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

[Jim Kelly]

Batman's cave with fantastic stuff was long a thing, but other than that, you make good fair points.

True. In fact there was a lot wrong with my comment and I knew it, but I couldn't be bothered with trying to improve it.

Doc Savage experts would know better than me, but he was the one who had a Fortress of Solitude first. He had a utility vest, too. He was often called the Man of Bronze and I believe he was sometimes called a Superman.

Batman had a kid sidekick before Superman and you could argue he had a bigger family before Superman. Batwoman became an ongoing character before Supergirl. Superman's dog beats out Batman's dog but only by a couple of months.

Neither character had a monopoly on awesome concepts. I think it's more the scale of everything in Superman's world. His Fortress is in the high Arctic and is massive. Inside are creatures from all over the universe. The Fortress has many purpose-built chambers. You need a giant key to open the front door. There's a bell jar containing a large city with an advanced civilization and weird creatures.

Batman might have the Batmen of All Nations, but Superman (when he was a boy) had the Legion of Super-Heroes in the 30th century.

For all the wonder of Batman's world, it was still on a human scale--which was fitting for a duo that was just a man and a boy. When Bruce compared himself with Superman, he felt like he didn't measure up and was about to break up their World's Finest team--in WORLD'S FINEST COMICS 143 (August 1964)--1st story, "The Feud Between Batman and Superman."

Also, by the time I started reading Batman, Julius Schwartz had done away with the more wacky stuff. What made Batman stories thrilling was knowing that he could get beat up real bad--so could Robin. And they didn't wear armour--they weren't invulnerable to harm. That's the advantage Batman had over Superman. To injure Clark the writers had to invent some elaborate ruse to make him vulnerable. The advantage Superman had over Batman was his truly cosmic existence.

I would still say that Bruce and Clark had more in common with each other than what distinguished them. They had both suffered losses in their lives. They both had a noble outlook on the world. They were both stoic and didn't wear their emotions on their sleeves. They both had mothers named Martha. It made sense that when these two guys met they would become best friends and support each other no matter what. Their strong bond was only threatened when it suited the convenience of the plot--to make the reader worry that their two favourite heroes might split up--only to calm those fears by story's end.

Not that I've hated everything Batman in the last thirty years. I've enjoyed several runs. But I have less interest in the comics now than ever before. I'd rather read the old stories.

[manwhohaseverything]

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.

I tend to think people overthink superman and make it so.They go after this uniqueness business.and this "You need to try to differentiate supernan" thing.It will come automatically if you are different.Charlie chapplin stories weren't trying to be different or oroginal.It just was.The character is just another action adventure character like any before or after.Reminds another series i used to watch as a kid.Jackie chan adventures.imagine clark kent with glasses stuck with a red headed troublesome nerdy kid all the while having to fight a magical dragon abd having to keep his secret from the kid.

Superman is competent idea(atleast at inseption) that took inspirations from the things around it and even the creator's life.For me,i haven't seen that idea at it's full potential

[bat39]

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.

Bingo! If there was a Pulitizer Prize for CBR posts, then you should get it for this one

That's it...I have nothing more to add.

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.

Isn't that pretty much how things stand right now? The broad Post-Crisis template for Superman, with elements of the Silver Age and Donner thrown in.

As far as the New 52 Batman timeline went, that was more a broader problem with New 52 continuity than with the Batman franchise specifically. In fact, the problem arose because Batman was mostly only soft-rebooted and carried on with business as usual with some superficial changes, while DC continuity got hit harder and was compressed to a ridiculous 5 years. So you had the stupidity of Damian being 11 while Bruce had only been Batman for 6 years. But honestly, Batman in the New 52 books, say Snyder's run, was fundamentally just a continuation of the character as he was Pre-Flashpoint, albeit with a new suit (that still mostly resembled the Year One suit, albeit with armor and no trunks) and drawn a bit younger to comply with the 'company mandate'.

[marhawkman]

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.

Batman had a kid sidekick before Superman and you could argue he had a bigger family before Superman. Batwoman became an ongoing character before Supergirl. Superman's dog beats out Batman's dog but only by a couple of months.

I was gonna discuss these separately but I think they're related. Superman got REKT by CoIE. The Superman we had before then was just GONE. Batman? I have no idea how much he changed, I didn't really notice anything.

But Superman? the mandate of "Last Kryptonian" by editorial was genre-breaking. The whole "Bat-Family" thing didn't have the impediment of "there can be only one vigilante in Gotham!" Superman now CAN'T have his cousin show up and help him out. the damage didn't get undone until the end of the New Earth era(when Superman recreated the "Supermen of America"), and well, that patch is GONE. Current is in a resonably good position, but ti's using a bunch of new characters. They literally had Superman adopt two kids to add numbers to his group.

