Blog: "Who is to blame for Superman's image problem?"

[The Laughing Fish]

There's also material beyond the Byrne and Animated Series material.

I was merely using those as examples, nothing more. Nor does that make them invalid.

Geoff Johns and Gary Frank's Superman Secret Origin is more in line with what these fans you're referring to would like to see in their depiction of Superman on the big screen.

The only Superman-related work I've read from that duo were Superman and the Legion of Super-Heroes and Doomsday Clock. Quite honestly, I wasn't the biggest fan. I wouldn't necessarily say they're "bad", the former being better than the latter (which had a strong start but faded as it progressed), but some of the things didn't impress me. One of the biggest pet peeves of mine is Frank constantly modelling Superman after Christopher Reeve. This alone invites the whole "Superman must smile" outcry.

Frankly (no pun intended), I don't think very highly of Geoff Johns as a person nowadays after reading how he played a part in sabotaging Snyder's JL movie. You might not care, but the way he and Warner had handled the matter has been rather criminal, given the tragic circumstances over why Snyder left in the first place. Even before that, but that's going into another discussion altogether.

The deal is that they steered wrongly in the Nolan Dark Knight direction and everyone rightfully called out the disorienting (and sometimes quite frightening) results. They hastily tried to bring what was desired but learned way too late.

Please, people knew very well what they were getting into as soon as they saw Nolan and Goyer's name in the credits for MOS; in fact, I even remember many were rejoicing their involvement. To me, it's pretty disingenuous for people to complain about the Nolan trilogy as a bad influence, when more often than not, they're the same ones who have been putting that damn trilogy up on a pedestal and still blatantly ignoring its own problems to this day. Some of which being far more egregious than Snyder ever did than they care to admit; even going so far to lie or make worthless rationalisations for those movies' shortcomings while complaining about MOS and BvS. Again, I don't see the latter two being perfect by any means, but this whole idea over "dark tone" being unsuitable for DC to inspire is quite hypocritical. Same thing goes for the quality over the writing. But then again, I guess as long as a character pays lip service to certain ideals, that's okay, because it allows them to be exonerated for any inconsistent actions. I guess Snyder should've taken a page from Nolan's book more often in that regard.

[The Laughing Fish]

For seconders, the STAS model of Dan Turpin has basically nothing to do with Turpin as he's always looked in the comics and everything to do with Jack Kirby. It's no coincidence that STAS Turpin in a dead ringer for irl Jack Kirby.

And Darkseid, a Kirby creation, murders Turpin. It's like the creation turning on its creator. It's weird, a little sick and the most incredibly bizarre meta I think I've ever seen.

We'll have to disagree about Darkseid. The DCAU made its share of changes to Superman lore, the other most significant detail is Brainiac being Kryptonian AI that played a huge part in the planet's destruction - which Timm was initially against the idea but soon warmed up to it. I figured they wanted Superman to go head-to-head against his biggest galactic adversary, and when you consider what Darkseid did, he certainly was.

But yes, I can understand your pain point over Darkseid killing Dan Turpin, as a somewhat a crude tribute to Jack Kirby. As a matter of fact, I was curious to find out what was the thought process behind the idea and I found these excerpts from the book Modern Masters Volume 3: Bruce Timm.





I got to say, I find Timm's comments about Kirby's wife to be rather inconsiderate. I was under the impression he would've asked the family for their permission to model Dan Turpin after Jack Kirby, never mind killing the character off.

[thecolorsblend]

Geoff Johns and Gary Frank's Superman Secret Origin is more in line with what these fans you're referring to would like to see in their depiction of Superman on the big screen.

This is quite true. When Secret Origin came out, the Donner crowd raved about it. It seems like nearly every major iteration of Superman media was referenced in that miniseries: STM, Smallville, STAS, even a bit of the Reeves show if you know where to look. All those influences were incorporated into an overall more Pre-Crisis context of Clark and Lex having a relationship of sorts as kids, the existence of Superboy, having adventures with the Legion, etc.

The contingent of Superman fandom that's still obsessed with Donner mostly loved that miniseries. But I'd grown up Post-Crisis so my cherished MOS was out the window and I was something other than happy about that.

That occasion did offer me a chance to rediscover everything I loved about the Post-Crisis Superman. But I resent the never-ending reboots/revamps/restarts/retcons/whatever. It has reached a level now where Superman cannot maintain a stable history anymore. DC rejected a Superman reboot proposal from Frank freaking Miller IN HIS PRIME back in the 80s but these days every lazy hackjob writer thinks he has some unalienable right to wholesale reinvent the character even though he's not fit to lick the dirt off Miller's boots.

Sad state of affairs.

DC wanted to reboot Superman back in the 80s for the purpose of giving him a defined starting point and a new brand identity in the marketplace. As you know, it was a special privilege that Byrne was given but it wasn't meant to be a generational thing or something that a talented creator earned. It was supposed to be a one-time deal and John Byrne's origin was going to be definitive as Action Comics #1 had been definitive (or something close to it) in its time.

But obviously we're way past that now.

[The Laughing Fish]

This is Christopher Nolan's introduction in the official MOS artbook and his endorsement of Zack Snyder.



I still have a lot of criticism of Nolan. I think his messy, inconsistent handling of Batman's rule in his trilogy really did significant damage to any rational and honest discourse surrounding that character, and the mere thought that he was initially opposed to Snyder's idea of having Superman kill Zod is even more hypocritical.

But I have to give him this much credit: he fulfilled his role as a producer and protected Snyder from any intervention by the studio. Geoff Johns reportedly tried to interfere with the production but was blocked, thanks to Nolan. Plus, as the co-writer of the film, Nolan had a greater vested interest in the film's success and could've easily banned any ideas that Snyder had brought to the table. But he didn't, and he respected the wishes of the director he had hired. Like it or not, the DCEU would never have existed if Nolan never envisioned this version of Superman. Furthermore, if Snyder was never hired to be at the helm of Superman and the wider DC Universe, we would never have gotten the likes of Affleck, Gadot and Momoa to play Batman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman respectively, and the Justice League film that so many people wanted would likely never have gotten made in the first place either.

Here are a couple of good videos analysing Superman's complicated film history from the past to the present day, and how nostalgia is holding the character back. Case in point, Matthew Vaughn saying he would've modeled his Superman movie after Donner. Like we never saw that before!

If Superman is going to have a future on film, ZSJL must be a success. At this point in time, it's perhaps the only chance Superman has. And no, I don't have any hope in the Superman and Lois TV show.