Why does Batman keep evolving his IP in different ways compared to Superman?

[Hoodj]

Surely there's got to be some fatigue in that respect, but Batman as a world and the character keeps being used and successful in different types of gimmicks and niches compared to the Superman, rather it be as a typical hero, a spy thriller, school setting or a criminal coming of age and anti hero piece like his villains. Why is that? Only characters that get that possible variety is only Lois or Supergirl. And that's it. And still is regulated to being part of a superhero narrative plot.

[superduperman]

I think there kind of has been evolution in Superman in recent years. The S&L show is basically "what if he was a dad?". Smallville was basically him as a teenager. The new cartoon is him starting out his early years and discovering his powers during his career. The only real evolution I've seen in Batman over the years is more a race to see who can make him more "realistic" than the person before them. First with the Nolan movies (to be fair, I think it started with Year One) and now we've got a new movie where the "Batmobile" is basically just a souped up Dodge Charger. At some point, you're going to "realistic" yourself into a corner where you can't use half his rogues gallery. I can't see someone like Clayface or Mr. Freeze showing up in the Pattinson movies. Or even someone like Poison Ivy. Even that deleted scene with the Joker seemed almost out of place. And the more they do this, the more ridiculous the entire concept seems. Sooner or later, a guy who dresses up like a bat is going to fall apart under the weight of it's own ridiculousness. Superman doesn't have that problem. S&L did an entire season about Bizzarro and it barely slowed the show down. But, to be fair, it did feel a little out of place.

If anything, I would argue Superman has MORE freedom to explore than Batman does. Especially when Batman's only real choice is to become more grim and gritty than the one before.

[bat39]

I think fundamentally its because the Batman fanbase is a lot more open to embracing multiple iterations of Batman than the Superman fanbase is, so that gives DC/WB a lot more room to manuever.

BTAS and BatB are both beloved and iconic Batman cartoons. People love the Nolanverse, the Burton movies and the Adam West show. If DKR, Year One and TKJ are iconic Batman stories, then so is Morrison's run, and the Batman '66 comics also have their place. Batman as the shadowy vigilante taking on the Mob is as resonant an image as the 'Bat-God' who can take out the Justice League with enough prep-time. Batman as a hardass, as borderline insane, as a well-balanced heroic figure, and as a responsible role model are all accepted interpretations.

With Superman, for the vast majority of the fanbase (particularly casual fans and mainstream audiences) there's a pretty narrow vision of the 'true' Superman, which is largely informed by the Donner movies, with a few Post-Crisis elements thrown in. Anything that deviates, or is perceived to deviate, too much from that template tends to become polarizing and faces backlash. Admittedly, I haven't watched MAWS yet so I dunno how much it adheres to that template (or not), but virtually every other popular adaptation of Superman across media has broadly adhered to that template. The Snyder/Cavill Superman is the one that, tonally at least, is perceived to deviate from it the most, and is thus one of the most polarizing interpretations of the character ever.

When you're so constrained in how you can portray the character, it does limit the kind of stories you tell with the character...especially in adaptations that are ultimately what really build the IP.

I think there kind of has been evolution in Superman in recent years. The S&L show is basically "what if he was a dad?". Smallville was basically him as a teenager. The new cartoon is him starting out his early years and discovering his powers during his career. The only real evolution I've seen in Batman over the years is more a race to see who can make him more "realistic" than the person before them. First with the Nolan movies (to be fair, I think it started with Year One) and now we've got a new movie where the "Batmobile" is basically just a souped up Dodge Charger. At some point, you're going to "realistic" yourself into a corner where you can't use half his rogues gallery. I can't see someone like Clayface or Mr. Freeze showing up in the Pattinson movies. Or even someone like Poison Ivy. Even that deleted scene with the Joker seemed almost out of place. And the more they do this, the more ridiculous the entire concept seems. Sooner or later, a guy who dresses up like a bat is going to fall apart under the weight of it's own ridiculousness. Superman doesn't have that problem. S&L did an entire season about Bizzarro and it barely slowed the show down. But, to be fair, it did feel a little out of place.