[Jeffrey2]

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.

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.

This is spot on. The Batman was a move away from the Nolan films and some Batman fans didn't like the Reeves take. Despite that The Batman did well at the BO and did so during Covid. Imagine what it might have done had the pandemic not occurred. This allows WB to make two concurrent Batman film IPs that are quite different from one another, but which will both be very successful. The base of Batman fans is huge and many of those fans are willing to embrace new versions of the character. Certainly, enough to make the Nolan films and The Batman both successful IPs.

With Superman the doxy imposed by fans makes it almost impossible to successfully break from the Donner mold - MOS significantly underperformed. And yet when a Donner friendly film is made like Superman Returns it too underperforms because the fanbase is small. It's a double-edged sword. Superman and Lois is a different take, but it was never as successful as Supergirl or Arrow or Flash. The thing that allowed it to run for 4 seasons is the small audience that a TV series can have and make money. So, the small segment of Superman fans willing to try something different can sustain a TV show for while but aren't enough to make a film that deviates from the doxy successful.

[Kuwagaton]

It's really weird and I've never gotten a good idea about what feels like banishment of Earth 1, the Bronze age Superman (1970-1986). There's little to no trace to my satisfaction, highlighted by that weird tease at a Bronze age Supergirl collection. You know we have Bronze age Batgirl? She didn't even headline a book so wth. No disrespect to Denny but if they're gonna say that the WF collection is supposed to scratch that itch... not at all


This is part of my saltiness with the Donner Superman, because it's like they they could only choose one and went in that direction.

[marhawkman]

It's really weird and I've never gotten a good idea about what feels like banishment of Earth 1, the Bronze age Superman (1970-1986). There's little to no trace to my satisfaction, highlighted by that weird tease at a Bronze age Supergirl collection. You know we have Bronze age Batgirl? She didn't even headline a book so wth. No disrespect to Denny but if they're gonna say that the WF collection is supposed to scratch that itch... not at all


This is part of my saltiness with the Donner Superman, because it's like they they could only choose one and went in that direction.

I... can't blame Donner. I think Donner is a reflection of the editorial mandate banning Kryptonian allies for Superman. Later works resemble it... due to being cast in the same mold.

[Jim Kelly]

I feel that a lot of the Donner SUPERMAN is drawing on much earlier material. Especially the Kirk Alyn serials. With bits of the radio series and television series mixed in. Maybe the junta of writers working on the movie didn't read comic books but may have listened to the radio adventures and seen the live action versions when they were younger. It's half that and half how can we update this for a modern audience? So you get this weird sense that it has one foot in the past and the other foot in 1978 (Supertramp).

[marhawkman]

I feel that a lot of the Donner SUPERMAN is drawing on much earlier material. Especially the Kirk Alyn serials. With bits of the radio series and television series mixed in. Maybe the junta of writers working on the movie didn't read comic books but may have listened to the radio adventures and seen the live action versions when they were younger. It's half that and half how can we update this for a modern audience? So you get this weird sense that it has one foot in the past and the other foot in 1978 (Supertramp).

Yeah, I kinda feel like Donner was not Superman as was modern then, but an older version from a previous era. Like it was written by someone familiar with Superman comics and the tropes used, but using what they remembered from when they were younger.

[godisawesome]

I was gonna discuss these separately but I think they're related. Superman got REKT by CoIE. The Superman we had before then was just GONE. Batman? I have no idea how much he changed, I didn't really notice anything.

But Superman? the mandate of "Last Kryptonian" by editorial was genre-breaking. The whole "Bat-Family" thing didn't have the impediment of "there can be only one vigilante in Gotham!" Superman now CAN'T have his cousin show up and help him out. the damage didn't get undone until the end of the New Earth era(when Superman recreated the "Supermen of America"), and well, that patch is GONE. Current is in a resonably good position, but ti's using a bunch of new characters. They literally had Superman adopt two kids to add numbers to his group.

While the jump from Bronze Age Superman to Post-Crisis Superman was pretty strict and total, Bronze Age Batman sort of continued on and simply had smaller retcons “stapled” on him, with those that stuck becoming integral to the new era, but without any particular pressure to l force” everything to change just to change. He kept his “Batfamily”, with changes to their origins and careers added piecemeal over decades, and he picked up a new origin himself… but as a “past” to his present once it was done. His villains likewise transitioned into new forms only whenever creators had stories they felt worked for it; Catwoman got repackaged significantly, Joker had an ambiguous background change but kept his overall story, and Penguin sort of kept all his previous criminal career, but got a new job eventually.

