You know the truly crazy thing about the evil Superman renaissance?

[The World]

The evil Supermen are the most popular characters in their respective franchises despite the horrific things they've done and the fact that they aren't the main characters. Omni-man and Homelander both basically eclipsed the other characters from the series they're from and are easily the shining star of the featured series with some saying Homelander basically caries The Boys tv show. Meanwhile Clark seems to always be struggling for top billing in his respective ventures and has spent the past couple decades getting his material stolen piece by piece.

[Agent Z]

The truly crazy thing is how people focus on a handful of Evil Superman examples and ignoring the numerous heroic ones. It's also ridiculous to claim Clark isn't getting top billing in his own adventures.

[manwhohaseverything]

I like omni man.
Edit: They do call him Batman's villain jokingly.The problem is he ain't much of a threat to batman idealogically, physically..etc.Think about it joker is hella popular.Yet,supes doesn't feel like much.

[DochaDocha]

I'm going to say for the sake of argument that Omni-Man, Homelander, and other Superman-pastiche-but-evil characters work because they combine the recognizability of Superman and put in a gritty or gratuitous spin that the MCU and DCEU just can't touch. On the other hand, doing a straight-up Superman pastiche just brings nothing to the table; you're just giving the world a watered-down imitation that makes you wish for the real thing, assuming that's what you wanted in the first place.

Also, Omni-Man and Homelander are probably a lot more interesting than the evil Supermen DC gives us. Those guys are actually terrifying, with Homelander being so unhinged and Omni-Man (I'm not caught up with season 2 yet) seemingly unstoppable and being the first of an army just like him. DC's evil Supermen tend to be "Something bad happened to me, so no civil rights for anyone," or written by guys who buy into the subtext that a similarly amoral Batman would beat him.

EDIT: Bring back Hernan Guerra.

[Agent Z]

I'm going to say for the sake of argument that Omni-Man, Homelander, and other Superman-pastiche-but-evil characters work because they combine the recognizability of Superman and put in a gritty or gratuitous spin that the MCU and DCEU just can't touch. On the other hand, doing a straight-up Superman pastiche just brings nothing to the table; you're just giving the world a watered-down imitation that makes you wish for the real thing, assuming that's what you wanted in the first place.

Also, Omni-Man and Homelander are probably a lot more interesting than the evil Supermen DC gives us. Those guys are actually terrifying, with Homelander being so unhinged and Omni-Man (I'm not caught up with season 2 yet) seemingly unstoppable and being the first of an army just like him. DC's evil Supermen tend to be "Something bad happened to me, so no civil rights for anyone," or written by guys who buy into the subtext that a similarly amoral Batman would beat him.

EDIT: Bring back Hernan Guerra.

Homelander's pretty pathetic in his own way. A lot of people watched his Death Battle fight with Omni-Man just to watch him get humiliated and a lot of his popularity comes from people who don't realize he's a villain. The t.v. show also did a lot of heavy lifting in making him an interesting character - the comic version was basically just a complete moron who wasspoilers:

duped into being a villain and wasn't even responsible for most of the horrible things he was suspected of doing.

end of spoilers

As for Omni-Man, spoilers:

he is far from unstoppable and he doesn't stay a villain.

end of spoilers

[out of control]

I like Homelander, i am somewhat of a milk enthusiast myself. A fine glass of milk can do wonders. If Korova Milk Bar was real, i would be a regular for sure. Milk boy, drink your milk.

[manwhohaseverything]

Homelander's pretty pathetic in his own way. A lot of people watched his Death Battle fight with Omni-Man just to watch him get humiliated and a lot of his popularity comes from people who don't realize he's a villain. The t.v. show also did a lot of heavy lifting in making him an interesting character - the comic version was basically just a complete moron who wasspoilers:

duped into being a villain and wasn't even responsible for most of the horrible things he was suspected of doing.

end of spoilers

As for Omni-Man, spoilers:

he is far from unstoppable and he doesn't stay a villain.

end of spoilers

Yeah! Homelander is pretty pathetic.

[DochaDocha]

I'd argue that Homelander's being a sad, little boy deep down is part of the character that makes him interesting for TV viewers. Guys like Injustice or Justice Lord Superman just don't draw my attention similarly.

[Agent Z]

I'd argue that Homelander's being a sad, little boy deep down is part of the character that makes him interesting for TV viewers. Guys like Injustice or Justice Lord Superman just don't draw my attention similarly.

Well, they clearly working for some people.

[DochaDocha]

Well, they clearly working for some people.

For sure, but what can I say? I don't see the appeal in the character, nor do I think the IJ or Injustice versions of Superman are really the characters that drive the appeal of those stories.

[DABellWrites]

I'm going to say for the sake of argument that Omni-Man, Homelander, and other Superman-pastiche-but-evil characters work because they combine the recognizability of Superman and put in a gritty or gratuitous spin that the MCU and DCEU just can't touch. On the other hand, doing a straight-up Superman pastiche just brings nothing to the table; you're just giving the world a watered-down imitation that makes you wish for the real thing, assuming that's what you wanted in the first place.

Also, Omni-Man and Homelander are probably a lot more interesting than the evil Supermen DC gives us. Those guys are actually terrifying, with Homelander being so unhinged and Omni-Man (I'm not caught up with season 2 yet) seemingly unstoppable and being the first of an army just like him. DC's evil Supermen tend to be "Something bad happened to me, so no civil rights for anyone," or written by guys who buy into the subtext that a similarly amoral Batman would beat him.

EDIT: Bring back Hernan Guerra.

If done poorly, yes. Captain Marvel and Samaritan are examples of how to do it right.

[Jeffrey2]

Whether there has been a renaissance in these evil pseudo-Superman or not, efforts to make Superman edgy in film have not worked. Think SR with the love child or MOS with Clark letting his father die and being turned into a full-on evil Superman in the once planned Justice League 2 and most of Justice League 3. WB did this because the corny Superman of Donner's days no longer resonates with audiences or so they've felt for a while. And they are probably correct on that. Still, both SR and MOS were big disappointments at the BO. The question is does a Superman vision exist that is between the two "extremes" that can work? Superman Legacy won't answer that to the extent Gunn mimics the Superman/Clark galoot trope of Donner's day.

Ironically Superman and Lois found a middle way that worked but maybe only in a TV setting where a project can be successful appealing to a much smaller audience that is needed for a film. One complaint about Cavill's portrayal was his Superman and Clark were not too different. Unlike Reeve's. Yet Tyler's portrayal also does not draw a sharp line between his portryal of the two sides of Superman.