When was the last time Superman was considered DC's lead character?

[The Darknight Detective]

Except briefly when the Batman TV show was on, Supes was #1 pre-COIE. Post-COIE is when things started to turn Bruce's way.

[Truman Burbank]

The simple answer is 1989.

Tim Burton's Batman was a pop-culture phenomenon. Batman Returns, not as much, but still kept things hot. Then Batman: The Animated Series hit (with Batman Forever coming out towards the end of the BTAS run).

Superman's loss of status had little to do with comics; the character has never had the kind of run in visual media and merchandising like Batman did from 1989-95. The comics merely followed the pop culture trend, and while books like The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke influenced the film and cartoon adaptations, the strength of the films and cartoon is what changed things.

[My Two Cents]

In comics is was when Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams starting doing the Batman books and
D C was still clinging to Curt Swan and having Superman appearing in forgettable generic
stories that depended on Lex Luthor appearing in far more than he should have.

[The Darknight Detective]

In comics is was when Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams starting doing the Batman books and
D C was still clinging to Curt Swan and having Superman appearing in forgettable generic
stories that depended on Lex Luthor appearing in far more than he should have.

Supes was still selling more comics during that time, though.

[caj]

Superman took back his #1 status in the 90s with his death and return. Those comics were selling like hotcakes and his death made all the major news outlets. Plus, Clark and Lois getting married was a big deal as well.

I think the Christian Bale Batman movies vs some of the mediocre Superman movies may have shifted it again.

[Adekis]

As Chris Sims once pointed out, the high-profile End of Batman story from the late '80s is Dark Knight Returns and the high profile End of Superman story from the same time period is Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow.

Whatever Happened ends with Superman watching all his friends die, losing his powers, and then going and getting a real job. DKR ends with Batman punching Superman so hard that his own heart explodes, and then revealing it was a fake-out so that he can keep being Batman forever. When you stack those two endings up to each other, it's pretty easy to see why people came away from the '80s thinking that Batman should probably win all their fights.

I actually think that Superman's made some big strides in recent years in terms of how DC treats him, since about 2011 or so. Granted, not sure if it's stood up to Bendis or not, since I stopped reading his runs, but Justice League is still a movie in which Batman says he thinks Superman is "more human" than he is, and in which Superman assists the League in defeating Steppenwolf without breaking a sweat. I call that a step forward.

[superduperman]

I don't think it was any one thing. I think it was a combination of things. DKR and the Batman movie being the two biggest factors. Bet there were other lesser factors that aren't given as much credit. If you look at Byrne's MOS, it was basically an admission that Superman was broken and needed fixing. Whereas you look at Year One and it didn't really change anything about Batman all that much. Even the intro to it says so. The last Reeve's Superman movie was 1987. And it wasn't exactly a big hit. It was the fourth movie in the franchise. Batman came along in 1989 and it was the first movie in the franchise. Batman dominated the movies all through the nineties while Superman got a TV show that made fun of the love triangle concept. Not that it wasn't a popular version but when you have a show whose central gimmick is how silly the basic concept is, that's not exactly telling people to take the character seriously. Batman gets a popular and award winning cartoon; Superman gets a follow up cartoon where his powers get severely nerfed. In the 2000s, Batman gets a hard movie reboot that takes the character seriously. Superman gets a TV show about his teen years filled with angst (I'm saying this as a fan of Smallville but let's not pretend it was high art or anything).

When Superman finally does get a new movie, it's just another retread of the Reeve movies where he comes across as a deadbeat dad. He finally gets a proper reboot and he murders someone his first day out. He's the flying Punisher. Batman gets a cartoon about his protege in the future; Superman gets possessed by Starro for a decade. His second movie out and he's killed by Doomsday. Which was the last time his comics were in the news too. DC had so many opportunities to redeem Superman, they simply chose not to. I just think they like Batman more.

[Jim Kelly]

All that O'Neil and Adams did was establish Batman as a fan favourite in the 1970s--after the backlash against Batman, post Batmania, that nearly killed the brand. But fan favourites didn't count for anything back then. Mass market sales was where it was at. And Adams couldn't meet a monthly deadline. Most of those Batman comics were by Irv Novick and Bob Brown, with Frank Robbins providing a lot of the scripts. O'Neil and Adams both left DC for greener pastures.

Superman was the big seller in the 1970s, with more titles than Batman and most of those titles had a greater frequency. JIMMY OLSEN, LOIS LANE and SUPERGIRL were all rolled into one title, SUPERMAN FAMILY, because that increased the price which made the title more attractive to retailers, as they got a greater mark-up, so they would give it better display.

