Do you think DC Comics mistreating Superman? because I know they give him shows, cartoons, movies and tributes about him. It just seems they can't let Supes stand on his own (Man of Steel 2) Now they have to add everyone else to the mix(which I don't mind sometimes) but they're adding every DC character known to man to the mix and it takes away from the focus of the main character(Superman).

Since I'm on that subject, why is Wonder Woman and Aquaman not having a solo movie yet is beyond me.

Then again these just my opinions.

Tell me what you think?

Well, DC didn’t give him a new animated series for more than decade already (just saying).

I’m still not convinced that this still unnamed BM vs SM movie is really the MOS 2, but even if it is… WB tried twice to return Supes on a big screen (if that not the sign of trust in him, then I don’t know what counts as one) – and twice they did faithful but flawed movies which were unjustifiably torn apart, ether by critics or common public.

He isn't mistreated I believe is terms of focus but in terms of quality.

I mean he has ongoings and movies etc etc but he lacks talent behind them and promotion. Since the new 52 started "Superman" had B creative talent at best, "Action Comics" started with an artist that couldn't keep deadlines and look where "Superman Unchained" is now! DC finally gave Superman proper talent and sales high-rocketed. In terms of promotion just look how DC is promoting Batman's 75th anniversary of course I know that Batman sales more but Superman had so much potential to give to DC last year that DC ignored. And now Pak and Kuder in "Action Comics" don't get any promo. I bet people don't even know that "Action Comics" is actually good. And another factor is DC's fear of risks. They are afraid to take risks with Superman. I believe that's why Diggle left "Action" before he even starts. I think there was a mention that Diggle would have Superman lose the infected arm instead of curing it. And the first arc would be surrounded around Superman trying to deal with his lost arm. Of course I know in some of you sounds like DC made the right move but DC just lost both a positive advertisment (a PWD Superman? Diversity isn't always about race, how many PWD heroes you know?) and an itriguing story, how many of you wouldn't like to know how Superman would deal with it.
Plus inconsistency, take Lobdell's, Snyder's,Morrison's, Superman and try to tell me if he is the same man.

Well MOS failed to come close to Iron man 3 in it's opening weekend financially. And lets face it comic fans make up such a small percentage of the average movie goer, extreme measures were taken to bring some excitement to the next movie. At the end of the day Clark Kent is a stale boring guy from the backwoods of Kansas. Movie goers could care less about his ancient history and what he means to his fans, they want to be entertained . And like it or not, the non comic fan will find Tony Stark far more entertaining than either Bruce Wayne or Clark Kent. To compete with Marvel's Avengers or just Iron Man they had to gimmick something up. Here a link to back me up

http://www.boxofficeguru.com/alltime.htm

Man of steel did not fail box office 688 million + 95 million dvd blu ray sales and 170 in advertising dollars

@verotikryptonite: give back your brother's laptop , kid

@greenarrowfan12:

I never said it failed, just failed to top IM3 or Avengers financially. That's not a biased guess, just simple truth

I'm a grown a$$ man Tinkerbelle , and my GPU cost more than you'll make in a month

If Wonder Woman stood on her own half as much as Superman does I'd be the happiest customer in the world so I don't know what you're complaining about, you're actually very privileged compared to us.

No. DC has always made it clear that Superman is their flag ship character and there is plenty of proof. This thread is nonsense.

@verotikryptonite: Seeing as how IM3 was a sequel and a tie in to the second most successful movie ever, I hardly think you can equate the two. Spider-Man is a more popular hero and his reboot only made a few more mill.

IM 3 was a trequel and was coming off from the success of Avengers, there was no way MoS could've outperformed IM 3 but it made enough money to justify a sequel. And I don't see where is this Iron Man 3 comparison is coming from, what does Iron Man has to do with Superman's treatment? And dude Batman is the most profitable comic book character not Iron Man.

