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

[Lairston]

With this evil personality in him, Batman seems to be evolving into Moon Knight. A character I used to love but now every series is about him being insane with multiple personalities and in a psychiatric ward. I don't even bother with his new series anymore...

[godisawesome]

To me, the major difference the Superman franchise has with the Batman franchise is less schismatic approaches to the character.

While both Superman and Batman have "factions" of fans who prefer radically different interpretations and ideas about how the characters and stories go, I think the Batman franchise sort of grew into one more patient and "playful" about their differences, while the Superman franchise ends up usually seeing new iterations and adaptations act a bit more exclusionary.

I don't think this is really on the fanbase as much as just a series of accidental "precedents" set over decades. Even back in the Bronze Age, I think fate just sort of worked out where the Batman books were getting a bit better at slowly adapting to new ideas in a more graceful manner, while the Superman books started a tendency towards big, bombastic and "stiff" changes. Bronze Age Batman was already moving towards a second Robin in a slow and calm manner, while Bronze Age Superman suddenly wiped out most of there Phantom Zone criminals and completely repackaged Lex and Brainiac in one special issue. Then, due to slightly different editorial policies, the Post-Crisis universe saw the Superman books go for a whole-hog reboot while the Batman books kind of just slid through a transition. This tendency towards the Batbooks being more flexible with continuity and setting while the Superman books tended to be more all-or-nothing was later reflected by how the Superman books were already in a dizzying set of mini-reboots well before the New 52, while Post Crisis Batman had "Semi-canon" ideas with Legends of the Dark Knight and then Morrison's "it's all canon" approach later. The New 52 simply continued the trend even further, to an almost parodic degree.

Meanwhile, I think the Batman franchise sort of lucked out when Batman And Robin tanked and a backlash ensued, it wound up being quickly and successfully channeled into a stills somewhat controlled and optimistic Nolan series, while the Superman movies took a heavy hit from Superman IV and then simply froze before a belated and "meh" return to Donner form... right after not one but two separate tv shows had used the more "modern" Superman format. Meanwhile, Batman fans lucked out again because Brave and the Bold wound up as a successful cartoon and the 60's Batman show experienced a renaissance, reinvigorating support for a more fun take on the character alongsidethe grim gritty stuff, while something like the Snyder films rubbed salt into the wounds of Superman fans by being semi-successful, but also divisive, continuing the trend of Superman fans feeling like they have to choose one variation of the character instead of another.

Creators and the fanbase for one group have accidentally been primed to "go with the flow," while the other one feels like there are "heresies" that threaten the franchise, even if the fanbase isn't really seen as toxic as other fractious fanbases are.

[JBatmanFan05]

To me, the major difference the Superman franchise has with the Batman franchise is less schismatic approaches to the character.

While both Superman and Batman have "factions" of fans who prefer radically different interpretations and ideas about how the characters and stories go, I think the Batman franchise sort of grew into one more patient and "playful" about their differences, while the Superman franchise ends up usually seeing new iterations and adaptations act a bit more exclusionary.

I don't think this is really on the fanbase as much as just a series of accidental "precedents" set over decades. Even back in the Bronze Age, I think fate just sort of worked out where the Batman books were getting a bit better at slowly adapting to new ideas in a more graceful manner, while the Superman books started a tendency towards big, bombastic and "stiff" changes. Bronze Age Batman was already moving towards a second Robin in a slow and calm manner, while Bronze Age Superman suddenly wiped out most of there Phantom Zone criminals and completely repackaged Lex and Brainiac in one special issue. Then, due to slightly different editorial policies, the Post-Crisis universe saw the Superman books go for a whole-hog reboot while the Batman books kind of just slid through a transition. This tendency towards the Batbooks being more flexible with continuity and setting while the Superman books tended to be more all-or-nothing was later reflected by how the Superman books were already in a dizzying set of mini-reboots well before the New 52, while Post Crisis Batman had "Semi-canon" ideas with Legends of the Dark Knight and then Morrison's "it's all canon" approach later. The New 52 simply continued the trend even further, to an almost parodic degree.

Meanwhile, I think the Batman franchise sort of lucked out when Batman And Robin tanked and a backlash ensued, it wound up being quickly and successfully channeled into a stills somewhat controlled and optimistic Nolan series, while the Superman movies took a heavy hit from Superman IV and then simply froze before a belated and "meh" return to Donner form... right after not one but two separate tv shows had used the more "modern" Superman format. Meanwhile, Batman fans lucked out again because Brave and the Bold wound up as a successful cartoon and the 60's Batman show experienced a renaissance, reinvigorating support for a more fun take on the character alongsidethe grim gritty stuff, while something like the Snyder films rubbed salt into the wounds of Superman fans by being semi-successful, but also divisive, continuing the trend of Superman fans feeling like they have to choose one variation of the character instead of another.

