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

[Risingblade]

If I put on a batman suit and go punch out a bad guy I'll feel like Batman. If I put on a superman costume and punch out a bad guy I'll feel like a guy in a superman costume.

 

[Czann]

Io9 is (mostly) OK.

People think Batman is more relatable? I can understand.

Who isn't a multibillionaire that can sex up 5 supermodels every night?

 

[deadish]

Io9 is (mostly) OK.

People think Batman is more relatable? I can understand.

Who isn't a multibillionaire that can sex up 5 supermodels every night?

At least he isn't flawless ...

Batman's flaws make him more interesting too.

 

[Lupine]

So can we now finally stop with the whole "Batman is more relatable than Superman because Batman has no powers, he is human like us, Superman is too OP."

Can we finally stop with that excuse now since THIS just recently happened and to comic book readers that are reading the new 52 Spoilers:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/d0z51jpofjkbb9bkbm3v.jpg

(Yes yes I know Gawker Media is the devil, I just linked a Jpeg so you will just see the image and I do not know how to show a whole image in a post)

I'm sorry, you really think it's so odd that people find a human being more repeatable than a literal alien? Putting aside all of the good points made by other people over two pages here, and the many more to come I'm sure, that alone should be enough.

I relate more to batman because we share a species.

Um...yeah. Because the human in said situation might as well be a robot usually for all the emotion he displays and the life he leads and lends to the proceedings. While the alien is pretty much just a regular joe with super powers that he kinda wishes he could get rid of. So literal alien or no, the fact that he looks exactly like a human being, lives as a human, works, and even identifies as a human most of the time...basically it is like trying to argue Star Trek aliens vs terminators. One is obviously more human even if not literally human than the other dressed in human tissue.

Bruce Wayne is no more alien than John Wayne Gacy, John F. Kennedy, Gandhi, Carlos Hathcock, or any of the other notable human outliers. People can be very cold, and training can do amazing things to people. I can't imagine what goes on in the mind of someone who doesn't even share my physiology though, someone who can keep up with The Flash can think like a supercomputer after all. I know how Superman ACTS, but he's truly alien.

Bruce Wayne is just a highly trained operator with a typically traumatic past, lots of money and luck. Superman can turn back time if he's motivated enough, or enslave humanity on a bad day. These are not things a human can ever imagine, and the ability to do things like destroy a planet and all of its life, on a whim, is very alien. No human has ever had that power, never mind that power available in a moment of rage, sorrow, or desperation.

For you Clark is the relatable thing for the character, but for me, it's an act. Clark Kent is his perception of what a human is. It's his facade, not his true self. His true self is a demigod alien who could stomp the planet if he basically wanted to, but doesn't because he's not a dick. Bruce is 100% human, and is basically just a guy with a guilt complex, trying to make the world a better place, the only way he knows how. You seem to be against Bruce because he's basically a 1%'er, and thus is unrelatable, but every representation of him is pretty down to earth, that's why people like him so much.

But Clark Kent was Clark way before his powers emerged and he became superman. He was raised as a human and he still retains the human morality. The idea that superman is some uncomprehending alien God is probably one of the most inaccurate summaries I've ever seen. Even man of Steel had him as a human first (both in history and mindset. He still sacrificed his people to save the earth) you can say that his Clark Kent identity is underused in media, which it is, but for all his power he's still Clark Kent first.

He was raised as a human, but he was never human. You can raise a cat with dogs, and there are some interesting results, but it's never a dog.

You mentioned The Flash in your post. Superman can't turn back time, it is one of those things that the movie came up with for some reason, but The Flash literally can go into the past. He could conquer the world on a bad day, literally tons of beings in the DCU could. So I'm not getting your argument here, powers aren't instantly inhuman in the DCU. There are tons of very human characters in Superman's league and possessing similarly extraordinary gifts; so because Superman was born with them, he's less human than the guys who got them in accidents? Is The Flash not human because of his abilities? Wonder Woman? Wondie was even crafted from clay and imbued with life from the Greek gods and we don't see anyone arguing her humanity.

Similarly, Clark doesn't ACT human, he is human (If you're arguing biology, that's sort of silly because we don't know much of anything about kyrptonian biology and I mean nothing, beyond they physically look human). He's lived all his life on planet Earth, he's been exposed to nothing but human culture for the majority of his life and physically he's similar enough to us that there has never been an issue with his physiology and we're talking a guy that is married and has a sex life. His origin is alien yes, he feels an outsider because he knows that he's an alien and that his people are gone, but just as easily if he'd never known there would probably be very little difference in him as a person or as a character. Clark Kent is Superman, not the other way around. Bruce tried to make himself less human, to run away from his humanity after a fashion because the pain of losing his parents traumatizes him and makes him wary of ever letting anyone so close to him again. You're right that he's as human as the rest of us, but you're wrong in saying that he isn't trying to be inhuman, because he is. He wants to be something strong enough to keep what happened to his parents from ever happening again, and so he's given himself over to that goal, to being more than human because that's what it takes in his mind to reshape the world into something better. By comparison though Superman has always believed in humanity. He believes that people are better than they think they are, he believes that if he's a symbol of hope and stands up, that other people will too. They are both human. The issue however is that only one of them wants to be, and that isn't Batman.

