Is Batman more popular than Superman?

[manwhohaseverything]

Hmm... He's not a combo of anything really, more like a modern interpretation of the savior hero of mythology and religion. Hercules. Jesus. He's not exactly half-god, but he descended from the sky to be raised among humans and become a savior and symbol.

Precisely, why people have a hard time getting superman. In short, i was expecting this answer. Sorry about being a smart ass. People largely don't know who he is based on. They know what he has become. He is basically a combo of jesus, hercules and essentially a tree/sun god, like you said. Superman is based on tarzan, john carter, doc savage, strongmen, mythical heroes(hercules) and gladiators(the phantom and spartacus). See, the only reason hercules part of his inspiration still lives is cause of all star. Even that would have gone away. Anyways, viability of this combination is upto you.Also, clark kent is based on a harold lloyd's comedy character.

Why is he the saviour/messiah now? Well, it's basically a means to make sense of the portrayal of the character giving morality lessons to kids during comics code days even now.Essentially, this kinda portrayal where superman gives kids guidance.

It was a portrayal that started later on with comics code influence and not before. But now, it's to keep that portrayal alive with adult audience, since comics code isn't there. Let me elaborate, superman talks to you like a kid and gives adivices/speeches. They needed to explain that, so they made him space jesus .

Ofcourse, You could argue about the whole "el" thing. But, siegel and shuster's character was "jor L". He even had a prototype before the daybute of superman, in an old comic with same name and by same creators. in federal men, where jor L battles Nira-Q.

https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Jor-L_(Federal_Men)

Either way, i think the messiah thing was largely the company's direction with character. Not the creators.why do i think that? jor eL has no equivalence in judeo-Christian stories,as far as i know. The only connection is kal el. It doesn't appear in the first issues of superman and action comics at all.


These are the two origins done by siegel and shuster. They didn't much believe in origin stories. They wanted the current stories to be what matters. Anyways, kal el is a name given later on (might have been editorially enforced). Either way, I have no solid proof of it. Its a hypothetical. I could be very wrong. the only counter evidence to mine, is the names of adoptive parents which was john and mary. Regardless of this i do believe, the above portrayal of superman as space jesus is something to explain his behaviour, currently.

Clark's alien heritage though acknowledged was largely a means to explain his abilities. Which was essentially equivalent to a strongman with steel like body.

Furthermore, batman is based on superman's vigilantism and success . Its never acknowledged. Zorro or grey ghost takes all the credits.See, what frank miller did was take batman back to his portrayal to a more adult oriented style that existed before comics code. With superman, that transition back never happened. They instead opted to use contrived reasonings to explain the s being a symbol of hope in krypton, the strongman suit (similar to the phantom) being a fashion choice of Kryptonians, glasses disguise... Etc. And the above talking to adults like kids,as saviour/ jesus like figure.This is just my interpretation of the history of the character. It's completely flawed.

[The Darknight Detective]

You're ignoring his point, from Superman's debut to the late 80's Superman was treated the exact same way Batman is now. He got the most cartoons, movies, books, etc. And it's because he was by far the most popular character during that time.

If it's bad for Batman to get this treatment was it ok when DC/WB were doing the exact same thing with Superman?

Exactly. The same could be said for Spidey over at Marvel, too.

[godisawesome]

I’d argue that, as much as I tend to think Post-Crisis Superman was superior to Silver Age Superman, the harder reboot approach taken at the break between the Bronze Age Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis periods wound up creating a continuity fault line that other issues slowly compiled onto, that Batman didn’t really have to deal with anywhere near as bad when the fault line started separating, creating a perpetuating cycle that has slowly weakened Superman’s appeal in *some* areas, most noticeably, I think, in creative circles.

And if I can offer a possible “culprit” for the difference in approaches, I think Dick Grayson (thanks to the Titans) was the primary asset that created the “softer” nature of Batman’s Post-Crisis reboot and helped it avoid the fault-lines that Superman had.

