Where does Superman fail in these key areas, compared to Batman and Spider-Man? How could they effectively be addressed?

[The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n]

There was a bit of a discussion recently about how Batman has managed to become the most popular comic book character, overtaking Superman, and about what makes Batman and Spider-Man so popular in the first place.

Reading the exchanges below, what would need to be done on Superman's side for that to be reversed and for Superman to overtake Batman in popularity again?

Most of the other superheroes are missing certain elements. Batman is perhaps one of the few characters (Spiderman being the other one) That has the whole package.

1.Cool visuals
2. Backstory that offers alot of story potential.
3. Great and versatile supporting cast.
4. Villains that are interesting characters in their own right, and are compelling enough that writers actually want to return to them over and over again in order to develop them.
5. A setting that is memorable. This is why I don't like it when some artist just draw Gotham as just a standard city. To me Gotham and Metropolis are the two cities in comics that have distinct look.

Personality-wise, he's not like the other superheroes who fall somewhere between boyscout and dude bro. He's grumpy, brooding, controlling, introverted and obsessive, but he is still clearly a hero. None of that anti-hero crap like a lot of those Marvel "heros" tend to be.

Likewise, because he doesn't have powers writers focus more on his (and his villains) psychology and how he responds to adversity and trauma, you can write a dissertation on Batman and his villains psyches, whereas with superpowered heros, it's more superficial, how their powers work, their weaknesses, developing new powers, how having powers affects their home life, powers blah blah blah powers.

Even though Batman is an orphan billionaire playboy which practically no one can relate to, they still can relate to and admire how he dealt with a traumatic event. He choose to sacrifice his cushy existence and dedicate his life into turning something horrible into something positive with pure iron will. He didn't just get hit by nuclear radiation, ended up with superpowers and then felt guilt tripped into fighting evil.

And his archnemesis is a deranged psychopathic clown. . .

1. Pop culture osmosis plus 2. consistently high quality in the stories featuring him, and in the comics, a 3. continuous momentum from Pre-Crisis to now.

1. Superman used to be king. By a whole hell of a lot. Big Blue was the first on the radio and both big and small screens, and he was the first hero to approach the weekly storytelling we're seeing in Batman Eternal right now. But sometime in the mid 2000s, Batman's media presence surged past Superman with more movies, TV shows, and video game appearances. Superman's appearance in Superman Returns was passable but dated, while the Caped Crusader had the first comic film to win an Oscar for acting, and the Arkham series of video games joined Batman: Brave and the Bold in cementing his appeal to all demographics.

2. Meanwhile, Batman has been blessed with some of the most high quality creative teams for thirty years. While the other big guns in the industry fell prey to Chuck Austen and Rob Liefeld's most cliched work, Batman mocked it and deconstructed it, and has ushered from one great writer to another. O'Neill and Dixon dominated the 90's with Grant et al., then Loeb (before his son's untimely death) passed the torch onto other writers and we got Grant Morrison and Dini, followed by Scott Snyder and co.

3. Batman's continuity has never been completely remade. It's always been tweaked; the. Golden Age simply updated its look to begin evolving to the Silver Age, Bronze Age morphed out of O'Neill's work with Adams, then they simply grafted on Miller's work and high points into it for the Post-Crisis Batman. And even now, with everyone else twisted and turned again, Bruce returned to the cowl with four-ish Robins but his recent adventures still roughly flowing in the same way before hand, with Zero Year being afforded a whole year to work its magic at replacing Year One instead of some rushed job like his peers got. As a result, even if it gets somewhat complicated, there's always a fresh feeling to the work and enough power behind story events to give them impact other's just can't match. Batman's had more consistent continuity than all the DC Universe and about half of Marvel (Spider-Man OMD, X-Men Time travel shenanigans, the stronger ties to the real world's history making some stuff like Iron Man a bit harder to grasp.)

Hm ...

Kevin Conroy.

And Bill Finger.

And there's your answer.

Seriously though, despite the trappings, Batman is incredibly relatable.

He has suffered injustice and rails against it. That's the core. Everyone feels like that now and then, so for escapism he's a perfect character.

The awesome and timeless design both of Batman himself, his enemies, his tools (Batmobile, etc) and the city in general makes him visually appealing.

He has a great and varied cast of enemies and allies, giving him lots of interesting characters to interact with.

He works in most mediums, which gives him a much broader base of appeal. Further to this, he is often changed in some way by these interpretations in other media which has made him less stagnent and insular than many other comic book staples.

Now if someone could explain Wolverine's popularity to me, that would be impressive.