@verotikryptonite said:

At first I wanted to write counter-argument (through RustyRoy already did it for me), but then I read

the non comic fan will find Tony Stark far more entertaining than either Bruce Wayne

Really…

Why is it nobody compared Man of Steel to other origin films, like Iron Man (first one), Batman Begins, Captain America, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, etc.? Sequels almost ALWAYS bring in more than original films because of the excitement and anticipation surrounding the love of the first film, a film with an established fanbase.

Man of Steel essentially brought in 700 mil. Give me another origin film that dominates that.

@reactor: TASM

Great pick! Any more aside from Spidey (original and reboot)?

@reactor: Nope, and that wasn't a shot at Supes. If the second most popular superhero could only land 750 at the BO, Man of Steel landing 680 is impressive. Especially since Man of Steel had to face off against Monsters U and WWZ in week 2, without that direct competition, MoS would've cleared 800 easily.

@squalleon:

Mate, you're spot on about Action Comics. I am absolutely loving Pak's run on this book, its really enjoyable but not particularly well known outside the Superman fan community. DC seem to promote Bat books all the time like Zero Year and Eternal, but nothing for Action Comics....hmm..

@superguy1591:

The only slight flaw in your argument is that Amazing Spiderman was a re-boot only 10 years after Spiderman 1 and I think that turned people off seeing it, whereas Man of Steel was the first Superman origin film for 35 years...Don't forget @reactor Spiderman 1 took 890 million dollars back in 2002. Adjust for inflation and that's a billion dollar movie in 2013 money for an origin film...

.@verotikryptonite is right in that modern audiences relate to people like Stark, rather than clean cut good guys like Clark Kent. Also, plain and simple, RDJ is hugely charismatic and very funny and has drawn huge popularity for Iron Man. Superman was invented in the late 30s to give people optimism in what were hard times. He was the original super strong good guy with no character flaws. Times have changed and other characters more suit today's cynical age. I think people like their heroes to be flawed and vulnerable, like Batman, Spiderman and Iron Man.

That said, MOS didn't do badly, I mean it took more than Thor 2 The Dark World, a character riding a wave of post Avengers popularity!

Actually, Superman didn't really become the symbol of hope and such until he was immortalized as an overtly-patriotic American icon during WWII and the comic Silver Age. "Hope" was not a word I would associate with his original comic run.

Also, how is Batman or Spider-Man flawed in a way Superman isn't? This isn't sarcastic or baiting, I just always wanted to know what someone really means by those words.

@reactor: umm iron man 1 made more money then Man of Steel.

Iron Man made 585 mil world wide. Man of Steel just about hit 700 mil (670 or so). It did not make more, bro

@reactor: I was talking domestically, aren't you american? Besides this is where the characters originated from. Ironman 1 made more then $318,000,000 while super man only made a little more then $291,000,00.

@bezza: 35 years since an origin film, but only 7 years removed from a film that people thought would bring an end to the CBM trend because it was so panned by audiences for its lack of excitement. MOS was combating a lot more than TASM.

And I find it ironic that you would say Superman has no flaws after we just saw him snap a man's neck, something canon in comics, when Spider-man hasn't ever killed someone intentionally. I never understand how Spider-man fans can say Superman is too good when Peter Parker is a young Clark Kent.

He's not being mistreated at all. He's better than most heroes. Its not like he hasn't had at least 5 or 6 solo movies. And I'm sure he will have more after. Introducing more heroes is good and doesn't hurt or disrespect superman at all.

And wonder woman doesn't have a movie because DC doesn't need to make one from a business stand point, and no one like aquaman. Outside of his comic book fan base obviously.

@superguy1591: so you're saying just because batmans never killed anyone that makes him perfect? Killing people is not the only way to make a flawed character.

@matthewparker: No, i am saying that him killing someone shows that he's prone to mistakes and, thus, not perfect.

@superguy1591: yes, but you were insinuating that Peter is perfect because he's never killed anyone (purposely) which I think is totally untrue.

@matthewparker: No, Im implying that Parker has never made a mistake as big as Clark killing someone, but people dont call him perfect.

