Talk:Superman (franchise)

Henry Cavill

Recently, Warner Bros. has released the first photo of Henry Cavill in the new film "Man of steel". I Suggest this photo be taken and added to the group of actors who have portrayed Superman located in the begining of the infobox

Video Game references

Shouldn't there be a "video game references" section too? Because I think it should be noted that there was a reference to Superman in the game "Super DragonBall Z". Dark Rain

Article title

With the focus of this article mostly being on movies, television, etc., should the name be changed to Superman in popular media? This would bring it in line with Batman in popular media. Rhindle The Red 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Now there have been concerns (and a tonne of deletions) of "in popular culture" entries here. The Batman one mentioned above has been moved to Batman franchise media which gives it a much tighter focus and means it is less likely to act as a "trivia trap" (which is what the bulk of the reference section is). So move to "Superman franchise media" and focus the entry. There is a proposed split and that would further help with this. Thoughts? (Emperor 20:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

I came here confused about the difference between "Superman in other media" and "Batman franchise media", and am shocked to see the last discussion being over three years ago! First off, why is it all lower caps? Must be some Wikipedia thing. Second, the articles are identical in content and formatting, so why are the titles different? The two pages are different in where some content appears, and a lack of images on the Superman page, but I feel the titles should be changed, followed by bringing the pages more in line with each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.67.27 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Seinfeld

There was a superman in every seinfeld episode. 70.111.251.203 03:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

DC Talk

The DC Talk 'superman' lyric doesn't refer to Supes--it referrs to Neitzche(sp)'s Ubermensch (roughly translated as 'superman').

"I Love Lucy" Appearance

The article says it featured "George Reeves as Superman". This isn't exactly right. George Reeves played himself, the actor. In the episode he appeared in his Superman costume because he was playing George Reeves is a superman costume (Lucy and Ricky knew a lot of hollywood types). No powers or hokus pokus happened. Just wanted to post this here before changing the article itself.--Daniel 14:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just watched the episode ("Lucy and Superman") again and it's quite clear that he is Superman and not George Reeves. They never refer to him as anything other than "Superman" and he *does* display super powers, albeit only tossing a heavy piano aside.Rhindle The Red 02:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but to say it is "quite clear that he is Superman" is silly. And tossing a heavy piano aside as a super power? The Ricardos were obviously referring to him as Superman for the benefit of Little Ricky, who wanted Superman - not George Reeves - to appear at his birthday party. That was the whole point of the episode - fulfilling a little boy's dream. Elsquared (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Tossing a heavy piano aside" (actually, "easily pushing" would be more accurate, but never mind) caused Ricky, Fred and Ethel to gape wide-eyed. It was depicted as a feat of super-strength. Then there is his hopping around the ledge with no apparent concern whatsoever for the potential fall, also met with open mouths. And in one scene, Lucy reminds her husband that he "met Superman" while they were in Hollywood previously. Not "George," "Mr. Reeves," "the actor," or anything to such an effect. This is not meant for Little Ricky's benefit as he is nowhere around at this point. True, both the surprised reactions to the super-strength & ledge-hopping, and the reference to Hollywood, indicate that the Ricardos and Mertzes thought that they were dealing with just an actor. However, the clear intent was that they were not. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy it. If he WAS supposed to be Superman, why not use any of the real superhero stuff, particularly when he goes on the ledge to rescue Lucy? There was no flying, no X-ray vision, no super strength. The piano bit was certainly NOT depicted as a feat of super strength. I had an upright piano in my house for over 30 years, and they don't require Superman to "easily push" them aside. (I also had a 3-foot-tall safe. Although difficult, I could even move that myself if needed.) As far as meeting "Superman", and not "George", in Hollywood, that's a weak argument. Since they met in Hollywood - the center of the film and television industry - and not Metropolis, it's obviously not Superman. Since the Ricardos live in New York City, it would make more sense to meet "Superman" there, instead of Hollywood. Since Superman first appeared in the 1930s, Metropolis has been seen as similar to New York, not Hollywood. According to the Wikipedia article on Metropolis, quote, "Metropolis is made up of six boroughs, the largest being New Troy. Each of the boroughs has its own distinct character and feel though all resemble and mimic some part of New York." Living in one of New York City's five boroughs as I do, this description is pretty accurate. As far as Superman for Little Ricky's benefit, I was obviously referring to the concept of the entire episode, not one scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsquared (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This posting so clearly fails to be the least bit fair with anything that I said that it is obviously a waste of time to discuss this with you further. Just understand that any attempt to remove that from the list will be reverted. --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course I can't be fair with anything you said, because you spout nothing but illogical drivel. As far as your threat, it is meaningless. First, I can revert anything just as easily as you. And second, the "I Love Lucy" listing is completely appropriate for this article, regardless of the character being George or Superman. Elsquared (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sections

