Can we stop with the "Batman is more relatable than Superman" thing?

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Redryhno said:
So basically you're going to hold Batman to these standards, but not the guy that has fought his own villains in the streets that have then damaged infrastructure countless times in his own city because they're just as strong as he is, barely does any reporting, and refuses to do much more than stay in his own holding pattern?
Yup. Superman and Batman are different characters, embodying different ideals. Superman embodies hope, and part of the way he expresses that hope is by giving humanity the chance to improve itself and turn itself around without needing to be interfered with by a being who shares their values but not their needs. Batman ostensibly embodies justice, but apparently only the specific kind of justice that can be exemplified through an insanely rich dude punching the destitute in the face to punish them. I am going to hold them to different standards because they are trying to do different things.

Redryhno said:
Exactly what do you want him to do beyond what he does now?
Break the cycle.

Redryhno said:
It's comics, dude; there's always going to be that kind of shootie-punchie junk no matter what the background.
Then you are admitting all his charity work is completely ineffectual. Blame its ineffectiveness on the medium doesn't change that.

Redryhno said:
Why does a guy with nearly infinite power just sit at a desk all day long?
I touched on this earlier, but I'll expand. Superman is about the expression of hope. He has faith that humanity can be and will be better than it is, and he wants humanity to reach that achievement on its own. If the world is only better because he forces it to be, then the world will inevitably disintegrate when he's gone. Interference is antithetical to his goals, so all he can permit himself to do is to save lives when lives need saving and to show the people of the world what tomorrow could look like if we all make the choice to go there.

Redryhno said:
Why didn't he use his powers to just become the mysteriously best farmer in Kansas and provide food for the entire world since he doesn't really have a timetable with his endurance and speed?
We could already feed the entire world. We choose not to do it for selfish reasons Superman can't change. What Superman can change is whether the bullet fired from a gun hits the person it's meant to kill.

Redryhno said:
Why does he continue to let his villains survive?
Because basing a value for life on mathematics leads to the belief that life isn't valuable on its own, but based on which arbitrary group has the biggest number of lives. By that logic, America deserves to die so it can quit threatening the larger population of China.

Redryhno said:
Why does he not imprison Doomsday and make that his sole duty to the universe?
He did imprison Doomsday in the old continuity. I have no idea if he has done in the Nu52.

Redryhno said:
Why does Clark Kent not do his own investigative reporting on LexCorp when he finds out as Superman how corrupt Luthor is?
The Daily Planet routinely reports on Lex Luthor's criminal activities. Luthor buys better press, and people choose to believe it. Superman can't change that.

Redryhno said:
Why does Clark Kent exist when all he honestly has to do is reveal himself as Superman and retreat to his Fortress of Solitude for when he's not sorely needed?
Because he was Clark Kent long before he was Superman, and Clark Kent needs human contact like anyone else does.

Happyninja42 said:
JimB said:
Happyninja42 said:
Deciding to murder an entire species based on the actions of a handful of them.
Murder them? How so? He just sent most of them back to the Phantom Zone...though I guess reasonable people can argue that banishing someone from physical reality isn't especially different from murdering them.
...uh, he shot his laser eyes through the hull of the babyship, thus destroying all the embryonic Kryptonians that were in suspended animation on that vessel. That counts as genocide in my book.
Ah. Well, this might be bad memory on my part, so correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Kryptonian babies impossible to fertilize because Kal-El had the...shit, I forget what they called that MacGuffin, but the Matrix of Life or whatever in his body? The one that Zod was going to have to kill Kal-El to get? I don't personally consider abortion to be murder in the case of the birth definitely causing the death of the mother, and the situation is completely analogous here if I'm remembering it correctly.

