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

[greatmetropolitan]

With Batman and Superman, it feels like it's the same as the difference between Fashion and Style. Batman is the Fashion hero - he'll come and go with the fads, the tides and always be, well, fashionable. Superman is the Style hero. Styles don't change. Batman is more malleable, Superman is a fixed point.

People like malleable and unpredictable. When Batman shows up, you don't know which version of him you're going to get - growling, antisocial, paranoid, hardass or is it the batman who keeps lollypops in his utility belt for children, teams up with aliens and is fundamentally compassionate/humanist?

When Superman shows up, you know what you're going to get. You know everything is going to be OK. That's part of his appeal. (I do think the character works better when he's reliably rebellious to authority and power structures, but that's a whole other conversation).

[Hoodj]

Define "evolving".

Everything with Robin, Batgirl, even Harley and Joker? Plus there's Bruce changing constantly in aesthetic or tone even if he's a superhero gimmick, he could be a space or cowboy fantasy.

[Jim Kelly]

I don't see expanding the franchise as evolution. It's just a consequence of success, where they try to make more money off the characters we've come to care about. But we care about them because they interact with the main character. Spin-offs take them out of the main character's story. You like Rhoda and Phyllis? Well, we're going to take them away from Mary and put them in their own series--are you happy now?

Of course, evolution itself is neither good nor bad. Sometimes an evolution will be a benefit to a species, sometimes it will doom them. Viruses evolve at a rapid rate--sometimes they become more virulent sometimes they become benign.

Whether a comic evolves (so to speak) or not is no indication of value. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Personally, when it comes to an ongoing series, I prefer that once it develops a good formula it just stays that way. I think that was the sign of a successful comic book back in the day. If a comic kept changing that indicated it had poor sales. Comics like GREEN LANTERN and WONDER WOMAN went through multiple changes when their sales were down. Good Ol' Charlie Brown stayed relatively the same for decades and the only reason that series ended was because Charles Schulz had to give it up (shortly before his death).

While Batman's sales are larger relative to other franchises from the same publisher, that doesn't mean he has a large readership. Batman movies might rack up billion dollar box office numbers, but the overwhelming majority of movie goers never touch a comic book. I would guess there are about a hundred thousand people who buy Batman comics at a regular rate---but they are so dedicated to the franchise, they will buy every title and multiple copies (given variant covers)--and collected editions on top of that.

To get those same people to buy even more Batman, the publisher does a lot of out of continuity stories, but that's not evolution. I don't think it is. If we're just talking about the in continuity Batman compared with the in continuity Superman--the Batman character has stayed relatively the same over the last twenty years--while with Superman they keep trying out new approaches to see if some new angle will catch on. When they do reboots, while they might throw out some of the spin-off characters (it's getting really crowded in the Batcave), they try to keep Batman looking like the Good Ol' Battie Brown the readers know and love. With Superman, all bets are off.

Personally, if either Superman or Batman have evolved, I think they've evolved into old geezers who yell at their kids for being too rambunctious. They've been written into corners they won't get out of without another reboot.

[Kuwagaton]

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 insane.

On the flip side IMO, Superman is cool or he isn't, based on how you associate the word with him and what he offers. Batman by comparison is perforated, flexible, buoyant ... mainly, you prescribe what's already cool to the character. Morrison literally had him parachute into a scene while another character says out loud, "cooler than James Bond." And of course he has a comparable revolving door of women for all who find that cool. One time he told Richard Dragon "no percentage mixing it up oriental style, time for old fashioned American Superbowl brawling!" Now he's the Soul of the Dragon, the Ninja, master of all martial arts sitting on a mountain as the best of the league of assassins in Begins. Inspired by the Shadow? Well have the Shadow come into a Batman story and get beaten up, because Batman is cool.

Superman has had some cool updates: new powers, new haircuts, new job, new costumes, big edgy scar, motorcycle, bio armor, and one time he was hatched from a pod. That stuff doesn't seem to stick; most people recognize when you're trying to make him cool and it doesn't seem right. What's had legs? 9-5 job, farm life, being married in his mid 30s, family mentor, less than the most powers. Go figure.

