Is Batman more popular than Superman?

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

That's incorrect. Batman 89 started out - in the late 1970s, in fact - as a straight adaptation of the Englehart / Rogers run. After reading it, Michael Uslan bought the rights from DC, and shopped it for 6-7 years.
They even brought in Tom Mankiewicz from the Donner Superman films to script:



In the mid-80s, they even brought in Englehart as a script consultant. But when Tim Burton signed on, he hired his own writers to change it around, and renamed the love interest from Silver St. Cloud to Vicki Vale.

Also, Batman TAS adapted a couple of Englehart's stories, and based a few on O'Neil / Adams as well.

Okay, I can concede that, but again, how is any of that evidence that they can't do the same for Superman? How does that get to the central point that Superman is harder to adapt?

You haven't really made an argument that establishes why they can't just adapt some of the more classic Superman stories. And if the argument is that Superman stories are too far out there or fantastical, well, I'd say that the MCU shows that audiences are more than willing to accept out-there and fantastical stories. I mean, if they can basically adapt Planet Hulk in all its outlandishness and the Infinity Gauntlet storyline, then I find it hard to believe that something like "What's So Funny About Truth Justice and the American Way" or "For the Man Who Has Everything" is too out there for moviegoers.

And on top of that, famous Superman stories have already been adapted. Again, Death of Superman basically inspired BvS and was also adapted in the Justice League animated series. For the Man Who Has Everything was also adapted in Justice League Unlimited.

[manwhohaseverything]

Not even sure what you're arguing here. As said, they did try other characters.

That dc generally doesn't have the balanced approach to making products look good for conception. This has always been my point. Never. In its publication history. They always leeched of from one or two characters. Didn't much care for others.

No, they didn't try. The current slate of dc show being tried is only because of marvel.Not because of their in-built working policy. That's what i am saying.They picked a random black character because of shaq being available.They made that movie not because they believe in it or the product. It failed. Never to be tried,again.meanwhile,daredevil didn't do good with a movie. So, they decided to make series out of it and other ips. They never stop using an ip and are always expanding to make characters familiar to the audience. Thor got revamped for the third installment. Hulk was changed as well. That's the fundamental difference. Your "they tried, didn't work" Isn't enough. The studio needs to make it work. Otherwise, they aren't doing their job well capitalising the ips to gain maximum profit out of them.

Furthermore, Marvel don't generally have their ips eat each other. Batman has eaten superman as a brand. When cap and iron man fights, both are in their rights or wrongs. DC generally turns superman into a punching bag mustache-twirler villain starting from darkknight returns. Why was portrayal of another valuable ip allowed like that? is being continued to be allowed? Injustice. why was that being approved?There is a reason thor and hulk competition is always encouraged. But, never made clear.Sure enough, they have their problems as well. But generally, they don't allow for an ip to eat another ip.There might some exceptions. But generally, it doesn't happen.

Their movies(marvel) were at best, where decent. The selling point was credit sequences, the crossover and build up, which caused the boom.they steadily built it while dc didn't. How is batman v superman? Nobatman character, oh! yeah! It had wonder woman. I had told you this wasn't just about the toyline. Those regarding superman are my personal opinion regarding the character. Since, you were claiming that i was bitter.i am to a degree. After that, i don't much care. That had nothing to do with critic of their fundamental policy . Anyways, have good day.

[Agent Z]

Yeah! I brought up all those characters. Why? Because this idea that a superman-esque action hero is hard to write is bogus. Furthermore, only to say that superman-esque characters can be used to tell different types of stories. Let's examine shall we.

One punch man might be a deconstruction. But, he is very much an idea that could have been pulled of with superman. So, superman is vacuum of dead ideas is bogus. What do you mean by nothing like superman? They both where wierd as costumes and fight because of a core instinct. One is altruism and the other is existential boredom. They are both flat arc(will not change). High powerlevels. They are both unadulterated heroes.

Saitama only resembles Superman in the most superficial of ways. You cannot just do any Superman story with Saitama and vice versa.

