Wednesday, April 21, 2010

World Without A Superman?

[UPDATE: It seems I was righter than I knew when I initially wrote this post. Check here.]

OK, let's get this out of the way first...this is really stupid, and insane, and is just a glorified conspiracy theory. And I don't really believe it.

But.

Once I get one of these thought in my head, I just can't get it out. So I'm going to try to think this through here, publicly. Doubtless this will result in great humiliation. But there you go.

So what's the bug up my butt today? The...unusual...way DC has dealt with the Superman franchise lately. Now, everything I'm about to mention has a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation. But taken all together, you can't help but think that there's a reason the DC Universe has become a world without Superman...

First is the way they yanked the plug on the next Superman movie, and announced a new "creative guide" without announcing any actual writers or directors. Now, this is nothing new, as DC/Warner has played the start and stop game with most of the potential movie versions of their franchises for a few years now. Still, given Warner's announcement that they were going to do a tentpole DC hero movie every summer, it's hard to figure why Superman is suddenly at the back of the line, behind Green Lantern and Flash and...

And then there is Geoff Johns, who was touted as eagerly looking forward to collaborating with James Robinson on the Superman titles, and writing the Superboy series for Adventure Comics. Then, suddenly, not so much--after Johns finishes the Secret Origin Of Superman series, it looks as there won't be any Supers, Man or Boy, on his docket. Again, nothing strange about that--Johns' new responsibilities meant less writing for him, right? And suddenly no continuing series for Superboy...but he'll be in Teen Titans or something, right?

And Superman is absent from the Justice League...but then again so are a lot of the big guns just now. So no biggie, right?

And Superman had nothing more than a glorified cameo in Blackest Night, and looks to be completely absent from Brightest Day. Well, that doesn't mean anything, does it? Supes did feature very prominently in Final Crisis and Trinity, after all, and he can't be the star of everything, can he?

Then we have over a year when Superman doesn't appear in Action Comics or in the eponymous Superman. Which is kind of crazy. Sure, it's a good opportunity to play up the other residents of Metropolis and all during Superman's absence. But contrast with Batman--we've actually had an INCREASE in the number of Batman titles during Bruce Wayne's "death," and they all actually star Batman--sure, it's a different Batman, but they're still marketing the character, not hiding him, like they are with Superman!!

And yes, Superman is appearing in a series, but note that his name in the logo is noticeably smaller than the title World Of New Krypton, and for most of the series he doesn't even appear in the Big S costume. And his big "crossover" is entirely self-contained in his own books...no real contact with the rest of DC's heroes.

And when that's over? The Guggenheim Cornell run on Action looks like it will be entirely about Lex Luthor on a "greatest hits tour" around the DC Universe...the solicits for the first two stories don't even mention Superman. (Maybe that's why Guggenheim left...because he found out that he couldn't use Superman??). Still, Superman will return to being about Superman, even if it is written by JMS.

Perfectly acceptable and reasonable answers to each point. But when you pull back, at look at the whole picture, my twisted brain sees another picture.

Because to me, it sure looks like DC is trying to marginalize Superman in their universe, to get us used to the Big Red S not being a part of everyday goings on in the DC Universe.

Why? Again, I emphasize that I have absolutely no insider knowledge whatsoever, not to mention that I'm no lawyer.

But you know what I think? I think that DC/Warner is fairly certain that they're going to lose big in the lawsuit, and they're not going to be able to license him back. And they're trying to wean the DC Universe off of him; to get the fans ready for the day when he's gone. That's why we're getting Action Comics without Superman, and events without Superman, and a "new world order" in the DCU that doesn't include Superman, and the Superman movie way on the back burner behind other, far less well-known heroes, and big writers bailing on chances to write him, and...

Hey, I could be wrong. More than likely, I am wrong. But really, what other explanation makes sense of the way DC has pushed Superman away from the rest of the DCU for the past year?

And if I'm right? Get ready to see a lot less Kal-El in the near future...

