Does DC destroy Superman Legacy?

[JAK]

I would counter that the reason for that is because people already had Injustice Superman. Plus, James Gunn doesn't seem to have much mainstream appeal outside of the MCU.

Maybe. But that's one game series and comics line, with an animated movie coming. If this was an idea that people were loving as a general idea and not that story specifically, there'd be more of a taste for the idea outside of that framework. Once the games are done... that's likely it, unless Injustice is rebooted. The other evil Supermen (not named Ultraman/etc) will come and go quickly, imo - even if DC was insistent on beating that dead horse for all the manure it's got left. lol

This I agree with. However, some fans have, let's say very different views on what "dark" and "light" are.

True.

If Injustice were aimed only at comic fans, it would not have made as much money as it did. Injustice clearly has an audience beyond the comics (much as I may not care for it myself).

Furthermore, I don't think Evil Superman is as common as people think.

That's poor phrasing on my part - apologies. It's not *just* comics fans, but a certain section of the comics and gamer crowd has always had.. shall we say.. a taste/mentality overlap. And Superman has never, ever, been popular with that crowd. And he never will be. They're the hipster poets of geekdom minus most of the redeeming qualities. That's not to say I can't get into what they like (there's definitely good stuff there), but their tastes are a lot more narrow in certain respects, and not a reflection of the general population. They'll go for a take like this because it takes something they barely have a grudging respect for (if that) and flips it on it's head to make BatGod look good. It's everything they love in a little red bow. lol But it's not going to be much of a thing beyond that. Because in the general public's mind, that's not who Superman is. I'm not saying it can't make money (even a lot), I'm just saying that, save one or two things, it's not going to have a lasting effect on the character (ie: Injustice Superman won't replace regular Superman culturally)

[Agent Z]

Maybe. But that's one game series and comics line, with an animated movie coming. If this was an idea that people were loving as a general idea and not that story specifically, there'd be more of a taste for the idea outside of that framework.

You mean like Omni-Man and Homelander or do you mean from DC specifically?

[RobinGA]

None of this is intentional on DC's part. They just don't know what they are doing.
They just always seem to be panicking, then throwing ideas against a wall.

When it comes to Superman they don't appreciate what they have in him.
Increasingly, they have this idea if they just reinvent the wheel that is going to be the
breakthrough they want. There is a failure to understand the character.

But the good news with Superman is that he can't be killed off. All of their
ridiculous efforts in the DCEU, along with the modern books, he will survive.

[JAK]

You mean like Omni-Man and Homelander or do you mean from DC specifically?

I've meant both in the past, but in that case I mean DC, and specifically Superman.

None of this is intentional on DC's part. They just don't know what they are doing.
They just always seem to be panicking, then throwing ideas against a wall.

When it comes to Superman they don't appreciate what they have in him.
Increasingly, they have this idea if they just reinvent the wheel that is going to be the
breakthrough they want. There is a failure to understand the character.

But the good news with Superman is that he can't be killed off. All of their
ridiculous efforts in the DCEU, along with the modern books, he will survive.

This is my thinking, as well.

[SiegePerilous02]

None of this is intentional on DC's part. They just don't know what they are doing.
They just always seem to be panicking, then throwing ideas against a wall.

When it comes to Superman they don't appreciate what they have in him.
Increasingly, they have this idea if they just reinvent the wheel that is going to be the
breakthrough they want. There is a failure to understand the character.

But the good news with Superman is that he can't be killed off. All of their
ridiculous efforts in the DCEU, along with the modern books, he will survive.

I think one of the big problems with WB/DC is that, at least on the film front, I don't believe they've ever had a straight up cinema hit for Superman that they've been directly involved with. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they just distribute the Donnor films, while another production company actually made them? If that's the case, they really have no precedent themselves to draw from to create a new modern hit. All their own attempts have been divisive/underwhelming or outright bad. Before the first Wonder Woman, I don't think they've ever had a big audience hit that wasn't related to Batman in some way. That doubtlessly plays a big part in them leaning on him way too much and trying to replicate his formula for characters it may not suit, even if they are starting to get better with that (ex: WW, Aquaman).

So Superman's stuck with a company that on the film front has never gotten him or his appeal. It's not surprising that he's in a big slump compared to the level he used to be at.

[Agent Z]

I've meant both in the past, but in that case I mean DC, and specifically Superman.

Okay, I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

[RobinGA]

I think SiegePerilous states it well.

DC/WB really have no clue with Superman, so we see a lot of thrashing around.
It is also revealed by the people who become in charge of these various DCU projects:
Nolan, Gunn, Snyder.

But the wheel turns, what is up becomes down. We are probably close someday
to a reinvention of the Superman character where people will get him. But then
when that is remains a good question. 2035? 2050? 2075?

It may be a long wait. But then all you need is that one project which re-envisions
the franchise.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think one of the big problems with WB/DC is that, at least on the film front, I don't believe they've ever had a straight up cinema hit for Superman that they've been directly involved with. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they just distribute the Donnor films, while another production company actually made them?

Actually,you are right.The donner project was spearheaded by Salkinds and Spengler.And further more superman ip was in better condition when independent studious used to buy the rights for the character and did what they did.When supes wasn't owned by wb.

[Agent Z]

I think SiegePerilous states it well.

