Does DC destroy Superman Legacy?

[Jim Kelly]

Batman is one of those characters I think of as having gone through the imaginary mill and come out a very different character at the end. Yet he's been that way so long now, many see this as the definitive Batman and can't see how it subverts the previous status quo.

When I read Frank Miller's DARK KNIGHT back in the 1980s it put me in mind of a MAD magazine parody. I think Miller was deliberately trying to push everyone's buttons by doing a take that tipped over all the sacred cows. He was just having a laugh, but it seems like a lot of people took it seriously and began to change Bruce to fit that model. So nobody appreciates that the DARK KNIGHT is meant to undermine everything the Caped Crusader stands for.

Sure there were certain dark aspects to Batman in his first eleven issues of DETECTIVE COMICS, but even in that short run they were transitioning away from the grimmer aspects of the character toward something sunnier. And once Jerry Robinson became Bob Kane's inker, he gave Batman and Robin those toothy smiles that defined the Dynamic Duo into the 1960s. Even Neal Adams paid homage to that Robinson smile in his cover for BATMAN 200 (March 1968).

[RobinGA]

I always enjoy your posts, the knowledge base you present is remarkable.

I think that while the pre-Robin period for Batman was brief, it still existed.
When Batman separated from Robin in the late 60s (1969 I think), the point was
that history was out there to serve as a template. Batman became slightly darker
in the 1970s, there was a sense of sweeping away the Batman in the 1950s and 1960s
to get back to what was viewed as the original character. The relationship between
the O'Neill and Miller take on Batman would make this too long.

You are absolutely right about the Dark Knight. But the reality is that for many people
the Dark Knight is Batman now. In my view, he shouldn't be, but with life
sometimes what we wish, what is the reality are two different things.

The other part of Miller's template was viewing Batman and Superman as people
whose world view was so diametrically opposed they could barely stand to be in the
same room together. As someone who was raised on the old World's Finest that has always
struck me as absurd.

But to take it back to Superman. Miller also presented Superman as this Reaganite conservative,
suggesting that it was with he and Batman the difference between law and order vs. justice. I think
Miller actually believes this, but I've never talked to the guy so it is hard to say. Personally,
I think it is a ridiculous way to read Superman. Supe's politics to me are those on the left, which is
where he properly belongs, it is just that he is not an interventionist. But my talking about this whole
theme would make this post even longer. I doubt people want to read a long discourse on Superman
and political theory.

The point is that Superman can be presented as an exciting character. That what we are seeing in films
about him has been shaped by this false conservative image of Superman. I mean his original politics
were very much that of a New Deal liberal. There is much there that could make for a very interesting film.
Which is also why the Coates take on Superman could be interesting. It could present a Superman whose
interest in social issues connects with that Golden Age Superman, even dare I say it, some of the elements
we saw at other times that are part of his history. Just been forgotten for the moment.

[JAK]

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.

Bingo.

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.

I don't want to say this is "by design," necessarily, but DC absolutely set this mental precedent in fans with COIE and Post-Crisis. As much as I love what was established, it set a rule for Superman of "throw out what you don't like" that has continued until now. That's going to be a hard mental block to crack, but I sincerely believe that *that's* the problem, not the history itself (generally).

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.

I think that's only true to a point, people seeing Superman as a 50's conservative. DKR certainly had something to do with that, just as it did for Batman, dovetailing with the Tim Burton films to cement the vibe. What's ironic is that where they tend to choose to go with the character isn't back to his roots, but (as you say) a dangerous element - which (while some people would think that if he were real, certainly) is also (imo) a dangerous thing for the character to internalize.

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.

This, absolutely. Ironically, at a time when having some "doing good for it's own sake" characters like Superman could be good for society right now... these people can't (or won't) see it.

Supe's politics to me are those on the left, which is
where he properly belongs, it is just that he is not an interventionist. But my talking about this whole
theme would make this post even longer. I doubt people want to read a long discourse on Superman
and political theory.