I'm thinking about restructuring the 'portrayal" sections again. I think maybe "Live Action", "Animation", "Audio", "Video Games", & "Live appearances". Then, subsections like "Film", "Television" (and maybe "Straight to Video") under both "Live Action" and "Animation". I also think the two other significant sections (parodies and homages) are too confusing and probably need some structure as well.Rhindle The Red 15:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

More pictures

I'm thinking of adding more pictures of various Superman portrayals, including a few in the "Parodies" section. What does everyone think? Are there too many right now, just the right number or would more be beneficial?Rhindle The Red 12:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Curse" section

I'm trying to guage interest in this "Curse" section and keep the discussion open. Does this stuff fit in here? The argument has been made that newspaper articles are a part of popular culture, but I'm not so sure. Does anyone have any ideas?Rhindle The Red 12:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• The wikipedia article on popular culture states that newspapers are part of the popular culture. The section on Superman clearly isn't part of the character itself, so can't go in the Superman article, but clearly warrants referring to it somewhere if it is mentioned in the media on both sides of the Atlantic, and by the director of the latest film. "curse of superman" produces over 18,000 Google hits, and has had a Channel4 documentary filmed about it (shown on Saturday, July 29 2006). International media attention and a national broadcast documentary? Average Earthman 17:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so work that into the article. Right now, there's precious little about how the curse has manifested in popular culture. The links are not enough. Rhindle The Red 17:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving a Section

Tag says it's been suggested that we move the parody section---

I disagree.

I think the parodies are what makes it "Superman in Popular Culture"

What we should move is the "Portrayals" section. The Portrayals and Homages together make this article quite long and perhaps a but clumsy. But the Homages are, in essence, Pop culture, whereas the Portrayals could neatly fit into a "Superman in Media" headline. QotC 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Welling image

Would it be possible to replace the current image of Tom Welling with a different promotional shot of him in his blue t-shirt and red jacket? I personally feel that would give that particular image selection a more Superman-esque vibe. I for one don't have such an image, but if anyone could track one down, that would be... super. --156.34.65.69 20:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure Tom Welling should be showed as depicting "Superman" per se. He has protrayed Clark Kent for 7 seasons now, but he's yet to be "Superman." Anyone else have thoughts on this? Minion56 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Superman and Clark Kent are the same character, thus, Welling belongs here. The intro to the section covers this. "Among the actors who have played Superman (and/or his alter ego, Clark Kent)..." Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Musical depictions of Superman

Now that the size and scope of this article has been vastly reduced to a more manageable level, should it be brough back into this article or does it still stand on its own? Rhindle The Red 12:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge There seems to be enough room here and the other looks so lonesome by itself. I think it fits nicely. -- Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge It totally belongs here. -Rocket000 08:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - It's not a long section and really belongs here. --Lendorien 14:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done the merge based on consensus. --Lendorien 14:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Other uses section

This area is somewhat bloated with a lot of incidental items of little consequence. Unless someone objects, I will be going through these and removing any that lack substance. Rhindle The Red 03:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done some cutting down. I will probably do more later (although this time primarily in the name of brevity, not eliminating items). Rhindle The Red 19:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

3 Doors Down

Isn't the song Kryptonite from 2000 and not 2002? JamesEG (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup and rename

There's a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Superman in popular culture about how to improve this article. Please join in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I removed the other section, but some of it may be appropriate for this article if sources can be found. Here's what I removed that we may want to re-add.