If anything, I would argue Superman has MORE freedom to explore than Batman does. Especially when Batman's only real choice is to become more grim and gritty than the one before.

The Batman IP isn't just limited to the live-action movies though. BatB was a highly successful cartoon that was heavily inspired by the Silver Age. The Batman '66 comics and animated films have capitalized on the legacy of the Adam West show. The Arkham games, and a lot of other animated films, have showcased the more 'unrealistic' elements of the mythos. The upcoming Gunnverse BatB film will probably do the same.

I agree depicting Superman as a dad is a narrative leap forward for the character, but I don't think that's the kind of evolution the OP was referring to. All the major Superman adaptations that have been popular have broadly adhered to the Donner (with a bit of Post-Crisis) template I outlined earlier. Smallville covered the early years, S&L covered his later years as a dad, and Supergirl was about his cousin, but fundamentally they're all variations on the same basic version of the character.

[Jim Kelly]

Once Batman was partnered with Robin in 1940 and once Bob Kane was partnered with Jerry Robinson on art, I think that Batman settled into a groove up until 1964. Sure, there was some variation and new innovations, but the concept and art style was locked in.

It was only when Julius Schwartz took over as editor of BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS that there was some alteration in concept and art style. And they did try to kill off Alfred but that didn't stick because of the T.V. show.

The real shake-up came in 1970, when Robin left for university and Bruce moved out of Wayne Manor. That plus a shift in the art (again), away from the Infantino look to the Neal Adams look, made it more likely that changes would keep coming. And actually, they were liberal in allowing other artists to draw Batman in different ways--Frank Robbins, Alex Toth, Walt Simonson, et al. Which stands in contrast to their imposing a standard look on Superman (modelled after the Swan and Anderson version).

They did change the status quo for Superman, too, in having him become a T.V. reporter. But most of the change was editorial--being as Mort Weisinger had a certain approach, which was different from that of Schwartz and the other editors that replaced him.

I think changing the way time works to make it more like Marvel time was what really upset the apple cart. With Batman, you always have Robin (Dick Grayson) and his age. While Jimmy Olsen and Supergirl have the same problems, they aren't as tightly tied to Clark as Dick is to Bruce. And over the years they've often fiddled with the ages of both Jimmy and Supergirl. If Dick keeps getting older, that means Bruce also has to get older.

[DochaDocha]

I think there kind of has been evolution in Superman in recent years. The S&L show is basically "what if he was a dad?". Smallville was basically him as a teenager. The new cartoon is him starting out his early years and discovering his powers during his career. The only real evolution I've seen in Batman over the years is more a race to see who can make him more "realistic" than the person before them. First with the Nolan movies (to be fair, I think it started with Year One) and now we've got a new movie where the "Batmobile" is basically just a souped up Dodge Charger. At some point, you're going to "realistic" yourself into a corner where you can't use half his rogues gallery. I can't see someone like Clayface or Mr. Freeze showing up in the Pattinson movies. Or even someone like Poison Ivy. Even that deleted scene with the Joker seemed almost out of place. And the more they do this, the more ridiculous the entire concept seems. Sooner or later, a guy who dresses up like a bat is going to fall apart under the weight of it's own ridiculousness. Superman doesn't have that problem. S&L did an entire season about Bizzarro and it barely slowed the show down. But, to be fair, it did feel a little out of place.

If anything, I would argue Superman has MORE freedom to explore than Batman does. Especially when Batman's only real choice is to become more grim and gritty than the one before.

Agreed. Though to be fair to the Bat writers, Superman has changed more than Batman in part because nothing really seems to stick. Superman fans have a harder time arriving at consensus, I think.

[Triniking1234]

Because they keep throwing stories at Batman.

Where's my Superman-Cthullu movie? Where's Superman Ninja?

[superduperman]

Agreed. Though to be fair to the Bat writers, Superman has changed more than Batman in part because nothing really seems to stick. Superman fans have a harder time arriving at consensus, I think.

This. He can't even get a costume change without people losing their minds. How many costume changes has Batman had?