When the DC Implosion happened in 1978, Warner Books came after the Batman titles, not the Superman titles.

I think that in the 1980s, with mass market sales in decline and the comics publishers able to get more profit per unit from the direct sales shops, they wanted to find the fan favourites--even if they weren't huge sellers in the mass market. So comics featuring Batman, the Warlord, New Teen Titans and Legion of Super-Heroes were fan favourites in the specialty shops. Superman was still a popular character for the mass market (he was a movie star) but he wasn't popular with fanboys. In 1987, DC was going to imprint the mass market comics with the Superman Comics logo, while the direct sales versions would have the DC bullet. This tells me that the Superman brand was still valuable to DC and their best foot forward to the greater populace.

And as already pointed out, in the 1990s, it was the Death of Superman that set sales records. Maybe on the big screen Batman was the preferred item--but I wonder if that isn't simply because of the mismanagement at WB, where they shelved more Superman movies than they made.

[Kuwagaton]

I don’t believe for a second that The Dark Knight Returns was primarily responsible for Batman over-taking Superman as DC’s prime seller/ brand.

One story however good doesn’t have that degree of influence.

I think..for example..the fact that last 30 years the average quality of Batman stories being substantially better than the average Superman story has been far more influential. In that period there have been several really good long Batman runs, and quality rarely drops below good. Against that there has been little top end Superman comics..All Star and naff all else..and a fair amount of dire stuff.

Another factor..maybe...is that more of the present fan base see a “normal” human achieving great things as more intrincally heroic than some one with the powers of a god doing great things.

The comparison to quality is a little dubious because you won't have that many who read both and compared the comics to begin with, and then it's not like sales are directly quality oriented. I always point at Jenkins Dark Knight competing with Morrison Action, or For Tomorrow being the bread winner.

But I can't imagine your second point not being a huge deal. In addition I have to agree with those saying 1989 as the Burton films are my earliest memories and I just remember Batman ruling the world. With the merchandise and cartoon that followed placing him well in a killer competition (Spawn, Ghost Rider, X-Men, Spider-Man, TMNT, etc.) It's a market he was built for and Superman wasn't really.

[Korath]

He was a farmer and a journalist in the New 52. Does that guy strike you as a defender of the status quo?

True, but as I said, it's even easier to let Superman become the protector of the status quo considering his roots. From time to time, someone remembers that he is supposed to be the Man of Tomorrow, but you'll notice that it's rarely well received because it means moving away from the Post-Crisis characterization.

He also cannot do everything for us, or else humanity becomes a joke. He has to strike the delicate balance of helping us and guiding us, and not using a "might equals right" method and enforcing his will upon us, or doing everything to the point of making us completely dependent upon him and worthless on our own. Lex, meanwhile, is an example of humanity who could really create some lasting change for us. But he's a selfish, petty ******* and all around horrible human being, so he wastes his potential.

Just giving humanity access to all that technology when we have a tendency to invent new ways to kill each other seems like a big risk. The Amazons didn't want to give up some of their tech for much the same reasons, as the governments wanting to trade for it (without providing anything of value in return) wanted to use it for military purposes. It would also have threatened their position of neutrality and tipped the balance.

And he still does things like send the Superman Emergency Squad out to help cure kids of cancer, and provide tech to Leo Quintum, so I'm not seeing how he just hordes stuff. Giving it out to trusted sources and within reason seems...reasonable.

Perhaps. But the thousands of lives lost because he doesn't distribute his tech in a way which would prevent peoples like Lex, and the corrupt institutions he is a part of (financial markets, mega-corporations, etc.) from attaining monopoly over techs which could save hundreds of thousands of lives is still on him. And yes, it would mean making sure that the current foundations of all civilizations would have to be overhauled, but it doesn't mean he would need to do that alone, or to impose it. Some of his tech would enable a lot of peoples to have more control over their lives, have more free time and means to actually live and not survive or endure the suffering of the working poor or simple the poor.

Otherwise, he just replace monopoly of the knowledge to some peoples anyway, no matter how well meaning they may seem to be or can be.

