Tweet
-
You must try to generate happiness within yourself. If you aren't happy in one place, chances are you won't be happy anyplace. -Ernie Banks -
Great stuff!!! I've really enjoyed these shorts. I'd love to see a Superman series like this. How come all of these fan projects seem to capture Superman better than almost everything DC is doing these days?
Chris -
^ Great question, and what I've come to believe is that Warners and DC has had its head handed to them by Marvel for so long in sales — generally since the 1970s — that they have an inferiority complex. Warners and DC has so little faith in their characters that they end up making backwards or wrong-headed decisions to try to make the characters cool instead of embracing the core of the characters and then trying to tell solid stories with them.
There are a ton of examples that any on this board could mention, but I read about another one today. In October, DC is going to debut a brand new look for the Joker. Possibly this is a "necessity" to stave off some copyright lawsuit, but when you have arguably the most recognizable, popular and best villain in your genre, why in the world do you mess with it?Comment
-
After Rastafarian Joker on "The Batman" they'd have to go pretty far afield to top that one! But I'll bet they'll manage somehow!There are a ton of examples that any on this board could mention, but I read about another one today. In October, DC is going to debut a brand new look for the Joker. Possibly this is a "necessity" to stave off some copyright lawsuit, but when you have arguably the most recognizable, popular and best villain in your genre, why in the world do you mess with it?
ChrisComment
-
>when you have arguably the most recognizable, popular and best villain in your genre, why in the world do you mess with it?
The marketing department probably wants a change 'cos the Joker in the last movie upstaged the comic one so much.... at least in terms of audience share.
>they have an inferiority complex
Y'know.... I think you might be right, but a little off on the terminology. DC's got MUCH older characters; characters written under a RADICALLY different paradigm than the current one. I suspect that's a problem for the aforementioned marketing department 'cos it's tougher to make them conform to the current trends in marketing and presentation. ("So, how do we make Superman more EXTREME? Kids are still into EXTREME, aren't they?") What nobody realizes.... or accepts.... is that the DC universe is it's own thing. It exists outside the current "normal" rules for entertainment, and does it's own thing. (75+ years, and still nobody cares that adding glasses makes you entirely unrecognizable.) At least it DID; the shift from comics to movies as the primary carriers for the characters means you're playing in a different cognitive field, where people have different expectations and different rules apply. Marvel has more flexibility there since a more universally "acceptable" paradigm ("heroes with problems") was part of their inception.
Don C.Comment
-
That was awesome. Especially dig the afterword and the implication that at least the pencils were done traditionally. Really liked the flip over the animation desk.Comment
-
Good points. They obviously are too hung up on making their characters "cool", and not just letting the characters shine on their own merits. They did it in the first Superman film, where the sincerely good Superman was juxtaposed against an increasingly more cynical world, and it worked. Chris Reeve made the Clark Kent conceit work even. Marvel did the same thing with Captain America's portrayal on film, even in the Avengers. This CAN be done. But DC is afraid to NOT be the hippest, coolest comic/entertainment company.Y'know.... I think you might be right, but a little off on the terminology. DC's got MUCH older characters; characters written under a RADICALLY different paradigm than the current one. I suspect that's a problem for the aforementioned marketing department 'cos it's tougher to make them conform to the current trends in marketing and presentation. ("So, how do we make Superman more EXTREME? Kids are still into EXTREME, aren't they?") What nobody realizes.... or accepts.... is that the DC universe is it's own thing. It exists outside the current "normal" rules for entertainment, and does it's own thing. (75+ years, and still nobody cares that adding glasses makes you entirely unrecognizable.) At least it DID; the shift from comics to movies as the primary carriers for the characters means you're playing in a different cognitive field, where people have different expectations and different rules apply. Marvel has more flexibility there since a more universally "acceptable" paradigm ("heroes with problems") was part of their inception.
Batman:The Brave and the Bold was an odd throw-back to celebrating DC as it was. That's why it was so unique and FUN!!!
ChrisComment
-
Other than poorly executed (Superman III and IV) and misguided films (Superman Returns), Superman has been viable and popular character on TV more years than not since the 50s if you include the four series — Adventures, Superboy, Lois and Clark and Smallville as well as the various cartoons - Super Friends being the longest running in all its incarnations. Smallville did ditch the costume, but the series actually got more popular in its later years as it moved the character closer to being Superman.
I think DC's characters can be viable on the big screen and other media today without needlessly twisting them. However, it has to be done with confidence. Anything done half-hearted has a much greater chance of failing, and other than a few instances I believe that's the way Warners has approached its comic characters on the scree. It's like they believe "we have trick people into liking Superman."
Maybe DC also must accept that Superman might have a different demographic pull than Batman, who does better with teens and younger adults. Maybe Superman's prime audience is a bit younger and bit older than Batman's, which is obviously the sweet spot demographically for films. But if you hook the 6- to 12-year-old crowd, they might carry an affection for the character into adulthood. Star Wars isn't the most mature material out there and fans still love the originals and kids seem to like animated series a great deal.
I think Warners is afraid of the Justice League, afraid of messing it up and afraid of it being too "silly." Hopefully, the success of the Avengers will push it forward, but it might just scare them into inaction.Comment
-
>They obviously are too hung up on making their characters "cool", and not just letting the characters shine on their own merits.