The costume helps, a lot. A superhero is more than just the powers and the origin, it's also the entire packaging. The costume, the attitude, some of the supporting cast, the setting, etc etc. The visual appeal of a character is paramount, and Batman has tremendous visual appeal, in spades. A simple costume that has a strong and powerful motif, along with the practical aspects of the utility belt and other trappings probably gives him a huge boost in being memorable.

The whole no-powers thing helps a great deal as well. Everyone can be inspired by Superman's actions, but nobody could ever harbor a secret thought that if they just had the resources or the determination, they could BE Superman. You can do that with Batman.

All of the stuff above, combined with one huge overwhelming advantage: He Was First. He's the first superhero of his kind, and that make for a huge, huge advantage in anything. The media attention hasn't hurt him, either - two serials, cartoons, the 66 show, etc etc.

Yeah, that's an important part, certainly.

We're so used to Batman, that we likely never think about it, but basically Batman is a good-guy that that actually looks (traditionally) more like a bad-guy. And while there are a lot of Heroes and Anti-Heroes that fit that bill today, Batman was doing that back in '39. Obviously, Robin eventually came onto the scene, and Batman's look was changed a bit, and he smiled more, but he was still a hero that was based on a creature that many people associated with vampirism.

It comes down to 9 things coalescing.

1) He is a compelling character
2) He has a very large cast of compelling villains
3) He has a very large cast of compelling allies/friends/supporting cast
4) He has been around for 75 years (but more specifically since the Silver Age)
5) He has benefited greatly from having a TV show on air at least once a decade
6) He has starred in many movies, most of which are pretty good
7) His (core) comics are long lasting and are rarely subject to the cancellation fever that sweeps the industry
8) Exemplify the Zeitgeist
9) He is known for existing in one genre (street-level crime noir) but has a broad enough scope to be readily at home in any genre.


No other character save for Spider-Man (and maybe Superman) really have all nine of these aspects going for them. Most heroes have a some or even a majority of these but you really need all 9 to be Batman-level popular.

I think one of the main reasons is because besides him being the most archetypical vigilante in comics, he is the one that has had one of the most consistently good runs in comics, the lowest period of Batman was on the Silver Age and he picked up from that really well

I think it's cyclical, Batman is top dog just now and has been for a number of years. When you break it down it seems pretty simple to understand why,
Dc treats and promotes him as their flagship character, as a result Batman constantly gets top drawer creative teams, as a consuquence of that good stories are produced which make people want to buy the comics.
He has had 3 incredibly succesfull movies in the last decade, The Dark Knight stands head and shoulders above pretty much every other comic book movie.
In animation he has had pretty much a 20 year unbroken run on Tv.
He is an iconic character, genuinely Iconic, he's known and his story is known almost the world over.

Wasn't always like that though, when I started reading comics in the early 90's the sales charts were dominated by X-men books and Image titles, partcularly Spawn, Batman struggled to make the top 10. Fast forward 20 years or so and no-one touches Batman for popularity.

Batman is just a great character with a lot of history... 75 years worth..LOL. Batman has never been the same.He has evolved as a character over the years. He has been dark, he has been comedic or light. He has a great story. He has the best Rogues Gallery in comics. Great supporting cast.

Continued...

[The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n]

Continued...

Well said!

Here are some additional reasons:
• He’s confident, and believes in himself. And I mean a genuine self-belief, not a put on act. He’s not puffed up rooster who plays at being ‘a big man’. He’s the real deal.
• He’s a victor and refuses to be a victim. I don’t mean a guy who walks around looking to fight all comers. I mean a man who instead of letting life roll over him, and just going with the flow. He is always on alert and thinks things through. Naturally we can’t control all the ups and downs in life. But he at least tries to make contingency plans. Batman lives life. Life does not live him.
• Despite whatever issues he has, he’s disciplined and knows how to control himself no matter what.
• He’s a realist not a dreamer. Superman is a nice guy, but his aw-shucks manner just makes it hard for me to take him seriously. Batman is a responsible adult. Where most of the DC heroes come across as kids playing hero.

Yeah. I rarely read Batman but he clearly is the #1 most popular comic book character. I'd put Spiderman over Superman as well. We aren't talking which is the most iconic but rather popular. Batman vastly outsells Superman and almost always outsells Spiderman. Batman and Spiderman have both done much better at the movies in the modern era than Supes as well.

What drew me in were a few things.

First, he is an "ordinary" man. Granted he's had years and years of training but strip off the cowl and he is a man with no special powers.

Second is his backstory. He comes from wealth in money but he had what is most precious to him and pretty much everyone, ripped from him, which is his family.

Third, is a deep rich history that almost no other character in history has.

All of that is a recipe for one of the most beloved characters ever created.

Don't forget Superman, now. Yeah, in terms of the characters that the general audience really thinks of when they think "superhero," Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man are really the golden trio in that regard.