It doesn't matter. Deku also has all powers similar to clark (for the most part. If he learns other abilities of his previous users it would be different). Durability, strength, speed, agility and jumping ability . And yes, superman is agile. These guys just use him like a brick is all. Deku isn't a flat arc character like superman and allmight himself. But, superman-esque abilities can be protrayed excitingly is shown with both all might and deku. Furthermore, all three of these dudes are actual strongmen, share the basic ethic and same philosophy. "do the work that matters to get stronger"

Again, square peg in a round hole. Deku is very different from Clark in terms of personality and powers. He is incredibly limited in what he can do compared to Clark and has weaknesses Clark lacks.

What a fantastic observation. You do understand some characters aren't supposed to change fron the start.You don't expect sherlock holmes or james bond or tintin to change. do you? People actually like goku as he is. They don't need to cater to people that don't. They need to find new people to like goku as he is. He is an amazing flat arc character. Btw, goku has changed. He has become more excepting of saiyan side. As for not facing consequences, what consequences did he not face? As if goku didn't get schooled for sending gohan into battle and die protecting him. Furthermore, it's treated like joke. Because guess what? The franchise isn't about family drama. It's about big bam fights, planet busting action.. Etc. If you don't like the franchise, that doesnÂ’t mean the franchise is bad. It just means the franchise isn't for you. Goku another flat arc character like superman. Same origin. He is about perfecting a craft and pushing your limit. Dedicating your whole life to that craft. Even at the cost of personal life. Yes! Many atheletes have chose their career over personal life. Because being at the pinnacle always comes at a cost.

I feel like I'd be parroting myself but again, Superman is not Goku. the focus of their respective stories are very different.

As for ichigo, what development did you want from the character?the character learned fight without hating someone. Isn't that a development? (i don't remember much of bleach) and that was after the first arc. Ichigo had development, he was never a flat arc character.

Sunofdarkchild's point isn't that Ichigo never had development, it's that he stopped having any development after the rescue Rukia arc.

Another flat arc character, that will never change. Because he doesn't have to. It's not about him. It's about his world. Something all these characters have in common. These guys are purest forms of ideal, that get stuck in a world that is blurred or stands against the ideal or philosophy of the protagonist . That doesn't mean these characters aren't flawed. They all are, it is when these characters lose their fundamental sins through "development" that these characters lose their humanity and become saints.

Superman is not a flat character.

Finally, making him relatable wasn't the problem Nor was the man of steel's darker asthetic.Byrne reboot just focused on clark kent, not kal el or superman.it didn't make superman relatable. It made him drama centric wet towel, with no sense of leadership. Man of steel had its share of pacing problems and same problems as byrne reboot. Clark was never incharge of a situation and actually being a heroic protagonist.The only exception to that is flight. Which was universally embraced. Tell me, was bruce wayne non-heroic in darkknight trilogy. "they will send the dogs on him. Cause, he can take it". That is heroic as heck. I would comply that superman fandom has its share of idiosyncrasies. But, this idea that its more than any other fandom.And that they are more rigid is something you need to prove. Why? Cause superman is the most changed character. Batman doesn't come close. He is the most revamped and rebooted character. They have changed him again and again from scratch.

Saying Clark wasn't heroic in Man of Steel is an annoying inaccuracy people who hate it keep spouting. The first thing we see him do as an adult saving a group of oil workers the helicopters missed. From there we see him saving kids in a flashback, standing up for a co-worker when she is being sexually harassed, saving Lois from a Kryptonian ship's security system and fighting against the Kryptonian invasion. "Being in charge of a situation" has nothing to do with being a hero and is antithetical to conflict. A hero who is in charge of a situation is by definition not being challenged.

Development or change doesn't make a character complex or interesting.

Yes, it does. I cannot believe you actually said without a hint of irony. A person who does not develop or change is by definition not interesting. Didn't you say Goku also changed?