...Wait, how did Zod even have a babyship? Did he say he found it in the Phantom Zone or something? God damn it, this is gonna bug me. I'm gonna have to watch this Christing movie again. Fuck. Well, it'll probably be on FX or some shit before much longer.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
8,577
2,897
118
JimB said:
Happyninja42 said:
JimB said:
Happyninja42 said:
Deciding to murder an entire species based on the actions of a handful of them.
Murder them? How so? He just sent most of them back to the Phantom Zone...though I guess reasonable people can argue that banishing someone from physical reality isn't especially different from murdering them.
...uh, he shot his laser eyes through the hull of the babyship, thus destroying all the embryonic Kryptonians that were in suspended animation on that vessel. That counts as genocide in my book.
Ah. Well, this might be bad memory on my part, so correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Kryptonian babies impossible to fertilize because Kal-El had the...shit, I forget what they called that MacGuffin, but the Matrix of Life or whatever in his body? The one that Zod was going to have to kill Kal-El to get? I don't personally consider abortion to be murder in the case of the birth definitely causing the death of the mother, and the situation is completely analogous here if I'm remembering it correctly.

...Wait, how did Zod even have a babyship? Did he say he found it in the Phantom Zone or something? God damn it, this is gonna bug me. I'm gonna have to watch this Christing movie again. Fuck. Well, it'll probably be on FX or some shit before much longer.
I seem to recall the little kryptonians beings presented as actual fetus like things, floating in magic science juice. I could be remembering wrong, but it felt to me like they were already basically humanoid in shape, but...wouldn't be "true" kryptonians without...Kal-El's...um...magic juice? *coughs* To me, if felt like a ship full of what you could maybe call unfertilized kryptonians, they just weren't an egg. They were actually humanoid shaped already. Don't ask me WHY 'cause I've no damn clue. Because movie science I guess. *shrugs* But while we might disagree on what is considered murder, he destroyed the only source of genetic material that could have repopulated the kryptonian race. That's genocide in my book. If you disagree, then that's fine, and I guess we can drop this particular point, since I doubt we will convince each other on it. xD

As to where he got that ship, I dunno. He did a space trip throughout tons of locations after getting out of the Phantom Zone, maybe he found it on one of those outposts.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
But while we might disagree on what is considered murder, he destroyed the only source of genetic material that could have repopulated the Kryptonian race. That's genocide in my book.
I disagree on the grounds that mature male and female Kryptonians still exist in close physical proximity to one another, and their genitals presumably still work, given that Kal-El was born, though who the fuck knows if that last part is true, given how convoluted the backstory of Kryptonian boot-knocking apparently is.

Happyninja42 said:
As to where he got that ship, I dunno. He did a space trip throughout tons of locations after getting out of the Phantom Zone, maybe he found it on one of those outposts.
Yeah, maybe. I just can't specifically remember Zod ever mentioning how he got the fucking thing, and I hate that I can't answer this question. Google has spoiled me.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Silentpony said:
Nah, Batman is totally more relatable than Superman because Batman doesn't have any powers, he's human like us. Superman is just a Mary-Sue God.
And yet Batman somehow out mary-sue's the big blue boyscout quite frequently. Wasn't it Batman (or at least, his plans and technology) that was said to completely defeat the entire Justice League?

I mean, if you have a self-described Mary Sue God with Superman, and nine times out of nine when facing Batman results in the Caped Crusader winning, why isn't Batman considered the world's biggest Mary Sue of all time?
The story arc is "Tower Of Babel" if I recall, and yes it did, though some of the plans in question involved things like hypnosis while the target was sleeping.

That said I would point out that ordinary people have always been a threat to most of the Justice League, as the "mad scientist" is an archtypical foe. Lex Luthor for example is a guy who has outright beaten Superman a few times over the years (being his Arch-Enemy) and like Batman he's an ordinary human.

As far as being relatable, I'm not sure if I'd pick any of the "big" DC characters as ones I relate to on a deep level. I like Batman but I don't think he's any more relatable than Superman as his abilities go well beyond the norm (excepting the god thing) his gadgeteering in many versions for example puts him very much into the superhuman category in terms of intellect. I like DC but was always more of a "Wildstorm" (geez I miss Wildstorm) fan on that side of things, and for comics I prefer Marvel overall, I've always found their characters more relatable in a general sense than the main DC continuum, especially the major "face" characters.

I would say for me in recent years Batman and Superman are equally relatable, Batman because it's easy to understand being consumed by hatred and vengeance and driven to things. Superman on the other hand grapples with morality frequently and granted he does so because he's so powerful but he is used to frame some very good questions at times.