• In 1987 a film referred to as The Indian Superman, directed by B. Gupta, was released. This Bollywood movie is essentially based on the first American Superman movie, even containing footage from the original film.

• In 1980, Superman, an unauthorized South Indian film in Telugu, was released.

• In Japanese manga Pāman by Fujiko F. Fujio, the universal tutelary character named directly "Superman" appears. Although his appearance completely differs from the original Superman, he was renamed to Birdman in the later series due to copyright enforcement by DC. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)(contribs) 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Superman catchphrases section. Could be useful for some page, although it needs cites. These are some lines that have become synonymous with Superman:

• Strange visitor from another planet, who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
• Up, Up and Away! (Before taking flight)
• Look, up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's...SUPERMAN!
• Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
• Fights a never ending battle for Truth, Justice and the American way.
• This looks like a job for Superman.
• Great Scott!
• Great Caesar's Ghost! (Spoken by Perry White)
• Don't call me chief! (Spoken by Perry White)

-Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Cartoons

Do you really think we should be including joke appearances such as Tiny Toons, Pinky and the Brain, Histeria!, The Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.64.213 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The ones that are not parodies are fine as far as I am concerned. They are legitimate appearances because they are Warner Bros. projects, fully authorized by DC Comics (usually with a legal statement to that effect in the credits). That makes them as valid as any ather guest appearance. Rhindle The Red (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any paradies that we should remove? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The ones there now all seem to be viable appearances, to my mind. With the title and focus change, I can see removing the "Curse" section, though, as it has nothing to do with Superman "in other media". Rhindle The Red (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Audio section—the LP

In the sub-section Radio & other audio there is one entry:

• 1966: The Adventures of Superman, vinyl LP featuring Bob Holiday as Superman.

The first problem is that the Wikilink of the title goes to a disambig page, with no directly relevant entry. This, however, may be because what we are actually dealing with is probably the original cast album of the Broadway musical It's a Bird...It's a Plane...It's Superman (Holiday did play the title role there, and the album's cover is the infobox image for the play's Wiki-article). Can anybody verify one way or another what this is? And assuming that this is the OCA, should it actually be listed here, or merely mentioned as an adjunct to the play in the "Theater..." section? It is, after all, not a separate production in and of itself. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A few other problems

While doing the work I just did to this article, including dealing with Rhindle the Red's concern about live-action vs. animation/film vs. TV, I noticed some things. There are variant company credits for the modern-era (1990s on) animation productions. Superman (1996 on), Batman Beyond, Justice League (Unlimited), Legion of Super Heroes and The Batman are attributed to "Warner Bros." Direct-to-video features Superman: Doomsday and Justice League: The New Frontier are labelled "by DC Comics." The other seven productions have no such credit at all. However, I'm be very surprised if all of them, with the very possible exception of the American Express/Jerry Seinfield commercials, shouldn't be credited to Warner Bros. Animation. I know for a fact that Pinky and the Brain, Histeria! and The Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries bear that sub-company's logo. As the Tiny Toon Adventures series does, that spin-off feature surely does as well. As there is no doubt we should be consistent, the question is, should we put this on all (save the commercials) or just remove the others that are already there?

Something else I did was to add a note that the actor voicing the hero in the Brady Kids episode is unknown, as several other comparable one-shot appearances of the character do have their respective actors identified, but I couldn't find any note on any website about that series dealing with guest actors. However, I have subsequently noticed other similar uses of Superman where the actor is not listed. I am going to do some checking on them, but pending those results, I am quite open to taking that note off. I'm off to do that. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that a couple of editors have undone much of my work here, and I have to take issue with that. Ghostexorcist, despite putting simply "Pinky and the brain [sic]" in the edit summary, apparently reversed my work. However, he also removed the Wikilink brackets from the Krypto cartoon show's actor, which were already there, suggesting that he did everything manually.

• Bud Collyer did not do the entire run of early 40s Paramount Superman shorts, and that much is well documented, so my adding "initially" to that line was absolutely necessary.

• The voice actor for the 1988-1989 Saturday morning cartoon series deserves to be on the actors list just as much as other people who played Superman in that medium.