That's precisely why toriyama felt it difficult to write gohan as the protagonist. It would be another great hero story. As you know, goku was never a hero. He is obsessed with fighting and bushido ethics. He is a warrior by nature. He wasn't fighting for truth and justice or whatever nonsense. Why? If you want that kinda drama, watch smallville and spiderman. Dragon ball is about martial arts, comedy and fights, Not high school drama.Even with that, toriyama wrote gohan as saiyaman - paradoying superheroes and superman , his love life with videl. If you want another with "great power comes, great drama". Read spiderman. Don't read dragon ball and wish for it to be spiderman.

Congratulations. You just pointed out why modeling Superman on a character like this does not work.

[sunofdarkchild]

I see I should have been more specific when talking about Goku. I said he has had 0 development in decades over hundreds of episodes, and that remains true. The last time he had any development was during the Cell arc, nearly 3 decades ago. He's now a grandfather who continues to act like a little kid.

I have no idea where this idea that Superman is supposed to be a flat arc character comes from. Pretty much all the great Superman stories involve him growing as a character. All Star is about him coming to terms with his own mortality despite being an immortal Superman. Must there be a Superman has him questioning his place in the world. For the Man who has Everything has him coming to terms with the loss of Krypton. Kingdom Come has him coming to understand humanity

[Kuwagaton]

Superman and Batman are both characters where people either argue that they've changed too much or are very close to what they original were. For Superman that usually goes with either not being what he once was or is too stagnant, while for Batman it means how adaptable he is or how they haven't fixed what wasn't broken.

This "flat arc" thing seems to broadly mean that they resemble their original form. Popeye, Goku, Superman, Batman... pretty much every serial character is defined by change unless they're specifically designed as unchanging. Like how it's the whole premise of One Punch Man, how he changed so much that now he's unchanging.

Okay, I can concede that, but again, how is any of that evidence that they can't do the same for Superman? How does that get to the central point that Superman is harder to adapt?

If Englehart didn't make it to the final version (they did use Vicki Vale, not his St Cloud) I'm not even sure it would be called easier to adapt anyway.

You haven't really made an argument that establishes why they can't just adapt some of the more classic Superman stories. And if the argument is that Superman stories are too far out there or fantastical, well, I'd say that the MCU shows that audiences are more than willing to accept out-there and fantastical stories. I mean, if they can basically adapt Planet Hulk in all its outlandishness and the Infinity Gauntlet storyline, then I find it hard to believe that something like "What's So Funny About Truth Justice and the American Way" or "For the Man Who Has Everything" is too out there for moviegoers.

And on top of that, famous Superman stories have already been adapted. Again, Death of Superman basically inspired BvS and was also adapted in the Justice League animated series. For the Man Who Has Everything was also adapted in Justice League Unlimited.

And the Superman cartoon show was every bit as comic inspired as the Batman one.

I think the movie people might start to unclench at WB on the idea of "too out there." Of all things an insanely "comic book" story like Spider Verse had been met with commercial and critical acclaim.

It annoyed me at first that Ragnarok used a Hulk story for Thor (both characters really were prevented from being "out there" by their movies at first, even with so many classics between them) but it's worse to me thinking how easily Ragnarok could have been Exile instead.

Superman had over two thousand stories, I'm pretty sure that's enough source material to make a few good movies.

[manwhohaseverything]

Saitama only resembles Superman in the most superficial of ways. You cannot just do any Superman story with Saitama and vice versa.



Again, square peg in a round hole. Deku is very different from Clark in terms of personality and powers. He is incredibly limited in what he can do compared to Clark and has weaknesses Clark lacks.



I feel like I'd be parroting myself but again, Superman is not Goku. the focus of their respective stories are very different.



Sunofdarkchild's point isn't that Ichigo never had development, it's that he stopped having any development after the rescue Rukia arc.



Superman is not a flat character.




Saying Clark wasn't heroic in Man of Steel is an annoying inaccuracy people who hate it keep spouting. The first thing we see him do as an adult saving a group of oil workers the helicopters missed. From there we see him saving kids in a flashback, standing up for a co-worker when she is being sexually harassed, saving Lois from a Kryptonian ship's security system and fighting against the Kryptonian invasion. "Being in charge of a situation" has nothing to do with being a hero and is antithetical to conflict. A hero who is in charge of a situation is by definition not being challenged.