What makes that so? Well, Superman and Batman were pretty much the two first memorable superheroes that came onto the scene back in the Golden Age. Yes, there were other characters, some that even predated them, but none came anywhere close to sparking the pop-culture mania that those two sparked. As for Spider-Man? Well, he was pretty much Marvel's flagship character when they helped to bring superhero comics back from the brink after the conservative sensibilities and Wertham's rantings dealt them a huge blow by demonizing them as bad influences on America's youth back in the fifties, so of course he's a huge figure in the superhero world.

I think this is a question that has to be answered at multiple levels.

From a purely superficial viewpoint, Batman has an overwhelming 'coolness' factor which few comic-book characters (or fictional characters in general) can rival. He's a billionaire playboy who lives in a huge Mansion. His basement is a large cave filled with fancy computers cool trophies like a giant T-Rex and Lincoln penny. He's got a cool outfit which allows him to blend into the shadows and strike like a ninja, while simultaneously allowing him to shine as a hero. He's got state-of-the-art tech, including cars, planes, boats and other assorted gadgets. He's a master of all martial arts, a skilled driver, pilot, diver, escape-artist and detective. He's also an extremely intelligent person, virtually a genius. And he spends his days patrolling an awe-inspiring gothic yet modern city filled with a seemingly endless supply of psychopaths, super-villains and other criminals for him to take down! Basically, being Batman is like being the ultimate video game character in the ultimate gameplay environment!

Then there are the deeper aspects to his character. A tragic backstory, rooted in the simplest of emotional reactions - the fear of losing loved ones and the desire for retribution, which we can all relate to on some level. Multiple personalities and an 'identity crisis' that could well be the subject of a psychology dissertation (not to mention of course the fascinating psychology of his foes). The idea of vigilantism and its role in modern society; whether it helps or hinders the justice system, are questions that frequently come up overtly or subtly in Batman works. And I'm barely scratching the surface here...

In terms of media exposure, Batman is second-to-none compared to any other comic-book hero. Leaving aside the sheer volume of material, let's consider the quality instead. The most iconic and critically acclaimed superhero animated series today is BTAS, and the most iconic and critically acclaimed superhero movie series is the Nolanverse Batman trilogy. Also, for a long time, Adam West's Batman TV show was arguably the most successful television adaptation of a superhero property, and I dare say that perception still lingers among many.

Batman has also had SO MANY more iconic and popular comic-book stories than most of his peers. Year One, The Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory, No Man's Land, Knightfall...the list goes on. Ask the average comic-book reader to name ten most iconic Superman stories, and he won't be able to rattle of the names as quickly.

Ultimately, I think there's a strong sociological aspect to Batman's popularity as well, especially in comparison to Superman. As human beings, most of us aren't selfless beings who will devote all our abilities and resources to making the world a better place, or who feel a moral compulsion to do so. But most of us, depending on the circumstances, would love the chance to be able to set right whatever we feel has gone wrong, either in our lives, or in the world at large...out of a sense of justice or of retribution. Basically, if one is walking down a street and sees a kitten trapped in a tree, IMO, most people wouldn't seriously consider trying to get the kitten down if its too much trouble, or alternatively, wouldn't feel much guilt for not trying. But if one if walking down the street and either gets mugged, or sees someone getting mugged, many would love the chance to be able to chase down the mugger and dole out punishment. Those are the sub-conscious instincts and tendencies in us that we see exemplified in Batman, which leads us to identify with him to a larger degree than we would with Superman.



I agree there. But it really goes beyond continuity and timelines. Batman's world has a certain timeless quality to it. Broadly speaking, there are major events in the characters' lives across mediums which do signify the passage of time (Batman taking Robin on as a partner, Robin becoming Nightwing, Barbara going from Batgirl to Oracle etc.) But you can easily pick up the start of any Batman comic story, or watch any Batman movie, or an episode of any Batman cartoon, and subtle nuances of continuity aside, immerse yourself in the universe...safe in the knowledge that there is a kind of consistent history, an amorphous 'pattern' replicated across all the various incarnations of the Dark Knight.

Its the reason why DC was able to get away, initially, with the 'soft reboot' of Batman for the New 52. Because even though this was technically a new continuity, you can easily get a sense of the weight of Batman's history (both that of the character and his world) and how this universe came to be, without having to get a strict recap of the backstory in the new continuity. After a point, it doesn't really matter how exactly Batman's first encounter with the Joker went...as long as you read a Batman vs Joker story now and get a sense of the years-long eternal war between the 'unstoppable force and the immovable object' (in the Joker's own words from TDK!)

I find he adapts to other media the best.
Look at Batman: TAS for video games.
The Nolan Trilogy for movies.
Batman Arkham series for video games
Also Batman action figures are cool, so yeah he is not only the king of comics,but all media.
Lol.