[JBatmanFan05]

On the flip side IMO, Superman is cool or he isn't, based on how you associate the word with him and what he offers. Batman by comparison ...

Superman has had some cool updates: new powers, new haircuts, new job, new costumes, big edgy scar, motorcycle, bio armor, and one time he was hatched from a pod. That stuff doesn't seem to stick; most people recognize when you're trying to make him cool and it doesn't seem right. What's had legs? 9-5 job, farm life, being married in his mid 30s, family mentor, less than the most powers. Go figure.

Yeah. I don't what exactly my position on Superman and "coolness" is, but fans certainly don't like it when bad attempts at adding "cool" to Superman don't work. I'd say if Superman is cool, it shouldn't be in the exact ways that Batman is.

I credit Superman fans, the grassroots. A lot of Superman fans are smart enough to understand that there are always going to be business-driven temptations to try to overly Batmanify or Marvelize Superman or aspects of Superman, and at some point, enough fans (casual, hardcore, media/celebrity/film critic fans) push back on DC or WB's attempts at that.

You see it with Star Trek (Picard is a great example of business-driven corruption), etc, it's just a Grant Morrison said, we as a society have gotten too far away from optimism in our biggest media, as evidenced by no more TNGs (and Orig Star Trek) and the rise of more and more apocalyptic doom media.



(And ironically, I say all this as a Frank Miller & Alan Moore fan, Lovecraft fan, Poe fan, Batman fan, GOT fan, etc, and a general fan of very dark and/or dystopian media...even I sense and disapprove of the existing imbalance)

[Kuwagaton]

That makes me think about (and sorry if this isn't really along the line of the OP) a bit of post Crisis irony: Batman has had his image defined by Miller, Burton, Breyfogle, Jones, TAS, and others (I can imagine MacFarlane was gonna play a bigger role than he did) as overall more dynamic. Edgy, gothic, etc. And yet they had Aparo along so you never lost that classic feeling. Meanwhile Superman had Byrne do a less radical departure, and he has extensively described the situation as almost a deal breaker when DC would feature older artists for promotional work. So, they were opposite then as well in a way that should have probably been flipped

[Agent Z]

Yeah. I don't what exactly my position on Superman and "coolness" is, but fans certainly don't like it when bad attempts at adding "cool" to Superman don't work. I'd say if Superman is cool, it shouldn't be in the exact ways that Batman is.

I credit Superman fans, the grassroots. A lot of Superman fans are smart enough to understand that there are always going to be business-driven temptations to try to overly Batmanify or Marvelize Superman or aspects of Superman, and at some point, enough fans (casual, hardcore, media/celebrity/film critic fans) push back on DC or WB's attempts at that.

You see it with Star Trek (Picard is a great example of business-driven corruption), etc, it's just a Grant Morrison said, we as a society have gotten too far away from optimism in our biggest media, as evidenced by no more TNGs (and Orig Star Trek) and the rise of more and more apocalytpic doom media.



(And ironically, I say all this as a Frank Miller & Alan Moore fan, Lovecraft fan, Poe fan, Batman fan, GOT fan, etc, and a general fan of very dark and/or dystopian media...even I sense and disapprove of the existing imbalance)

People say this as if TNG or even the original Star Trek were the norm when they debuted.

[Jim Kelly]

Thing is many of the modern aspects of Batman that make him "cool" are things I don't like. I was never much of a sucker for the cool people. It was the cool kids in school who mocked me in school and beat me up after school. Why would I like them?

[bat39]

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.

Yeah when it comes to Batman, I think Ben Affleck's Batman is a lot more universally loved among Batman fans (apart from the killing thing) as compared to Henry Cavill's Superman, who's a far more polarizing figure among Superman fans. Batfleck's kills (not that I honestly remember any direct kills other than maybe Anatoly Knyazev...I don't count the Knightmare ones) get brought up a tiny fraction of the time Cavillman snapping Zod's neck under the most extreme circumstances is!