Well.... I don't think it's exactly "cool" they're looking for. DC's stuff is owned by a big conglomerate, and even the comics have many hands in the pie.... and they're all pushing for marketability. Maybe "cool" is a good term after all.... But this is a hazard of any entertainment by committe. (And it's not exactly new.) It's tough for an older fan to see that, 'cos we all came up through the bronze age, where companies were small and DC and Marvel would leave a lot in the hands of the team producing the actual works. By the end of the 80's the trend was changing.... Hell; by the BEGINNING of the 80's it was, but I don't think they figured out how to do it effectively yet. Hence why so much of their comics were marketing driven.... marketing aimed at kids 'cos of the toy boom of the day. (And why you got weird stuff like the Micronauts: based on a toy aimed at the younger crowd, yet one of the most sci-fi laden and bleak comics Marvel ever produced.) Look how quickly everything changed when Crisis hit: suddenly hardcore continuity was the thing. And then the Dark Knight (preceeded by Miller's noir-esque Daredevil) brought the grit and everyone fell in line.
As a kid you don't notice it, since your image of the character is still forming (and will be made of whatever bits you're exposed to during the formative stages -no matter how irreconcilable) and you're coming into it during one of these phases, with little to no knowledge of the ones preceeding it. Since DC's stuff is so old, it's been through the edit a lot; and today everyone remembers them all since the hardcore fan has been up on their history since the late 80's.... so it's probably REAL tough for DC to pin down the essence of a character before adapting them to the moder era.
>They did it in the first Superman film, where the sincerely good Superman was juxtaposed against an increasingly more cynical world, and it worked.
They did; but even then that Superman was the kinder, gentler one from the Silver Age and not the "I'll dropkick your junk right into the ocean-good luck swimming home" one from the 40's. The last film seemed like they were trying for some of the post Crisis "no, it's all science fictiony and dramatic and stuff" but got WAY out of hand with it. (Mind controlled Superman having an affair with Big Barda is one thing, but who wants to see Supes' athsmatic kid for two hours? GET OUT THERE AND SUPER-PUNCH SOMETHING, DAMMIT!!!!)
>Batman:The Brave and the Bold was an odd throw-back to celebrating DC as it was. That's why it was so unique and FUN!!!
In a way so were the Justice League cartoons; but that's a doube edged sword. Get TOO mired in nostalgia and you alienate new fans. Brave and the Bold was nice 'cos they'd devote an episode to someone like Kamandi; so even if you'd never seen the character they still felt like someone. Their story and their significance played out during the show. The Justice League stuff relied too much on you already knowing who these guys were, so if you didn't know who Blackhawk was the "wink-wink" in-jokes were lost on you. Same with adding guys like the Shining Knight and Vigilante. "Why's there a cowboy with Batman?" (What the world of nerdly arts could use is an origin story for the Shining Knight, and not ANOTHER Batman one....)
I think one of the things DC does that's uber-bad is drawing from the sure things WAY too much. They have so many characters out there, but we get the same ones over and over just 'cos they'll sell. And each time we get the same story again and again, with a slight twist that doesn't REALLY add anything to the character, setting or story. It's why I don't get excited about the big movies; I know what's gonna happen. I'll see some neat fight scenes, there'll be some minor twists to the characters, (Batman's batarangs are organic!) and some baffling attempts to pull it all together into a neater package. (So.... Batman's a clone of Boba Fett now?!?!?)
Don C.Comment
-
I've heard various DC-related folks say it's hard to make Superman "relevant". How is it hard? Tell good stories, and they will always be relevant.
I agree Superman may skew younger...and older than Batman. Much like most comic fans go through a period where they like the "dark" characters like Wolverine, Punisher, Ghost Rider, etc. in their teen years, only to come back around to the more classic super hero example in later years. I know I did.
ChrisComment
-
To me, the best stories with a straight-arrow character like Superman is either to put him in tempting situations where he questions his black and white approach— like the Superman vs. Elite video — or to tie his hands in ways in which his physical abilities are no true help. That doesn't mean tone down the action, though.
If DC rolled the dial back on his powers to 1940s level and he had that social crusader attitude, I really believe it would have resonance with audiences today. It certainly did during the economically depressed time of his creation. Fighting for the little guy or the middle class.Comment
-
>the best stories with a straight-arrow character like Superman is either to put him in tempting situations where he questions his black and white approach— like the Superman vs. Elite video — or to tie his hands in ways in which his physical abilities are no true help. That doesn't mean tone down the action, though.
That's very true; but it requires some decent writing. Otherwise you get the silver age "OH NO!!! Paisley Kryptonite!!!" thing, where tons of stuff shows up for one story and then goes away. (Wether it should or not.)
>If DC rolled the dial back on his powers to 1940s level and he had that social crusader attitude, I really believe it would have resonance with audiences today.
That's true too; but can you imagine the hue and cry from the hardcore fans? Actually; they kinda did this right after Crisis.... the first Crisis.... when they dialled him back. Not quite to the 40's levels, but he couldn't throw the moon any more.
>How is it hard?
From a classic marketing perspective? Damned hard, 'cos he doesn't look like everything else.
>Tell good stories, and they will always be relevant.
Well.... it's comforting to think that; but good doesn't always translate to sales. People have expectations of established characters and those expectations can work against you just as readily as for you. Superman is seen as a goodie-good, and master of the deus ex machina power to a lot of people, which turns them off from the character.
Don C.Comment
Comment