• The Justice League cartoons on the Superman/Aquaman hour show were part of the Aquaman half, and went with it when it was broken off into a half-hour rerun show by itself. These JLA shorts feature Superman as prominently as any other member, he is voiced by Bud Collyer as in his solo cartoons here, but these shorts are quite separate from those cartoons and absolutely do deserve mention.

• Why is animation treated as if it is a separate animal from movies and television? Either each of these productions should be placed into whichever of those venues is appropriate to it, or the qualifying terms that I had added ("Live-action only" for the two and "Film or TV" for the animation section) should be present.

Let's discuss all this please. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As I previously stated, it was decided that only franchise material would be added to the page. I removed the Pinky and the brain material because of this reason. Regarding my "Pinky and the Brain" comment, I accidentally hit enter before I was finished typing out the edit summary. I apologize for the removal of some of the additional material (such as voice actors and the link for Krypto) that was included in the revert. However, I did mean to revert the additions to the sub-headers for tv and animation. I understand you did it to differentiate between live-action and animation tv shows, but I think it would be better organized to have a "Live-action" heading with sub-headings for "film" and "television" and then an "Animation" heading with the same sub-headings. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for saying where it was decided this time, as a clearly different decision was reached in a thread ("Cartoons") on this page. I certainly understand the system "saving" while you are still in the process of composing your edit summary, as that has happened to me quite a few times; I wish the "enter" key was disabled from that when we are working in the edit summary window as it is when we are in the edit field. I do like your suggestion for an alternative to my posted idea for the film/tv/animation situation. However, I assume from this that you have no objection to the other items I specified above, and will put them back. I for one never use "undo" to revert something I feel certain is wrong (one way or another) and not give a damn as to whatever else might be reverted in the process. --Ted Watson (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I did as indicated, but in the process made a couple of discoveries. I can't see how the Seinfeld commercials, the Brady Kids appearance, the Plastic Man episode (which I was thinking you had deleted on your second edit, but it remained back in the Super Friends sub-list where it irrefutably does not belong, so I again moved it out) or even the Sesame Street cartoons are any more franchise than the Pinky and the Brain episode. In the last, as with the Brady Kids, the Superman mythos elements are played perfectly straight within the context of a different show. This surely can't be said about the Plastic Man episode or the Seinfeld commercials. What gives? --Ted Watson (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't religiously watch this page, so I'm sure I miss the inclusion of some questionable material. That is why the Brady/Seinfield stuff hasn't been removed yet. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah! We do agree that they are on the same level, then. Good. Thanks. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Seinfeld material includes two short films as well as the commercials. There's nothing "out of character" in the Seinfeld films, even if played for laughs. It's a legitimate production, a legitimate portrayal of "Superman in other media" and should be included. Also, while I can see removing one-off guest appearances on non-franchise shows (unless we create a new section), Superman appeared multiple times in the early days of Sesame Street, including the original pitch reel. Not sure why all this purging is going on. This page should be as inclusive as possible and I think we are going too far in deleting material. Rhindle The Red (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're "not sure why all this purging is going on" then you should click on the "It was decided" Wikilink at the top of Ghostexorcist's first posting here. I don't see how the Sesame Street thing being multiple appearances can make it any more "legitimate" than P&B or Brady, the removals of which you concede. I haven't seen the Seinfeld "films" (and have to doubt that all that many people have), but a live-action Jerry and a cel-animated Superman voiced by Seinfeld ensemble member Patrick Warburton doesn't sound too "legitimate" to me. Besides, the commercials dominated that entry here. I was going along with all those things when I first found this article, but Ghostexorcist said otherwise and convinced me. There is a big difference between being licensed & authorized and being legitimate. I submit thoat those Hostess ads of the 70s and 80s featuring various DC and Marvel heroes are the first but definitely not the second. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't sit well with discussions like the one you cited. They should be held here where people who actually work on the article can see them. The difference between P&B/Brady and Sesame Street is that Superman was basically a recurring character in the early days of Sesame Street, so his appearance there is a part of his overall existance within "other media". One-offs cannot be said to reflect a tendency concerning his usage, particularly in the parodies and such. "Authorized" *is* "legitimate". I fail to see any distinction, let alone a "big difference". If it is a project that has been cleared by the owners, why is it not "legitimate"? How does the fact that the Seinfeld films are basically extended advertisements make them not "legitimate"? They were just as fully authorized as any production, so should be included. The point of an article like this is to give the reader an idea of how Superman has been used and appeared "in other media". If you cut out part of the picture, you are harming the overall effectiveness of the article. Rhindle The Red (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the point of an article like this is to identify the various adaptations of the property into other media. Use of the character per se to sell products/services or to teach children aren't the same thing. A separate section for these things that aren't straight adaptations—to which the I Love Lucy episode would therefore have to be moved—sounds like a good idea to me, although I am not at all sure what it should be called. --Ted Watson (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC) P.S.: I agree with you completely about the location of that discussion; I was presented with a fait accompli (I hope I spelled that right) and passed it along.