Yes, it does. I cannot believe you actually said without a hint of irony. A person who does not develop or change is by definition not interesting. Didn't you say Goku also changed?



Congratulations. You just pointed out why modeling Superman on a character like this does not work.

Well, that's funny.Since when has superman been the same?do you actually believe superman in the 40s or 70s and current one have same characteristics. No, they don't. It isn't just superficial.You might believe so. But, both are just dude with unlimited powers doing what they please. There are hundreds of versions of superman.So, anyone could have come up a world where clark is just essentially bored to death with his own invincibility.Superman has never shyed away from parodying itself or comedy. There character has a long history.

Nope! Mate. They have same powers. Want me to show you superman running at superspeed, doing flips and punches. Their moveset are different which midoriya had realised he isn't much of a boxer and was hurt himself.Superman is a boxer, like allmight. He was trained by the best. It was core of the character right from the 40s, along with the strongman ethics and training.

Superman is not like goku. But, as said there are hundreds of versions of the character. Superman is inspired by gladiators as well. He is also based on strongmen. A bushido ethics isn't exactly a stranger to the man of action. Perfecting physicality is part of the character. The muscles shouldn't be just for show.

That's his view point or opinion . I had pointed out an instance in the story itself. He can make whatever out of it. But, objectively i am right since i had provided evidence.

Sure,give me evidence. Other than postcrisis, superman isn't a flat arc character. Just read the goldenage, silverage and bronze age. The character doesn't develop or change.what happens is new versions are made.

That's still doesn't matter. Weren't you just pointing out that ichigo didn't develop after first, even though i provided an evidence against ? This is the same situation. Someone will always feel some different about a character. Even if there is evidences to prove otherwise. The character wasn't heroic enough for me, especially compared to the length of the movie. I had never said he or you are wrong in feeling what he and you feels regarding ichigo. Similarly, i am not wrong in what i feel. It subjective. Coming to your evidence. It is right clark is objectively heroic in the move and does hero work. Does it feel inspirational to me? Maybe. Might not for others. So, they voice it. Right, captain america being incharge killed conflict. Similarly, batman taking charge of the situation with bombs, ras situation, joker's nonsense.. etckilled conflict in darkknight killed that conflict as well. The conflict exist because the leader exist. Furthermore, clark did take charge. He burned down the entire ship so that zod's genocidal dream ends. But, that doesn’t matter for me. Perception is what matters. Presentation sells. You have to make peace with the fact that hate is fundamental to internet and media representation of characters. People are generally going to hate more than they like.

Nope! In a story change isn't whats interesting. Conflict drives story. Goku philosophy will be challanged,there by creating conflict. Similarly, superman's philosophy will be challenged. The conflict is, always was the most important thing about a story. I said, goku had developements. Yes! He isn't such adrastic flat arc character. But, that isn't much. Instead of 0 in a 0 to 1 scale goku became 0.1 in regards to whole series.whoop te do!!!!!hurray of the great character arc. Furthermore, that happened at the end of a movie. So, in that context he is very much the definition of a flat arc character. His belief was "saiyans were not ethical warriors or were not pure enough to be martial artists ". That was proven wrong with broly's mere existence.

Nope! Mate you aren't getting the picture or what i am saying. Similar origin, methodologies.. Etc yet vastly different outcomes because of core philosophy. Superman doesn't need to be like goku. He can be like goku. Just change the value system. The character and the world would need to be based on bushido. That's it.

See, a flat arc character works like this. Take a truth or belief that should be represented by the protagonist. Create world to test that belief.
For example,
"All men are created equal"
A belief or truth. Pit this belief and test it with various counters in story like a character that believes in social darwinismn or a character that believes elitism or a character that believes is power based hierarchies and necessities.. Etc so and so forth. See, if the statement stands up or make clear the shortcomings and good guality of the philosophy apparent. Either, have the flat arc character realses he is right or he is wrong. Only, it at the end. If he is right, superman changes his opponents. Otherwise, he himself changes as he is the wrong one.

