Does DC destroy Superman Legacy?

[LAWtoyoto 432]

Ever since the release of gritty "Man of Steel" movie and the video game "Injustice" where they protrayal Superman as a Nazi/Dictator/Terrorist, DC has completely disrepect Superman brand onwards. Moreover,some of the Amazon's "The Boys" and "Invincible" where each show has their evil version of Superman. At the same time, DC keep pushing more bat-related books throught marketing and somehow even the slogan "Fight for Truth and Justice" have been disrespect by modern society. Really how dissapointed WB think Darkness will being them success.

[Lightning63]

I didn't think Man of Steel was that bad really. It was more the movies that followed (BvS and Zack's proposed JL trilogy). Injustice wouldn't be bad if it wasn't milked for as long as it was and if there was other good Superman media. Honestly S1 of Supergirl is better Superman content then what we've gotten for him from the last decade (minus Superman and Lois).

[Morgoth]

I wouldn't say they ''destroy it''. The thing is, classic Superman image isn't that profitable as they want it to be. That's the reason why they constantly try to change him, to reinovate him, or even create a new, younger Superman in case of Jon. Regarding evil Superman, unfortunately it's just very popular trope to use. It's pretty awful, but that's how things going. I once saw such an opinion that it is much easier for the modern casual public to accept a negative, or at least neutral, character with limitless powers, while it is easier to empathize with Batman because he is human. But I don't know how close it is to reality.
Anyway, we at least have Superman & Lois, we have a new animated universe and also there was announcement of a new cartoon show. Not to mention current comics run, it's pretty good. So, at least we have some good Superman content.

[lotchj]

Dc comics has destroy Superman legacy!! It's a sad day when we'd rather see a good man turn evil. It's a sad world we live into day!!

[hairys]

I wouldn't say they ''destroy it''. The thing is, classic Superman image isn't that profitable as they want it to be. That's the reason why they constantly try to change him, to reinovate him, or even create a new, younger Superman in case of Jon. Regarding evil Superman, unfortunately it's just very popular trope to use. It's pretty awful, but that's how things going. I once saw such an opinion that it is much easier for the modern casual public to accept a negative, or at least neutral, character with limitless powers, while it is easier to empathize with Batman because he is human. But I don't know how close it is to reality.
Anyway, we at least have Superman & Lois, we have a new animated universe and also there was announcement of a new cartoon show. Not to mention current comics run, it's pretty good. So, at least we have some good Superman content.

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.

[Sacred Knight]

Evil Superman is just more annoying, played, and uninteresting than anything else. In of itself as a concept it can't Superman's legacy, he's bigger than that. Bigger problem is that its just one symptom of a company that's generally uninterested in the IP as it exists.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I wouldn't say DC are destroying Superman's legacy. I would say they aren't preserving his legacy.

What that means is that different companies do various things to ensure flagship characters are treated with a certain respect. In Disney, Mickey Mouse doesn't make that much money as compared to Donald Duck, but that doesn't mean Disney does stuff like advertising Mickey as a plague-spreading rat who's talked down to by Donald.

DC doesn't do enough to preserve Superman. Like for instance as editor/publisher they should put a moratorium on heat-vision or red-eyes glowing Superman images in various media since nowadays that's becoming far more iconic a superpower than Flight.

[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.