Creators and the fanbase for one group have accidentally been primed to "go with the flow," while the other one feels like there are "heresies" that threaten the franchise, even if the fanbase isn't really seen as toxic as other fractious fanbases are.

You make some really interesting great points in charting the differing evolutions of Batman and Superman in different media. You could very well be correct, or be onto something here.

[Ascended]

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.

Huh. Good question.

I'm guessing some of it probably boils down to necessity. There have been times when Batman has struggled, and DC has had to reimagine the character in drastic ways to get him moving again. Superman hasn't really had that. Yeah, we argue over things like pre-Crisis and post-Crisis, and we act like these variants are a huge fundamental shift for the character. And yes, the character has changed over time, riding the cultural ebb and flow. And gods know he's had his low points. But broadstrokes, he's remained successful enough to not need a massive change, just some course corrections. So because he's rarely faced cancellation fears, he's always been (more or less) the same guy. Necessity has forced Bruce to adopt some wildly different voices, Clark's usually only had to adjust his tone.

So when silly Batman has worked, and psycho-paranoid Batman has worked, why not Japanese ninja Batman? Or Sherlock-ian old London Batman? Plus, Batman is toyetic as hell, and each version unique enough to stand out is a new toy line you can push.

Superman has had a taste of this, especially in the 90's with the Elseworld stuff. Lot of it in JLA stuff. But for every True Brit there's a dozen Gothams by Gaslight. Usually better made by better creators, too. I think that's getting better right now, we've got some nice variety between things like Lost and Space Age and all the rest of it. And it all seems to be doing well by "S" standards, so hopefully we'll keep getting more, and DC will keep getting more daring. Success breeds success, so hopefully this snowballs.

As for the 'cool' thing I saw some of y'all talking about....Batman is high school cool. Black leather and a fast car and a list of booty calls, each hotter and more wild than the last. Ninja skills and money. Vengeance! He's what a sixteen year old thinks is cool. It's an easy sell, and the lowest common denominator. That's not a bad thing, but it's true. Superman is a different kind of deal. He's the 'self confident enough to not give a damn about what you think' cool, the blue collar, get-the-job-done-an-don't-bitch, true macho kind of cool, which is self assured enough to not have to proclaim its badassery with a car that screams 'I'm compensating!' That's harder to mass market. You look at Morrison's t-shirt and jeans visual; that embodies the kind of cool Superman is, but without context it's just a dude in a t-shirt. If that makes any sense?

[Kuwagaton]

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?

I don't think it's a constraint imposed so much as these writers simply don't have it in them. They tend to come aboard like, "man I was really put off on doing Superman until I saw that one story I liked." They kinda just... survive the creative experience, lol

This might sound like left field but I gotta say, if I had the proper pull at DC I'd abolish and ban all Donnerisms, and start from there. That's like the biggest serving of comfort food, from outside the comics themselves, and I don't think it does much to take the character forward. Just reinforces what people already know and expect.

With this evil personality in him, Batman seems to be evolving into Moon Knight. A character I used to love but now every series is about him being insane with multiple personalities and in a psychiatric ward. I don't even bother with his new series anymore...

Right, Huston was cool. Benson and Hurwitz, nice follow ups. Ellis did something really cool, and then they just ran that well dry. Sort of a step back, really.

[Jim Kelly]

When Superman was the most popular character being published, he had many Imaginary Stories. I'd say those comics allowed the writers and artists to do outside-the-box tales where anything could happen to the characters and usually did (with a sharp note of irony, which is what Mort Weisinger loved).

Granted those stories appeared in regular 10 and 12 cent comic books and not in deluxe format printings with high cover prices. But that's because it was a different market. National Periodicals did dominate the competition by putting out more titles but nowhere near the number of titles that the currrent publisher puts out each month (32 publications per month vs. 100+ publications per month).

In those days, they could put out less titles and charge less money, because they had high print runs and less overhead, and there were millions of children in North American who bought comics on a regular basis at stores in their own neighbourhood. These days, they have to put out a lot more stuff and charge lots more money, because they have low prints runs and greater overhead, and there is only a dedicated following of adult readers who make the long trek to the comic shop or else buy the digital copy online.

[manwhohaseverything]

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?

I don't think those were cool kids.Thosr were just bullies and jackassess.

That's harder to mass market. You look at Morrison's t-shirt and jeans visual; that embodies the kind of cool Superman is, but without context it's just a dude in a t-shirt. If that makes any sense?

There is a way to market it.Bruce lee is just a guy in a tang suit.Jackie chan is just regular guy who runs away and screams when he gets hit only to accidentally kick you in the face.Mecha toys aren't the only toys that can be sold.But,then again americans have this thing about tech heroes.also cutesy things like baby groot,yoda..etc

[marhawkman]

To me, the major difference the Superman franchise has with the Batman franchise is less schismatic approaches to the character.