[manwhohaseverything]

I have no idea where this idea that Superman is supposed to be a flat arc character comes from. Pretty much all the great Superman stories involve him growing as a character. All Star is about him coming to terms with his own mortality despite being an immortal Superman. Must there be a Superman has him questioning his place in the world. For the Man who has Everything has him coming to terms with the loss of Krypton. Kingdom Come has him coming to understand humanity

Actually, my two bits. Superman isn't an idiot to not know what mortality is. He has seen it and felt it with his pa.Clark pretty much readly aacepts his demise. He creates a schedule accordingly. Meanwhile, if it was spiderman there would be an for just that. Spidey would deny he is gonna die. Then bargain. Then make peace with it. That's a postive arc character. He goes from a negative to positive.in all star, superman says " you are stronger than you think you are". It works, cause its when superman comes to terms with it. And there by he changes regan. Superman doesn't take an entire movie or set of movies to learn responsibility ( spiderman) or not wasting you potential on narcissistic behaviour (tony stark)


See clark core belief or question or fear,
"will the world with out me be safer or darker?" or "world won't be safe without me and will be darker"

when did Clark's belief change? Towards the end as part of third act. When he creates a world for himself. In which two jewish guys creates superman. So, superman was proven wrong or his question was answered . The world will always create a superman to shine in the darkness of depression. Not to be the torch light in broad day light. He happily sacrifices himself jumps into the sun. He is quintessential flat arc character. There is no change in superman.

For the man who has everything, has being proven wrong as flat arc character.
His belief
"a lie with all the happiness is more acceptable Than the bitter truth"

The third act of story at the end,he realises that is false.why? Responsibility. Only coward wouod want to live in a dream land away from responsibility. Regardless, of whether rises upto it or not. Responsibility will always find clark. He would alway be responsible one way or another. There it was bruce's voice. What happens to bruce will be on clark, whether he lives or dies. He would have to own it and take responsibility . See superman could have broken free from black mercy any time. He doesn't. He willfully lives in a lie. Its a hidden thing in moore's story. This story was based on an old story by siegel i believe.

Truth is fundamental ideal of superman character. That's the reason this story is so great.but,that was during the end of the story. A flat character can be proven wrong or right.
I don't particularly care for kindom come so no comments.

Edit- if people want a real positive arc character, like spiderman or tony star. Superman franchise does hve it. His name is jimmy olsen, ring any bells.

[Agent Z]

Well, that's funny.Since when has superman been the same?do you actually believe superman in the 40s or 70s and current one have same characteristics. No, they don't. It isn't just superficial.You might believe so. But, both are just dude with unlimited powers doing what they please. There are hundreds of versions of superman.So, anyone could have come up a world where clark is just essentially bored to death with his own invincibility.Superman has never shyed away from parodying itself or comedy. There character has a long history.

Someone could imagine a world where Superman is a pink elephant who talks like Kenan Thompson but that doesn’t mean such a version of Superman actually exists.

Nope! Mate. They have same powers. Want me to show you superman running at superspeed, doing flips and punches.

Care to show me Deku or All Might flying, shooting fire from their eyes, freezing people with their breath or hearing things from half way across the world?

Their moveset are different which midoriya had realised he isn't much of a boxer and was hurt himself.

Their movesets are different because their power sets are not the same. Black Lightning and Shazam can both control electricity but no one says their powers are the same.

Superman is a boxer, like allmight. He was trained by the best. It was core of the character right from the 40s, along with the strongman ethics and training.

Which Superman have you been reading? I’m beginning to think much of your issue with the character is you can’t tell the difference between him and other superpowered action heroes.

Superman is not like goku. But, as said there are hundreds of versions of the character. Superman is inspired by gladiators as well. He is also based on strongmen. A bushido ethics isn't exactly a stranger to the man of action. Perfecting physicality is part of the character. The muscles shouldn't be just for show.

You are talking about what you want the character to be not what he is or has ever been.

That's his view point or opinion . I had pointed out an instance in the story itself. He can make whatever out of it. But, objectively i am right since i had provided evidence.

What evidence?