Continued...

[The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n]

And part 3

I think a lot of it also relates to how he allows us to vicariously live out our revenge fantasies; heroes may stop the villians, but Batman hurts them. He's more punisher than Punisher (dead guys can't suffer), and he takes a morbid pride in breaking bones and fracturing jaws. Think about all the times you've wished you could just pull back and slug someone... he does it. Nightly.

He's the ideal nerd to alpha male superhero fantasy or a nerds version of manly escapism. Sorry Spider-Man. Bruce is also gothic James Bond, half nine inch nails and half captain kirk. He's IMO is the only thing that makes goths and emo culture cool and that's never gonna go away.

Superman was king in the comics and in the general public's consciousness before Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns and definitely before Tim Burton's Batman '89. Batman has been in the #1 spot ever since, and DC is still trying to come up with ways to make Superman as popular as he was before Batman became their most popular hero in the late 80's. So yeah, Batman was the most popular superhero for a good 20+ years before the Dark Knight movie or the Arkham games ever even came out.

Two words: wish fulfillment. Batman is the ultimate wish fulfillment character. Not a single superpower, & yet he hangs out w/the Justice League. Every nerd's wet dream.

He's also arguably the most visually appealing character in mainstream books, has a good rogues gallery, & plays w/neat toys.

But mostly it's wish fulfillment: everybody thinks they can be Batman if they just tried hard enough & had the right motivation. The illusion is very powerful, such that I've heard people argue Batman is "more realistic" than other comic book superheroes. He's not...but the illusion is so well-crafted & the desire for identification & wish fulfillment is so strong & intense...it makes people actually believe that.

And that's what reading comic books is about for very many people. "Very many people" = popular.

he has a lot of media outside of his comic book that most people dont have....and of super heroes he's the most easily translated to the screen. also, it builds off of each other, where making media of him just develops him even more, giving him the most interesting rogues and stories.

Outside the obvious character appeal, this is why he`s thremendously popular. From the 60`s show to the revolution in comic language in late 70`s to the 80`s, DC simply took more chances experimenting with different "Batmen" in what ended being criticly acclaimed stories.

Garcia Lopez used to say that the one thing he disliked in drawing Superman was that he was considered a sacred cow. That`s a difference in approach that didn`t paid off.

How good Batman: The Animated Series and Chistopher Nolan's The Dark Knight were.

Add in a few seminal, new-reader-friendly stories like The Dark Knight Returns and Long Halloween.

That's it. Fantastic luck in getting quality multi-media projects, and great comics to point new readers toward.

It is funny isn't it? How a guy who fights aliens , shape shifting mud monsters , humanoid crocodiles can be considered "realistic" just because he's got no super powers lol . Well, that's not the entire reason but Batman is incredibly unrealistic but as you said people think they could be just like him.

I really feel it's a big part of it. Anytime you ask someone what they like about Batman, in my experience often as not the first thing they say is something like "He's a guy w/no powers, & yet he's still a hero."

Hey, who WOULDN'T want to have all those cars, planes, firepower, etc? Bring it on and blow it up!

Batman is the ultimate nerd power fantasy: if you take away from him the gadgets, the costume and the money, he's just a guy who spends too much time in front of a computer in his parents' basement.

[superduperman]

The problem isn't on Superman's end, it's on DC's end. They spent a decade with a Superman in continuity limbo who had three origins, three Supergirls, and two Zods. They didn't know what they wanted him to be. Realistic or SA. They also didn't give him a new cartoon and movie every five years like they did Batman. You want to restore Superman to greatness? Promote him. The new Supergirl show helps. A new cartoon might help more. MOS was just Batman with powers. Get some people in there who actually want to work with him. Batman is popular because he has toys. A car, a cave, a utility belt. These are easier to translate into literal toys. It's no wonder he gets more cartoons and movies than Superman.

Spider-Man is a different story. I think he is popular because he truly is relatable. He has all the same problems everyone else does. I think DC has done better about that with Superman. But it might take time for that version to catch on. Again, another cartoon might help. Superman's portrayal in shows like Justice League and Young Justice certainly doesn't. It's all a matter of how DC chooses to portray and promote him.

[Ascended]

Well, I think you inadvertently hit on one of the major problems with your premise; comparing Superman to Batman and Spider-Man. This is something that has come to handicap Superman since the late 80's and was a problem even before that; everyone focuses on what he isnt, and not on what he is. He's measured not by his own merits, but by the merits of another character. And at the same time, because he's the blueprint for the whole genre, he gets saddled with all of comics' criticisms and complaints, from "he's too powerful! (but my favorite character could still take him)" to "He's outdated in a world that isn't as simple and black and white as the 40's were. (even though that's not true either)" There's a serious double-standard when it comes to Superman, and a lot of misinformed opinions and biases, but that's just the price of being at the top of the pantheon, and make no mistake, Batman can sell more comics and toys for a couple decades but Superman is still THE superhero in the eyes of the world. He's still the most recognized fictional character on earth (other than Mickey Mouse.)