The point is that Superman can be presented as an exciting character. That what we are seeing in films
about him has been shaped by this false conservative image of Superman. I mean his original politics
were very much that of a New Deal liberal. There is much there that could make for a very interesting film.
Which is also why the Coates take on Superman could be interesting. It could present a Superman whose
interest in social issues connects with that Golden Age Superman, even dare I say it, some of the elements
we saw at other times that are part of his history. Just been forgotten for the moment.

This. AAAAALLLL of this. And I'd go so far as to say: I don't think it's been so much forgotten as (on some levels, anyway) intentionally suppressed in higher-profile interpretations.. because what Superman's Golden Age roots could spark in people is more dangerous to a corporate bottom line than failed attempts at making him an ineffectual danger to society. One look at where AT&T's money goes... and where it doesn't... says that loud and clear.

(thank you Superduperman for the link):
https://www.reuters.com/investigates...neamerica-att/

[RobinGA]

Not a whole lot to add here.

Except time will reveal the degree to which Superman is allowed to speak freely his urban liberalism. If
obedience to corporate masters is a motivation for keeping the false conservative Superman afloat,
it is certainly going to be true of the Super children. That would have its own irony.

I suppose the test will be what the Coates Superman looks like. I'm hopeful, which is not my usual
take with the DCEU-DCAU world.

[JAK]

Not a whole lot to add here.

Except time will reveal the degree to which Superman is allowed to speak freely his urban liberalism. If
obedience to corporate masters is a motivation for keeping the false conservative Superman afloat,
it is certainly going to be true of the Super children. That would have its own irony.

I suppose the test will be what the Coates Superman looks like. I'm hopeful, which is not my usual
take with the DCEU-DCAU world.

Very, very true.

Actually, that puts me in mind of something else... yes, the waters will muddy like crazy after Superman hits public domain, but I'm also curious to see what comes to the surface and becomes the general narrative among indie creators. Maybe we'll see a lot more of his roots expressed for the times, especially since that's the environment he was created in, and we're basically back there now (have been for a while, but still).

[Vordan]

Very, very true.

Actually, that puts me in mind of something else... yes, the waters will muddy like crazy after Superman hits public domain, but I'm also curious to see what comes to the surface and becomes the general narrative among indie creators. Maybe we'll see a lot more of his roots expressed for the times, especially since that's the environment he was created in, and we're basically back there now (have been for a while, but still).

Used to be worried about what Superman would be like in the PD. Now? F*** it, can’t be worse than the last two decades. We will get a lot of garbage but maybe we’ll get some good stuff too.

[RobinGA]

It will be interesting 10-15 years from now.

Assuming, of course, that DC Comics still exists.

[JAK]

Used to be worried about what Superman would be like in the PD. Now? F*** it, can’t be worse than the last two decades. We will get a lot of garbage but maybe we’ll get some good stuff too.

It's true. Especially when you consider that most of the best-loved Superman stuff had next to nothing to do with WB/DC directly. "The Death & Return Of Superman" is really the only major thing, and that was WB/DC pissing off the team so much over "corporate synergy" that they said "f**k it". lol

[DABellWrites]

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.

I just don't see it with current Disney. And I don't mean the whole "SJW", agenda BS. I mean how they'll treat Superman as a brand. Star Wars and the MCU were already successful pre-Disney, Disney didn't need to really touch them. However, if you really want to see a famous IP that Disney has floundered over the years, look at the Muppets. Aside from the 2011 film, what has Disney done with the Muppets since 2004? We're approaching nearly twenty years by the way. DC films have been a mess for years now.While I know some folks will feel Disney will do good with DC, I just don't. Disney is a brand machine. And DC's brand isn't the best right now to the general public.

Personally, I think WB steering away from Snyder's creation is the best thing WB can do. They've been having hits so far.

[DABellWrites]

I suppose the test will be what the Coates Superman looks like. I'm hopeful, which is not my usual
take with the DCEU-DCAU world.