Sure,give me evidence. Other than postcrisis, superman isn't a flat arc character. Just read the goldenage, silverage and bronze age. The character doesn't develop or change.what happens is new versions are made.

DC has rebooted a only about three times in their history. Saying Superman has never changed in the times when his story continued uninterrupted is false/

That's still doesn't matter. Weren't you just pointing out that ichigo didn't develop after first, even though i provided an evidence against ?

You provided no such thing.

I had never said he or you are wrong in feeling what he and you feels regarding ichigo.

Yes you did.


Similarly, i am not wrong in what i feel. It subjective. Coming to your evidence. It is right clark is objectively heroic in the move and does hero work. Does it feel inspirational to me? Maybe. Might not for others. So, they voice it.
Opinions can and have been proven to objectively wrong. I can say the sky is made of green cheese and say it is my opinion. Doesn’t make me right.

Right, captain america being incharge killed conflict.

Captain America was only ever in charge of any group he was leading. He was not controlling the situation, he was reacting to it. Same as Superman.

Similarly, batman taking charge of the situation with bombs, ras situation, joker's nonsense.. etckilled conflict in darkknight killed that conflict as well.

Batman was never in charge when the Joker was around. He spent the entire movie failing to counter anything the Joker threw at him and the closest thing to a victory was the people on the boats choosing not to push the detonators.

The conflict exist because the leader exist. Furthermore, clark did take charge. He burned down the entire ship so that zod's genocidal dream ends. But, that doesn’t matter for me. Perception is what matters. Presentation sells. You have to make peace with the fact that hate is fundamental to internet and media representation of characters. People are generally going to hate more than they like.

This is not the strong argument you think it is. Having a loud and angry mob on the net does not always reflect how something is actually perceived.

Nope! Mate you aren't getting the picture or what i am saying. Similar origin, methodologies.. Etc yet vastly different outcomes because of core philosophy. Superman doesn't need to be like goku. He can be like goku. Just change the value system. The character and the world would need to be based on bushido. That's it.

Changing his value system to be like Goku’s is creating a different character entirely.

See, a flat arc character works like this. Take a truth or belief that should be represented by the protagonist. Create world to test that belief.
For example,
"All men are created equal"
A belief or truth. Pit this belief and test it with various counters in story like a character that believes in social darwinismn or a character that believes elitism or a character that believes is power based hierarchies and necessities.. Etc so and so forth. See, if the statement stands up or make clear the shortcomings and good guality of the philosophy apparent. Either, have the flat arc character realses he is right or he is wrong. Only, it at the end. If he is right, superman changes his opponents. Otherwise, he himself changes as he is the wrong one.

I’m not even sure if you’re actually talking about Superman anymore at this point.

[Vampire Savior]

I don't really know what is currently being discussed, but I don't believe Batman is easier to write than Superman. That's a very strange absolute, in my view. Batman may be easier to write for some people. Superman is perhaps only more difficult to adapt than Batman in terms of special effects, and that depends a lot on the medium.

Superman has simply had the misfortune of being given to people who aren't as good, and not as suited to him as the people who have written and adapted Batman. That can happen. For example, by and large, Zack Snyder and Bryan Singer are not as good of film makers as Chrisopher Nolan. Bruce Timm was not as suited to make a Superman cartoon as he was a Batman cartoon.

*shrug* Just the luck of the draw. You win some and you lose some and the stars have aligned more for Batman than they have for Superman in these recent decades. You can, of course, influence chance to a very large degree by making sure that you have the right people for the right job, but that would be up to executives at WB, and they probably don't know the characters they own well enough to know who the right people for the right job are vs. the wrong people.

[manwhohaseverything]

Someone could imagine a world where Superman is a pink elephant who talks like Kenan Thompson but that doesn’t mean such a version of Superman actually exists.


Care to show me Deku or All Might flying, shooting fire from their eyes, freezing people with their breath or hearing things from half way across the world?


Their movesets are different because their power sets are not the same. Black Lightning and Shazam can both control electricity but no one says their powers are the same.



Which Superman have you been reading? I’m beginning to think much of your issue with the character is you can’t tell the difference between him and other superpowered action heroes.