Beyond that, there are a few things about the mythos that are hard to work with, thanks mainly to the advancement of science and culture over the last seven decades. And while many writers have come up with solid explanations for those problem spots over the years, none of them have stuck enough for it to filter through to the average Joe.

Krypton was always a sticking point for me. Krypton is one of the most advanced cultures in the universe, yet they're contained on their one planet while other, presumably less advanced races have empires spanning multiple solar systems? And somehow these people never realize that their planet is about to blow up under their feet? You need to jump through some hoops to rationalize that and there's no easy answer that doesnt sound like a cheap excuse. The various changes made to the people and society, from art-deco retro-futuristic to sterile crystals and back again, aren't really problems. They are, ultimately, minor details and like all minor details, they change with the times. But how and why Krypton exploded and left Kal a galactic orphan? Those are hard questions to find strong answers for.

The secret identity is another thing. The "glasses disguise who Superman is" thing was always silly, but as story telling methods and characterizations become more complex and the audience becomes older, asking people to still buy into the disguise becomes harder and harder. And while I personally can totally see how such a disguise could be pulled off, the average person doesnt. And to pull it off well, as Morrison and Quietly did in All-Star, you need a creative team (an artist especially) who can capture that nuance. Very few can do that, especially long-term. And the reasons for Clark Kent being a reporter, and a newspaper reporter at that, hasnt made a ton of sense since he became powerful enough to not need a news room to find out what's happening in the world. With the internet and smart phones, it makes even less sense now. Why would he surround himself with people obsessed with finding a story when his only disguise is a pair of glasses, and he keeps giving Kent's partner interviews as Superman? Come on! So something needs to change there. Clark Kent is too important a concept to drop from the mythos, he serves too important a function, but he cant continue to exist as he has been. I actually hope this is addressed in TRUTH, because I myself have never seen a good long term alternative.

The powers, the costume, supporting cast, none of those are really problems. They're transient, and will change, evolve, shrink and grow to fit the times, as they should. At most, I'd say that they could use a fresh pair of eyes and some updating. Jimmy needs a reason to be relevant, the "science" of the powers could use an update (just look at Waid's Irredeemable to see what I mean), and the costume (Im talking classic here) could use some texture work so it looks less like a cheap Halloween costume (cotton? In this day and age? The trunks are defendable, but not that). But all in all, these things arent fundamental problems.

Superman's list of quality villains is shorter than it should be. Lex Luthor, Darkseid (who doesnt even count depending on who you ask), Zod, Brainiac, they all have some amazing stories and multiple well done variations on their characters that are popular and rich in potential. But after them it quickly falls in quality. Superman's rogues gallery isn't bad, but its not nearly as great as it should be.

All in all, the psychology and methodology of the mythos and the character just needs to be tightened up and polished. But, one of those other downfalls of being the top of the pantheon? No one wants to change the character, even as they claim he's an outdated concept.

[dumbduck]

Beyond that, there are a few things about the mythos that are hard to work with, thanks mainly to the advancement of science and culture over the last seven decades. And while many writers have come up with solid explanations for those problem spots over the years, none of them have stuck enough for it to filter through to the average Joe.

Krypton was always a sticking point for me. Krypton is one of the most advanced cultures in the universe, yet they're contained on their one planet while other, presumably less advanced races have empires spanning multiple solar systems? And somehow these people never realize that their planet is about to blow up under their feet? You need to jump through some hoops to rationalize that and there's no easy answer that doesnt sound like a cheap excuse. The various changes made to the people and society, from art-deco retro-futuristic to sterile crystals and back again, aren't really problems. They are, ultimately, minor details and like all minor details, they change with the times. But how and why Krypton exploded and left Kal a galactic orphan? Those are hard questions to find strong answers for.

This is easy to explain: They were an expanding galactic empire. Maybe the greatest ever, thousands of generations ago. Then they were defeated -and/or- at the zenith of their power achieved true ilumination. They retreated to their home planet and were happy with what they had. No more wanderlust for millenia until the roots of expansionism were reborn again in Zod and Co. Enter an outside influence who sabotaged Krypton's core to avoid a second coming of Krypton's empire.