 

[Cicada 5]

So can we now finally stop with the whole "Batman is more relatable than Superman because Batman has no powers, he is human like us, Superman is too OP."

Can we finally stop with that excuse now since THIS just recently happened and to comic book readers that are reading the new 52 Spoilers:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/d0z51jpofjkbb9bkbm3v.jpg

(Yes yes I know Gawker Media is the devil, I just linked a Jpeg so you will just see the image and I do not know how to show a whole image in a post)

I'm sorry, you really think it's so odd that people find a human being more repeatable than a literal alien? Putting aside all of the good points made by other people over two pages here, and the many more to come I'm sure, that alone should be enough.

I relate more to batman because we share a species.

Um...yeah. Because the human in said situation might as well be a robot usually for all the emotion he displays and the life he leads and lends to the proceedings. While the alien is pretty much just a regular joe with super powers that he kinda wishes he could get rid of. So literal alien or no, the fact that he looks exactly like a human being, lives as a human, works, and even identifies as a human most of the time...basically it is like trying to argue Star Trek aliens vs terminators. One is obviously more human even if not literally human than the other dressed in human tissue.

Bruce Wayne is no more alien than John Wayne Gacy, John F. Kennedy, Gandhi, Carlos Hathcock, or any of the other notable human outliers. People can be very cold, and training can do amazing things to people. I can't imagine what goes on in the mind of someone who doesn't even share my physiology though, someone who can keep up with The Flash can think like a supercomputer after all. I know how Superman ACTS, but he's truly alien.

Bruce Wayne is just a highly trained operator with a typically traumatic past, lots of money and luck. Superman can turn back time if he's motivated enough, or enslave humanity on a bad day. These are not things a human can ever imagine, and the ability to do things like destroy a planet and all of its life, on a whim, is very alien. No human has ever had that power, never mind that power available in a moment of rage, sorrow, or desperation.

For you Clark is the relatable thing for the character, but for me, it's an act. Clark Kent is his perception of what a human is. It's his facade, not his true self. His true self is a demigod alien who could stomp the planet if he basically wanted to, but doesn't because he's not a dick. Bruce is 100% human, and is basically just a guy with a guilt complex, trying to make the world a better place, the only way he knows how. You seem to be against Bruce because he's basically a 1%'er, and thus is unrelatable, but every representation of him is pretty down to earth, that's why people like him so much.

But Clark Kent was Clark way before his powers emerged and he became superman. He was raised as a human and he still retains the human morality. The idea that superman is some uncomprehending alien God is probably one of the most inaccurate summaries I've ever seen. Even man of Steel had him as a human first (both in history and mindset. He still sacrificed his people to save the earth) you can say that his Clark Kent identity is underused in media, which it is, but for all his power he's still Clark Kent first.

He was raised as a human, but he was never human. You can raise a cat with dogs, and there are some interesting results, but it's never a dog.

You mentioned The Flash in your post. Superman can't turn back time, it is one of those things that the movie came up with for some reason, but The Flash literally can go into the past. He could conquer the world on a bad day, literally tons of beings in the DCU could. So I'm not getting your argument here, powers aren't instantly inhuman in the DCU. There are tons of very human characters in Superman's league and possessing similarly extraordinary gifts; so because Superman was born with them, he's less human than the guys who got them in accidents? Is The Flash not human because of his abilities? Wonder Woman? Wondie was even crafted from clay and imbued with life from the Greek gods and we don't see anyone arguing her humanity.

Similarly, Clark doesn't ACT human, he is human (If you're arguing biology, that's sort of silly because we don't know much of anything about kyrptonian biology and I mean nothing, beyond they physically look human). He's lived all his life on planet Earth, he's been exposed to nothing but human culture for the majority of his life and physically he's similar enough to us that there has never been an issue with his physiology and we're talking a guy that is married and has a sex life. His origin is alien yes, he feels an outsider because he knows that he's an alien and that his people are gone, but just as easily if he'd never known there would probably be very little difference in him as a person or as a character. Clark Kent is Superman, not the other way around. Bruce tried to make himself less human, to run away from his humanity after a fashion because the pain of losing his parents traumatizes him and makes him wary of ever letting anyone so close to him again. You're right that he's as human as the rest of us, but you're wrong in saying that he isn't trying to be inhuman, because he is. He wants to be something strong enough to keep what happened to his parents from ever happening again, and so he's given himself over to that goal, to being more than human because that's what it takes in his mind to reshape the world into something better. By comparison though Superman has always believed in humanity. He believes that people are better than they think they are, he believes that if he's a symbol of hope and stands up, that other people will too. They are both human. The issue however is that only one of them wants to be, and that isn't Batman.

Actually, some people have argued that Wonder Woman being made from clay makes her inhuman. It was apparently the reason they changed it in the New 52.

But I agree with everything you've said.