When it comes to "Mary Sue" factor, Superman hasn't deserved that title for a while, I mean Superman has gotten his butt kicked so many times nowadays (even if he ultimately comes back from it) that he can't be accused of that. It seems most characters stand up to, or trash, Superman at least in some quick thing when they appear to show off how tough they are. To be fair a lot of it is that Superman is still defined as being so powerful that simply having him win isn't much of a story (but having him lose on the other hand...). I doubt Supes even makes the cut for top 10 powerful characters in DC anymore (without bringing Neil Gaiman's stuff into it), I mean he's a factor, even at the cosmic level, but he hasn't been the ultimate force for a long time.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Redryhno said:
JimB said:
Redryhno said:
You have no idea how sick and tired I am of seeing this thrown around.
Sorry, but: tough. In what way has Bruce Wayne used his money that has caused the setting of Gotham City to meaningfully evolve past being the playground for criminals and villains it has been for decades of continuity? What has he done that has reduced crime rates and kept them reduced? The list of accomplishments you provide seems like nothing more than background dressing that doesn't actually make a dent in the body count in Gotham, locking the cycle of shootie-punchie-imprisonie-escapie-shootie into a holding pattern rather than solving it.
So basically you're going to hold Batman to these standards, but not the guy that has fought his own villains in the streets that have then damaged infrastructure countless times in his own city because they're just as strong as he is, barely does any reporting, and refuses to do much more than stay in his own holding pattern? Exactly what do you want him to do beyond what he does now? Because what he does now is about six times what people have won Nobel Prizes for Peace for.

It's comics dude, there's always going to be that kind of shootie-punchie junk no matter what the background. Without it, there's barely any conflict. You may as well complain that Xcom focuses too much on the invasion part of the uplifting the aliens are doing.

But since we're gonna play this game: Why does a guy with nearly infinite power just sit at a desk all day long? Why didn't he use his powers to just become the mysteriously best farmer in Kansas and provide food for the entire world since he doesn't really have a timetable with his endurance and speed? Why set himself up in one of the fanciest cities in the DC universe instead of just wandering around the third world helping others if he wants to help people of the world? Why does he continue to let his villains survive and live? They're infinitely more dangerous than anything people throw fits about with Bats. Why does he not imprison Doomsday and make that his sole duty to the universe? Why not serve full time as judge and executioner for the ones that only he has a chance of defeating? Why does Clark Kent not do his own investigative reporting on LexCorp when he finds out as Superman how corrupt Luthor is? Why does Clark Kent exist when all he honestly has to do is reveal himself as Superman and retreat to his Fortress of Solitude for when he's not sorely needed? There's a thousand and one things Superman can do better that people routinely ignore.

I'd like to end this with - because I know it's happened before in this thread - this,but I don't hate Superman, I just prefer Gotham and the Bat Family. And I just find him to be a character that is insanely easy to write for, but insanely difficult to write in a way that isn't completely boring, and I've found Batman to just have the better quality stories as a whole.
For some reason that reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BJ1-trrgqc

... and amazingly not one civilian was harmed that day. :)
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
JimB said:
Redryhno said:
You have no idea how sick and tired I am of seeing this thrown around.
Sorry, but: tough. In what way has Bruce Wayne used his money that has caused the setting of Gotham City to meaningfully evolve past being the playground for criminals and villains it has been for decades of continuity? What has he done that has reduced crime rates and kept them reduced? The list of accomplishments you provide seems like nothing more than background dressing that doesn't actually make a dent in the body count in Gotham, locking the cycle of shootie-punchie-imprisonie-escapie-shootie into a holding pattern rather than solving it.

Well if we're counting elseworld scenarios and such there was the entire "Kingdom Come" thing where Batman decided to use his fortune to solve the problem.... by turning Gotham into a police state patrolled by his Bat-Drones. :)
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
thaluikhain said:
This is a thing? Huh...ok, I guess people could say that the human is more relatable than the alien, but Batman is an angry rich tosser, and I'm not. Hell, lots of people relate better to Superman than to actual human beings IRL anyway...we should have people complaining that he's an illegal alien, but he gets a free pass.

In any case, Batman is the least interesting of any batfamily members I can think of.
The whole "Superman is an immigrant" and "Superman is an illegal alien" thing are old hat, funny for a few seconds but out of context to the concept and the comics where if anything he would have been long ago granted honorary citizenship.