You are talking about what you want the character to be not what he is or has ever been.


What evidence?



DC has rebooted a only about three times in their history. Saying Superman has never changed in the times when his story continued uninterrupted is false/


You provided no such thing.




Yes you did.


Similarly, i am not wrong in what i feel. It subjective. Coming to your evidence. It is right clark is objectively heroic in the move and does hero work. Does it feel inspirational to me? Maybe. Might not for others. So, they voice it.
Opinions can and have been proven to objectively wrong. I can say the sky is made of green cheese and say it is my opinion. Doesn’t make me right.


Captain America was only ever in charge of any group he was leading. He was not controlling the situation, he was reacting to it. Same as Superman.


Batman was never in charge when the Joker was around. He spent the entire movie failing to counter anything the Joker threw at him and the closest thing to a victory was the people on the boats choosing not to push the detonators.


This is not the strong argument you think it is. Having a loud and angry mob on the net does not always reflect how something is actually perceived.


Changing his value system to be like Goku’s is creating a different character entirely.

I’m not even sure if you’re actually talking about Superman anymore at this point.

Sure, as long the pink elephant has an s on his chest. It wouldn't really matter if it existed now. It can certainly exist and possibilities are endless.

Was i taking about the mainstream version of superman? No, i wasn't. freezebreath and laser vision came in later. So, did flight.i love me some superman who can jump real high. Deku is gonna tap into various different powers from his predecessors as well.Regardless, of the freese breath or laser vision. Superman is a strongman, first and foremost. You haven't refuted with evidence that these two(allmight adn deku) didn't go through strongman training. Tell me, deku's first training wasn't him cleaning up a beach.

There moveset are'nt same because they (deku and allmight) are different people, With different affinities. Allmight is quintessential stoic. It's about getting hit and giving it back for him with his fists. Deku isn't like that.

I am reading the same superman as you.Boxing has been part of superman mythos since goldenage. Even, that lois and clark series has clark in a ring.He has been in the ring with mohammad ali.You do realise superman is an action character. He is a hero of action comics. That is the dumbest thing i have heard. So much denial of the character's very origin. I am starting to think zatara should have taken of, not superman. I wouldn't have to sit through hearing this nonsense.One of his ephitat is " The man of action".He is a pulp fiction action hero with supernatural abilities. What's next? Tarzan and edger rice Burroughs have no connection. Better yet, you are gonna tell me superman and doc savage have no connection. Furthermore, i don't see any difference. I don't see any problem being an action hero like everyone else. It's better than lazy saint hero, who is meant for action but doesn't seem like it.

You know, i used to wonder why superman debuted in action comics back when i was a teen. I never saw him as an action hero. I always felt like batman should be the one in that. Then i got older,loved action comics by morrison. Went back and read the older stuff. Loved every bit of it. Well, i got my answer. Must admit, the thing to pull me toward superman is his outfit when i was growing up. It was like phantom's. Then death of dan turpin and for the man who has everything got me hooked.

Nope! Mate, superman is inspired by both gladiators and strongmen. He used to work out and furthermore had helped many to get in shape as well. Even contested in body building competition. Just because you are familiar only with sun dipping-sun god. Doesn't mean superman was always that or that was the only interpretation that existed. Yeah! Ofcourse it's my preferences i am talking about. I can't talk about anyone else. Can i?i am well within my reach to say what i want. i can like tshirt superman or the goldenage jumper.

As i said, my memory of bleach is very blurred. The instance where ichigo learns to fight without hating aizen. He learns true strength doesn't need to come from hating someone or something that took a loved one from you. The weight of Responsibility can also make a Man strong. He didn't need hate to sharpen his blades. So, ichigo does learn and change. This wasn't at the end of first arc either. It was in the middle of the aizen vs everyone else matchup. And It was an on going journey like man of steel Clark's journey.

Yes,dc has rebooted three times. But, that doesn’t mean character didn't get different origin stories in between. Different versions of the character are created proving my point. Goldenage superman, silverage superman and postcrisis supermen are all different versions entirely that connect back to the goldenage superman.