While both Superman and Batman have "factions" of fans who prefer radically different interpretations and ideas about how the characters and stories go, I think the Batman franchise sort of grew into one more patient and "playful" about their differences, while the Superman franchise ends up usually seeing new iterations and adaptations act a bit more exclusionary.

I don't think this is really on the fanbase as much as just a series of accidental "precedents" set over decades. Even back in the Bronze Age, I think fate just sort of worked out where the Batman books were getting a bit better at slowly adapting to new ideas in a more graceful manner, while the Superman books started a tendency towards big, bombastic and "stiff" changes. Bronze Age Batman was already moving towards a second Robin in a slow and calm manner, while Bronze Age Superman suddenly wiped out most of there Phantom Zone criminals and completely repackaged Lex and Brainiac in one special issue. Then, due to slightly different editorial policies, the Post-Crisis universe saw the Superman books go for a whole-hog reboot while the Batman books kind of just slid through a transition. This tendency towards the Batbooks being more flexible with continuity and setting while the Superman books tended to be more all-or-nothing was later reflected by how the Superman books were already in a dizzying set of mini-reboots well before the New 52, while Post Crisis Batman had "Semi-canon" ideas with Legends of the Dark Knight and then Morrison's "it's all canon" approach later. The New 52 simply continued the trend even further, to an almost parodic degree.

Meanwhile, I think the Batman franchise sort of lucked out when Batman And Robin tanked and a backlash ensued, it wound up being quickly and successfully channeled into a stills somewhat controlled and optimistic Nolan series, while the Superman movies took a heavy hit from Superman IV and then simply froze before a belated and "meh" return to Donner form... right after not one but two separate tv shows had used the more "modern" Superman format. Meanwhile, Batman fans lucked out again because Brave and the Bold wound up as a successful cartoon and the 60's Batman show experienced a renaissance, reinvigorating support for a more fun take on the character alongsidethe grim gritty stuff, while something like the Snyder films rubbed salt into the wounds of Superman fans by being semi-successful, but also divisive, continuing the trend of Superman fans feeling like they have to choose one variation of the character instead of another.

Creators and the fanbase for one group have accidentally been primed to "go with the flow," while the other one feels like there are "heresies" that threaten the franchise, even if the fanbase isn't really seen as toxic as other fractious fanbases are.

I think a lot of it is just changes not sticking. every time continuity gets mangled Superman loses pretty much everything that happened since the last continuity mangling.

[DABellWrites]

I think it's these things:

1) There's a greater demand for Batman. So he gets more "experimental" stories.

2) Superman's powers don't lend itself for creativity these days. But, fans would get very angry if Superman doesn't have his full powerset. It's the problem with the video game. There's plenty of ways to go about it, but too many people want the "full experience".

[godisawesome]

I think a lot of it is just changes not sticking. every time continuity gets mangled Superman loses pretty much everything that happened since the last continuity mangling.

And I think the "changes not sticking" has a lot to do with the comics not having a "transition-friendly" precedent that makes Superman fans feel like they have to get the interpretations they want at the expense of stuff they don't want, rather than accept the idea that two different interpretation can exist in the same story.

Batman's Bronze Age, Post-Crisis, and New 52 eras all saw much more of a "bleed-over" from the previous eras so that they didn't really feel like total reboots, but rather softer, sometimes even "optional" reboots: Dick just went to college to exit the titles rather than disappearing to separate the era from the Silver Age, Batman stayed a veteran adventurer with "graduated" sidekicks in the "present" day even as Year One retold his origin, and the Batfamily mostly made the hop from Post-Crisis timeline to the New 52 with the few parts that got heavily rebooted or retconned being the flashpoints of anger in the fanbase, while stuff like Zero Year got more accepted once it was clear that in spite of the contradictions, the creators still wanted to treat Year One as somehow canon with it. And again, stuff like "Legends of the Dark Knight" was always semi-canon by design, so that people who loved Hugo Strange's new form in Post-Crisis could integrate it into modern stories, but ignore it's semi-sequel Heat if they didn't like it's serial killer Catman.

In contrast, Superman comics tended towards more "my way or the highway" stuff, or at least were treated that way after a while.

That's why changes weren't sticking - they were seen as attempts to permanently change stuff and trash the old stuff, rather than just try something out and see what works for a while, hoping it sticks but understanding if it doesn't.

[Kuwagaton]

I always hear that as if Batman doesn't require you to ignore discrepancies of equal or greater magnitude. The new 52 had four Robins in seven years with Wingman simultaneously in the Outlaws? Etc .

I tend to like the firmer division because of the expectations it sets. Maybe Superman did follow suit with the general idea of post Crisis Batman though in that 2004-2006 was a great big smudge of continuity.