Calling it now. It's going to be an Elseworld where Clark is a Black man in the South battling/dealing racism. Lex Luthor is going to have something to do with the KKK. Clark and Lois are going to be investigating him.

[manwhohaseverything]

Used to be worried about what Superman would be like in the PD. Now? F*** it, can’t be worse than the last two decades. We will get a lot of garbage but maybe we’ll get some good stuff too.

the superdoplegangers and superman-esque characters already exist.People have already been doing their own takes with the character..then they would just have the ability to use superman stuff.

also i am of the mind that the character should have been in up for public use the minute the creators lost their rights.

[Jim Kelly]

I get a bad feeling from publishers that take a character that's in the public domain--change the name for trademark reasons--and then publish new material as if the character belongs to them. I stay away from those publications. To me that's different from fan fiction or parody.

It would be okay if the families of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster licensed Superman to another publisher--that's fair play, the way I see it. But I don't like grave robbers. If the Marston family wanted to license their Wonder Woman to another publisher, I would support that absolutely, because I don't think the Amazing Amazon has gotten a fair shake in the comics.

What's most off-putting is this sense of ownership among some fans, who want the comics to serve their own needs and to hell with anyone else. I feel like these fans have lost sight of reality. Comics are a business and sometimes publishers are going to do things fans hate, but that's their legal right. The reader has the right not to buy the product.

I hate what has happened to the Legion of Super-Heroes, but I'm not going to advocate Marvel Comics stealing the concept and putting out their own comic book. If someone wants to write their own fan fiction, I support that (might do it myself one day), but that doesn't mean I support theft. The characters belong to the creators and the publisher. I'm just a fan, with no legal rights.

[RobinGA]

It is more of a theoretical exercise right now. The copyright is about to run out, true too
for Batman, Wonder Woman if I remember what I read correctly. I have no idea how it
would apply to other characters part of the DC brand.

When that day starts to come, more than likely WB is going to apply for an extension. Which
may or may not take place. Then it all becomes the preserve of the lawyers, with our courts,
Lord, knows what will happen.

I'm sympathetic to the concerns about trademark for the families legal rights. But there
are characters who I think will be treated better by the public, than DC, of that I have no doubt.
I love Superman, Lois Lane, but I also love the Golden Age Robin, the Helena Wayne Huntress,
Power Girl. How have these three been treated by DC Comics lately? I'm not trying to be smarmy
here, but it has been disgraceful. I know a lot of fan fiction is ridiculous relationship porn, but
there is a lot of really good fan fiction out there. People have all kinds of reasons to write. But for
me the attraction is that characters I care about can achieve their potential, live happy lives, free
from the DC Comics twists and turns. The Helena Wayne Huntress is a great character, but are we
really going to see her get a book of her own? Not in a million years. The best she can hope for right
now in DC Comics world is showing up as a bit character in the JSA, where she has to fight for space
with 10-15 other characters. It's even worse for the Golden Age Robin. PD will actually improve things
for them, although I will admit that they aren't going to be the prime movers in fan fiction that may
be commercially viable. I may think they are great characters, but mine is a decidedly minority view.
I say this not to be pathetic, but just to
point out that there are lots of characters out there that are beloved, but well have slipped through the
cracks. For characters who aren't part of the trinity, PD may be a godsend.

We are already living in a world of self-publishing. A decade from now the revolution will be even more
advanced. It will allow for a range of projects, may even force DC to be more creative. Of course, that
all depends on what happens in the courts, congress, legislatures. I don't have a crystal ball to predict
these kinds of things.

[SiegePerilous02]

I just don't see it with current Disney. And I don't mean the whole "SJW", agenda BS. I mean how they'll treat Superman as a brand. Star Wars and the MCU were already successful pre-Disney, Disney didn't need to really touch them. However, if you really want to see a famous IP that Disney has floundered over the years, look at the Muppets. Aside from the 2011 film, what has Disney done with the Muppets since 2004? We're approaching nearly twenty years by the way. DC films have been a mess for years now.While I know some folks will feel Disney will do good with DC, I just don't. Disney is a brand machine. And DC's brand isn't the best right now to the general public.