The secret identity is another thing. The "glasses disguise who Superman is" thing was always silly, but as story telling methods and characterizations become more complex and the audience becomes older, asking people to still buy into the disguise becomes harder and harder. And while I personally can totally see how such a disguise could be pulled off, the average person doesnt. And to pull it off well, as Morrison and Quietly did in All-Star, you need a creative team (an artist especially) who can capture that nuance. Very few can do that, especially long-term. And the reasons for Clark Kent being a reporter, and a newspaper reporter at that, hasnt made a ton of sense since he became powerful enough to not need a news room to find out what's happening in the world. With the internet and smart phones, it makes even less sense now. Why would he surround himself with people obsessed with finding a story when his only disguise is a pair of glasses, and he keeps giving Kent's partner interviews as Superman? Come on! So something needs to change there. Clark Kent is too important a concept to drop from the mythos, he serves too important a function, but he cant continue to exist as he has been. I actually hope this is addressed in TRUTH, because I myself have never seen a good long term alternative.

I have no problem with the glasses. The wish to see what Clark would do without his secret ID doesn't come from the believability of it, they could keep doing it for the next 50 years and I'd still accept it. I agree with everything else on this paragraph. Clark's relationship with the Daily Planet needed an update yesterday. A freelancer like Auguste Dupin wrote would be perfect.

Superman's list of quality villains is shorter than it should be. Lex Luthor, Darkseid (who doesnt even count depending on who you ask), Zod, Brainiac, they all have some amazing stories and multiple well done variations on their characters that are popular and rich in potential. But after them it quickly falls in quality. Superman's rogues gallery isn't bad, but its not nearly as great as it should be.

Mongul, Silver Banshee, Intergang, Mxyzptlk... (look at the book we are getting post convergence... Batmite...)

The problem is while Superman is humiliated by any of Batman's rogues with a little bit of kryptonite, Batman has been awesomering along in Superman's world for decades now. Obviously this kind of treatment benefits Batman's rogues. For Superman, no villain galery survives this.

[Ascended]

Sure, there are lots of good reasons for Krypton to go the way it did. Im just pointing out, none of them have stuck and gained real cultural saturation. Ask ten different people why Krypton exploded, you'll get a bunch of different answers, with "I dont know" being the most common one.

And Ive no issue with the glasses myself, but I dont for a second believe that its something most people accept so readily. It might not turn many readers away on its own, but its certainly not a crowd drawing aspect of the character and combined with other issues, its just one more hurdle to overcome. Myself? Im good with it and I believe when handled correctly, it works. But most people dont feel the same way, especially new potential fans, and if re-gaining popularity is the purpose here, the glasses and entire secret identity needs polish.

And I didnt say he doesnt have any good rogues, just that he doesnt have as many as he should and few of them are deeply developed as characters in their own rights. Come on, its not like Parasite or Metallo are anywhere close to the levels of Dr. Doom, Lex, Sinestro, Captain Cold, or Doc Ock.

[dumbduck]

And I didnt say he doesnt have any good rogues, just that he doesnt have as many as he should and few of them are deeply developed as characters in their own rights. Come on, its not like Parasite or Metallo are anywhere close to the levels of Dr. Doom, Lex, Sinestro, Captain Cold, or Doc Ock.

I still think villain popularity is linked to the hero's exposure. Joker had 2 great movies to his name and the main nemesis of Batman in BTAS. Then there's the obvious especial treatment in the comics, the 'Batgoding by extension' as DochaDocha puts it. I spent a good time after watching The Dark Knight explaining to friends and family how Joker could get away with so much stuff and still atract so many followers in what was clearly a terrorist organization that would have been terminated with extreme prejudice in the USA, before he achieved even 1/10th of what he did in the movie. After a few minutes trying to justify it I simply said: It's comic books. Even thou the movies were supposed to be realistic.

This extends in smaller part to the rest of Batman's rogues. In my point of view the final result is this: Why would a Batman fan be interested in Superman's rogues when Joker and Harley humilliated, corrupted and broke Superman with a little bit of Kryptonite? And after all was said and done Joker told Batman it was easy?

And when you think of the FF you have Dr. Doom and who else? Green Lantern - Sinestro and who else? Flash - Cap Cold, Zoom... With the TV series this will obviously expand. Even Spider Man with all the films the last decade and a half, is his rogues gallery all that much more famous and varied as Supes'?

[Prime]

Dr. doom would have been a great Superman villain, but the again, we have Lex for that.

[Prime]

I still think villain popularity is linked to the hero's exposure. Joker had 2 great movies to his name and the main nemesis of Batman in BTAS. Then there's the obvious especial treatment in the comics, the 'Batgoding by extension' as DochaDocha puts it. I spent a good time after watching The Dark Knight explaining to friends and family how Joker could get away with so much stuff and still atract so many followers in what was clearly a terrorist organization that would have been terminated with extreme prejudice in the USA, before he achieved even 1/10th of what he did in the movie. After a few minutes trying to justify it I simply said: It's comic books. Even thou the movies were supposed to be realistic.