More to the point of the thread, I think that Superman lost his superb when the rather clear-cut vision of the 50's, 60's and even 70's from the Western world truly faded and that peoples started to realize that the world was far more complex that what they had believed at first. At that point, Batman was gaining such much needed complexity, while Superman seems to have mostly remained the same (or at least did so longer than Batman). Then, a vicious circle started to appear, with writers/fans pushing for changes which were badly received by the writers/fans who wanted to keep the iconic Superman, which led to the character not developing organically more depth and complexities longer than Batman (or Spider-Man and the X-Men), which diminished his aura, which led to writers/fan wanting more drastic changes, etc.

[Tec15]

The simple answer is 1989.

Tim Burton's Batman was a pop-culture phenomenon. Batman Returns, not as much, but still kept things hot. Then Batman: The Animated Series hit (with Batman Forever coming out towards the end of the BTAS run).

Superman's loss of status had little to do with comics; the character has never had the kind of run in visual media and merchandising like Batman did from 1989-95. The comics merely followed the pop culture trend, and while books like The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke influenced the film and cartoon adaptations, the strength of the films and cartoon is what changed things.

Yep, exactly. Superman was number one till Batman 89. That's the exact point at which he was knocked out of his perch.

[manofsteel1979]

I think that the fact that for a good chunk of the last 30 years there's been this constant drive to "fix" Superman for whatever reason while with Batman there's this "business as usual, keep chugging onward" vibe, really I think speaks volumes.

I think ultimately Warner's/DC's management just prefers Batman over Superman for a myriad of reasons, both in terms of being profitable in terms of media adaptations since 1989 and of course Warner's spent the better part of the 2000's and the 2010's in a protracted copywrite Battle with the heirs of Superman's creators while they owned Batman free and clear with no legal headaches.

[DrNewGod]

..Superman's loss of status had little to do with comics; the character has never had the kind of run in visual media and merchandising like Batman did from 1989-95...

...I think ultimately Warner's/DC's management just prefers Batman over Superman for a myriad of reasons, both in terms of being profitable in terms of media adaptations since 1989 and of course Warner's spent the better part of the 2000's and the 2010's in a protracted copywrite Battle with the heirs of Superman's creators while they owned Batman free and clear with no legal headaches.

These are both crucial points. Pretty clear why WB likes the the guy with the mask better...

[DrNewGod]

...note to mods: not putting this on the Supes forum because it involves Batman as well, and a more diverse array of opinion might be valuable.

...but my judgement may be fallible.

[SiegePerilous02]

True, but as I said, it's even easier to let Superman become the protector of the status quo considering his roots. From time to time, someone remembers that he is supposed to be the Man of Tomorrow, but you'll notice that it's rarely well received because it means moving away from the Post-Crisis characterization.

I really don't see how his roots as a farmer would lead to his being a maintainer of the status quo. Especially as he was invented shortly after the Great Depression.
Neither he nor Lois or really the entire Daily Planet staff are incline to not uncover the truth and report on issues other papers don't want to cover.

I'd happily move away from the Post-Crisis characterization and alterations to the mythos. That era does nothing for me as a whole. But I doubt we went so many years with that era without stories that reflect the Man of Tomorrow approach.

Perhaps. But the thousands of lives lost because he doesn't distribute his tech in a way which would prevent peoples like Lex, and the corrupt institutions he is a part of (financial markets, mega-corporations, etc.) from attaining monopoly over techs which could save hundreds of thousands of lives is still on him. And yes, it would mean making sure that the current foundations of all civilizations would have to be overhauled, but it doesn't mean he would need to do that alone, or to impose it. Some of his tech would enable a lot of peoples to have more control over their lives, have more free time and means to actually live and not survive or endure the suffering of the working poor or simple the poor.

What tech does he have, especially in the post-Crisis era, that you feel he needs to distribute?

More to the point of the thread, I think that Superman lost his superb when the rather clear-cut vision of the 50's, 60's and even 70's from the Western world truly faded and that peoples started to realize that the world was far more complex that what they had believed at first. At that point, Batman was gaining such much needed complexity, while Superman seems to have mostly remained the same (or at least did so longer than Batman). Then, a vicious circle started to appear, with writers/fans pushing for changes which were badly received by the writers/fans who wanted to keep the iconic Superman, which led to the character not developing organically more depth and complexities longer than Batman (or Spider-Man and the X-Men), which diminished his aura, which led to writers/fan wanting more drastic changes, etc.

What's funny is that DC did away with the iconic Superman in the 80s, and replaced him with a much more dialed down version. Unfortunately, this happened like you said when Batman was gaining more momentum. They perceived a problem and then ultimately created the problem and it's hard to untangle it. whereas moving him forward organically would have helped.