Perhaps more controversially there was a comic where Superman renounced his US citizenship to become about "all mankind".

http://comicsalliance.com/superman-renounces-us-citizenship/

I don't believe this applies post-New 52, but if your going to bring up the issue at all, you can bring up the fact that Superman said himself he's no longer a citizen, or a citizen of any country for that matter, being an illegal alien wherever he goes.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Redryhno said:
tf2godz said:
Thanks for over-expanding on what I said in my post I guess?

I don't think Superman's a bad character, but how relateable he is largely up to the writer, and most writers make him out to be super while not focusing on the things that make him as human as anyone else. Batman and Bruce Wayne are both given ample screentime in most stories that you can see it from the POV of vigilante, hero, and human. Clark Kent is largely a non-factor except when the plot demands it and that so easily cuts deep into what you can relate with.
Well it could be argued that Superman's Pal Jimmy Olson was intended to be what humanized the character and helped keep Superman grounded, a constant bridge between Clark and Superman that wasn't compromised by the whole love interest thing. One could also say the same to a lesser extent about Perry White.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Therumancer said:
JimB said:
Redryhno said:
You have no idea how sick and tired I am of seeing this thrown around.
Sorry, but: tough. In what way has Bruce Wayne used his money that has caused the setting of Gotham City to meaningfully evolve past being the playground for criminals and villains it has been for decades of continuity? What has he done that has reduced crime rates and kept them reduced? The list of accomplishments you provide seems like nothing more than background dressing that doesn't actually make a dent in the body count in Gotham, locking the cycle of shootie-punchie-imprisonie-escapie-shootie into a holding pattern rather than solving it.
If we're counting Elseworld scenarios and such, there was the entire Kingdom Come thing where Batman decided to use his fortune to solve the problem...by turning Gotham into a police state patrolled by his Bat-Drones.
Deciding which continuity we even want to argue about is a huge, exhausting issue in these kinds of debates, but I get the feeling we're talking about the most vague, general continuity possible; whatever fits the current understanding of the characters, without ever getting into specifics and while ignoring anything that doesn't suit that preconception. It's all pretty tiring, so maybe we should scrap it and agree to talk about how fascinating it is to see that Truth and Justice, as respectively embodied by Wonder Woman and Batman, cannot sustain themselves in Kingdom Come once Hope (as embodied by Superman) vanishes.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
Therumancer said:
Redryhno said:
tf2godz said:
Thanks for over-expanding on what I said in my post I guess?

I don't think Superman's a bad character, but how relateable he is largely up to the writer, and most writers make him out to be super while not focusing on the things that make him as human as anyone else. Batman and Bruce Wayne are both given ample screentime in most stories that you can see it from the POV of vigilante, hero, and human. Clark Kent is largely a non-factor except when the plot demands it and that so easily cuts deep into what you can relate with.
Well it could be argued that Superman's Pal Jimmy Olson was intended to be what humanized the character and helped keep Superman grounded, a constant bridge between Clark and Superman that wasn't compromised by the whole love interest thing. One could also say the same to a lesser extent about Perry White.
I'll agree on that, problem still is that it's not often for the Kent part of Superman to be explored or explained. And it's a shame, because Kent on his own is actually a decent character.
 

kitsunefather

Verbose and Meandering
Nov 29, 2010
227
0
0
Redryhno said:
I don't think Superman's a bad character, but how relateable he is largely up to the writer, and most writers make him out to be super while not focusing on the things that make him as human as anyone else. Batman and Bruce Wayne are both given ample screentime in most stories that you can see it from the POV of vigilante, hero, and human. Clark Kent is largely a non-factor except when the plot demands it and that so easily cuts deep into what you can relate with.
Another major problem with the Clark Kent inclusion is the push by editorial and writing staff on Superman titles to force the "Jesus" allegory for Superman, such as in Grant Morrison's statements and in stories like "Grounded". Superman Returns is another fine example, especially given Singer's explicit statement of Superman being a "perfect" allegory for Jesus.

It's hard for a writer to make a character into a human people can relate to, and a messiah.