Anyway, last year, I went down the rabbit hole of trying to define the 'consensus' Superman (or 'classic' Superman as I put it) on this thread - https://community.cbr.com/showthread...assic-Superman

Guessing you might have participated in it as well? Anyway, I started out with the premise that it's some blend of the Donner Superman and Post-Crisis and a lot of people agreed. But the biggest takeaway from the discussion, at least for me, was the idea that the blueprint for 'classic'/'consensus' might have been laid down with the George Reeves show, and the comics of that general era. That said, ultimately, I do think its mostly Donner-plus-Post-Crisis that forms the 'consensus' Superman for most fans today, especially casual fans and mainstream audiences.

The whole idea of Superman being constrained by a 'consensus' version is only one piece of the puzzle of course. I mean, technically, having to adhere to a particular take on Superman shouldn't preclude sending him off on varied stories and adventures, especially in adaptations. But I do think somewhere being put in a box with regards to Superman in one aspect leads to creators being constrained in other aspects as well. Like, theoretically it shouldn't be too hard to have Superman in a political thriller (especially as Clark Kent), but maybe constraints around how Superman should be portrayed limits what a creator can do with the character in such a narrative?

Agree with you on the 'cool' bit. Its a concern for me with Superman Legacy actually. I can easily imagine a scenario where Guy Gardner and Hawkgirl, maybe even Mr. Terrific, emerge as 'cooler' than Superman, especially if Gunn is going for Donner/Reeve 2.0 with Corenswet's Clark.

[JBatmanFan05]

People say this as if TNG or even the original Star Trek were the norm when they debuted.

I never said they were. But they became significant cultural forces of optimism, forward-looking optimism. The original Quantum Leap was similar for most seasons, most episodes. And Superman has been in that arena for so many fans, audiences, readers, etc (and I'm not exactly saying Superman is solely about optimism).

[Agent Z]

Thing is many of the modern aspects of Batman that make him "cool" are things I don't like. I was never much of a sucker for the cool people. It was the cool kids in school who mocked me in school and beat me up after school. Why would I like them?

Maybe Batman just isn't for you then.

[Agent Z]

I never said they were. But they became significant cultural forces of optimism, forward-looking optimism. The original Quantum Leap was similar for most seasons, most episodes. And Superman has been in that arena for so many fans, audiences, readers, etc (and I'm not exactly saying Superman is solely about optimism).

There is plenty of optimism in entertainment, even today. Arguably more than when Superman debuted. People just like focusing on the negative for quick soundbites and clickbait.

Even some of the "cynical" works people like Morrison so lament are a lot more optimistic than many realize and Morrison has contributed plenty to dark and cynical media themselves. Remember when they bashed Alan Moore for constantly using rape, forgetting all the times they'd done it?

[JBatmanFan05]

There is plenty of optimism in entertainment, even today. Arguably more than when Superman debuted. People just like focusing on the negative for quick soundbites and clickbait.

It matters more about what media are biggest cultural forces and I don't think many would say it's been a lot of the optimistic-driven ones. Last of Us, House of the Dragon, Oppenheimer, Euphoria, Black Mirror, You, Yellowstone, etc, etc.

[Agent Z]

It matters more about what media are biggest cultural forces and I don't think many would say it's been a lot of the optimistic-driven ones. Last of Us, House of the Dragon, Oppenheimer, Black Mirror, You, Yellowstone, etc, etc.

Barbie, Encanto, the MCU, Ted Lasso, Friends, My Hero Academia, Steven Universe and much more.

I wouldn't even call Yellowstone necessarily cynical.

[DochaDocha]

Yeah when it comes to Batman, I think Ben Affleck's Batman is a lot more universally loved among Batman fans (apart from the killing thing) as compared to Henry Cavill's Superman, who's a far more polarizing figure among Superman fans. Batfleck's kills (not that I honestly remember any direct kills other than maybe Anatoly Knyazev...I don't count the Knightmare ones) get brought up a tiny fraction of the time Cavillman snapping Zod's neck under the most extreme circumstances is!

Outside of the action sequences that get a lot of praise, and maybe the Miller-inspired costume, what aspects of Batfleck do Batman fans really like? My experience (not speaking for anyone else's) is that there isn't a whole love to lot other than he was the Batman of his era and I think most casual fans of comic book superheroes respect the actor in the role.