"The comic book character Superman has appeared in many types of media. Since his first appearance in 1938, Superman has appeared in radio, television, movies, and video games each on multiple occasions, and his name, symbol, and image have appeared on products and merchandise."

That's the opening statement to the article. The title is "Superman in other media". Not "Adaptations of Superman to other media". I really think inclusiveness is the better goal here, rather than a narrower view. Rhindle The Red (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, a separate section listing those non-straight-adaptation items would be fine with me, but the current (and easily revised) phrasing of the introductory text doesn't offset what the primary purpose of such an article obviously should be. It just happens that this property bears the name of its lead character, and that doesn't carry an article to base semantics on, like (The) Spectre, which inspired a dispute on its talk page that was aborted by a lack of good faith debate early last year. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of that "Spectre" discussion. This article has been around for a long time and it has had other titles, but it has always been specifically about Superman in other media, not about the adaptations of Superman to other media. The opening statement reflects that long-held purpose. I disagree that any other purpose than the one for which the article has always served is in any way "obvious". What you are proposing requires a different article, with a different focus. Rhindle The Red (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? You honestly think a separate article with a nominally different focus and therefore with very similar results is a good idea? What you suggest would be very much like King Kong and King Kong (franchise); admin is doing nothing about the recently created latter because it does not qualify as vandalism or a personal attack on somebody. The Spectre discussion was about whether that article's topic was the character or the feature, and my point here was that this article should officially be about the feature, the property as a whole, however much it might seem to be focused on its titular character. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What you are arguing for is changing the focus of the article. I don't think that is appropriate. I have no problem with multiple articles if they are covering different angles. That's the value of an encyclopedia. It's why we have Superman (film series), which delves more deeply into an aspect of the material covered here. You want an article that looks directly at straight adaptations of Superman. That's fine. It's just not *this* article. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What I am arguing for is settling on a firm and reasonable definition for the focus of this article. Currently, we disagree on what that should be, but you do not debate that, merely maintain your preference as if it is not open to discussion. I stand by my case that the two separate articles you are suggesting would not be different enough to justify the existence of both. This is particularly true if a separate section to cover the Superpup, Superkeds commercials, Sesame Street, Brady Kids, Plastic Man, Seinfeld, Pinky and the Brain and the various 1990s humor-cartoon show cameos is added here. Remember that Ghostexorcist, the only other editor heard from on this thread, sides with me on such, and has stated that a discussion allowed under Wiki regs—despite the fact that both you and I don't like where it was held, but I now understand that it was about all such other-media-list articles in general rather than just this one—established a consensus that the above listed material does not belong on the existing lists. I've had much lamer alleged consensuses (consensi?) shoved down my throat. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just like to mention that there's a difference between "Superman in other media" and "References in other media". The Superman radio show is "Superman in another medium", Superman appearing in an episode of Pinky and the Brain is a reference (or homage or whatever) appearing in another medium. I don't remember the others that well, like Sesame Street or Plastic Man, but if he appeared as a character in said episode, then it's "Superman in other media" -- however, if he just makes a quick appearance (like a joke), then it's a "Reference in other media". DonQuixote (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In the Pinky and the Brain episode, Kal-El is a major player—the premise here is that P & B happen to get to the crashed spaceship ahead of Mr. and Mrs. Kent and, detecting his powers (some of them, anyway) take the baby to ACME Labs. There the Brain begins to raise the child, intending to use him to attain world domination (what else?). However, the baby soon breaks out and makes his way back to the ship, where the Kents do find him, and "history" continues as we know it, with the two mice returning to the lab "to prepare for tomorrow night." Cue standard closing lines and theme reprise. It's as if the leads here have stumbled into the DC Universe. So it's not "a quick appearance (like a joke)" but the story is played for laughs. I'm not sure how you'd stand on that one (The Brady Kids episode is the same idea, with played-straight Clark Kent/Superman a major guest star). But what about the Superpup pilot, which used the same newspaper office sets as the George Reeves/Superman series? --Ted Watson (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, there goes my memory. Now I remember the Pinky and Brain episode. In that case, it's a spoof of Superman, which is "Superman in other media" -- same as the SNL episode where they make fun of the fact that Clark Kent (The Rock) doesn't hide that he's Superman very well. Superpup is "Superman in other media" because it's a spoof of the Superman TV show. Spoofs count as "Superman in other media". As for the Brady Kids...don't remember that one. DonQuixote (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You see, I think we need to keep separate unauthorized uses, such as SNL skits or parodies. But something like Pinky and the Brain, played for laughs but a real, legitimate take on the character, needs to be here. Now something quick and non-essential like Supes' cameo in Tiny Toon Adventures: How I Spent My Vacation could easily be skipped. I can't say for sure about Superpup. It's clearly based on Superman, it's authorized, it's a legitimate production...but it's specifically *not* Superman, so I could go either way. Do I sense we have agreement to bring some of the removed items back? Rhindle The Red (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not simply putting them back in just the way they were, no. For an example that might make the point clearer, I see The Brady Kids and Pinky and the Brain usages comparable to the appearances of Dracula, the Wolfman and Frankenstein's monster in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. O.K., we're not talking a change of medium here, but that makes the point stronger: While it's authorized and the "monsters" play it straight (and are even portrayed by actors who did so in the straight horror series), nobody considers the movie canon with the previous films. Creating a separate section here for them, Sesame Street and the Seinfeld material (and maybe something or two that I might've forgotten off the top of my head here), yes, reinstating them to their previous positions among straight-forward adaptations, no. That's still my vote.

Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein would not belong on a list of films in the Universal Monster series, perhaps, but I think it *would* belong in Frankenstein in other media if such an article exists. I guess I'm all about inclusiveness. (With Frankenstein, of course, it would be quite expansive, as no one controls the rights to that character.) If Superman is central to the plot or purpose of a show and it's a legitimate (i.e. authorized) appearance, I think it needs to go somewhere. So I could see a "guest appearace" type section for Pinky, Brady, even Sesame Street. But since the Seinfeld films and commercials *are* "Superman and Seinfeld", he's the co-lead and it should be in the main space. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to DonQuixote: If you'd said Bill Murray instead of The Rock, you would have described the SNL/Superman skit that I'm familiar with (Margot Kidder was the guest star that show). Oh yes, Rhindle, I absolutely agree that non-DC/Warner things such as SNL skits do not deserve to be on the same list with the various Superman TV series. Indeed, given how many TV variety show skits have used Superman, there are probably too many to list them all here, and no justification for singling a few out. However, since the Tiny Toons thing is apparently a straight appearance in and of itself and made by Warner Animation, as was P&B and the 90s Superman cartoon series, and therefore "authorized" it would belong in the postulated separate section. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, all I can say about the skits is that the practice has been to say something like "Superman has also appeared in various comedy sketches in SNL, The Carole Burnett show, etc." I agree that listing everything might be counter-productive. DonQuixote (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that skits (particularly since they are by their very nature unauthroized) do not belong in the main section. This page used to have a *very* long (and unsourced) list of "parodies", which would (and did) include skits. If it were *ever* to make a comeback, it would need to be under strict rules to include only those items that were notable enough in-and-of-themselves to receive mention in secondary sources. But I'm good without it. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Literature