Superman needs a pull after MOS failed to reach the Dark Knight trilogy, with more Batman. The fact is this, Superman is the flagship character, Superman just so happens to be a iconic superhero that really compliments Batman and Batman is DC's most famous and popular superhero, so out of pity they let Bruce show off more than Superman since Batman is the only superhero people won't hate on.

Superman needs to change to be with todays times, I'm glad the 52 is attempting to do this.

@superguy1591: I don't know I think letting a thief go to get back at someone only to later realize if you had just done the right thing your father (figure) would still be alive, I think that shakes up a lot, maybe even more then killing someone that deserved to die.

@matthewparker: If you say so.

I'm going to operate under the assumption that you're not an idiot, but that line of logic makes no sense at all. You can't look at how much a movie made in one location and use that statistic to dictate it's final slate of success, you have to take every outlet into account. Fact of the matter is, Man of Steel holds nearly a $100,000,000 lead over Iron Man. Narrowing down where one movie happened to outsell the other in one location doesn't change the end result. Get over it dude.

@superguy1591:

I meant the original superman came out with no flaws, as in how he was written in the 30s. As for Spiderman, Peter Parker is relatable, as seen in ASM2. He gets tired and bruised and battered, lives with his aunt who does his washing, he is seen doing college work etc. Superman gets thrown into a building and comes out without a scratch. BTW, I am a fan of Spiderman and Supes, have been for 35 years.....but I am realistic as to why Superman appeals less these days than he did years ago.

@reactor:

Maybe flawed isn't the right word when comparing supes to Spidey and Bats. Perhaps "More God like" best describes it. A lot of people I speak to say Superman isn't as easily challenged. Has too many powers. I mean Hulk is strength incarnate, Flash a speedster etc, but Supes is also strength incarnate, nearly as fast as the Flash, invulnerable, has heat vision and so on...people don't relate to that as easily as guys like spidey and Bats who can be shot, bruised, battered and bleed without needing to be hit by some nuclear level gun!

@jeremy1989: I feel like Warner Bros. and DC are adding a bunch of characters to the Man of Steel sequel because they want to:

1. Catch up with Marvel in terms of cinematic universes.

2. Want more people to see the sequel by having Batman face off against Superman along with having Wonder Woman and Cyborg make appearances.

As for the reason why solo movies based on Aquaman and Wonder Woman have not been made yet, I think it's because of Green Lantern's performance at the box-office. It seems that it really had a huge impact on Warner Bros. and DC.

I would love to see solo movies based on not only Aquaman and Wonder Woman, but also an adaptation of The Flash and a Green Lantern reboot with either Hal Jordan as the main character again or replace him with John Stewart.

@reactor: hello, I'm glad you don't think I'm an idiot because I'm not. I understand World wide gross is important however domestic gross is also important many websites use domestic gross when comparing films, it reflects how popular the character or movie is with the American public which I think it's safe to say Is the target audience. Also judging American movies by worldwide success is like judging American footballs popularity by its world wide popularity. A movie can be a huge deal in the states, and still be generally unknown to the rest of the world.

When I rise to power anyone who makes a third like this will have their computer and every other electronic devise they down smashed beyond repair and Forbidian form buying any more.

....that is nonsense, dude. There is a truly gargantuan market across the world, and in many, many cases, they exceed domestic gross. Thor: The Dark World, The Desolation of Smaug, Man of Steel, The Amazing Spider-Man -- even Captain America: The Winter Soldier -- all got the vast bulk of their total gross from the world wide distribution of their respective films. The list goes on, and on, and on.

You seem to have the opinion that only America matters when it comes to judging a movie, so I'm going to assume that was unintentional. When dealing with a blockbuster (which I assume you are, unless you mean romantic comedies or indie movies or something) the target audience is everyone. American audiences, in fact, aren't even first to see the very movies filmed in Hollywood in many cases - other countries are. Which means reviews and criticisms from other countries will be the first to spread around the world.