::EDIT::

Also, stuff like this being included in main canon stories are a good example of why I can't relate to Superman:

http://comicsalliance.com/files/2010/12/supermans-thoreau-nonsense.jpg

http://comicsalliance.com/files/2010/12/superman-and-magical-white-child-1292744492.jpg

http://comicsalliance.com/files/2010/12/physical-humiliation-of-dissenters.jpg
 

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
JimB said:
Ah. Well, this might be bad memory on my part, so correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Kryptonian babies impossible to fertilize because Kal-El had the...shit, I forget what they called that MacGuffin, but the Matrix of Life or whatever in his body? The one that Zod was going to have to kill Kal-El to get?
Zod didn't have to kill Kal-El to get the whatever-it-was. As in, that wasn't the only option - otherwise Zor-El must have been a really shitty parent by turning his own child into a sacrifice. Kal-El could have gone with Zod willingly and presumably they would have easily extracted the whatever-it-was and Kal-El would have been unharmed.

The killing part came from two things - Zod had really extreme views[footnote]like killing all of humanity and stuff[/footnote] - ones that Kal-El didn't agree with, hence Kal-El didn't want to go with Zod. And Zod, being an extremist, saw killing Kal-El as his only other option.

Again, that was another stupid and contrived plot point in the movie. But again - it was there.

JimB said:
I don't personally consider abortion to be murder in the case of the birth definitely causing the death of the mother, and the situation is completely analogous here if I'm remembering it correctly.
Yet, the Kryptonian fetuses were the only remaining way of saving the Kryptonian race. Call destroying them what you will, but the movie tried very hard to tell us that. Perhaps a loose analogy could be drawn with the genophage in the Mass Effect universe where it technically doesn't kill the Krogan but it still diminishes their population. Well, that'd be very loose but somewhat more relevant if we take the genophage to actually be making the Krogan extinct[footnote]because as far as I remember, it wasn't. Not technically - it would keep the population roughly in the same ballpark, however the Krogan were both used to having more offspring and also they now spread out through the universe, which means there is lesser concentration of them overall. However, again, the genophage wasn't making them extinct.[/footnote] - then in both cases you could claim it's not really killing the species, yet the result is the species going extinct. Even if the genophage works slower than Kal-El blowing a ship of Kryptonian babies.

JimB said:
Happyninja42 said:
But while we might disagree on what is considered murder, he destroyed the only source of genetic material that could have repopulated the Kryptonian race. That's genocide in my book.
I disagree on the grounds that mature male and female Kryptonians still exist in close physical proximity to one another, and their genitals presumably still work, given that Kal-El was born, though who the fuck knows if that last part is true, given how convoluted the backstory of Kryptonian boot-knocking apparently is.
Ugh, I can't actually remember the reason for having vat-grown babies. It might have been just a thing they did to ensure that their offspring is suitable (throwing in some genengineering or something at them) or it might have been the Kryptonians just being hard to fertilize. Or a combination of the two. Kal-El being "natural" was apparently a big deal as he was either the only one or one of the very few who were.

Regardless, the fetuses were the only means of saving the Kryptonian race - sure, there was a Kryptonian woman and more than one Kryptonian men alive and capable of reproducing[footnote]assuming the fetuses weren't absolutely necessary on Krypton[/footnote] but they can't just repopulate a planet. Not enough genetic diversity there.
 

Chairman Miaow

CBA to change avatar
Nov 18, 2009
2,093
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Dazzle Novak said:
Clark Kent works a tedious 9-5, has a widowed mother to worry about, and a relationship that's unrequited half the time.

Bruce Wayne inherited a billion dollar company/ a Goddamn estate after a decade-long sabbatical learning every martial art/ forensic science known to man and bangs supermodels as "cover". Not to mention how "prep time" trumps any bullshit power Superman pulls out of his ass.

Yes, Bruce Wayne truly is an everyman...
is...is Batman Donald Trump?

Batman has pulled himself up by his bootstraps, you can see that because he's rich. Superman is a lazy illegal immigrant.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
JimB said:
Happyninja42 said:
Sorry but no, that's not a character flaw in the context of story structure.
If deadish chooses to elaborate that by "flawless" he is only talking about character flaws in the context of story structure, then I'll revise my rebuttal to his argument. Until such a time, my post is a perfectly valid response to his as it is currently written.