[Yoda]

Because they keep throwing stories at Batman.

Where's my Superman-Cthullu movie? Where's Superman Ninja?

Superman used to get the same Elseworld treatment Batman did back in the heyday of Elseworlds. We got War of the Worlds, Tarzan/Superman, Braveheart Superman, etc.

In continuity we've gotten some of that recently. We just came off of a Gladiator Superman arc. That was probably the biggest departure for Superman in recent memory. Leviathan was probably the closet we've gotten to espionage Superman but was definitely a missed oppurtunity ultimately. Good for Lois, but I think it would have been better focused on Clark and Lois than all the heroes it brought in. The character does lend itself to that more than people allow.

This. He can't even get a costume change without people losing their minds. How many costume changes has Batman had?

Batman's costume had largely stayed the same too though. It's had a few tweaks here and there, more than Superman. But I don't think there would be much fuss over the same type of tweaks to Superman's S-Shield, coloring, cape, etc. if they were as iterative as Batman's (and as frequent in the past). I think Superman's biggest fault here is it's been so constant.

[Hoodj]

I think there kind of has been evolution in Superman in recent years. The S&L show is basically "what if he was a dad?". Smallville was basically him as a teenager. The new cartoon is him starting out his early years and discovering his powers during his career. The only real evolution I've seen in Batman over the years is more a race to see who can make him more "realistic" than the person before them. First with the Nolan movies (to be fair, I think it started with Year One) and now we've got a new movie where the "Batmobile" is basically just a souped up Dodge Charger. At some point, you're going to "realistic" yourself into a corner where you can't use half his rogues gallery. I can't see someone like Clayface or Mr. Freeze showing up in the Pattinson movies. Or even someone like Poison Ivy. Even that deleted scene with the Joker seemed almost out of place. And the more they do this, the more ridiculous the entire concept seems. Sooner or later, a guy who dresses up like a bat is going to fall apart under the weight of it's own ridiculousness. Superman doesn't have that problem. S&L did an entire season about Bizzarro and it barely slowed the show down. But, to be fair, it did feel a little out of place.

If anything, I would argue Superman has MORE freedom to explore than Batman does. Especially when Batman's only real choice is to become more grim and gritty than the one before.

Isnt that only in movie, in anything else Batman has more flavor than Superman. For example Harley Quinn and somehow the Penguin.

[Jeffrey2]

The Batman fanbase is much larger and diverse (in tastes) than that of Superman. To the point where Batman has many, many DC titles as well as do spinoff Batman characters. The base is there to support those books which often have largely different takes on Batman. With Superman's relatively small fanbase there is largely a single vision of what he should be. When they try to branch out there are not enough fans to support that vision.

[marhawkman]

Agreed. Though to be fair to the Bat writers, Superman has changed more than Batman in part because nothing really seems to stick. Superman fans have a harder time arriving at consensus, I think.

Fans or WRITERS?

I for one embraced New Krypton. The way that story ran down... I was willing to cheer for Car-Vex as a hero while she massacred General Lane's troops. "But Car-vex wasn't a hero!" so? Lane and his troops were worse.

[manwhohaseverything]

Superman used to get the same Elseworld treatment Batman did back in the heyday of Elseworlds. We got War of the Worlds, Tarzan/Superman, Braveheart Superman, etc.

In continuity we've gotten some of that recently. We just came off of a Gladiator Superman arc. That was probably the biggest departure for Superman in recent memory. Leviathan was probably the closet we've gotten to espionage Superman but was definitely a missed oppurtunity ultimately. Good for Lois, but I think it would have been better focused on Clark and Lois than all the heroes it brought in. The character does lend itself to that more than people allow.

Byrne did gladiator arc.it's neither a departure nor a reinvention.honestly,it had every blunt "undertone" of savior figures and hero worships that is associated with superman.I was practically looking forward to it but was disappointed.Supes being the metaphorical gladiator was the thing that had me get into superman with morrison,siegel,moore..etc

The Batman fanbase is much larger and diverse (in tastes) than that of Superman. To the point where Batman has many, many DC titles as well as do spinoff Batman characters. The base is there to support those books which often have largely different takes on Batman. With Superman's relatively small fanbase there is largely a single vision of what he should be. When they try to branch out there are not enough fans to support that vision.