14 comments:

  1. You know what? I think you're really on to something here.

    I believe that the whole Blackest Night/Brightest Day thingamawhosis came about because DC finally realized you can't make money off of characters who are supposedly "dead". This was their big event for making sure they were back and marketable.

    With this line of thinking, I think Mon-el is meant to be the new Superman Red to Clark's Superman (Blue). Meanwhile everything's being kept in a kind of holding pattern until a legal decision is made.

    ReplyDelete
  2. is that the PRANKSTER in among the 9 deadliest enemies on that second cover?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh God, thank you so very very much for scaring the Irish Bajaysus out of me Snell. I may not read his books at the moment (mainly because if I wanted to read a book starring Mon-El I'd read. . .well. . .a book starring Mon-El that wasn't titled Superman, but now that I think of it this does set a scary, scary tone for the coming legal battle.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Adam--I've always said that Superman had a fairly lame rogue's gallery...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Couldn't some of that be chalked up to DiDio's general incompetence?

    Not that it's not all very, very suspicious...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, sure, it's possible, even likely, Scott.

    But looking at the whole pattern, and knowing about the 2013 "drop dead" date, it becomes very easy to read this as "DC trying to wean itself off of Superman."

    ReplyDelete
  7. How's Horatio connected with all this?

    2013... Seems a bit early to take Superman out of the equation... or are we afraid we won't be able to publish trades then if we use him now?

    Here's looking forward to IDW Superman comics! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Snell-

    You've given voice to some vague connections I've been making on my own, and now after reading the progression here, I really *do* wonder if something might be up.

    I've been closely following (i.e. "collecting") Superman comics for over 30 years, and I don't recall a time when Superman has ever been such an incidental non-entity not only within the DCU but WITHIN HIS OWN TITLES!

    There are a great many reasons why this could be happening, many of which you've already acknowledged.

    Didio's incompetence? Definitely a factor to always consider, but I always got the feeling he liked Supes....so maybe not in this case.

    Desire to "beef up" the "B list" of characters like Green Lantern and Flash to groom them for the Hollywood treatment...or to ratchet up their exposure to Superman-levels of marketing ubiquity?

    Ahhh....but I keep coming back to the whole legal mess with the Siegel/Shuster clans...because why else would they want to amp up the pop cultural presence of GL, Flash, et al,....other than a very real concern that their Superman-Gravy Train was in real danger of jumping the rails.

    Obviously, nobody this side of the DC/Warner Executive Meeting Room door is likely to know the truth...but man, Snell....I have to echo the sentiment that you're on to something.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Siskoid: one of the main issues of the lawsuits is how much of the profits DC/Warner has made from Superman since 1999 they must turn over to the Siegel estate--that was when they were ruled to have "recaptured" the copyright.

    Given the way court proceedings have been going, it's going to be a good chunk of change. And the equation has become--the more often they use Superman, the more they going to have to fork over when everything is finally resolved. That could be reason enough to back of on the use of Supes...

    ReplyDelete
  10. This could explain Barry Allen being the Blue Lantern of Hope instead of you-know-who.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This could explain Barry Allen being the Blue Lantern of Hope instead of you-know-who.

    What, Geoff Johns' man-crush on Barry isn't enough to explain that?

    ReplyDelete
  12. To those still following this thread, there's been a major news update which impacts it, and justified a brand new post here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I never even concidered your theory as I bitched about Superman not being given very good stories or even top billing in his own titles. It was one of the things I most wanted to see changed in 2010. But if can deal with this if in the end it restores Superman to the estate of the men that created him then a major wrong will finally be righted. I am reading Tom De Haven's book 'Our Hero - Superman on Earth' and it sickens me to see how such creative people were cheated by larger corporate power. Fuck DC. They deserve to lose their tentpole character for being greedy bastards. As goes Superman so goes the rest of DC. Welcome to the world YOU created Dido.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Now, Cal, whatever DiDio's fault, he can hardly be blamed for DC's corporate behavior 75 years ago...

    ReplyDelete