Happyninja42 said:
Fair enough, as after hitting post, I can think of a few writers who have gone into questionable territory with Supes and how he behaves. But, I think it should be pointed out, that the most common reaction, when someone tries to give Supes a negative trait, the fans usually lose their minds, and flame rage about how "You're not writing Superman correctly!! He's not cruel or vindictive~!! He has no faults!"
If you say so. I never heard anyone call the Superman of Justice League Unlimited (for example) a No True Scotsman. When I've seen that reaction, the writers had to go pretty batshit crazy with it, like in the "Walking the Earth" storyline or Man of Steel.

Happyninja42 said:
Just look at all the things he did in Man of Steel, for example, that would actually portray a fairly flawed Superman, which personally I would find more interesting, but the fans lost their freaking minds about it.
Without knowing which specific events you're referring to, I can only say that Superman is an avatar of hope, so to see him behave so hopelessly in service to trying to make Superman be Batman while the cast continues to narrate about how hopeful he is despite his actions comes off as an extremely misguided direction choice to me.

I tend to agree, Superman needs to remain relatively "perfect" and an icon of hope to really work as a character. What's more it helps hold the universe together because without him, and other heroes similar to him, there is nothing to compare the "darker" heroes to. I mean if everyone is a shadowy semi-sociopathic dark hero, all you wind up is with a lot of putzes, you need the paragons to balance the equasion.

Superman is an ideal as much as a character, and an ideal a lot of people can empathize with.

Though I digress as well, prior to his turn as a dark and gritty character (which made him more popular) it should be noted that Batman camped it up a lot. The old Batman comics (now really old) were a lot different from the current crop.

That said I don't think either Batman or Superman is all that relatable, it's about equal between the two of them as they both have aspects to them that are highly relatable but overall both characters are pretty "out there".

The characters that I think tend to be most relatable are probably "generation heroes", that is to say the characters you inevitably see created to mesh with the youth culture of the time. Those that last long enough to grow up with their audiences (to an extent) do particularly well. I think this was sort of where Marvel managed to "Slam Dunk" it with the X-men which was quasi-rebooted for the 90s generation, and even now you see the various "Academy" titles and such doing the same thing with Millenials that came after generation X. Wildstorm did really well with tapping into the whole "relatable characters" thing for a while during the 1990s but eventually it folded into DC/Wildstorm and died out although a few characters live on as part of "New 52" nobody has done a whole lot with them.

I do not think any of the "iconic" DC characters in particular, that is to say those that have been around decades (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, etc...) is relatable, especially if you read up on some of what went on behind them. Wonder Woman for example is literally a bi-sexual (leaning lesbian) bondage pin up for example based around the predilections and social positions of the character's creator. Movie Bob did a whole thing on her at one point.

Move on down to the much re-booted "Teen Titans" and "Young Justice" type concepts and I think even those assuming a mantle do a little bit more with people's ability to relate which is why they have been getting so much attention, especially from the youth media, for a while now. Batman and Superman seem to be more relatable to as father figures as odd as that sounds than something people can associate themselves with directly. Indeed I think this was one of Frank Miller's points when he did "Dark Knight Returns" and changed the way Batman would be written forever more, when he got old enough and realized "hell, I'm older than Batman now IRL" it just felt wrong, which is why he did him as a bitter old bastard. I remember reading something along those lines during one of his forwards, and the idea of a comic character as a "father figure" even to an adult reader sort of stuck with me. That said I still maintain Marvel has been well ahead of relatable characters, DC had a chance to pick up some that they could have used from Wildstorm but sort of dropped that ball.


Ah well I'm rambling this became much more than I intended when I set out to respond and turned into another general threat response. In short, I agree with you. :)
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Zeconte said:
Samtemdo8 said:
And I feel like people keeps forgetting that Superman the Animated Series and Justice League Animated Series Exists as if Batman was the only viable animated series worth watching.

And why can't we get into the other characters? Who cares if they are not "human" so long as their adventures are interesting.

And even then to say the likes of Wonder Woman, Green Lantern (be it Hal Jorden and John Stewert) The Flash, etc. They have plenty of Humanity.