DC valued Dick as a graduated Robin-turned Nightwing, and so the hardest part of the reboot they really unleashed on Batman’s continuity was the new set-up for Dick separating from Batman, and Batman meeting the new version of Jason Todd soon after. Year One is easier to think of as the major reboot moment, but unlike Man Of Steel, Year One was placed further back in the character’s history - while the Superman books carried on from Man Of Steel as their true new beginning, the Batman books just kind of waved their hands at the time period between Year One and Dick leaving Gotham and said “Stuff Happened here,” which prevented Pre-Crisis fans from feeling they’d lost everything, including in the creative circle.

Both Batman and Superman had somewhat similar 90’s Post-Crisis - they had Doomsday/Bane incapacitate them, both experienced short term replacements before they returned, and had their superhero family’s expand significantly. But when the 2000’s arrived, there was a push towards Pre-Crisis revanchism that started peeking up more assertively in Superman, that slowly grew into the continuity chaos we’ve seen over the last two decades.

Much like Wonder Woman, the Superman books started suffering extreme disagreement and infighting in creative circles about what direction the characters should go. Batman, meanwhile, still changed continuity, but usually more surgically. And that more surgical approach has kept creative circles aligned in cooperating with each other on him, so that they never really reject each other’s takes, which I think does show up a bit with Superman and Wonder Woman.

I also think this played a part in why there’s more chaos in the rest of the Batman Family post-Flashpoint compared to in Batman, why Green Lantern could experience its massive surge under Johns, and why the Flash books had extra chaos after Flashpoint. Harder reboots in comics inevitably lead to someone who was a fan of previous continuity coming in and rejecting the work before them to some extent, which exacerbates philosophical differences about the characters, which reflects in more fractured fanbases.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

You're ignoring his point, from Superman's debut to the late 80's Superman was treated the exact same way Batman is now. He got the most cartoons, movies, books, etc. And it's because he was by far the most popular character during that time.

If it's bad for Batman to get this treatment was it ok when DC/WB were doing the exact same thing with Superman?

Uh, not really. Didn't Batman have an incredibly popular television show in the 60s that was just as iconic as any Superman movie or TV show, if not more so? And didn't Wonder Woman get a popular TV show in the 70s? So, yeah, DC obviously didn't give everything to Superman from the 30s up until the 80s. And that's a good thing. DC needs to let all their properties shine on their own, as opposed to one overshadowing the rest. As popular as Superman was (and still is), Batman and other DC heroes weren't subjugated in-universe for the sake of Superman's "awesomeness." So why is it okay for other characters in the DC Universe to be downgraded or shown as chumps in comparison to Batman for the sake of his awesomeness?

[CaptCleghorn]

[stargazer01]

Uh, not really. Didn't Batman have an incredibly popular television show in the 60s that was just as iconic as any Superman movie or TV show, if not more so? So, yeah, DC obviously didn't give everything to Superman from the 30s up until the 80s. And that's a good thing. DC needs to let all their properties shine on their own, as opposed to one overshadowing the rest. As popular as Superman was (and still is), Batman and other DC heroes weren't subjugated in-universe for the sake of Superman's "awesomeness." So why is it okay for other characters in the DC Universe to be downgraded or shown as chumps in comparison to Batman for the sake of his awesomeness?

exactly. DC and WB just don't know how to balance the DC universe. And they don't really understand the treasure they have. They just know Batman and they only settle for that. Their loss. It's why Marvel is more popular now. They have better leaders who know how to sell those characters to the masses.

[Kuwagaton]

Precisely, why people have a hard time getting superman. In short, i was expecting this answer. Sorry about being a smart ass. People largely don't know who he is based on. They know what he has become. He is basically a combo of jesus, hercules and essentially a tree/sun god, like you said. Superman is based on tarzan, john carter, doc savage, strongmen, mythical heroes(hercules) and gladiators(the phantom and spartacus). See, the only reason hercules part of his inspiration still lives is cause of all star. Even that would have gone away. Anyways, viability of this combination is upto you.Also, clark kent is based on a harold lloyd's comedy character.