In contrast, as you pointed out, the Superman books were started over completely with conceptual mandates and orders that seemed to needlessly aggravate established reservoirs of storytelling and lore work. Now, I’d argue that editorial and their writers were so good at the grind and at the “spectacle” of events that Post-Crisis still contains a HUGE amount of good stories and ideas… but in hindsight, it might have been much better to just have the writers try transitioning stuff in and changing stuff only when they had a story for it as well. Stuff like just having Lex Luthor use his super science to become a legal billionaire, or retconning in Lois’s military brat background without needing to ditch her whole history with Clark and Superman.

This is spot on. The Batman was a move away from the Nolan films and some Batman fans didn't like the Reeves take. Despite that The Batman did well at the BO and did so during Covid. Imagine what it might have done had the pandemic not occurred. This allows WB to make two concurrent Batman film IPs that are quite different from one another, but which will both be very successful. The base of Batman fans is huge and many of those fans are willing to embrace new versions of the character. Certainly, enough to make the Nolan films and The Batman both successful IPs.

With Superman the doxy imposed by fans makes it almost impossible to successfully break from the Donner mold - MOS significantly underperformed. And yet when a Donner friendly film is made like Superman Returns it too underperforms because the fanbase is small. It's a double-edged sword. Superman and Lois is a different take, but it was never as successful as Supergirl or Arrow or Flash. The thing that allowed it to run for 4 seasons is the small audience that a TV series can have and make money. So, the small segment of Superman fans willing to try something different can sustain a TV show for while but aren't enough to make a film that deviates from the doxy successful.

Again, I think it’s sort of just an accidental tendency the Superman franchise has developed, but it definitely feels like the movies got into a cycle of being a little too insistent on their own ideas and reacting to previous entires rather than trying to make things work for more people.

It’s weird, for instance, that both a hardcore Silver Age film like Superman Returns and a hardcore Post-Crisis film like Man of Steel managed to completely sidestep the more proven romance formula from the comics and TV by the time of their release (having Lois fall for Clark)… but it’s likely both occurred because of how they reacted to previous film entries. SR seems so devoutly enamored with the Donner films that it seems to have misinterpreted Lois and Superman’s relationship in that film and also twisted the Messianic overtones to create a “son of God” character in Jason that also went with a “Joseph” counterpart, then MOS was so against the Silver Age ideas of SR that it completely dumped the Clark identity in favor of an amalgamated Clark/Superman, etc.

Now, I personally think that the Lois and Clark/Smallville/Superman and Lois/My Adventures With Superman formula actually *isn’t* a comparable example of “orthodox arguments,” but rather a Batman-esque friendly-to-all-interpretations transition that has actually quietly come to define that part of the mythos… perhaps because the TV shows better reflect the necessity of comics to create a working long term plan. I’d also argue that Lex morphing into a combo-corrupt businessman/evil scientist also follows that line.

It’s just taken longer for that kind of more graceful transition and blending of ideas to hit the franchise, and it still hasn’t quite happened to the rest of the franchise. (See: The New 52 Superman being killed off at first, rather than just quietly making Morrison’s Action Comics run be the background to SuperDad.)

[Kuwagaton]

I don't blame Donner (rip) because even when his Superman was active, people were putting the inspiration into comics. The generation of those who enjoyed the first movies growing up? Forget it.

Calling that work a Silver age product might be a little difficult since it was so detached from the comics. Returns as a hardcore Silver age product isn't something I can see at all but impressive that others might.

And with the completely wiped slate of the Crisis, it's really hard to say it wasn't the right move in 1986 or 1996, when the popularity surged again with STAS. I wasn't even born in time to read the reboot but Superman clearly wasn't an interest for the average comic reader then. I can imagine the reboot caused more negative reactions than the comics prior had positive reactions: sort of the premise behind Death in 1992 as well. I know even less about the Batman comics from the time but I can assume that the back issue prices (and now those excellent Bronze age collections are getting pricey) speak to some popularity

[bat39]

I feel that a lot of the Donner SUPERMAN is drawing on much earlier material. Especially the Kirk Alyn serials. With bits of the radio series and television series mixed in. Maybe the junta of writers working on the movie didn't read comic books but may have listened to the radio adventures and seen the live action versions when they were younger. It's half that and half how can we update this for a modern audience? So you get this weird sense that it has one foot in the past and the other foot in 1978 (Supertramp).

https://www.batman-online.com/forum/...=2197.msg31753

This thread actually does a pretty thorough job mapping out some of the possible comic-book influences on Donner's Superman. It seems to be a blend of some really early stuff (the first few issues of Action Comics), as well as stuff published as recently as the early 70's.