DC/WB really have no clue with Superman, so we see a lot of thrashing around.
It is also revealed by the people who become in charge of these various DCU projects:
Nolan, Gunn, Snyder.

But the wheel turns, what is up becomes down. We are probably close someday
to a reinvention of the Superman character where people will get him. But then
when that is remains a good question. 2035? 2050? 2075?

It may be a long wait. But then all you need is that one project which re-envisions
the franchise.

Gunn never directed a Superman movie.

[DABellWrites]

I hope Disney buys DC

Because Warner’s is the worst thing to happen to Superman

Please, no.

[DABellWrites]

Evil Superman has been around for decades at this point. They're not destroying his legacy. They're just trying to find a way to appeal to the 21st century audience with the Big Blue. So far, Evil Superman and Superdad appeals to people, so DC is pushing that.

[JAK]

Okay, I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

Oh, sorry - I'm speaking about Superman in general here - that a "side/what-if" story is one thing, but there's not enough interest in evil Superman to overtake the main version in popularity beyond a few (albeit not small) niche groups. And those groups don't generally care about characters like Superman, anyway.

I think SiegePerilous states it well.

DC/WB really have no clue with Superman, so we see a lot of thrashing around.
It is also revealed by the people who become in charge of these various DCU projects:
Nolan, Gunn, Snyder.

But the wheel turns, what is up becomes down. We are probably close someday
to a reinvention of the Superman character where people will get him. But then
when that is remains a good question. 2035? 2050? 2075?

It may be a long wait. But then all you need is that one project which re-envisions
the franchise.

Absolutely. I'd wager that "Superman And Lois" will be a possible contender for this, but that remains to be seen.

Actually,you are right.The donner project was spearheaded by Salkinds and Spengler.And further more superman ip was in better condition when independent studious used to buy the rights for the character and did what they did.When supes wasn't owned by wb.

That is *absolutely* true. Not that those people (*cough* Jon Peters *cough*) can't be just as bad (or worse), but in general I'd agree.

Evil Superman has been around for decades at this point. They're not destroying his legacy. They're just trying to find a way to appeal to the 21st century audience with the Big Blue. So far, Evil Superman and Superdad appeals to people, so DC is pushing that.

I'd say they have the perception of such appeal, yes. Though I'd guess that Superdad has a much larger potential market base than evil Superman does - we're just closer to the demo that like the latter above the former so it's more easily visible to us.

[Jim Kelly]

Since Kinney National bought up National Periodicals and Warner Brothers Studios at about the same time in the late 1960s and some of my all-time favourite Superman stories were published in the 1970s, I can't say that Warner "owning" Superman is such a bad thing. Disney owning Superman would be my nightmare.

But I just take everything as imaginary stories.

Where at one time it was possible to take it seriously and think such and such is a permanent development in the canon, they have changed things around too many times for me to be invested in anything that happens now.

There were lots of imaginary stories in the past, also, but those existed alongside the official Superman continuity. I think they should openly label all the new comics as Imaginary or Elseworlds. And they need to publish a version of Superman that embraces all the classic mythology, as well--so there's something to provide contrast.

Imaginary stories work because they play with the traditional concept. You can read and enjoy them, knowing that nothing in the canon is being overwritten. I think the people that enjoy Injustice Superman or Red Sun Superman get pleasure out of those inverted story lines, because they know it's NOT the classic Superman.

When these once-imaginary versions of characters become the default version, the subversive purpose is lost. People just think that's the character and the story loses its impact.

[SiegePerilous02]

Please, no.

Disney would have its own downsides, but I have a hard time believing they'd **** up Superman on the film front more than WB has at this point.

[RobinGA]

With Gunn I was thinking of the infamous interview he gave about thinking of
a movie with Superman chasing Krypto. It seemed revealing about how many
of these showrunners don't understand the subject. Not a huge point I suppose.

We had a long discussion not that long ago about what would happen if Disney had bought DC
how different would it be. I'm in the it wouldn't be that different camp, but
perhaps they would make real changes. It becomes a theoretical exercise I suppose.

But the issue with Superman is all of that history. Other characters have a long history
too. But for some reason it becomes something to react against with Superman. Everything
has been said, everything has been told, if you do Superman then you have to make it fresh.
Fresh becomes here reacting against the Superman mythos, to create something radically
different. Usually that leads them down the "dark" Superman path, that we saw with Snyder.
It will take a while for those coming to Superman projects to get it out of their system.

Batman doesn't have the same problem. I suppose because well Batman can be dark, without
changing his ultimate character. I mean the pre-Robin Batman of the Golden Age had a very dark
feel to him. Those Golden Age stories where Batman did all kinds of things that violate the "no kill"
rule of his. Batman, even if he doesn't go that far, still has that history to reference.

Golden Age Superman had a strong social justice conscience, was very political. I enjoy those
stories, but it seems as though people with Superman think of him as the 1950s conservative Superman.
I don't think that is the real Superman. But it represents something that can be stifling. The solution
increasingly is to see Superman as someone who is violently undermining society, a dangerous element.

It seems in that sense for Superman to be dangerous, because people are uncomfortable with him
having all of those superpowers. Batman may be darker, but he is still a normal human. Can we really
trust Superman with these abilities? The answer from many recent writers, producers, directors doing
Superman films is no. If someone had these kind of powers they would become a tyrant. Perhaps, it
reveals more about the psychosis of the people doing these projects, than about Superman.