Green Lanter is nothing without his Ring. His Ring is essentially a weapon without it he is unarmed.
Again, it's not that I forget that those existed, they just came years too late for me. Batman the Animated Series came out in 1992, same with X-Men, Spiderman came out 1994, by 1996, I was in high school and never cared to watch the WB channel, so I never even saw the cartoon. So, my experience with Superman and many other DC characters besides Batman was the Super Friends, and holy fuck was that terribad. I mean, from what little I saw, Justice League was probably fairly decent for people who enjoy DC, I just can't get into it. I mean, I don't even like Batman all that much, but he's at least interesting enough to watch and has some pretty great villains. Gotham has so far been an excellent series, as were the Tim Burton movies and The Dark Knight. No one else in the DC universe really has anything that made me interested in them as a character.

Superman is just all around meh, the only villain I know of his is Lex Luthor, who's meh, and I still for the life of me do not know why he is so obsessed with business ventures that Superman is sure to put a stop to. I mean, for all his money and intelligence, he couldn't figure out a way to just go about making billions of dollars without doing something highly illegal/unethical/dangerous to cause Superman to take issue with it and therefore just has to constantly plot how to take out Superman? I mean, granted, I could never really stand to pay much attention to anything involving Superman, but you'd think they'd at least try at some point to explain that rivalry in a way that I'd understand it after all these decades. Louis & Clark was pretty much the best Superman they've had to offer, and I honestly don't remember a thing about the show other than the actors and that I watched it occasionally. Smallville I really actually tried to get into, but just couldn't, and it was basically trying to do with Superman what Gothem is doing with Batman now.

Wonder Woman I could see potential to be a great character if they tried with her, but they just really haven't, and they've done next to nothing with everyone else. I'm sure they have in the comics, but I've just never really cared about comics, and when it comes to comic book heroes converted to cartoons or TV series or movies, Marvel just has so much better and more interesting and less ridiculously overpowered characters all around.

And I think most people who aren't big into comic books feel more or less the same way. Batman is slightly more than a one-dimensional do-gooder and has an amazing cast of memorable villains, and Superman just feels one dimensional and stupidly overpowered with one memorable villain that doesn't really make any real coherent sense as a villain, and the rest of DC's cast of characters just haven't been properly marketed or promoted for people to care about them.
Well, Lex Luthor's original enemity with Superman was because he lost all his hair. The two were great friends until this lab accident SuperBOY could have prevented. The original Lex Luthor was also more of a mad scientist than a CEO type. He's been rebooted so many times, through so many parallel universes, that I'm not even 100% sure what his current motivation is supposed to be. It's one of the reasons why I thought it sort of fit when Lex decided to stop being evil during the "Forever Evil" arc.

As far as Superman's rogue's gallery goes it's truly huge Metallo, Manchester Black, Chemo, Doomsday, Mongul, Darkseid, I mean it just goes on and on, and includes enemies that can fight him without needing Kryptonite, including rogue Kryptonians (his own race) like General Zod (who is perhaps his second most well known enemy).

That said I tend to prefer Marvel myself, though it can get just as crazy if not more so. It also has it's own versions of Superman in the thinly disguised Gladiator (name taken from the book Superman was arguably based on before the comics) and Hyperion. "The Mighty Thor" and "Doctor Strange" tend to be my favorites of Marvel's big guns though. :)

At any rate I like Superman just fine, to really "get" a character like that though you need to read his stuff, but of course if you don't like the concept your not going to take the time so it's a catch-22 thing. I guess I just got lucky with a lot of characters and did my reading about them at the right time for things to 'click'. The weird thing about Supes though is that he's been around so long, and run into so much utterly weird and fantastic stuff that it's kind of hard to sell people on the character by saying "this is why I think Superman is awesome". If you ever get an opportunity though do try and read the "Our Worlds At War" story arc which was largely based around him (though it was company wide), that featured Superman at some of his best in my opinion.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Chairman Miaow said:
thaluikhain said:
Dazzle Novak said:
Clark Kent works a tedious 9-5, has a widowed mother to worry about, and a relationship that's unrequited half the time.

Bruce Wayne inherited a billion dollar company/ a Goddamn estate after a decade-long sabbatical learning every martial art/ forensic science known to man and bangs supermodels as "cover". Not to mention how "prep time" trumps any bullshit power Superman pulls out of his ass.