On another thread, I remember a discussion around how the It's a Bird! It's a Plane! musical was apparently also a stylistic influence on the movie.

But yeah, I do get a sense that it was a kind of distillation of how the writers remembered Superman from past adaptations as well as whatever comics they read as a kid, or got their hands on during their research. It certainly wasn't meant to be a direct translation of whatever was currently on the newstands.

Its also worth noting that the guys working on Superman: The Movie weren't trying to run away from something in their treatment. They just set out to make a Superman movie and to distill the essence of the character, across comics and past adaptations, into one cohesive narrative. In contrast, with Burton's Batman, a decade later, Michael Uslan, and later Burton himself, had a definite agenda to break free from the legacy of the Adam West show and go with a darker tone for the Dark Knight. And they deliberately sought out influences which would help with that goal - the early Kane/Finger stories, the Denny O'Neill or Englehart runs of the 70's etc.

While the jump from Bronze Age Superman to Post-Crisis Superman was pretty strict and total, Bronze Age Batman sort of continued on and simply had smaller retcons “stapled” on him, with those that stuck becoming integral to the new era, but without any particular pressure to l force” everything to change just to change. He kept his “Batfamily”, with changes to their origins and careers added piecemeal over decades, and he picked up a new origin himself… but as a “past” to his present once it was done. His villains likewise transitioned into new forms only whenever creators had stories they felt worked for it; Catwoman got repackaged significantly, Joker had an ambiguous background change but kept his overall story, and Penguin sort of kept all his previous criminal career, but got a new job eventually.

In contrast, as you pointed out, the Superman books were started over completely with conceptual mandates and orders that seemed to needlessly aggravate established reservoirs of storytelling and lore work. Now, I’d argue that editorial and their writers were so good at the grind and at the “spectacle” of events that Post-Crisis still contains a HUGE amount of good stories and ideas… but in hindsight, it might have been much better to just have the writers try transitioning stuff in and changing stuff only when they had a story for it as well. Stuff like just having Lex Luthor use his super science to become a legal billionaire, or retconning in Lois’s military brat background without needing to ditch her whole history with Clark and Superman.


Again, I think it’s sort of just an accidental tendency the Superman franchise has developed, but it definitely feels like the movies got into a cycle of being a little too insistent on their own ideas and reacting to previous entires rather than trying to make things work for more people.

It’s weird, for instance, that both a hardcore Silver Age film like Superman Returns and a hardcore Post-Crisis film like Man of Steel managed to completely sidestep the more proven romance formula from the comics and TV by the time of their release (having Lois fall for Clark)… but it’s likely both occurred because of how they reacted to previous film entries. SR seems so devoutly enamored with the Donner films that it seems to have misinterpreted Lois and Superman’s relationship in that film and also twisted the Messianic overtones to create a “son of God” character in Jason that also went with a “Joseph” counterpart, then MOS was so against the Silver Age ideas of SR that it completely dumped the Clark identity in favor of an amalgamated Clark/Superman, etc.

Now, I personally think that the Lois and Clark/Smallville/Superman and Lois/My Adventures With Superman formula actually *isn’t* a comparable example of “orthodox arguments,” but rather a Batman-esque friendly-to-all-interpretations transition that has actually quietly come to define that part of the mythos… perhaps because the TV shows better reflect the necessity of comics to create a working long term plan. I’d also argue that Lex morphing into a combo-corrupt businessman/evil scientist also follows that line.

It’s just taken longer for that kind of more graceful transition and blending of ideas to hit the franchise, and it still hasn’t quite happened to the rest of the franchise. (See: The New 52 Superman being killed off at first, rather than just quietly making Morrison’s Action Comics run be the background to SuperDad.)

Funnily enough, Byrne himself would have preferred to follow something akin to the 'Batman model' with his reboot. He envisioned MOS as being a 'Year One' story covering the new origin and the start of Superman's career, and he was prepared to fold in a lot of Pre-Crisis continuity. But DC mandated that it had to be a hard reboot, and that the relaunched series had to pick up immediately after MOS (which led to some timelines weirdness in the early Post-Crisis stories).

Likewise, I feel that Morrison too viewed his New 52 arc as being something distinct from the larger New 52 initiative and would have been okay with it being a prelude to a Post-Crisis status quo. In fact, later in his run, I think he kind of depicted the marriage as a possible future for his Superman (and more or less suggested that his New 52 Superman was a younger version of the Post-Crisis Superman whose history had been messed with by Vyndyktv).

