Is Batman more popular than Superman?

[The True Detective]

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.

I wouldn't compare a cheap movie serial to a big budget movie live Superman: The Movie and I didn't mean Superman was the only character who got multimedia attention. But he did get a whole lot more than everyone else.

DC pushes Batman so heavily on the publishing side of things because he's their biggest seller, despite their movie or tv success Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Green Arrow, etc aren't huge sellers in terms of comics books. Same with Black Panther, Captain Marvel, GOTG and others at Marvel. Popularity in outside media doesn't always equate to comic book sales.

At the end of the day my point wasn't that DC should ONLY push Batman or should make him look better than others, I was only pointing out that Superman got the same push above everyone else that Batman is getting now.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I wouldn't compare a cheap movie serial to a big budget movie live Superman: The Movie and I didn't mean Superman was the only character who got multimedia attention. But he did get a whole lot more than everyone else.

DC pushes Batman so heavily on the publishing side of things because he's their biggest seller, despite their movie or tv success Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Green Arrow, etc aren't huge sellers in terms of comics books. Same with Black Panther, Captain Marvel, GOTG and others at Marvel. Popularity in outside media doesn't always equate to comic book sales.

At the end of the day my point wasn't that DC should ONLY push Batman or should make him look better than others, I was only pointing out that Superman got the same push above everyone else that Batman is getting now.

Yeah, but I don't know if that's actually true. As I pointed out earlier, it was only a few years after the last of Donner's Superman movies that Batman got his own blockbuster. So, again, it's not like WB was that hesitant to give Batman the exact same treatment they gave to Superman. And before Superman: the Movie, I don't know if you could argue that Superman got more attention than other characters because, while we got George Reeves's Superman on TV, there was also Adam West's Batman and Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman on TV as well.

On the publishing side of things though, I don't think you can say that Superman got the same amount of focus in his heyday that Batman has gotten in recent years. Yes, he was big, but he wasn't pushed to the point of oversaturation. And you can say that Batman is pushed so hard on the publishing side of things because he's so popular, but there's also the argument that Batman is so popular in part because DC pushes him so much. Batman titles tend to get the best up-and-coming writers and artists and, again, we get entire in-universe narratives showing us just how awesome Batman is, even if it means other characters draw the short straw.

As much as I love Batman (and I do love Batman), I can recognize when too much focus is both leading to oversaturation and honestly, taking the character away from the roots that made him popular to begin with. Batman stories shouldn't be cosmic in scale. Batman shouldn't be sold as a multiversal concept. Batman, IMO, works best as a street-level character who only really interacts with wild, out-there cosmic stuff when he's with the JLA.

However, DC kind of refuses to allow other characters to take center stage or even give them a chance. I mean, where are the Wonder Woman 1984 tie-ins? Of course, I realize now is not a good time, but why wasn't there anything announced by DC to create hype for the upcoming movie before COVID-19 put a halt to everything? Wonder Woman had the June 2020 release date for a long time. But, there was nothing announced by DC to really make Wonder Woman take center stage, except an extra-sized anniversary issue, which every big character gets at a certain point. It's also worth noting that Diana is the only character from her franchise that got an extra-sized anniversary issue, while this year alone, we got a Robin anniversary issue, and we are getting Joker and Catwoman anniversary issues. On top of that, instead of announcing anything for Wonder Woman in anticipation of 1984, what was announced was a sequel to the Batman-centric Metal event where we are going to be introduced to even more Dark Multiverse versions of Batman after having spent a long while getting to know the Batman Who Laughs from the last Metal event.

[The Darknight Detective]

Yeah, but I don't know if that's actually true. As I pointed out earlier, it was only a few years after the last of Donner's Superman movies that Batman got his own blockbuster.

Yeah, but that was after two critically panned Superman films (the latter being a bomb at the box office).

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Yeah, but that was after two critically panned Superman films (the latter being a bomb at the box office).

I don't really get how that's too relevant to what we're talking about though. If anything, WB could have seen that and decided it was too risky to bring another comic book superhero to the big screen. But thankfully they didn't because if they had, we would have never seen Michael Keaton's Batman. It's also worth mentioning that since then, WB has gone above and beyond in terms of giving Batman cinematic outings. Throughout the entirety of the 90s, we didn't see a single Superman film, whereas Batman got three films in that decade alone. As an aside, it's also worth mentioning that a few of those Batman movies were also critically panned, yet it didn't stop them from making more. Since 2000 alone, we've gotten at least six different Batman or Batman-related films with another planned to come out next year and was about halfway through filming right before the pandemic. By comparison, since 2000 Superman has gotten only three films counting Batman v. Superman (maybe four if we count Justice League, which I wouldn't since it's an ensemble film). I mean, in less than a year, we saw both Joker and Birds of Prey: and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn land in theatres. Meanwhile, it has been almost 7 years since Man of Steel and we have yet to hear anything about a potential sequel (though, there could be other reasons for that).