A recent addition brought to my attention that the literature section needs work. It only lists two items, neither of which would be included based on the criteria we have been discussing. Anyone got lists of novels and the like that could go there? Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Novels—George Llowether (sp.?) wrote one in the 1940s and Martin Pasko (or was it Elliot S! Maggin?) wrote another, subtitled "The Last Son of Krypton," that was as close as DC could afford to get to a novelization of the 1978 film due to Mario Puzo's prohibitive rates. I think there was a follow-up, and a novelization of III, maybe of IV too. Anybody got firmer info? --Ted Watson (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also It's Superman by Tom de Haven published in 2005. DonQuixote (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The infobox

What does everyone think about that infobox that was recently added? I feel it is unnecessary and duplicates too much of the function of the navigation box and the article itself to be of use. Comments? Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anybody want to defend it? It's repetitive and unnecessary and I'll cut it if no one argues otherwise. Rhindle The Red (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Music

Someone has added a list of songs that refer to Superman. This needs to be trimmed down to *only* songs directly about Superman if it is to remain. We've been through this before and lists of this kind need to be kept under control. I can't remember why the original song section was removed, but this is not the way to bring it back. Rhindle The Red (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is an objection, I'm going to remove all songs that do not have articles of their own. If they are not notable enough to have an article, they are not notable enough for this list. Rhindle The Red (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ray Middleton

The entry for Ray Middleton has a year range of 1940 - 1944. Does anyone have a citation for him appearing as Superman after 1940 ? If not, then I think it should just say 1940. RJ4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

Recent item removals

We need to keep these lists from getting out of control. The songs used to have their own page and were only returned here when it was decided to pare it down. Similarly, as with movies and television appearances, only authorized productions are to be included. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So...

• "Songs about or that reference Superman:" is only valid for a minimal list with no clear criteria for inclusion.

The criteria is clear. Generally speaking, we include songs that are about Superman or related items (like "Jimmy Olsen's Blues"), but not songs that just mention him or name drop the word "Superman". There *are* exceptions. "Sunshine Superman" (despite being just a namedrop) has become so strongly associated with the character that it has been included in the past, for instance. (So that's one entry that could stay.) Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Consolidating lists is actually just deleting material.

No, consolidating lists is removing items that are extraneous to the subject at hand.Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• And we mus be very, very careful to not include anything that DC may not have approved.

You make it sound like we're watching out for DC. This article has a focus on official productions, otherwise every parody or unauthorized appearance of Superman would be included, driving this list out of control. In keeping with most comics-based "in other media" and similar articles, we stick to official items.Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Have I got that right?

I hope not since:

• If there was a page for "List of songs related tom referencing, or about Superman" that was removed to consolidate it back her - such a merge would be to move the whole list unless that discussion pointed out songs where the connection is so tenuous to be trivial.

The removal and then remerging of the songs list followed a great deal of discussion before either move occurred. The criteria I laid out above was the result and the items I removed do not meet that criteria. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• And just because something is not authorized, does not mean it is not a notable, and valid inclusion of the character use in or influence on other media.

The value of unauthorized uses is a legitimate point, but if there is a decision to include such items, they should most likely be in a "Notable unauthorized appeareances" section that is *very* closely watched to make sure it doesn't get filled with nonsense. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, if you want to see if there is a consensus to practice vetting this and like article to only list "official" uses, feel free. You can also do the same for pointing out why particular songs should be removed. But point blank removals with zero reason, and an editor stating they are "invalid" is just about "zero" on the reason scale, isn't the way to go.

- J Greb (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you take the time to check, you will see that I have been working on this article for a long time. I have been through many discussions in the past and the consensus has been to limit entries as I have mentioned. Of course, all things change (we used to list any little appearance by Superman in a Warner Bros. production for instance), but the changes you are suggesting are what need to be discussed, not sticking to the way things have been done for a while. We *have* decided to vet this article and that is what I have been doing for over two years.

I will wait a while for your response, but I see no reason not to remove the invalid items again. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the comments you've made make me wonder if I've missed a discussion on this talk page or if there are one or more like discussions you are not providing links to. (And yes, I've skimmed through #A few other problems, and there seems to be almost a consensus there related to parody/cameos, but little or nothing about music.)