American football is a horrible example because it is not embraced by the rest of the world, by large. Most of the world recognized rugby, from which football was taken. American football is more like an American exclusive -- American films are not. Not by a long shot. And you don't seem to understand that.

Iron Man sold more tickets and its budget was nearly 100 mils less than MoS, that's great for an unknown character.

search top grossing superhero films, and click on the first result... if boxoffice mojo a very popular boxoffice website goes by domestic gross, domestic gross is obviously very important.

Not saying it wasn't. Iron Man was a great and successful movie, I never said otherwise.

Dude, are you even hearing yourself? Are you really - really - arguing that if Box Office Mojo highlights domestic gross (which it doesn't; Mojo divides the estimation of the gross by three factors - domestic, world wide, and inflation adjustment) then domestic gross is all that matters? All profit is important dude, no matter where it comes from. Most of the billions of humanity live outside the US, and they watch movies just like we do. Just because they don't live here doesn't mean their income doesn't factor into a film's success.

"sigh" i'm not saying world wide gross is not important, i have already stated that it is, but obviously if domestic gross is a factor box office mojo uses, its obviously relevant. also i'd like you to name one country that contributes more to superhero movie success more then the USA. and if what your saying about box office mojo is true, once they factor together the three factors, iron man made more money then Man of Steel. http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=superhero.htm

Nice talking to ya, bud.

Can't believe what I am reading on this thread... @matthewparker As an American you clearly have no idea how popular these super-hero movies are outside of the US. I'm a brit and they are massive over here, they are massive in China, India and a whole host of other countries. You do realise that Cavill is a brit and so is Garfield and Bale....its a world industry these days...also Spiderman launched in Europe BEFORE the US....as did Thor...which was partly filmed in London....so yes, worldwide gross is very important.

Anyway, is Superman being mistreated? No I don't think so, we have the whole Doomsday epic this month, a new Superman comic with Johns and Romita Jr, new film coming. However, they should perhaps do more to promote stuff like the brilliant Action comics...

@bezza: of course world wide gross is important, I've already said that many times. Also bales British? Didn't know that, learn something new everyday. All I said was that domestic gross is one important factor for a movies success, obviously world wide gross is important as well. And I wasn't saying superheroes weren't popular in other countries, just that the bulk of superhero gross is from the states, vs say China.

@matthewparker:

Yep, Bale is a brit and the Bale family lived for a while in Bournemouth UK, which is 7 miles from my home. He went to our local grammar school (High school). Bit of an a*** by all accounts!!!

@bezza: wow, that's cool! Haha.

Came to this thread late though I'd have to agree. I see way more hoopla over Batman's 75th than Superman's last year.

I've seen the arguments that "Batman is more appealing and relatable" but that in part is only due to Batman's successful revamping in the late 80's, along with a then highly popular movie in '89, followed by a well animated cartoon series/toys..

I believe all these combined both seeded future fans and audiences, which allowed DC to get eager creators to take risks further expanding his appeal.

Meanwhile, Superman and the other DC heroes didn't get as much of this push from either DC or WB. Although his '78 was one of the first modern blockbusters, he just wasn't marketed further and the franchise was allowed to wither.

I suppose that comes with being the first success that they didn't know what to do with it nor have the foresight then to maintain his presence.

In the 70's/early 80's (and definitely in decades before) by himself, Superman carried a lot of popularity, while Bats had respectable popularity.

It was that late 80's boost that helped Batman, but at a loss to the other DC characters.

Whatever success or critical acclaim either JLA, the Flash, Teen Titans, Legion of Super Heroes, Lobo, Deathstroke, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and Superman had, just wasn't capitalized properly and while there are attempts now to course correct, they now chime across as imitating heroes who are successful.

I read Iron Man in most of the 90's, and they along with Avengers books were low sellers: out was all about Spidey and X-Men.

But still Marvel managed to crank out cartoons for them and put them on merchandise.....but sometime slipped at DC, my favorite company