Now, this is not to say that DC and WB shouldn't give Batman cinematic attention or that they're wrong for doing so. It's just meant to point out how Batman has gotten so much more attention than other characters, including Superman, when the audience for these other characters is absolutely there. It's actually a little shameful that we had to wait until 2017 to get a Wonder Woman film, even if it was a spectacular debut and the sequel is highly anticipated. The same thing goes for Aquaman before 2018, which again was a good first cinematic venture. We've still never gotten a Flash or Green Arrow blockbuster movie, even if they did have successful TV shows. And Green Lantern has seemingly gone from plans for a blockbuster film to HBO Max series (though TV is now comparable to film in many ways).

Meanwhile, Marvel Studios and Disney not only were able to craft a widely successful and fully coherent cinematic universe, but before 2016, they did so without Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, or the X-Men. In other words, they did it without most of their most popular characters, including Marvel's flagship character. They were able to do this through investment in all of their characters, as opposed to just one or two.

However, going back to the comic book publishing side of things, the preferential treatment that Batman receives has actually become detrimental at this point. Because, despite decades of these characters carrying their own series and franchises, in recent years there have been times when it seems that DC thinks of them just as Batman's "crew." Plus, a truism of business (or well, of anything really) is that when you keep going to the same well, that well is eventually gonna dry up. People are never going to stop loving Batman, but oversaturation is a thing and they might be less and less enthused by Batman if all DC produces are Batman-centric things.

[phantom1592]

That John Carter movie that Disney made a couple of years ago was awesome, too! It sucks that it didn't do well enough to get a sequel, because I loved it!

Superman influences, huh? There's a lot.

Zorro's got the proletarian leanings and a secret identity. Flash Gordon was arguably the best known sf character in brightly colored tights at the time. John Carter could leap and punch like nobody's business on a planet with lighter gravity. Doc Savage was a genius in intellect, had great strength, etc. and his first name was Clark. The Shadow's first name was Kent. Popeye often did astounding feats of strength beyond realistic proportions, I've seen it suggested that Superman might have merely treated Popeye's shtick more seriously. And of course there's Hugo Danner, the handsome, square-jawed, super-strong protagonist of Philip Wylie's novel "Gladiator," which contains many super-feats that Superman did early in his career - though of course, Danner, unlike Clark Kent, was miserable and didn't really figure his place in the world, at least in part because he didn't have a secret identity.

I agree about the movie. I've never read any John Carter, but I really enjoyed that movie. But that's kind of my point. Tarzan I know, Conan I know, John Carter??? I don't know him. He's a historical footnote that comes up from time to time same as Doc Savage... but they've fallen into obscurity. The rest of those? I don't see it. The differences are more pronounced than any similarity. Zorro and Superman may share the concept of a secret identity... but are different in every other single way. Same with Shadow. Compared to their influences on Batman and you end up with a LOT of similarities. Both rich playboys who hid their identities.. they both dress in black and hide from the shadows, Both wear masks, both have secret lairs in a cave under their houses... Zorro basically IS 1880's Batman. You just can't draw those kind of similarities between Shadow and Zorro and even Popeye with Superman. They Venn Diagram between Superman and these others are VERY shallow. Even Flash Gordon the brightly colored space man... is very 'human'. Superman just... 'feels' original. Any direct obvious influences... are pretty obscure. He's outshown them all.

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."

Didn't they though? I've always thought DC comics was 'Detective Comics' and Detective Comics is pretty synonymous with 'Batman Comics'. Kind of surprised they didn't go with AC comics though... Alphabetically it's at the front of the list and Action Comics has a more generic widespread sounding appeal then detective... but whatever :P

[manwhohaseverything]

. Zorro and Superman may share the concept of a secret identity... but are different in every other single way.

Not really, zorro and superman were proletariat vigilantes. Just read goldenage action comics. And by the way batman, is also inspired from superman.

Superman throwing a wifebeater through a wall.Superman used to run from the police as well.

[phantom1592]

Not really, zorro and superman were proletariat vigilantes. Just read goldenage action comics. And by the way batman, is also inspired from superman.

Superman throwing a wifebeater through a wall.Superman used to run from the police as well.

yeah... but Zorro used to go right FOR the 'evil' police and carve their faces up. He didn't work 'outside the system because it wasn't effective'. He worked AGAINST the government because it was corrupt. A bit more like Batman Year one in that regard. I have't read much Golden Age Superman... but I just don't remember him sneaking into prisons and releasing the wrongfully imprisoned while mocking their jailors. Zorro did that ALL the time. Might have happened... but it's not in my collections.

[mathew101281]

I don't really get how that's too relevant to what we're talking about though. If anything, WB could have seen that and decided it was too risky to bring another comic book superhero to the big screen. But thankfully they didn't because if they had, we would have never seen Michael Keaton's Batman. It's also worth mentioning that since then, WB has gone above and beyond in terms of giving Batman cinematic outings. Throughout the entirety of the 90s, we didn't see a single Superman film, whereas Batman got three films in that decade alone. As an aside, it's also worth mentioning that a few of those Batman movies were also critically panned, yet it didn't stop them from making more. Since 2000 alone, we've gotten at least six different Batman or Batman-related films with another planned to come out next year and was about halfway through filming right before the pandemic. By comparison, since 2000 Superman has gotten only three films counting Batman v. Superman (maybe four if we count Justice League, which I wouldn't since it's an ensemble film). I mean, in less than a year, we saw both Joker and Birds of Prey: and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn land in theatres. Meanwhile, it has been almost 7 years since Man of Steel and we have yet to hear anything about a potential sequel (though, there could be other reasons for that).