Why is he the saviour/messiah now? Well, it's basically a means to make sense of the portrayal of the character giving morality lessons to kids during comics code days even now.Essentially, this kinda portrayal where superman gives kids guidance.

It was a portrayal that started later on with comics code influence and not before.

But now, it's to keep that portrayal alive with adult audience, since comics code isn't there. Let me elaborate, superman talks to you like a kid and gives adivices/speeches. They needed to explain that, so they made him space jesus

The thing is that at least as many agreed before, Superman wasn't hurt by the comics code. Which frankly didn't make Superman more jingoistic



Or less weird


Mostly you got PSAs dealing with racism or special comics where Superman flies to some country and saves kids from landmines.

I’d argue that, as much as I tend to think Post-Crisis Superman was superior to Silver Age Superman, the harder reboot approach taken at the break between the Bronze Age Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis periods wound up creating a continuity fault line that other issues slowly compiled onto, that Batman didn’t really have to deal with anywhere near as bad when the fault line started separating, creating a perpetuating cycle that has slowly weakened Superman’s appeal in *some* areas, most noticeably, I think, in creative circles.

And if I can offer a possible “culprit” for the difference in approaches, I think Dick Grayson (thanks to the Titans) was the primary asset that created the “softer” nature of Batman’s Post-Crisis reboot and helped it avoid the fault-lines that Superman had.

DC valued Dick as a graduated Robin-turned Nightwing, and so the hardest part of the reboot they really unleashed on Batman’s continuity was the new set-up for Dick separating from Batman, and Batman meeting the new version of Jason Todd soon after. Year One is easier to think of as the major reboot moment, but unlike Man Of Steel, Year One was placed further back in the character’s history - while the Superman books carried on from Man Of Steel as their true new beginning, the Batman books just kind of waved their hands at the time period between Year One and Dick leaving Gotham and said “Stuff Happened here,” which prevented Pre-Crisis fans from feeling they’d lost everything, including in the creative circle.

Both Batman and Superman had somewhat similar 90’s Post-Crisis - they had Doomsday/Bane incapacitate them, both experienced short term replacements before they returned, and had their superhero family’s expand significantly. But when the 2000’s arrived, there was a push towards Pre-Crisis revanchism that started peeking up more assertively in Superman, that slowly grew into the continuity chaos we’ve seen over the last two decades.

Much like Wonder Woman, the Superman books started suffering extreme disagreement and infighting in creative circles about what direction the characters should go. Batman, meanwhile, still changed continuity, but usually more surgically. And that more surgical approach has kept creative circles aligned in cooperating with each other on him, so that they never really reject each other’s takes, which I think does show up a bit with Superman and Wonder Woman.

I also think this played a part in why there’s more chaos in the rest of the Batman Family post-Flashpoint compared to in Batman, why Green Lantern could experience its massive surge under Johns, and why the Flash books had extra chaos after Flashpoint. Harder reboots in comics inevitably lead to someone who was a fan of previous continuity coming in and rejecting the work before them to some extent, which exacerbates philosophical differences about the characters, which reflects in more fractured fanbases.

Agreed. Doug Moench, Alan Grant, and Chuck Dixon had really similar runs to the Superman creators, but then I guess it was the difference between Batman getting Mike Carlin while Superman got Berganza? They kept going with guys like Rucka and Brubaker while Superman slowly got off the rails.

[Pinsir]

Did I just watch Superman murder somebody?

[manwhohaseverything]

Did I just watch Superman murder somebody?

The guy is nicko-tin. He is basically gas. He'll live.

The thing is that at least as many agreed before, Superman wasn't hurt by the comics code. Which frankly didn't make Superman more jingoistic



Or less weird


Mostly you got PSAs dealing with racism or special comics where Superman flies to some country and saves kids from landmines.