Yes, Bruce Wayne truly is an everyman...
is...is Batman Donald Trump?

Batman has pulled himself up by his bootstraps, you can see that because he's rich. Superman is a lazy illegal immigrant.
I admit I Loled at this.

Reminds me of Marvel's old "Marville" series with their bit on billionaire super heroes (Black Panther, Iron Man, and I can't remember the third one) beating up people in the ghettos... teaming up eventually with Rush Limbaugh.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Fappy said:
Batman and Superman are equally unrelatable characters. In fact, most of the more established super heroes are. I remember reading an interesting interview Alan Moore did awhile back where he basically explained that most Batman stories are worthless outside their entertainment value (and perhaps some philosophy depending on the book). He's basically a god trapped in a man's body who can overcome any physical or mental limits the plot demands. As fun as his stories can be, he's an incredibly dull character on his own.
This coming from the guy who created "Tom Strong" where that's pretty much the entire schtick.

Alan Moore is great, don't get me wrong, and I don't doubt he said that, but he's produced his fair share of brain candy over the years despite his award winning stuff.
 

Chairman Miaow

CBA to change avatar
Nov 18, 2009
2,093
0
0
Therumancer said:
Chairman Miaow said:
thaluikhain said:
Dazzle Novak said:
Clark Kent works a tedious 9-5, has a widowed mother to worry about, and a relationship that's unrequited half the time.

Bruce Wayne inherited a billion dollar company/ a Goddamn estate after a decade-long sabbatical learning every martial art/ forensic science known to man and bangs supermodels as "cover". Not to mention how "prep time" trumps any bullshit power Superman pulls out of his ass.

Yes, Bruce Wayne truly is an everyman...
is...is Batman Donald Trump?

Batman has pulled himself up by his bootstraps, you can see that because he's rich. Superman is a lazy illegal immigrant.
I admit I Loled at this.

Reminds me of Marvel's old "Marville" series with their bit on billionaire super heroes (Black Panther, Iron Man, and I can't remember the third one) beating up people in the ghettos... teaming up eventually with Rush Limbaugh.
I can't help but be reminded of Reginald D Hunter on Batman :
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
DoPo said:
Zod didn't have to kill Kal-El to get the whatever-it-was. As in, that wasn't the only option - otherwise Zor-El must have been a really shitty parent by turning his own child into a sacrifice.
Didn't Jor-El only infuse Kal-El with the Magic Juice (I really like that term) as Krypton's destruction was imminent, and therefore presumably no one would be coming after him for it?

DoPo said:
The killing part came from two things: Zod had really extreme views, ones that Kal-El didn't agree with, hence Kal-El didn't want to go with Zod. And Zod, being an extremist, saw killing Kal-El as his only other option.
So even though it was possible to extract the Magic Juice non-lethally, submitting to the procedure still would have killed Kal-El just 'cause Zod's evil?

DoPo said:
Yet, the Kryptonian fetuses were the only remaining way of saving the Kryptonian race. Call destroying them what you will, but the movie tried very hard to tell us that.
Shrug. I just can't get upset about this. I do not believe any person has a duty to martyr himself for the sake of someone who hasn't even been born.

DoPo said:
Ugh, I can't actually remember the reason for having vat-grown babies.
I have a vague idea in my head it's just tradition, to make sure Kryptonians are genetically grown into their castes, but bugger if I remember. It's been two years since I saw the movie.

DoPo said:
Regardless, the fetuses were the only means of saving the Kryptonian race - sure, there was a Kryptonian woman and more than one Kryptonian men alive and capable of reproducing, but they can't just repopulate a planet. Not enough genetic diversity there.
Given that their entire species blew up, I think they got off pretty light if a little inbreeding is the worst they have to deal with to repopulate; particularly when the species has the technology to manipulate genes. Unless that technology can only be done in utero and the Magic Juice can't be reproduced and fuck me this movie is stupid! God!

Therumancer said:
[Lex Luthor]'s been rebooted so many times, through so many parallel universes, that I'm not even 100% sure what his current motivation is supposed to be.
In Nu52, I believe he's a human supremacist. Fuck aliens! Dey took urr jobs!