But moving forward...

1. "Consolidating" is the act of moving information from multiple places, generally lists, in to one document and removing redundant entries. Removing information is "condensing", "compacting", or "abridging" the material. Again, as far as I can tell, no discussion has happened about refining or re-working the inclusion of songs here.
2. In that vein, "Songs about or that reference Superman:" may need to be re-worded. Right now it is broad enough to cover Superman and cast as primary topic, metaphor, reference, and name drops. If the intent is to remove the last one, then something a kin to "Songs about Superman and related items, or that use them as a primary metaphor or theme:"
3. If that is done, and even if it isn't, using "Removed as invalid" as an edit summary comes off poorly, at best. If you want to remove a song that just uses a name drop or require interpretation of an editor to be included, state as much in the edit summary. Yes something like the 2nd verse "What's Next to the Moon"
       "Heavenly body flying across the sky
       Superman was out of town
       Come on honey, gotta change your tune
       Cause it's a long way down
       Clark Kent looking for a free ride
       Thinking about Lois Lane
       It's a bird, it's a plane, it's - a suicide
       And that'd be a shame
   is tenuous, but it is something that needs to be pointed out almost on a case by case basis.
4. Splitting by headers with "Official" and "Unofficial" may put an unintended bias to how the article reads. It sure feels like it would create an editorial bias of "Stuff to keep" and "Mostly trivial stuff to purge". Maybe the method used with Cultural impact of Wonder Woman would be better - though I'd think the first general header of "Adaptations in other media" would be more appropriate.

- J Greb (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• I can't find the relevant discussions, as they may have occurred on an older "Songs about Superman" page. I can no longer remember its title, and it's not the one most recently merged. I've been working on this article for a long time.

1. That's semantics. As defined by Merriam-Webster, "consolidate" can mean "to join together into one whole" (as you use it) *or* "to form into a compact mass" (as I use it - in line with your "compacting"). Let's be clear regardless of terms; I want to remove items that do not add to the utility and usefulness of the article. Mere *mentions* of Superman do not warrant listing in my mind.
2. Thanks for catching that. I never noticed that it says "or that reference". It should read "Songs about Superman".
3. Yes, you've made your point about my initial edit summary and I have not disputed it. We can move on from that now, I think.
4. It is meant to put an intended clarification (not "bias") that items like "...Woman of Kleenex" are not official and, therefore, lack authority regarding proper portrayals of Superman. As for Wonder Woman, she doesn't have nearly the amount of media attention that Superman does, nor does that article go under the same level of scrutiny as this one does, meaning fewer eyes on it to keep it free from unneeded material. Cultural impact of Wonder Woman is also a broader title that may give editors working on it more leeway. This article tries to focus on Superman's actual appearances, not fan works, speculation or mere mentions. If those warrant inclusion it would be in separate sections. "...Woman of Kleenex", for instance, could be in a section called "Critical analyses of Superman" or something. (BTW, I removed your numbers because my responses broke the numbering.) Rhindle The Red (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing off the hop - I understand why, but please don't refactor my posts like that. I realize it is attractive when bullets are use to get your point right under mine, but it makes for a choppy read.

1) Fair enough, the idea is for clear communication.

4) And this looks like the main direction we're going... "Cultural impact of..." may be more fitting with the more notable characters. Yes, it is a bit broader, but the more notable character (Superman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, etc) would support that. Those characters do tend to draw "publisher approved" adaptations (a "Adaptations in other media" section), use as a cultural touch point/icon (a "References in popular culture" section), and as objects of speculation and de-construction ("Critical analyses" or the like). Looking back at it, the inclusion of the music section would have to be under a "References in popular culture" section - they are normally not stories about the character. - J Greb (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

PARODIES AND HOMAGES?!!

Why does "Superman parodies and homages" redirect here, if the article doesn't talk about parodies and homages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.5.173 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Superman Lives

Why no mention of the aborted "Superman Lives" with Nicolas Cage? The article does mention a pitch for "Red Son" as a canceled live-action film. The Cage film actually began pre-production, as I understand it. Elsquared67 (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)