 

[Lupine]

So can we now finally stop with the whole "Batman is more relatable than Superman because Batman has no powers, he is human like us, Superman is too OP."

Can we finally stop with that excuse now since THIS just recently happened and to comic book readers that are reading the new 52 Spoilers:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/d0z51jpofjkbb9bkbm3v.jpg

(Yes yes I know Gawker Media is the devil, I just linked a Jpeg so you will just see the image and I do not know how to show a whole image in a post)

I'm sorry, you really think it's so odd that people find a human being more repeatable than a literal alien? Putting aside all of the good points made by other people over two pages here, and the many more to come I'm sure, that alone should be enough.

I relate more to batman because we share a species.

Um...yeah. Because the human in said situation might as well be a robot usually for all the emotion he displays and the life he leads and lends to the proceedings. While the alien is pretty much just a regular joe with super powers that he kinda wishes he could get rid of. So literal alien or no, the fact that he looks exactly like a human being, lives as a human, works, and even identifies as a human most of the time...basically it is like trying to argue Star Trek aliens vs terminators. One is obviously more human even if not literally human than the other dressed in human tissue.

Bruce Wayne is no more alien than John Wayne Gacy, John F. Kennedy, Gandhi, Carlos Hathcock, or any of the other notable human outliers. People can be very cold, and training can do amazing things to people. I can't imagine what goes on in the mind of someone who doesn't even share my physiology though, someone who can keep up with The Flash can think like a supercomputer after all. I know how Superman ACTS, but he's truly alien.

Bruce Wayne is just a highly trained operator with a typically traumatic past, lots of money and luck. Superman can turn back time if he's motivated enough, or enslave humanity on a bad day. These are not things a human can ever imagine, and the ability to do things like destroy a planet and all of its life, on a whim, is very alien. No human has ever had that power, never mind that power available in a moment of rage, sorrow, or desperation.

For you Clark is the relatable thing for the character, but for me, it's an act. Clark Kent is his perception of what a human is. It's his facade, not his true self. His true self is a demigod alien who could stomp the planet if he basically wanted to, but doesn't because he's not a dick. Bruce is 100% human, and is basically just a guy with a guilt complex, trying to make the world a better place, the only way he knows how. You seem to be against Bruce because he's basically a 1%'er, and thus is unrelatable, but every representation of him is pretty down to earth, that's why people like him so much.

But Clark Kent was Clark way before his powers emerged and he became superman. He was raised as a human and he still retains the human morality. The idea that superman is some uncomprehending alien God is probably one of the most inaccurate summaries I've ever seen. Even man of Steel had him as a human first (both in history and mindset. He still sacrificed his people to save the earth) you can say that his Clark Kent identity is underused in media, which it is, but for all his power he's still Clark Kent first.

He was raised as a human, but he was never human. You can raise a cat with dogs, and there are some interesting results, but it's never a dog.

You mentioned The Flash in your post. Superman can't turn back time, it is one of those things that the movie came up with for some reason, but The Flash literally can go into the past. He could conquer the world on a bad day, literally tons of beings in the DCU could. So I'm not getting your argument here, powers aren't instantly inhuman in the DCU. There are tons of very human characters in Superman's league and possessing similarly extraordinary gifts; so because Superman was born with them, he's less human than the guys who got them in accidents? Is The Flash not human because of his abilities? Wonder Woman? Wondie was even crafted from clay and imbued with life from the Greek gods and we don't see anyone arguing her humanity.

Similarly, Clark doesn't ACT human, he is human (If you're arguing biology, that's sort of silly because we don't know much of anything about kyrptonian biology and I mean nothing, beyond they physically look human). He's lived all his life on planet Earth, he's been exposed to nothing but human culture for the majority of his life and physically he's similar enough to us that there has never been an issue with his physiology and we're talking a guy that is married and has a sex life. His origin is alien yes, he feels an outsider because he knows that he's an alien and that his people are gone, but just as easily if he'd never known there would probably be very little difference in him as a person or as a character. Clark Kent is Superman, not the other way around. Bruce tried to make himself less human, to run away from his humanity after a fashion because the pain of losing his parents traumatizes him and makes him wary of ever letting anyone so close to him again. You're right that he's as human as the rest of us, but you're wrong in saying that he isn't trying to be inhuman, because he is. He wants to be something strong enough to keep what happened to his parents from ever happening again, and so he's given himself over to that goal, to being more than human because that's what it takes in his mind to reshape the world into something better. By comparison though Superman has always believed in humanity. He believes that people are better than they think they are, he believes that if he's a symbol of hope and stands up, that other people will too. They are both human. The issue however is that only one of them wants to be, and that isn't Batman.

Actually, some people have argued that Wonder Woman being made from clay makes her inhuman. It was apparently the reason they changed it in the New 52.

But I agree with everything you've said.

You could argue it I guess, it just seems a stupid argument when you look at most Greek myths and hero origins. Besides, I don't know that making her a demi-goddess is such an improvement, sure she's half human now, but before she was a human made through divine means, which some people believe humanity to be anyway...but que sera, sera I guess.

