Again, I share an article with you from Io9. This is mostly a rant, but there are some disturbing quotes from the copyright's current caretakers that I find disturbing, regardless of what legal maneuvering they were trying to accomplish. After reading some of the recent Superman stories, I can only conclude that they actually believe them.

Is Superman Really Damaged Goods?
By Graeme McMillan, 12:00 PM on Sat Jul 11 2009, 19,801 views (Edit, to draft, un-top, Slurp)

Copy this whole post to another site
Slurp cancel
sending request

One of the more troubling things to come out of the Siegel/Warners/DC lawsuit decision this week was the feeling that everyone involved in creating Superman stories has already decided that the character is broken. Is Superman's failure a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Perhaps the most damning part of the decision document was the revelation that executives at Warners shared fans' cynicism about Superman's potential (Remember, Warners and DC were the defendants in this case):

Defendants' film industry expert witness, Mr. [John] Gumpert, termed Superman as "damaged goods," a character so "uncool" as to be considered passe, an opinion echoed by Warner Bros. business affairs executive, Steven Spira... Indeed, Mr. [Alan] Horn [Warner Bros. President] admitted to being "daunted" by the fact that the 1987 theatrical release of Superman IV had generated around $15 million domestic box office, raising the specter of the "franchise [having] played out."

Almost as surreally, DC and Warners apparently argued to the court that

Superman was equivalent [in terms of public recognition and financial value] to a low-tier comic book character that appeared mostly on radio during the 1930s and 1940s and that has not been seen since a brief television show in the mid-1960s (the Green Hornet); an early 20th century series of books (Tarzan) or a 1930s series of pulp stories (Conan) later intermittently made into comic books and films; or a television, radio, and comic book character from the 1940s and 1950s, much beloved by my father, that long ago rode off into the proverbial sunset with little-to-no exploitation in film or television for decades (The Lone Ranger).

And these are the people in charge of the character?!?

There was, of course, legal value in downplaying Superman's status for WB and DC. But it's hard to shake the sense that even the character's owners don't understand the value and potential of Clark Kent's alter ego, or who (and what) he is and could be. But should we really be surprised, considering that these are the same people behind the pedestrian Smallville and almost-there-but-what-the-hell-is-with-the-stalker-thing Superman Returns?

Superman should, by rights, be up there with Batman. Certainly, he has the longevity and the high-concept, if not the moral ambiguity - and maybe that's one of the problems, that Superman's "goodness," his moral character and status as a reminder of our own potential, puts people off - to match Gotham's broodiest citizen. But what he lacks, and not necessarily for want of trying, is the pop cultural impact that Batman has had; it's not that Batman is necessarily a better character, but he's definitely one who has, at four specific points in the last decades (and, for the most part, in different ways), perfectly synched with the cultural zeitgeist to gain a weird standing as some kind of cultural avatar with a cape.

(Those points, for me, in case you're wondering: The 1960s TV show, which was less to do with Batman as a character as comic books as a medium, taking the "low art" trappings of the character and milking them for all their worth as pop art was doing the same. 1986's The Dark Knight Returns and 2008's The Dark Knight, which both used the character to embody and express paranoia and fear about politics and society in the real world, and 1989's Batman movie, which showed the power of branding, making the movie and the character foremost in everyone's minds by sheer force of making sure that no-one could turn anywhere without seeing a reminder of it.)

Superman, by comparison, is almost never allowed that level of contemporaneous value by the people telling his (mass media) stories, instead finding himself portrayed as either an anachronism due to his values or a naive outsider who doesn't fully understand the darker side of human nature (I have to separate comics from this; many comic creators such as Geoff Johns, Kurt Busiek and Grant Morrison have tried to demonstrate how Superman can and should work in modern, cynical society); I don't know whether it's that those making the stories think that that's how everyone else views Superman and that they should match that, or whether they see the character as someone out of step with modern times, but simply by taking that approach, they limit the impact Superman can have, and prevent him from becoming the success he should be.

(There's also a third route, as Bryan Singer's Superman Returns demonstrated: Superman as Jesus. But the problem with that is that, in order for the story to work as a superhero story, he has to stop turning the other cheek at some point. If you dropped a couple of "I am floating outside your window" scenes and added some more scenes of derring-do, Returns would've been a much better movie.)

Here's the thing: I firmly believe that now should be Superman's time. As The Dark Knight took all of our Bush-era worries and concerns and made them into an action movie, so should Superman be around right now to embody Obama's (still-resonant, even a year after campaigning) message of hope and positive change and being the best we can be. Instead of using Superman's inherent positivity against him, or thinking that it pushes him out of step with today's world, focus on the way in which he personifies that which we want to believe in, and the people that we want to be. If we elected a president because we believed in the ideals of Yes We Can and Hope and Change and all those buzzwords, I refuse to believe that we wouldn't want to see a movie that sold us the same message but with added punching, flying and action.

(I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Star Trek's success comes as much from it being positive and colorful and optimistic escapism as it being a good movie, this time around. Superman has those qualities in spades.)

Is Superman damaged goods? To an extent, yes, but he shouldn't be; there's nothing wrong with the character, or the concept, when done right, and I think that the audience is more ready for what he's selling now than they have been in years. What damages him most, perhaps, is the attitude from his owners that he's a problem that they don't know how to solve. The first step to stopping him being damaged goods is to stop treating him that way.

As to the rant the writer made, I can't 100% agree with it, but I'm still glad that someone came to Superman's defense. To some of you, this is a comic book character. He is a strip of paper with no feelings and only the intrinsic value of the merchandise he sells. Everyone believes that Batman's the better character and to prove that point The Dark Knight got all the money because people wanted to see this Batman. Something the writers of the story back in '93 fought fervently to get across to people isn't the way Batman should be. Do me a favor all of you that loved Dark Knight, go pick up Knightfall and tell me how much you want that guy protecting your city!

Back on topic here, I really now hope that DC Comics loses all rights to Superman. I truly hope that they are stripped to the bone of the character that launched so many. I want them to see just how uncool their damn comics are when the Justice League doesn't have that one beacon of hope. Yes, they'll have Wonder Woman, and I feel sorry for the weight that will have to be put on her shoulders, because the loss of the Man of Steel is a tragic thing. She's the only one worthy of being looked up to at this point. I don't know if Capt. Marvel is anymore. I haven't kept up with him enough to make sure. As you are all well aware, I'm a bigger fan of Black Adam and they gave him a raw deal too.

The point is that I've told you all this in my last blog. Superman is a wonderful character with a rich and vibrant history. Sometimes he was downplayed because the times called for it. Now everyone wants Batman because he's the hero everybody wants to actually be. If this movie hero inspires you, then I truly am saddened for this world, because that man is a lunatic and Batman isn't.

Last word before I go, if you want to understand exactly what Superman means. Imagine the Justice League without him. Imagine a world where the other heroes didn't get inspired by this orphan from a doomed world. If you can't then let me put it in perspective for you. Imagine Star Wars without Luke Skywalker. Imagine Star Trek without James T. Kirk. How about deciding that Indiana Jones should've worn leather with a bike chain and was going after cash instead of the world's greatest artifact. Take the Lone Ranger and let him go home in defeat. Take any show you like and imagine what it would be like without it's biggest heroes. Sure, there's always another guy to step up to the plate and he might have the same abilities just does it a bit differently, but you know what you're missing. You know in your heart of heart's what's wrong with the picture. Now to make it worse, let it be known that the reason that all these horrid things happened is because the legacy's caretaker gave as much a damn as the people who didn't like the books in the first place. Think on that...

mood: disheartened