Personally, I think WB steering away from Snyder's creation is the best thing WB can do. They've been having hits so far.

It's pretty much a coin toss if Disney getting Superman would result in a Star Wars or MCU situation. If it ended up half as stable as the latter I'd be overjoyed even with the drawbacks, but yes they've done an incredibly underwhelming job with Star Wars. But compare that to the Devil We Know, WB, who've done nothing but a lousy job all this time, and I'd be willing to take the risk with Disney.

WB has been steering things back in the right direction with their last few films, but they've yet to prove they can be trusted with Superman. Even one of their hits, the first Wonder Woman, is something they just blundered into because Jenkins knew what she was doing for the first film and they left her alone because they didn't think much would come of it.

It sucks that Disney and WB are our only options lol.

[JAK]

I just don't see it with current Disney. And I don't mean the whole "SJW", agenda BS. I mean how they'll treat Superman as a brand. Star Wars and the MCU were already successful pre-Disney, Disney didn't need to really touch them. However, if you really want to see a famous IP that Disney has floundered over the years, look at the Muppets. Aside from the 2011 film, what has Disney done with the Muppets since 2004? We're approaching nearly twenty years by the way. DC films have been a mess for years now.While I know some folks will feel Disney will do good with DC, I just don't. Disney is a brand machine. And DC's brand isn't the best right now to the general public.

Personally, I think WB steering away from Snyder's creation is the best thing WB can do. They've been having hits so far.

I'm not as keen on Disney having Superman as others, but one thing they seem to do decently well is straight-forward, positive characters. If they even did a sliver for Superman what was done for Captain America, we'd all be jumping for joy right now.

That's not to say they *would* do that, but it's certainly in the realm of possibility.

I get a bad feeling from publishers that take a character that's in the public domain--change the name for trademark reasons--and then publish new material as if the character belongs to them. I stay away from those publications. To me that's different from fan fiction or parody.

It would be okay if the families of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster licensed Superman to another publisher--that's fair play, the way I see it. But I don't like grave robbers. If the Marston family wanted to license their Wonder Woman to another publisher, I would support that absolutely, because I don't think the Amazing Amazon has gotten a fair shake in the comics.

What's most off-putting is this sense of ownership among some fans, who want the comics to serve their own needs and to hell with anyone else. I feel like these fans have lost sight of reality. Comics are a business and sometimes publishers are going to do things fans hate, but that's their legal right. The reader has the right not to buy the product.

I hate what has happened to the Legion of Super-Heroes, but I'm not going to advocate Marvel Comics stealing the concept and putting out their own comic book. If someone wants to write their own fan fiction, I support that (might do it myself one day), but that doesn't mean I support theft. The characters belong to the creators and the publisher. I'm just a fan, with no legal rights.

I understand your position, but it's not theft. What DC did to the creators was theft, in my book, but history and culture would be infinitely poorer if nothing ever entered the public domain. There are pictures, video, and audio that would never see the light of day without public domain being a "thing." At any rate, the families of the creators would also get a LOT more press for their own version than, say, your average person - or possibly even a rival company. "Superman comes home" is too good a headline.

Public domain for something we've known a certain way for so long can be scary, certainly. And I do share in that concern. But everything gets there at some point. That's not grave robbery, it's part of culture-building.

WB has been steering things back in the right direction with their last few films, but they've yet to prove they can be trusted with Superman. Even one of their hits, the first Wonder Woman, is something they just blundered into because Jenkins knew what she was doing for the first film and they left her alone because they didn't think much would come of it.

That's basically WB's m.o.; if they didn't have much to do with it, it tends to go well more often than it doesn't. lol

It sucks that Disney and WB are our only options lol.

Right?!? At least for now, anyway.