 

[Lupine]

deleted double post.

 

[Cicada 5]

So can we now finally stop with the whole "Batman is more relatable than Superman because Batman has no powers, he is human like us, Superman is too OP."

Can we finally stop with that excuse now since THIS just recently happened and to comic book readers that are reading the new 52 Spoilers:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/d0z51jpofjkbb9bkbm3v.jpg

(Yes yes I know Gawker Media is the devil, I just linked a Jpeg so you will just see the image and I do not know how to show a whole image in a post)

I'm sorry, you really think it's so odd that people find a human being more repeatable than a literal alien? Putting aside all of the good points made by other people over two pages here, and the many more to come I'm sure, that alone should be enough.

I relate more to batman because we share a species.

Um...yeah. Because the human in said situation might as well be a robot usually for all the emotion he displays and the life he leads and lends to the proceedings. While the alien is pretty much just a regular joe with super powers that he kinda wishes he could get rid of. So literal alien or no, the fact that he looks exactly like a human being, lives as a human, works, and even identifies as a human most of the time...basically it is like trying to argue Star Trek aliens vs terminators. One is obviously more human even if not literally human than the other dressed in human tissue.

Bruce Wayne is no more alien than John Wayne Gacy, John F. Kennedy, Gandhi, Carlos Hathcock, or any of the other notable human outliers. People can be very cold, and training can do amazing things to people. I can't imagine what goes on in the mind of someone who doesn't even share my physiology though, someone who can keep up with The Flash can think like a supercomputer after all. I know how Superman ACTS, but he's truly alien.

Bruce Wayne is just a highly trained operator with a typically traumatic past, lots of money and luck. Superman can turn back time if he's motivated enough, or enslave humanity on a bad day. These are not things a human can ever imagine, and the ability to do things like destroy a planet and all of its life, on a whim, is very alien. No human has ever had that power, never mind that power available in a moment of rage, sorrow, or desperation.

For you Clark is the relatable thing for the character, but for me, it's an act. Clark Kent is his perception of what a human is. It's his facade, not his true self. His true self is a demigod alien who could stomp the planet if he basically wanted to, but doesn't because he's not a dick. Bruce is 100% human, and is basically just a guy with a guilt complex, trying to make the world a better place, the only way he knows how. You seem to be against Bruce because he's basically a 1%'er, and thus is unrelatable, but every representation of him is pretty down to earth, that's why people like him so much.

But Clark Kent was Clark way before his powers emerged and he became superman. He was raised as a human and he still retains the human morality. The idea that superman is some uncomprehending alien God is probably one of the most inaccurate summaries I've ever seen. Even man of Steel had him as a human first (both in history and mindset. He still sacrificed his people to save the earth) you can say that his Clark Kent identity is underused in media, which it is, but for all his power he's still Clark Kent first.

He was raised as a human, but he was never human. You can raise a cat with dogs, and there are some interesting results, but it's never a dog.

You mentioned The Flash in your post. Superman can't turn back time, it is one of those things that the movie came up with for some reason, but The Flash literally can go into the past. He could conquer the world on a bad day, literally tons of beings in the DCU could. So I'm not getting your argument here, powers aren't instantly inhuman in the DCU. There are tons of very human characters in Superman's league and possessing similarly extraordinary gifts; so because Superman was born with them, he's less human than the guys who got them in accidents? Is The Flash not human because of his abilities? Wonder Woman? Wondie was even crafted from clay and imbued with life from the Greek gods and we don't see anyone arguing her humanity.

Similarly, Clark doesn't ACT human, he is human (If you're arguing biology, that's sort of silly because we don't know much of anything about kyrptonian biology and I mean nothing, beyond they physically look human). He's lived all his life on planet Earth, he's been exposed to nothing but human culture for the majority of his life and physically he's similar enough to us that there has never been an issue with his physiology and we're talking a guy that is married and has a sex life. His origin is alien yes, he feels an outsider because he knows that he's an alien and that his people are gone, but just as easily if he'd never known there would probably be very little difference in him as a person or as a character. Clark Kent is Superman, not the other way around. Bruce tried to make himself less human, to run away from his humanity after a fashion because the pain of losing his parents traumatizes him and makes him wary of ever letting anyone so close to him again. You're right that he's as human as the rest of us, but you're wrong in saying that he isn't trying to be inhuman, because he is. He wants to be something strong enough to keep what happened to his parents from ever happening again, and so he's given himself over to that goal, to being more than human because that's what it takes in his mind to reshape the world into something better. By comparison though Superman has always believed in humanity. He believes that people are better than they think they are, he believes that if he's a symbol of hope and stands up, that other people will too. They are both human. The issue however is that only one of them wants to be, and that isn't Batman.

Actually, some people have argued that Wonder Woman being made from clay makes her inhuman. It was apparently the reason they changed it in the New 52.

But I agree with everything you've said.

You could argue it I guess, it just seems a stupid argument when you look at most Greek myths and hero origins. Besides, I don't know that making her a demi-goddess is such an improvement, sure she's half human now, but before she was a human made through divine means, which some people believe humanity to be anyway...but que sera, sera I guess.