This extends in smaller part to the rest of Batman's rogues. In my point of view the final result is this: Why would a Batman fan be interested in Superman's rogues when Joker and Harley humilliated, corrupted and broke Superman with a little bit of Kryptonite? And after all was said and done Joker told Batman it was easy?

And when you think of the FF you have Dr. Doom and who else? Green Lantern - Sinestro and who else? Flash - Cap Cold, Zoom... With the TV series this will obviously expand. Even Spider Man with all the films the last decade and a half, is his rogues gallery all that much more famous and varied as Supes'?

To be honest Superman villains would eat Batman for breakfast.

[DochaDocha]

If I had to give a three-minute answer, I'd focus mostly on Batman's versatility. If you want him to be sort of a generic action hero, he can be that. If you want him to be a space-faring hero, he can do that, too. On top of that, he can be a great detective like Sherlock Holmes, or a smooth operator like James Bond, and under any of those circumstances, you don't necessarily feel like someone is writing Batman incorrectly. Iron Man kind of fits this description, too, which helps explain why Iron Man was so successful in the movies, and was the most important movie in order to kick start the MCU. However, as good Iron Man is, I think Batman is even more flexible. He can be everything Tony Stark is, but you can make him a ninja, too, among other things.

Batman has all the things you want out of an alpha male. He's smart, cunning, brave, honorable, attractive, you name it. On top of that, his suit can be made to look cartoony or macho.

As far as his villains go, what they lack in credibility, they make up for in colorfulness. When people argue that Batman has the best rogues gallery, they're not necessarily saying that Batman's villains can violently defeat everyone else's, but that they are more interesting characters. I think that's just a matter of both legacy (going back to Adam West), and willingness to make them as zany as quirky as possible. They're highly injected with personality.

As for Spidey, really, I think he's just very appealing to teenagers and kids. I stopped really being into Spidey around the time I was in college.

EDIT: I should clarify by saying that it's not that I think Spidey only appeals to younger crowds, but he's a good starting point for young fans, who continue being fans for years to come.

[The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n]

So, on the subject of villains, what does DC need to do to get Superman's entire rogues gallery on the level of Batman's?

Or even to the point where it surpasses Batman's?

[Ascended]

So, on the subject of villains, what does DC need to do to get Superman's entire rogues gallery on the level of Batman's?

Or even to the point where it surpasses Batman's?

Use them. And use them well. Dig into the psychology of them and figure out what makes them tick. Why do Metallo and Parasite do what they do? Why doesnt Metallo just join the military and get paid to blow stuff up in trouble zones? We know the government is willing to work with supervillains and there are very few things on earth that could hurt Metallo, so why not join Task Force X? Why has he never been able to make more of himself than just being a loose cannon and/or pawn for greater men? Same goes for Parasite; he's possibly one of the most dangerous beings on the planet but the most he's ever been able to accomplish was leeching powers from other criminals so they could sneak past power-detectors in Meltzer's Justice League. He was basically a small-time businessman and its the closest he's ever come to being anything worthwhile as a character. Why?

Superman has some really good villains who are on par with the best the industry has to offer. But he only has a few of them and other than those, the pickings are pretty slim and there's virtually no cultural saturation.

So use them, use them well, and treat them as characters instead of an obstacle for Superman to get around. No one thought the Penguin was worth a damn until writers started getting into him and turned him into Gotham's pulp style mob king. Superman's villains need the same kind of attention, and once they're well defined and fleshed out in the comics, they need to be used in larger media. Superman, in television and movies, typically just recycles Lex, Zod, and Brainiac, with the others sprinkled in for filler. Stop doing that.

And again, stop comparing Superman to other characters. If all you do is that, you'll never get Superman at the top of the charts again, you'll just end up making second rate Batman/Spider-Man parallels. Embrace Superman for what he is, explore his universe and bring out the qualities that make him interesting and unique, and to hell with everyone else. You do Superman right, he'll be at the top (its his natural state), you dont have to worry about what Batman did or didnt do.

[DochaDocha]

So, on the subject of villains, what does DC need to do to get Superman's entire rogues gallery on the level of Batman's?

Or even to the point where it surpasses Batman's?

My response is written with the caveat that I think it's highly, highly unlikely that Superman's villains will ever be viewed upon with the same esteem as Batman's villains are right now. I also write under the assumption that I think Batman villains are a bit overrated: as dumbduck pointed out, I think Batgodding carries over from Batman to his villains. Should Joker be viewed as a credible threat to the entire Justice League? Of course not! However, and more importantly, I think when people say Batman's rogues gallery is the best, there's almost an implication that high quality extends to every Batman villain, and I simply can't agree with that, at least not to a strong degree. There's a lot of value in characters such as Joker, Two-Face, Ra's, etc., but there's no need for superlative praise for some of the other villains, such as Killer Croc, Penguin, and anyone you'd consider a B- or C-list Batman villain. IMO, of course.