[Jim Kelly]

I don't think those were cool kids.Thosr were just bullies and jackassess.

My younger self knew that these bullies were jerks, but that didn't help. The fact is many of them were considered the cool kids in school--while others were losers with psychological problems.

I freely admit the modern Batman is not my Batman. Everyone else may think he's cool, but he is a bully with psychological problems who acts like a jerk. The way he treats his sidekicks and his fellow super-heroes is contemptible. I'll give it to you that there are certain features of Batman that made him cool when I was a kid and still continue to be cool. He goes out at night to fight crime, he dresses like a bat and has a bat on his chest, he has lots of toys, he has a sweet looking ride, he hangs out in a cave.

The Batman I liked best was the Batman in DETECTIVE COMICS 351 (March 1967)--only the second Batman comic I ever bought at the drugstore. In "The Dynamic Duo's Double-Deathtrap" I appreciated how Sid Greene inked Carmine Infantino's Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson--both handsome dudes with a good head of hair. Bruce was a caring father figure to his ward, giving him useful tips like how to remember phone numbers. The story itself educated me about escape artists, the Berlin Wall, people living behind the Iron Curtain and the Stasi. It was a spy thriller with a high stakes murder plot. And the Duo used their brains as much as their brawn. But they were human beings with limitations.

The problem for Superman is that once Batman became the better selling character, Batman displaced Superman by claiming all the Man of Steel's selling points. Clark had a large family of super-folk--now Batman had a large family of bat-folk. Supes had a fantastic Fortress, now the Batcave grew even more fantastic. Where the Man of Tomorrow had the edge on all his opponents, now the Dark Knight knew everyone's secrets (the good guys' and the bad guys'). The Caped Crusader used to struggle to defeat street thugs, now he was a match for Darkseid. If Bruce is supposed to be the world's greatest super-hero as well as the world's greatest detective--then Clark is squeezed out. To make Batman look good, they made Superman look weak.

[JBatmanFan05]

I freely admit the modern Batman is not my Batman. Everyone else may think he's cool, but he is a bully with psychological problems who acts like a jerk. The way he treats his sidekicks and his fellow super-heroes is contemptible. I'll give it to you that there are certain features of Batman that made him cool when I was a kid and still continue to be cool. He goes out at night to fight crime, he dresses like a bat and has a bat on his chest, he has lots of toys, he has a sweet looking ride, he hangs out in a cave.

What is "modern Batman" though, right? Post-Crisis? New 52? Rebirth? He hasn't always been a bully/jerk (and sometimes there were in-story reasons). And different writers do him differently. Morrison vs Scott Snyder, Matt Wagner vs Tom King, etc.

The problem for Superman is that once Batman became the better selling character, Batman displaced Superman by claiming all the Man of Steel's selling points. Clark had a large family of super-folk--now Batman had a large family of bat-folk. Supes had a fantastic Fortress, now the Batcave grew even more fantastic. Where the Man of Tomorrow had the edge on all his opponents, now the Dark Knight knew everyone's secrets (the good guys' and the bad guys'). The Caped Crusader used to struggle to defeat street thugs, now he was a match for Darkseid. If Bruce is supposed to be the world's greatest super-hero as well as the world's greatest detective--then Clark is squeezed out. To make Batman look good, they made Superman look weak.

Batman's cave with fantastic stuff was long a thing, but other than that, you make good fair points. A lot of Batman fans are critical of various "modern" aspects of Batman (too much fam, too Batgod, too little street/detective stuff, etc). Probably a lot of us, like me, curate what Batman we read, try to read the Batman comics that fit our vision better of Batman.

image (15)a1.jpg

[Ascended]

There is a way to market it.Bruce lee is just a guy in a tang suit.Jackie chan is just regular guy who runs away and screams when he gets hit only to accidentally kick you in the face.Mecha toys aren't the only toys that can be sold.But,then again americans have this thing about tech heroes.also cutesy things like baby groot,yoda..etc

I didn't say you couldn't market it, just that it's harder. It requires a bit more effort and creativity to showcase. But Clark's been successfully marketed for generations, it's not a serious hurdle or anything, I'm just saying it's not as to easy to capture his flavor of cool as it is Batman's.

[DABellWrites]

I didn't say you couldn't market it, just that it's harder. It requires a bit more effort and creativity to showcase. But Clark's been successfully marketed for generations, it's not a serious hurdle or anything, I'm just saying it's not as to easy to capture his flavor of cool as it is Batman's.

It's very hard to market Superman as cool when Clark will be written as a complete introvert or dork, or an introverted dork. Either those two, then he's written way too serious. The worse one of all: he's there to make Batman look cool. Surprisingly though, the Lego Superman movies had almost gotten a larger-than-life Superman right, but they fell on the post-crisis trappings and he was getting beat way too much for my liking.