As far as the shows you've mentioned go...I wouldn't say they pave the way for the 'Batman model' exactly, but they are an indication of a softening towards the 'Donner-first' approach to the Superman franchise, by folding in key Post-Crisis elements. The Kents being alive, Lex as a corporate mogul, Clark being the 'real' persona (or at any rate, not a disguise) and of course the marriage, are now all part of the 'consensus' perception of Superman.

[marhawkman]

https://www.batman-online.com/forum/...=2197.msg31753

This thread actually does a pretty thorough job mapping out some of the possible comic-book influences on Donner's Superman. It seems to be a blend of some really early stuff (the first few issues of Action Comics), as well as stuff published as recently as the early 70's.

On another thread, I remember a discussion around how the Up, Up and Away musical was apparently also a stylistic influence on the movie.

But yeah, I do get a sense that it was a kind of distillation of how the writers remembered Superman from past adaptations as well as whatever comics they read as a kid, or got their hands on during their research. It certainly wasn't meant to be a direct translation of whatever was currently on the newstands.

Its also worth noting that the guys working on Superman: The Movie weren't trying to run away from something in their treatment. They just set out to make a Superman movie and to distill the essence of the character, across comics and past adaptations, into one cohesive narrative. In contrast, with Burton's Batman, a decade later, Michael Uslan, and later Burton himself, had a definite agenda to break free from the legacy of the Adam West show and go with a darker tone for the Dark Knight. And they deliberately sought out influences which would help with that goal - the early Kane/Finger stories, the Denny O'Neill or Englehart runs of the 70's etc.

Which, of course, is just using a certain version of Batman, and not making things up wholesale.

Which I feel is why it worked like it did. Yes, aesthetically it wasn't the same guy as Adam West, but conceptually... it absolutely was.

[Jim Kelly]

The Up, Up and Away musical was IT'S A BIRD…IT'S A PLANE…IT'S SUPERMAN. David Newman co-wrote the book for the musical and he was one of the many writers on the 1978 SUPERMAN--and I think a lot of the humour comes from him and Leslie Newman (the uncredited Tom Mankiewicz cut out their more ridiculous bits). IT'S A BIRD… was done as a T.V. special in 1975 with Lesley Ann Warren playing Lois Lane and she also screen tested for the part in the Donner SUPERMAN. I feel that writers tend to use their childhood memories. Most super-hero movies seem like they are twenty or more years behind the time, in terms of the material they draw on.

There have been a great many Superman inspired projects, outside of the comic books, and I think there's a lot of variety there--as much as all the Batman projects. They may pay homage to the Christopher Reeve Superman in one way or another, but that's to be expected. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to give a new take on the mythology. You could probably say the same thing about the Adam West Batman influencing every other Batman inspired project, in one way or another.

[bat39]

The Up, Up and Away musical was IT'S A BIRD…IT'S A PLANE…IT'S SUPERMAN. David Newman co-wrote the book for the musical and he was one of the many writers on the 1978 SUPERMAN--and I think a lot of the humour comes from him and Leslie Newman (the uncredited Tom Mankiewicz cut out their more ridiculous bits). IT'S A BIRD… was done as a T.V. special in 1975 with Lesley Ann Warren playing Lois Lane and she also screen tested for the part in the Donner SUPERMAN. I feel that writers tend to use their childhood memories. Most super-hero movies seem like they are twenty or more years behind the time, in terms of the material they draw on.

There have been a great many Superman inspired projects, outside of the comic books, and I think there's a lot of variety there--as much as all the Batman projects. They may pay homage to the Christopher Reeve Superman in one way or another, but that's to be expected. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to give a new take on the mythology. You could probably say the same thing about the Adam West Batman influencing every other Batman inspired project, in one way or another.

Yeah, I got the name of the musical name Just realized it and fixed it!

The Adam West Batman was itself inspired by the 40's Batman movie serials, as well as various Silver Age comics from the 50's and 60's. In terms of influencing other projects - well, it influenced Batman's animated appearances for the couple of decades (some of which Adam West and Burt Ward lent their voices to). After that, between Frank Miller and Tim Burton/Michael Uslan, the door was kind of shut on the Silver Age Batman for a long time, until the show experienced a renaissance of popularity in the 2010's, with the Batman '66 comics, and then the Brave and the Bold cartoon heavily being inspired by the Silver Age. (Though of course the Schumacher films had their nods to the show as well).

Matt Reeves was apparently a fan of the Adam West show, and while obviously his movie is a million years away from that show's tone, the choice of villains was inspired by the 1966 theatrical film of the show (Riddler, Penguin, Catwoman...and Joker).