With that out of the way, let's examine why Batman's rogues get so much praise. If I had to guess, I'd say that the writers do a good job of dealing with issues such as mental illness in a way that describes Batman's villains as twisted monsters, but the writers also humanize the rogues so that there's a sense of tragedy so that you can understand their motivation. Bruce Timm's reimagining of Victor Fries was so well regarded that it became his new origin, and for good reason. Timm embraced all of Mr. Freeze's quirkiness that makes him unabashedly a comic book villain, but gave him the tragic backstory to make us viewers sympathize with Fries, to a degree. I thought both Timm and Nolan handled Two-Face brilliantly, despite the fact that their renditions of Two-Face were quite distinct from one another. Both fleshed out Harvey Dent as a real person; Timm once again went with mental illness and in a sensitive enough way in which you don't look down on Dent for having the disease, but rather pity him while also understanding that Two-Face is a criminal that did things that weren't morally or ethically justifiable. Nolan toned down the comic book sensibilities of Two-Face (obviously he doesn't do the weird comic outfits), but utilized just enough of Two-Face's schtick and combined it with a story of grief that breaks the character, and total disillusionment that would totally skew his view of morality, and formed that version of Harvey into a character long-time fans could at least recognize. Non-comic and comic media also found various ways to take a non-sympathetic character like the Joker and simply make him something the viewer could understand and be entertained by.

It also lends credence to the idea that just like Batman himself, these baddies are a versatile bunch, too. You can make them fit all different styles of Batman stories, and we already know that there are tons of Batman stories that can be made. In short, it didn't matter what media or which writers were working on the rogues. The creators committed to the characters and put them in a position to succeed for their respective audiences.

I'm going to exclude Luthor and Zod when discussing Superman villains at large, because I think they're already successful villains on par with many of Batman's. Looking at the other Superman villains, and comparing them to Batman's, superficially I see a few areas where Superman writers haven't been successful. The first, obviously, is lack of commitment to the villains. We've had four Reeve movies, Routh's, and so far one Cavill movie, and only one of said movies didn't involve Luthor or Zod, and that main villain has many times over been described as a poor man's Luthor. I can complain about the overratedness of Batman villains, but I can't complain about the effort put in to feature them for wide audiences. Perhaps part of the reason why people love Batman's rogues gallery has less to do with the quality of each of them, and more with the fact that they leave impressions on the viewers, and they leave impressions on the viewers because of their high visibility.

I wouldn't argue that every Superman villain needs to be humanized, but when it comes time to give a more sympathetic or "relatable" (that word again...) villain, only occasionally do the comic writers deliver, and we already know the movie writers haven't done so yet. Therefore, what few Superman villains there are, there's a lack of diversity that you see in Batman's crew. A humanized villain in itself is no greater than one that's totally off the wall, but having one in the rogues gallery is valuable. People like a little moral grayness once in a while, and if not that, they also enjoy the occasional time when they can understand why someone goes bad. How many times have you wished you could take the law into your own hands and correct an injustice yourself?

Other than the fact that Batman is more versatile than Superman, there's no good reason why Superman villains can't be as interesting as Batman's villains. Certainly the one advantage Superman villains have is that his villains are far more credible for expanded universe stories, and that has been successfully implemented in cartoons and video games. Brainiac is on the cusp of being a household name like the Riddler. But to wrap up this overly long post, I don't see why a guy like Bruno Mannheim can't be as good as the Penguin. Metallo can be a sympathetic figure like Mr. Freeze. Mongul and/or Darkseid (I hesitate putting Darkseid as a Superman villain, but one of the few great things about STAS was establishing the enmity between the two) can be akin to Superman's Ra's. Maybe Xa-Du will really be Superman's Joker, other than the whole archvillainy thing. The potential to be considered among the best rogues galleries is there, but it involves various levels of commitment that haven't been in place yet.

[Lax]

There was a bit of a discussion recently about how Batman has managed to become the most popular comic book character, overtaking Superman, and about what makes Batman and Spider-Man so popular in the first place.

Reading the exchanges below, what would need to be done on Superman's side for that to be reversed and for Superman to overtake Batman in popularity again?

In terms of popularity, I think it's less about the characters and more about the fans.

Did Batman change to be more like Superman back during the time when Superman was the most popular? Or did the character stay true to itself and is now reaping the rewards it currently enjoys because the tastes of fans have changed as the older generation gets replaced by the young?