Talk:Superman (franchise)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article title

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: "I Love Lucy" Appearance

message: 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)
thread_title: Sections

message: 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)
thread_title: More pictures

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Curse" section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moving a Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tom Welling image 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have done the merge based on consensus. --Lendorien 14:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical depictions of Superman

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Other uses section

message: Isn't the song Kryptonite from 2000 and not 2002? JamesEG (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 Doors Down 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup and rename 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Are there any paradies that we should remove? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cartoons

message: 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)
thread_title:  Audio section&mdash;the LP 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Music

message: 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)
thread_title: Ray Middleton

message: 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)
thread_title:  PARODIES AND HOMAGES?!! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Superman Lives