Does DC destroy Superman Legacy?

[80sForever]

I think much of the complaints stem from Superman movies not being critically acclaimed blockbusters like (many) Batman and Marvel movies. And the expectation is that since Superman was the "first" and "best" superhero that he ought to be the best in the movies.
But I am in the minority- I really don't care about 2 hour movies and have no idea why people bashed Superman Returns. (I found Superman & Lois to be such a pleasant surprise.)

And, another unpopular opinion, but Alan Moore's Supreme did Superman better than DC has been doing him since CRISIS.

It is so freaking stupid that a virtually immortal character gets rebooted every decade or so, and has a bunch of alternate characters running around instead of just being the same character from 1938, who remembers everything. (All-Star got it right.)
And now with the copyright going up soon, things are probably about to get worse for the Man of Steel.

It doesn't matter how other companies handle Superman pastiches.

Although I do not believe Superman can't be written well in modern times, apparently Hollywood and people who don't read comics think so. It's the same tried old criticism- he's too powerful and he's a boyscott. All stems from the freaking Silver Age and Christopher Reeve. DC has deconstructed that so many times but the mainstream never got the memo. Just pick up any post-Crisis comic book and Superman is not portrayed as being 1961 Superboy. And people forget about the successful TV shows and cartoons where Superman comes off great.

[RobinGA]

There are now 2 people who liked Superman Returns. We are definitely a distinct minority.

We have discussed frequently why the Superman films are so poor.
But while they have not been good films, the money has rolled in (wasn't Man of Steel at something
like $600 million). That often is the response from the people involved when we complain about projects: look
at all the people who streamed it, how much money we made. High five! We are doing great!

Comics literacy isn't something we can really expect from producers/writers. It often becomes
comics they grew up with, along with some series arc that has drawn their attention.

[Stanlos]

I think much of the complaints stem from Superman movies not being critically acclaimed blockbusters like (many) Batman and Marvel movies. And the expectation is that since Superman was the "first" and "best" superhero that he ought to be the best in the movies.
But I am in the minority- I really don't care about 2 hour movies and have no idea why people bashed Superman Returns. (I found Superman & Lois to be such a pleasant surprise.)

And, another unpopular opinion, but Alan Moore's Supreme did Superman better than DC has been doing him since CRISIS.

It is so freaking stupid that a virtually immortal character gets rebooted every decade or so, and has a bunch of alternate characters running around instead of just being the same character from 1938, who remembers everything. (All-Star got it right.)
And now with the copyright going up soon, things are probably about to get worse for the Man of Steel.

It doesn't matter how other companies handle Superman pastiches.

Although I do not believe Superman can't be written well in modern times, apparently Hollywood and people who don't read comics think so. It's the same tried old criticism- he's too powerful and he's a boyscott. All stems from the freaking Silver Age and Christopher Reeve. DC has deconstructed that so many times but the mainstream never got the memo. Just pick up any post-Crisis comic book and Superman is not portrayed as being 1961 Superboy. And people forget about the successful TV shows and cartoons where Superman comes off great.

For me the issue with the previous Superman movies was that they did such a poor job with the character and they seem to be driven by something other than Superman (which the DCEU suffers from big time). You had Bryan Singer stuck on Donner and more focused on that as the jumping off point for the movie. This gave us a Superman who up and leaves without a word to anyone and stays in space for 5 year. Upon his return he proceeds to be a total creeper. It just wasn't a good depiction of Superman. I found myself rooting for James Marsden 's character who I felt more represented what I look for in Superman.

[Xheight]

It's not awful at all, imo. Homelander is compelling. Omni-Man is compelling. And yes, Injustice Superman is a good video game villain. Unfortunately, for Superman, when he's evil is the only time writers don't nerf him, and when he's not nerfed, Superman's a terrifying villain. Which is a good thing in fiction.

The problem is that DC often, including now, doesn't have the talented writers needed to make Hero Superman compelling, and furthermore, they nerf him to try to "make him more relatable" lol. The bar isn't even all that high. I like Peter Tomasi but he's not on my list of all-time great writers or anything, but I adored his Superman run. Unfortunately it was cut short / Bendis-fied.

Compelling or is it more affirming the trope and critique of something called hypermasculinity(invented term for a concept to subvert). Politics is just a higher order of marketing these days.