This is true.

[Kuwagaton]

The Batman fanbase is much larger and diverse (in tastes) than that of Superman. To the point where Batman has many, many DC titles as well as do spinoff Batman characters. The base is there to support those books which often have largely different takes on Batman. With Superman's relatively small fanbase there is largely a single vision of what he should be. When they try to branch out there are not enough fans to support that vision.

There is one vision for Batman: "cool." Nevermind how he's supposed to be human and can get wiped put at the average lumberyard, when you feature a crossover character from Punisher to the whole League, he has to somehow be able to beat them. Superman has to be pared down to make Gotham threats look menacing, even. Joker gets godlike powers in at least one story. Ninja, superhero, changes into special outfits for missions, etc. Batman functions as wish fulfillment more than Superman despite and in some ways because he doesn't have powers, and although he's physically one of us you don't need to really give him more humanity than Dredd for his stories to work.

Meanwhile Superman goes to college, gets a desk job, and has a family. The recent tv show has him with two teenaged sons about the same age as he was on the Superboy show or Smallville, and those are enormous departures still just in context of live action. In the comics you can absolutely say that the Batman runs from the last 50 years have aged better in popular opinion, but they're not nearly as diverse or imaginative. I vehemently disagree with that preference but to not hold the popular opinion is something of an L, sure.

[Adekis]

I think fundamentally its because the Batman fanbase is a lot more open to embracing multiple iterations of Batman than the Superman fanbase is, so that gives DC/WB a lot more room to manuever.

BTAS and BatB are both beloved and iconic Batman cartoons. People love the Nolanverse, the Burton movies and the Adam West show. If DKR, Year One and TKJ are iconic Batman stories, then so is Morrison's run, and the Batman '66 comics also have their place. Batman as the shadowy vigilante taking on the Mob is as resonant an image as the 'Bat-God' who can take out the Justice League with enough prep-time. Batman as a hardass, as borderline insane, as a well-balanced heroic figure, and as a responsible role model are all accepted interpretations.

With Superman, for the vast majority of the fanbase (particularly casual fans and mainstream audiences) there's a pretty narrow vision of the 'true' Superman, which is largely informed by the Donner movies, with a few Post-Crisis elements thrown in. Anything that deviates, or is perceived to deviate, too much from that template tends to become polarizing and faces backlash. Admittedly, I haven't watched MAWS yet so I dunno how much it adheres to that template (or not), but virtually every other popular adaptation of Superman across media has broadly adhered to that template. The Snyder/Cavill Superman is the one that, tonally at least, is perceived to deviate from it the most, and is thus one of the most polarizing interpretations of the character ever.

When you're so constrained in how you can portray the character, it does limit the kind of stories you tell with the character...especially in adaptations that are ultimately what really build the IP.

I think this is it. You can basically get away with doing anything with Batman and fans will accept it. I guess they prefer it when he doesn't kill anyone, or at least claims not to do. But ultimately there's a lot of leeway with how Batman get presented, compared to Superman, who is far more likely to get attacked for perceived tonal variation. You can make him a Dad, you can make him a young man, but the second you deviate too much from whatever the consensus Superman is - and to be fair, it's a little tough nailing the particulars down - you're going to get a certain subset of fans, mostly casual fans if I had to guess, getting really pissy about it.

I don't know if I'd quite say that the "common consensus" Superman is just the Donner version, like you said there's a lot of post-Crisis elements there. But there sure is a lot of the first Donner film in him. Also, to tie lightly into what Kuwagaton said, A lot of creators and fans, for some reason, don't seem to value the idea of Superman being "cool". A handful will even say that Superman isn't supposed to be cool - not to dispute over what "cool" is, but just that whatever is cool, Superman shouldn't be that. And frankly, that's fucking insane.

[Agent Z]

Define "evolving".