I agree with what you say. I was just pointing something out.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I didn't even know that this was a thing. But now that you mentioned it, he's definitely more relatable than Superman.

Its because of that attitude is why we don't get any good Non Batman DC content. Name one GOOD Wonder Woman, Green Latern, and Flash comic book right out of your head?

Batman monoplized DC's attention. Batman sadly has become the face of DC when really it should be Superman.

Seeing Batman in the center of a Justice League group shot is just wrong.

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/68/6896/NNTJ100Z/posters/justice-league-of-america-generations-group-team-comic-poster.jpg

Personally, I'd say that we don't get any good non-Batman DC content because DC is pretty terrible at creating good, relateable characters, Batman included. He just happens to be the most flawed, and therefore, most resembling human character they have, so he's slightly more interesting than the rest of them and therefore, the only one who has any kind of widespread appeal because the rest of them just come off as bland, one-dimensional flawless do-gooders with superpowers and no human qualities. At least, that's always how they were portrayed in all the cartoons and everything I've seen them in. The comics themselves may do better, but DC totally failed at making marketable, appealing cartoons until Batman the Animated Series and by the time they started trying as hard or harder with their other characters, they already lost any interest I may have had in them.

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.

 

[Cicada 5]

I didn't even know that this was a thing. But now that you mentioned it, he's definitely more relatable than Superman.

Its because of that attitude is why we don't get any good Non Batman DC content. Name one GOOD Wonder Woman, Green Latern, and Flash comic book right out of your head?

Batman monoplized DC's attention. Batman sadly has become the face of DC when really it should be Superman.

Seeing Batman in the center of a Justice League group shot is just wrong.

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/68/6896/NNTJ100Z/posters/justice-league-of-america-generations-group-team-comic-poster.jpg

Personally, I'd say that we don't get any good non-Batman DC content because DC is pretty terrible at creating good, relateable characters, Batman included. He just happens to be the most flawed, and therefore, most resembling human character they have, so he's slightly more interesting than the rest of them and therefore, the only one who has any kind of widespread appeal because the rest of them just come off as bland, one-dimensional flawless do-gooders with superpowers and no human qualities. At least, that's always how they were portrayed in all the cartoons and everything I've seen them in. The comics themselves may do better, but DC totally failed at making marketable, appealing cartoons until Batman the Animated Series and by the time they started trying as hard or harder with their other characters, they already lost any interest I may have had in them.

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.

Let's also not forget Static Shock, Young Justice, Teen Titans, and numerous DC animated movies (before the New 52 anyway).

 

[gorfias]

Seeing Batman in the center of a Justice League group shot is just wrong.

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/68/6896/NNTJ100Z/posters/justice-league-of-america-generations-group-team-comic-poster.jpg

You have a great point. Batman really shouldn't even be in the league. I loved in the Kingdom Come books, he is snarky to Superman until finally asking, "what do you expect me to do against Super Threats?" Course that makes him relate-able. It was also good, credible writing that we do not have in things like Batman vs. Superman (Superman has super speed. He would dissect Batman into tiny rodent bits before Batman even knew he was in a fight.)

This kind of says why:

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Seeing Batman in the center of a Justice League group shot is just wrong.

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/68/6896/NNTJ100Z/posters/justice-league-of-america-generations-group-team-comic-poster.jpg

You have a great point. Batman really shouldn't even be in the league. I loved in the Kingdom Come books, he is snarky to Superman until finally asking, "what do you expect me to do against Super Threats?" Course that makes him relate-able. It was also good, credible writing that we do not have in things like Batman vs. Superman (Superman has super speed. He would dissect Batman into tiny rodent bits before Batman even knew he was in a fight.)

This kind of says why:

Anyone expecting Batman and Superman to only duke it out and remain enemies at the end of the movie are fooling themselves.

We all know they won't do that because Comic Stories are Predictable. Yes even Marvel.

Especially when they come out and say that they are making so many planned sequals.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I didn't even know that this was a thing. But now that you mentioned it, he's definitely more relatable than Superman.

Its because of that attitude is why we don't get any good Non Batman DC content. Name one GOOD Wonder Woman, Green Latern, and Flash comic book right out of your head?

Batman monoplized DC's attention. Batman sadly has become the face of DC when really it should be Superman.

Seeing Batman in the center of a Justice League group shot is just wrong.

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/68/6896/NNTJ100Z/posters/justice-league-of-america-generations-group-team-comic-poster.jpg

Personally, I'd say that we don't get any good non-Batman DC content because DC is pretty terrible at creating good, relateable characters, Batman included. He just happens to be the most flawed, and therefore, most resembling human character they have, so he's slightly more interesting than the rest of them and therefore, the only one who has any kind of widespread appeal because the rest of them just come off as bland, one-dimensional flawless do-gooders with superpowers and no human qualities. At least, that's always how they were portrayed in all the cartoons and everything I've seen them in. The comics themselves may do better, but DC totally failed at making marketable, appealing cartoons until Batman the Animated Series and by the time they started trying as hard or harder with their other characters, they already lost any interest I may have had in them.