Now, this is not to say that DC and WB shouldn't give Batman cinematic attention or that they're wrong for doing so. It's just meant to point out how Batman has gotten so much more attention than other characters, including Superman, when the audience for these other characters is absolutely there. It's actually a little shameful that we had to wait until 2017 to get a Wonder Woman film, even if it was a spectacular debut and the sequel is highly anticipated. The same thing goes for Aquaman before 2018, which again was a good first cinematic venture. We've still never gotten a Flash or Green Arrow blockbuster movie, even if they did have successful TV shows. And Green Lantern has seemingly gone from plans for a blockbuster film to HBO Max series (though TV is now comparable to film in many ways).

Meanwhile, Marvel Studios and Disney not only were able to craft a widely successful and fully coherent cinematic universe, but before 2016, they did so without Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, or the X-Men. In other words, they did it without most of their most popular characters, including Marvel's flagship character. They were able to do this through investment in all of their characters, as opposed to just one or two.

However, going back to the comic book publishing side of things, the preferential treatment that Batman receives has actually become detrimental at this point. Because, despite decades of these characters carrying their own series and franchises, in recent years there have been times when it seems that DC thinks of them just as Batman's "crew." Plus, a truism of business (or well, of anything really) is that when you keep going to the same well, that well is eventually gonna dry up. People are never going to stop loving Batman, but oversaturation is a thing and they might be less and less enthused by Batman if all DC produces are Batman-centric things.

This DC's biggest problem. They don't have the mindset to actually build up separate independent franchises for their characters. In modern times it seems like they only have two franchises, Batman, and a nebulous Justice League (throw all the other characters into a big pot) franchise. Really the only character that has bucked that trend in recent years is the Flash.

[manwhohaseverything]

yeah... but Zorro used to go right FOR the 'evil' police and carve their faces up. He didn't work 'outside the system because it wasn't effective'. He worked AGAINST the government because it was corrupt. A bit more like Batman Year one in that regard. I have't read much Golden Age Superman... but I just don't remember him sneaking into prisons and releasing the wrongfully imprisoned while mocking their jailors. Zorro did that ALL the time. Might have happened... but it's not in my collections.

Actually, superman did the same.Just read the goldenage comics. He was pickingup/beating corruot officials, judges, prison guards, armyofficers.. Etc. New52 superman by morrison is sort of based on goldenage vigilante strongman from space. This guy was killed by comics code. Bill finger himself nailed the last coffin on this guy with his origin story of superman. Its kind of shame joker became the symbol of working class with the movie. But, superman? Sheesh!he became space messiah.

[manwhohaseverything]

This is siegel and shuster's superman.Whenever you see superman smashes a bullie's truck/car or government satellite or breaks handcuffs/chains. it's that side coming to the front.

[manwhohaseverything]

Goldenage superman was the champion of the people, Not the saviour of the people.

[Restingvoice]

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.

No argument from me. I've seen the popular Superman image now and how he first started is really different, but we are talking about current public perception.

[phantom1592]

I believe a large part of it is the way Superman came to represent the company itself. DC's #1 mascot was SUPERMAN... Batman may sell more now and be a bigger box office, but Superman is still the mascot. I remember an interview from someone at Disney talking about Mickey Mouse. He was a character who made his debut by stealing a steamboat and going for a joyride.... and stealing a wizard hat and getting up to hijinks... but eventually he became the FACE of Walt Disney company.... and now they just couldn't show him getting into trouble like that anymore. Now he was the 'grown up' in the room trying to keep Donald and Goofy out of trouble. Superman went through similar changes.

[The Darknight Detective]

I believe a large part of it is the way Superman came to represent the company itself. DC's #1 mascot was SUPERMAN... Batman may sell more now and be a bigger box office, but Superman is still the mascot. I remember an interview from someone at Disney talking about Mickey Mouse. He was a character who made his debut by stealing a steamboat and going for a joyride.... and stealing a wizard hat and getting up to hijinks... but eventually he became the FACE of Walt Disney company.... and now they just couldn't show him getting into trouble like that anymore. Now he was the 'grown up' in the room trying to keep Donald and Goofy out of trouble. Superman went through similar changes.

Good point. Bugs Bunny is another one that was neutered, too.

[LifeIsILL]

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.

Even when Superman was #1, they didn't need to dumb down Batman in order to do it. Batman was still the best Detective in the world, a great martial artist etc...

But now, how many people even know that Superman is a genius, or at least used to be in a genius close to Reed Richard's level? They generally think Superman is a nice, simple dumb guy who punches.