I never intended to say any of that. I was trying to interpret the history of the character and trying give out info in as much unbiased version as i can. Fundamentally, american comics had been significantly impacted by comica code. There has been two transition. From my perspective, the difference between batman and superman is that batman got to transition back and forth successfully. Ofcourse, batman had to get into trouble during the end of goofy period, for that to happen . He went from pulpfiction vigilante detective to goofy batcostumed hero and back to the vigilante this time more ruthless with an axe to grind . Superman on the other hand didn't. He got hammered in the second transition.Darkknight returns basically pulled the rug out of superman to transition.90's antihero craze didn't help either. Superman writers instead of transitioning superman back to an adult audience were busy defending or trying to explain his character as he was back in the day,that too with contrived reasoning.

[The Darknight Detective]

Uh, not really. Didn't Batman have an incredibly popular television show in the 60s that was just as iconic as any Superman movie or TV show, if not more so?

The Superman movies (the first two at any rate) were a far bigger deal than the show (the latter being a sensation for a season then quickly falling off the table while creating a backlash in the process). Yeah, the show became iconic, but as a parody of Batman and comics in general.

So, yeah, DC obviously didn't give everything to Superman from the 30s up until the 80s.

I never said they gave everything to Superman, but that he got the same type of push Batman has had in more recent years. Obviously, despite comments to the contrary, Bruce hasn't gotten everything, either.

[The True Detective]

Uh, not really. Didn't Batman have an incredibly popular television show in the 60s that was just as iconic as any Superman movie or TV show, if not more so? And didn't Wonder Woman get a popular TV show in the 70s? So, yeah, DC obviously didn't give everything to Superman from the 30s up until the 80s. And that's a good thing. DC needs to let all their properties shine on their own, as opposed to one overshadowing the rest. As popular as Superman was (and still is), Batman and other DC heroes weren't subjugated in-universe for the sake of Superman's "awesomeness." So why is it okay for other characters in the DC Universe to be downgraded or shown as chumps in comparison to Batman for the sake of his awesomeness?

And there are a lot more characters that DC pushes now than they did at the height of Superman's popularity. The Flash has a show and is getting a movie, Green Arrow had a show that's getting a spinoff, Aquaman has a movie that's getting a sequel and an animated spinoff show on HBO, Swamp Thing got a show, etc you get the picture.

Back in Superman's heyday, sure Batman and Wonder Woman had TV shows but Superman had TV shows AND movies. At one point weren't they thinking of renaming the company "Superman Comics" we'd never hear the end of it if DC even considered changing their name to "Batman Comics."

[Agent Z]

I don't know, does he?

[CaptCleghorn]

I don't know, does he?

Is a bear catholic?

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

And there are a lot more characters that DC pushes now than they did at the height of Superman's popularity. The Flash has a show and is getting a movie, Green Arrow had a show that's getting a spinoff, Aquaman has a movie that's getting a sequel and an animated spinoff show on HBO, Swamp Thing got a show, etc you get the picture.

Back in Superman's heyday, sure Batman and Wonder Woman had TV shows but Superman had TV shows AND movies. At one point weren't they thinking of renaming the company "Superman Comics" we'd never hear the end of it if DC even considered changing their name to "Batman Comics."

So did Batman. Batman starred in theatrical serials as far back as the 1940s. And the first blockbuster movie that Superman got wasn't until 1978 and it was only a few years after the last of the Donner Superman movies that Batman was given the same treatment. Also, you probably would have heard the same backlash if they'd renamed it Superman Comics.

However, the point I'm trying to get across is that, despite proven success in other media, DC's publishing really skews heavily Batman-centric to the point where other characters are subjugated and Batman is made the "alpha male." As you said, Flash and Green Arrow have had popular shows that went on for many seasons (even if Arrow was largely like Batman-lite), Aquaman and Wonder Woman had blockbuster movies with positive word-of-mouth and, in the case of Wonder Woman, a highly anticipated sequel set for later this year. However, did we get a big main-line event centered on Wonder Woman with several different versions of her character from different worlds across the multiverse? Yeah, no. That was Batman. Again.

[sunofdarkchild]

Success in film has not translated to sales success in comics this century. Iron Man and Guardians of the Galaxy have not lit up the charts despite how popular their film versions are. There's more money to be made in film than in comics, but the audiences are different and film audiences don't feel a need to pick up comics about the characters they like.