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.

Let's also not forget Static Shock, Young Justice, Teen Titans, and numerous DC animated movies (before the New 52 anyway).

I highly question whether the New 52 is BAD as everyone makes it out to be. Just because a few comic issues was bad (like the whole Starfire controversy) does not represent the WHOLE relaunch. I bought the first 6 issues of Justice League New 52 and it was alright.

 

[happyninja42]

Anyone expecting Batman and Superman to only duke it out and remain enemies at the end of the movie are fooling themselves.

We all know they won't do that because Comic Stories are Predictable. Yes even Marvel.

Especially when they come out and say that they are making so many planned sequals.

I'm pretty sure the movie is going to boil down to this:

*Opening scene, and everything up to about 15 minutes left in the movie*

Batman: I hate superman!
Superman: I hate batman!
*Fight fight fight*

*15 minutes left*

Batman and Superman: Oh shit! Doomsday is here! We should probably fight him!
Wonder Woman: Hey! I'm in this movie too guys! And I'm just as capable as you men!
B&S: Ok!

*Fight fight fight*
B&S&W: We won! Hey we should be friends and form a bowling league!
*End credits*

I'm not terribly optimistic for this movie as you can tell. :/

 

[JimB]

Yeah, is it any shock people tend to find the angry, violent loner more relatable than the guy who is an embodiment of nobility?

You want to defeat Batman? Put a psychiatrist in front of him with a handful of Prozac. That's the end of the caped crusader.

I think Batman is more relate-able to the masses because Batman stopped growing at one moment in life. The fear of moving on, of growing even through undesirable circumstances is very in-tune with the modern, self centered society. "I was hurt, life must pay" type of thinking.

Clark Kent never lived on Krypton, he may not be a homo sapiens, but he's an earthling all the same.

Batman, on the other hand, has embezzled billions of dollars from his own company, gotten multiple children killed and crippled, has inadvertently created several super villains, and to when end? To make either a negative, or zero difference in one city.

Our hero, everyone.

This forum really needs some kind of Like feature.


I mean, honestly. Batman has infinite money, infinite intelligence, infinite physical stamina (you simply cannot do all the shit he does day and night without dropping dead from pure sleep deprivation), is the best martial artist in the world, is the best actor in the world, is probably the best acrobat in the world, but somehow still counts as human? Because he's pissed off, I guess? I'm sorry, but Batman stopped being relatable to me years ago when I outgrew my teenage angst and took my the Crow posters off the wall. Batman is, quite frankly, as dangerous a villain as anyone he punches the shit out of and throws into Arkham, because he has the tools to help raise people out of the state in Gotham that drives them to crime (seriously, can you imagine how desperate for money you'd have to be to go apply for a job with the Joker?), and instead refuses to alter the status quo so he can keep punching the shit out of people.

That so many people keep mentioning Batman's flaws as a source of relatability while saying that being good makes Superman boring vaguely worries me in its implications. I can relate to Superman because I know I can be better and do better, and Superman gives me something to aspire to; do the people who "relate" to Batman aspire to his level of selfishness, childishness, and myopia? Do they aspire to substitute violence for justice the way Batman does? I suppose there's very little harm done if so--we can all probably agree that no one who tries to emulate Batman is going to do so more effectively than making unironic YouTube videos of themselves scream-singing "DARKNESS! NO PARENTS!"--but still. Kind of a bummer to think about.

I find Superman more relatable than Batman because I want to be more like Superman, not in his powers but in the way he comports himself; whereas I have the potential to possess Batman's powers, yet am purely contemptuous of him for the way he mishandles them.

At least [Superman] isn't flawless.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say I get a little worried by these discussions. Superman is flawed. He is totally flawed. He simply can't save everyone; despite him being on watch, people still suffer and die. Villains still rob and kill; diseases still ravage the poor; children in Africa still starve; women are still honor-raped and honor-murdered in the Middle East. Even within the context of his own stories, he fails. The thing is, Superman at least tries, and he keeps trying; but somehow, refusing to give up or to be apathetic makes him flawless, boring, and worthy of being dismissed. It's a very damning indictment, but not of Superman.

 

[happyninja42]

At least [Superman] isn't flawless.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say I get a little worried by these discussions. Superman is flawed. He is totally flawed. He simply can't save everyone; despite him being on watch, people still suffer and die. Villains still rob and kill; diseases still ravage the poor; children in Africa still starve; women are still honor-raped and honor-murdered in the Middle East. Even within the context of his own stories, he fails. The thing is, Superman at least tries, and he keeps trying; but somehow, refusing to give up or to be apathetic makes him flawless, boring, and worthy of being dismissed. It's a very damning indictment, but not of Superman.

That's not a character flaw. Being sad that you can't stop all crime in the world is simply an emotional state based on reality. A character flaw would be he is a paragon of virtue and nobility, but has a gambling habit. A flaw would be him constantly stopping drug dealers and shutting down cartels, but has a vice for some form of alien chemical that makes him feel good. "Gosh I'm sad because I can't save everyone" isn't a character flaw.

