics #1 will enter the public domain as well, meaning that anybody will be able to use the original versions of Mickey Mouse and Superman.

So my hypothetical question is this; IF these characters do actually enter the public domain (and yes it's a big "if" just roll with me here) would you be interested in seeing Marvel introduce their own Superman? Forget about the legal issues and reasons for this not to happen; just pretend that, somehow, those problems have been dealt with, Superman is available to everyone, and you now must contend with whether to use this or not. Would you be interested in Marvel adapting their own version of Golden Age "leap tall buildings" Superman, or no?

Keep in mind, the Superman entering public domain bears little resemblance to what the character has become. No flight, no heat vision, no Lex Luthor or rogues gallery to speak of really, no Daily Planet, Jimmy Olsen, or kryptonite. No parents even; originally Clark Kent grew up in an orphanage. All those classic elements will eventually reach the public domain as well, but only after reaching the current time limit of public domain law; meaning that something which debuted ten years after Superman will take ten years to enter public domain after him.

For an example of what Marvel can build on public domain, look at Thor. Presumably the differences between Marvel's Superman and DC's would be as stark as the differences between Marvel's Thor and the figure from Norse mythology. Other examples of public domain figures in comics include Grant Morrison's Klaus from BOOM! and the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

So what do you think? Do you say "If I wanted to read about Superman I'd be a DC fan in the first place! Keep any version of him out of my comics!" or do you say "I already fan casted Jon Hamm as Superman for Avengers 5!"

And if not Superman, then what about other characters? The year after Action Comics #1 enters public domain, Batman's first appearance will as well. Then Flash, Wonder Woman, and so on. Would you be interested in versions of those characters under Marvel?

Posted the same question to the Independents board too, in case Image, IDW, or Dark Horse are more appealing in this scenario.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...uperman-Others

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

No because Marvel has enough Superman pastiche. But I could see them just doing it anyway so it is what it is.

[MadFacedKid]

I honestly think the vast amount of Superman clones we’ve seen through Marvel kind of showcase how Superman would be used. He’d pop up, be shown how powerful he is and presented as this amazing godlike powerhouse, just to be trumped by something insert Knull, Galactus, The Beyonders, Magic Galactus just so a veteran Marvel character could look even more epic by contending better or beating what Superman couldn’t.

If he got his own title I’d be curious to see if Marvel could outdo sales of DC in handling Superman that would be a fun rivalry right there. But with a morality similar to Captain America and a power placement in universe like Thor I don’t see him in the Marvel universe doing him much favors other then seeing some really cool team ups and interacting with characters people might of wanted to see him interact with more.

[Ascended]

The other Marvel Superman stand-in's definitely bring up a good point; Marvel has tried to introduce their own Superman several times, and it doesn't ever really work. So would using the original version be successful where the proxy attempts have failed? I don't know if it would or not, honestly. I think those other guys are a cautionary tale for any other publisher looking to use the character, but guys like Blue Marvel, Hyperion, or Sentry....they might be Superman-like, but they're not Superman. Public domain Superman means you can use the name, Clark Kent as a mild mannered reporter, and Lois Lane. There's a difference between a stand-in and the real, original deal....but I don't know if it's a big enough difference to warrant a different result here. Maybe the Superman archetype just doesn't fit into the MU, or maybe the niche Clark occupied is already taken and he has nowhere to go, or maybe those proxy characters failed because they were proxies and Clark would be more successful.

And it's not like Marvel needs the character either, they've done just fine without Superman up to this point.

But I think one thing that might make a difference is the power level. We're talking Action Comics #1 here; the guy couldn't fly, didn't have super senses or heat vision, and wasn't half as strong, fast, or durable as he'd eventually become. As far as power levels go, he wouldn't necessarily be in the same ring as the heavy hitters like Thor, but in the mid-range like Spidey. That shift in scale might make a difference in how well Superman fits into the MU framework. Or it might not, I honestly don't know.

About all I do know for certain is that if Marvel got their hands on public domain, Golden Age Superman, the next Superman movie would be a hell of a lot better.

[MadFacedKid]

I honestly think if Marvel studios was to make a Superman movie we’d get a really political over preachy movie tbh lol, but then again there’s Supergirl...

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

The other Marvel Superman stand-in's definitely bring up a good point; Marvel has tried to introduce their own Superman several times, and it doesn't ever really work. So would using the original version be successful where the proxy attempts have failed? I don't know if it would or not, honestly. I think those other guys are a cautionary tale for any other publisher looking to use the character, but guys like Blue Marvel, Hyperion, or Sentry....they might be Superman-like, but they're not Superman. Public domain Superman means you can use the name, Clark Kent as a mild mannered reporter, and Lois Lane. There's a difference between a stand-in and the real, original deal....but I don't know if it's a big enough difference to warrant a different result here. Maybe the Superman archetype just doesn't fit into the MU, or maybe the niche Clark occupied is already taken and he has nowhere to go, or maybe those proxy characters failed because they were proxies and Clark would be more successful.

And it's not like Marvel needs the character either, they've done just fine without Superman up to this point.

But I think one thing that might make a difference is the power level. We're talking Action Comics #1 here; the guy couldn't fly, didn't have super senses or heat vision, and wasn't half as strong, fast, or durable as he'd eventually become. As far as power levels go, he wouldn't necessarily be in the same ring as the heavy hitters like Thor, but in the mid-range like Spidey. That shift in scale might make a difference in how well Superman fits into the MU framework. Or it might not, I honestly don't know.