I did. You just weren't reading.

I never did, i am quite sure. If i am wrong then it was never intentional. All i said was he was objectively wrong. I never did say he can't believe ichigo changed or not or if it wasn't enough or not. For some people that isn't enough . Furthermore, We are talking two different things. I am talking feelings when it comes to subjectivity. That's not a right equivalence. You can paint your house with rainbows. I could call it dull.i don't feel like superman was heroic figure in man of steel.You can show me million evidence of contrary. It doesn't matter, i think red is dull and superman in man of steel didn't bring the brand of heroism i prefer. For some people, lois will just be that annoying damsel in distress.

Well, didn't he took charge and decided to take out everything both sheild and hydra.
All the "i guess, you are incharge now,captain"
At the end of the movie, he took charge and decided to be hunted. Harvey remained the white knight. There buy thwarting the so called non-schemer's evil scheme. Didn't seem to work for you. Did it? It did for me.

You are half right. But, where you are wrong is that internet isn't real or that perception doesn't matter. The internet is as much part of "real" world perception and can impact it as well. Sonic the hedgehog a movie that has nothing going for it Became financially successful . Entire elections can be turned upside down cause of something online. Someone can lose a job for years old tweet. So on and so forth.

So? You are a dceu superman fan.For many, zack Snyder's superman is "different" superman. Furthermore as said, there are hundreds of superman..lThree of the main distinctions created by reboots. There is a communist superman. You didn't seem to mind.So, why do you have a problem with bushido superman?do you have it out for the Japanese or something?

I don't know about you. But, What i have been arguing from the start is. The notion that a flat arc action hero characters isn't viable or cannot be successful is objectively false. That was me trying to give a general run down on how stories with flat arc characters work for anyone that's interested. It wasn't essentially at you.Anyways, i am out.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Superman has simply had the misfortune of being given to people who aren't as good, and not as suited to him as the people who have written and adapted Batman. That can happen. For example, by and large, Zack Snyder and Bryan Singer are not as good of film makers as Chrisopher Nolan. Bruce Timm was not as suited to make a Superman cartoon as he was a Batman cartoon.

I think it's worth noting that the DCAU Superman cartoon is still fantastic. Bruce Timm may prefer Batman, but I think he absolutely gets Superman.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think it's worth noting that the DCAU Superman cartoon is still fantastic. Bruce Timm may prefer Batman, but I think he absolutely gets Superman.

I think STAS is overall really good, especially compared to some other outings Supes has had recently, but there was input from other creative minds like Paul Dini that I think got the character better than Timm. Even then, Clark was often less interesting than the likes of Lex and Lois in that show.

The less said about Superman in the later DCAU and especially Wonder Woman the better.

[Stick Figure]

I didn’t really get into Superman until Man of Steel & only started reading his comics when Bendis came in. I don’t have huge history with the character. A friend of mine is in his 40’s. He talks to me about reading comics when he was 5 and loving Superman immediately. He watched the old Saturday cartoons too. He says Superman was everywhere back then. I started reading comics much much later. Does the fact comics aren’t really aimed at kids have anything to do with Superman’s decline? I mean I’ve glanced at some of my friend’s 70’s comics and they’re definitely aimed at children. They’re hideous and I’d never want that again but is it tougher for an older audience to get into Superman? Man of Steel made him feel like a real guy to me and not an overly positive one dimensional character. Bendis does the same for me. No reason his stature can’t improve. I just wonder if Superman traditionally worked better when aimed at children. It’s a different era and I know that wouldn’t work today. Just throwing that out.

[Lightning Rider]

And yet..

https://www.facebook.com/superman/vi...3682208317115/

[manwhohaseverything]

Does the fact comics aren’t really aimed at kids have anything to do with Superman’s decline?

It does, in my opinion. See, batman got the chance to go back to a more adult style story telling before comics code was created . Superman on the otherhand is primarily stuck in the"hey! Kids" routine. But, the difference is now he does that with adults instead of kids. Superdad only works when kids are involved, in my opinion if at all. We need superbro.