Is he petty? Is he vindictive? Is he selfish? Is he prone to fits of anger and rage, and outbursts that are unwarranted based on the situation? Can you name a single negative trait of his personality or behavior? No? Then he's flawless.

I would normally say "The fact that he lives a double life, and willingly lies to the people he cares about" would be considered a serious character flaw. In anything other than superhero stories, it is considered one. Characters with double lives are almost universally portrayed as being less than virtuous by behaving that way. And by the end of the story, they almost always give up the double life, come clean, and have a better, happier existence as a result. But that doesn't work in superhero stories. The "my enemies will target the people I love to hurt me" is a very legitimate concern, that is verified over and over. So even that isn't a flaw.

 

[JimB]

That's not a character flaw. Being sad that you can't stop all crime in the world is simply an emotional state based on reality.

I didn't say anything about being sad. I said there are limits to the amount of good he can do. He is not perfect; therefore he is flawed.

Can you name a single negative trait of his personality or behavior?

Depends. Which creative team's take on which continuity of the character are we talking about?

 

[Loonyyy]

At least [Superman] isn't flawless.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say I get a little worried by these discussions. Superman is flawed. He is totally flawed. He simply can't save everyone; despite him being on watch, people still suffer and die. Villains still rob and kill; diseases still ravage the poor; children in Africa still starve; women are still honor-raped and honor-murdered in the Middle East. Even within the context of his own stories, he fails. The thing is, Superman at least tries, and he keeps trying; but somehow, refusing to give up or to be apathetic makes him flawless, boring, and worthy of being dismissed. It's a very damning indictment, but not of Superman.

That's not a character flaw. Being sad that you can't stop all crime in the world is simply an emotional state based on reality. A character flaw would be he is a paragon of virtue and nobility, but has a gambling habit. A flaw would be him constantly stopping drug dealers and shutting down cartels, but has a vice for some form of alien chemical that makes him feel good. "Gosh I'm sad because I can't save everyone" isn't a character flaw.

Is he petty? Is he vindictive? Is he selfish? Is he prone to fits of anger and rage, and outbursts that are unwarranted based on the situation? Can you name a single negative trait of his personality or behavior? No? Then he's flawless.

I would normally say "The fact that he lives a double life, and willingly lies to the people he cares about" would be considered a serious character flaw. In anything other than superhero stories, it is considered one. Characters with double lives are almost universally portrayed as being less than virtuous by behaving that way. And by the end of the story, they almost always give up the double life, come clean, and have a better, happier existence as a result. But that doesn't work in superhero stories. The "my enemies will target the people I love to hurt me" is a very legitimate concern, that is verified over and over. So even that isn't a flaw.

I feel it's more a refute to the typical "Superman always wins" bit. There's always someone (Lots of someones) who say that Superman is not relateable or is boring, because Superman is well, Superman.

But that's the thing, Superman does lose. He's got weaknesses, he's got nemesis who plague him, and in the end, he does lose some, and he can't save everyone. Like just about every other Superhero. Including Batman. Like Batman, he also ends up coming out on top in basically every one of his stories, like pretty much every superhero. People don't have this problem with Wolverine, Batman, or any number of other heroes. Many people have noted that Batman has the strongest plot armour of almost any fictional character, and somehow gets to play on the same field as gods among men like Superman, Flash, Green Lantern, despite being a man, without any real powers. The people saying these things largely aren't even reading the comics, they have no familiarity with them. They're just arguing archetypes and stereotypes, because that's what these characters are at this point.

Superman stands for a certain set of values. So what? Why does he need to have fits of anger and rage, why does he need outburts, why does he need a gambling problem? What does that add to his character? Yeah, he's a boy scout, that's kind of the point. At the end of the day, Batman's flaws are no more challenging. Woo, occassionally goes overboard on people who are usually mass murderers. Come on, we can all empathise with that. If anything, doing the right thing is more challenging there. You have to do a lot of fridge logic to really marr his character, and point out that he could totally solve crime in Gotham with just his money and technology.

Neither of them really change that much over time as characters. Things happen to them, they do things, they have arcs, but comics aren't about real change. Nobody gets to grow much, and that's the most damning thing you can say about either of their character. For what it's worth, I think that not growing from Christ-figure with heroic and noble sensibilities is more admirable than not growing from death in the family (Not an in joke) for 50 years.

 

[happyninja42]

That's not a character flaw. Being sad that you can't stop all crime in the world is simply an emotional state based on reality.

I didn't say anything about being sad. I said there are limits to the amount of good he can do. He is not perfect; therefore he is flawed.

Sorry but no, that's not a character flaw in the context of story structure. It's not a negative aspect of his personality or behavior, that's simply a limitation to his abilities, something every character has. And the fact that his limitation is restricted to "He can't save everyone" is pretty telling in that he doesn't have anything negative going on.

Can you name a single negative trait of his personality or behavior?

Depends. Which creative team's take on which continuity of the character are we talking about?