About all I do know for certain is that if Marvel got their hands on public domain, Golden Age Superman, the next Superman movie would be a hell of a lot better.

I'd make Superman a mutant or inhuman . It would pass off both DC/Marvel diehards but it would be so worth it.

[JudicatorPrime]

No, not Superman. But there are some public domain characters that I wouldn't mind seeing Marvel use.

[Ascended]

I honestly think if Marvel studios was to make a Superman movie we’d get a really political over preachy movie tbh lol, but then again there’s Supergirl...

Why do you think that? None of Marvel's films have been overly political or preachy thus far, even if a few like Winter Soldier have sold themselves as political thrillers.

I'd make Superman a mutant or inhuman . It would pass off both DC/Marvel diehards but it would be so worth it.

Oh I'd keep the Krypton origin, Superman isn't Superman if he's not a strange visitor from another planet. I *might* say that Krypton is a long-forgotten Kree outpost world that became autonomous after being ignored by the empire though.

No, not Superman. But there are some public domain characters that I wouldn't mind seeing Marvel use.

Such as?

[shooshoomanjoe]

Superman is trademarked so he won't enter the public domain. But I'd love to see Malibu's Protectors come into the 616. They introduced Amazing Man, they should bring in everyone.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Marvel would love to get their hands on Superman. And at one point they came close:
http://jimshooter.com/2011/08/superm...el-issue.html/

If Action Comics#1 Superman comes to Marvel, and you have Superman, his Clark Kent persona, and Lois Lane, you have plenty of stuff to work with.

Lois Lane can become a supporting character inserted with the Daily Bugle or as a friend to Jessica Jones' investigations or Ben Urich and so on. As can Clark Kent of course.

Now in terms of where a PD Superman can fit in Marvel, you have options. In terms of precedent, the obvious one is how Conan the Barbarian has been integrated into Marvel continuity recently. Other ones include Angela from Gaiman's Spawn comics, you also have Marvel's history of working in PD characters like Dracula as a major supervillain and figure who's central to their magic lore. Also Shuma Gorath. And Morgan Le Fay. ​

[Digifiend]

Superman is trademarked so he won't enter the public domain.

That means nothing. All it means is that Marvel wouldn't be able to call a comic Superman. Doesn't mean they can't call a character that (it's the same reason why Shazam is no longer called Captain Marvel - Marvel owns the trademark to the name, which forced DC to market their Captain Marvel as Shazam - they renamed him to that eventually to avoid confusion, as people thought Shazam was the Big Red Cheese's name anyway). However, this is one thing Disney and Warner would probably work together on. After all, Warner doesn't want Superman and Batman to go public domain, and Disney don't want Mickey Mouse to. The law has already been changed to extend the time limit a few times, has it not?

[shooshoomanjoe]

That means nothing. All it means is that Marvel wouldn't be able to call a comic Superman. Doesn't mean they can't call a character that (it's the same reason why Shazam is no longer called Captain Marvel - Marvel owns the trademark to the name, which forced DC to market their Captain Marvel as Shazam - they renamed him to that eventually to avoid confusion, as people thought Shazam was the Big Red Cheese's name anyway). However, this is one thing Disney and Warner would probably work together on. After all, Warner doesn't want Superman and Batman to go public domain, and Disney don't want Mickey Mouse to. The law has already been changed to extend the time limit a few times, has it not?

If that's the case then hell yea, I want Superman in the 616.

[80sForever]

That means nothing. All it means is that Marvel wouldn't be able to call a comic Superman. Doesn't mean they can't call a character that (it's the same reason why Shazam is no longer called Captain Marvel - Marvel owns the trademark to the name, which forced DC to market their Captain Marvel as Shazam - they renamed him to that eventually to avoid confusion, as people thought Shazam was the Big Red Cheese's name anyway). However, this is one thing Disney and Warner would probably work together on. After all, Warner doesn't want Superman and Batman to go public domain, and Disney don't want Mickey Mouse to. The law has already been changed to extend the time limit a few times, has it not?

Marvel would be able to use Superman in their other comics as long as they never develop any plots or costume designs which conflict with later versions of Superman. Lawyers will constantly be on retainer from both sides.

Action Comics #1: No mention of Kal-El, Metropolis, Daily Planet, Krypton, Kryptonite, Jor-El, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, Jonathan and Martha Kent, Smallville, Lana Lang, Lex Luthor, flight, space flight, invulnerable skin, heat vision, super breath, lower levels of speed, strength, etc.

As time marches on, more of Superman's familiar character changes would be in public domain.. But as it stands now, the Marvel Superman pastiches do a much better job and have less of a costly legal hassle than using the Golden Age Superman.

DC continues to publish and make tons of money with him, and courts tend to side with active owners.

[MadFacedKid]

Why do you think that? None of Marvel's films have been overly political or preachy thus far, even if a few like Winter Soldier have sold themselves as political thrillers.

I might be watching to much SJW complaint videos on YouTube

No, not Superman. But there are some public domain characters that I wouldn't mind seeing Marvel use.

Like Thor and Hercules?

[ARkadelphia]

Two words: Squadron Supreme