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!" Basically the fans reinforcing the idea that he shouldn't show any negative traits. 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.

At least [Superman] isn't flawless.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say I get a little worried by these discussions. Superman is flawed. He is totally flawed. He simply can't save everyone; despite him being on watch, people still suffer and die. Villains still rob and kill; diseases still ravage the poor; children in Africa still starve; women are still honor-raped and honor-murdered in the Middle East. Even within the context of his own stories, he fails. The thing is, Superman at least tries, and he keeps trying; but somehow, refusing to give up or to be apathetic makes him flawless, boring, and worthy of being dismissed. It's a very damning indictment, but not of Superman.

That's not a character flaw. Being sad that you can't stop all crime in the world is simply an emotional state based on reality. A character flaw would be he is a paragon of virtue and nobility, but has a gambling habit. A flaw would be him constantly stopping drug dealers and shutting down cartels, but has a vice for some form of alien chemical that makes him feel good. "Gosh I'm sad because I can't save everyone" isn't a character flaw.

Is he petty? Is he vindictive? Is he selfish? Is he prone to fits of anger and rage, and outbursts that are unwarranted based on the situation? Can you name a single negative trait of his personality or behavior? No? Then he's flawless.

I would normally say "The fact that he lives a double life, and willingly lies to the people he cares about" would be considered a serious character flaw. In anything other than superhero stories, it is considered one. Characters with double lives are almost universally portrayed as being less than virtuous by behaving that way. And by the end of the story, they almost always give up the double life, come clean, and have a better, happier existence as a result. But that doesn't work in superhero stories. The "my enemies will target the people I love to hurt me" is a very legitimate concern, that is verified over and over. So even that isn't a flaw.

I feel it's more a refute to the typical "Superman always wins" bit. There's always someone (Lots of someones) who say that Superman is not relateable or is boring, because Superman is well, Superman.

But that's the thing, Superman does lose. He's got weaknesses, he's got nemesis who plague him, and in the end, he does lose some, and he can't save everyone. Like just about every other Superhero. Including Batman. Like Batman, he also ends up coming out on top in basically every one of his stories, like pretty much every superhero. People don't have this problem with Wolverine, Batman, or any number of other heroes. Many people have noted that Batman has the strongest plot armour of almost any fictional character, and somehow gets to play on the same field as gods among men like Superman, Flash, Green Lantern, despite being a man, without any real powers. The people saying these things largely aren't even reading the comics, they have no familiarity with them. They're just arguing archetypes and stereotypes, because that's what these characters are at this point.

Superman stands for a certain set of values. So what? Why does he need to have fits of anger and rage, why does he need outburts, why does he need a gambling problem? What does that add to his character? Yeah, he's a boy scout, that's kind of the point. At the end of the day, Batman's flaws are no more challenging. Woo, occassionally goes overboard on people who are usually mass murderers. Come on, we can all empathise with that. If anything, doing the right thing is more challenging there. You have to do a lot of fridge logic to really marr his character, and point out that he could totally solve crime in Gotham with just his money and technology.

Neither of them really change that much over time as characters. Things happen to them, they do things, they have arcs, but comics aren't about real change. Nobody gets to grow much, and that's the most damning thing you can say about either of their character. For what it's worth, I think that not growing from Christ-figure with heroic and noble sensibilities is more admirable than not growing from death in the family (Not an in joke) for 50 years.

Again, having a weakness, specifically kryptonite in this case, isn't the same as a character flaw. Every superhero has something that limits their powers, it's called dramatic tension. If the hero has absolutely zero risk of failure or injury, then there is no tension in the story. The person I quoted, that you quoted me responding to, was talking about flaws in Superman. I was pointing out that character flaws are negative aspects of a character's personality/behavior, that directly contradict, and conflict with his overall narrative arc. It is an aspect of themselves they must overcome, to struggle against to try and be a better person. Kryptonite is not a character flaw. Fighting someone who is stronger than you and losing, isn't a character flaw. What would be a character flaw in that example, would be if Superman then became obsessed with getting stronger, so that he never lost again, and took dangerous risks to try and gain more power. Possibly putting his own health/sanity, or the safety of those around him at risk to accomplish his goals. Pride, ambition in this example. Or, in that recent DC fighting game, Gods Among Us I think it was called? Where Superman

Spoiler

basically went evil because of his grief over the loss of Lois Lane, and decided to become a totalitarian dictator of the planet as a reaction. Or at least I think that was the gist of it? I haven't personally played it, but I saw a decent chunk of a Let's Play of it, and that seemed to be the thrust of the storyline.

Those are flaws.

And depending on who is writing the character, he might have a story that includes that, with 60+ years of literature, and dozens of different writers, some variation will pop up, I don't deny that. But the fans apparently cannot stand this, and lose their shit over "mis-representing Superman". I have no problem in theory with Superman being the proverbial boyscout, and I in fact like Superman. But please don't try and say he has flaws, when he clearly doesn't. Not as his most archetypal representation.

And just to clarify, I said nothing about "Superman always wins". Victory in battle isn't what I'm talking about.