Does Batman frustrate you?

[JAK]

It's kind of easy to get hung up on differences but those things are what make an adaptation. Missing an aspect in other media doesn't invalidate a take on Superman, Hercules, or any other prolific fictional characters.

To bring this back around, that "passive" Superman is par for the course. The ideas of Rachel scolding Bruce and Falcone's humiliation leading the stuck up young man to Batman flies in the face of the purity that has worked for the character since we first saw that young child make his vow in the candlelight. As another example, I had a friend become a Spider-Man fan for life and his gateway was in relating to how Tobey felt about MJ before his powers. Really that has nothing to do with the development through Lee and Ditko. People just don't care because they like it.

I know there have been numerous "passive" takes on Superman, but I think it's been a lot of what has kept modern takes from really connecting. He doesn't need to be active all the time, but a movie where he's mostly "passive hero" (the narrative term for plot moving character instead of character moving plot) really don't work as well, imo.

That extends to most heroes who still have a no-kill rule too.

Clark, who has a higher body count than most of his peers if you actually look at it, can kill Imperiex and Brainiac 13 and Darkseid (and he's killed all of them) and no one cares. He can literally melt scores of Doomsday clones to ash (which he's also done) and everyone is cool with it. He snaps Zod's neck? People lose their gods damned minds. Because Zod looks human while the rest looked like monsters.

Yeah, I've often found this hypocritical - I'd like to see it even across the board, even if people are just trained to see "monsters" (no matter how sentient) and expect them to die (at least in a Superman story - I then watch Riverdale and think the kids would save themselves a lot of trouble if they just collectively killed every adult in town, lol)

[Lightning Rider]

The Batgod stuff and overexposure pisses me off from time to time. Batman himself is awesome.

But what does bother me most is probably the post-modern bias towards the anti-hero. There's a big range of characters who fit that, but it seems like notions of classic heroism are outdated and considered childish or old-fashioned. If you look at the MCU (and this is not a suggestion that the MCU sucks or anything like that), so many of their characters rely on an outright reluctance to be a hero at the outset. It's an extremely common trope, and Superman himself has at times expressed a level of reluctance, but his journey towards saving people as a mission was never mitigated by selfishness or misanthropy.

Ascended has posted elsewhere about how subtle characters are often deeper and more complex than those with in-your-face flaws that all too often limit or reduce the character to that very flaw. This overlaps with the idea that you need trauma to be a hero, or that you have to be weak on some level to be relatable. These are all prevailing myths about storytelling that simply aren't true, and Superman is the point of that. It pisses me off that people don't "get" Superman, and maybe a big reason for that is that Batman as a concept spoon-feeds you the gratification. Lurking in the shadows in black doesn't take the same risks as a bright colored costume, so the imagination fills in the gaps. Gruffness and a know-it-all attitude communicates overt dominance, rather than quiet confidence. Buried trauma is more romantic than well-adjusted sociability. Twisted, mentally ill gimmick-happy villains make a stronger impression at first glance than space gods and tragic evil geniuses. Gadgets and fancy cars are things casual consumers want anyway, more tangibly than flight and invulnerability and an awe-inspiring perception of the natural world. Not to mention the wealth and women that speak far louder than the stability of a loving relationship and a meaningful journalistic career.

It's almost an overkill of modern male fantasy, now that I think about it. And I say that as a huge batman fan. When you break it down, everything about Batman's aesthetic and conceptual appeal is so exceedingly "cool" that it's impossibly easy for him to impress. I'm not saying there's not an admirable and complex human being underneath, or that he doesn't have incredible stories with rich setting and characters. But man is he designed to get you high. What an insane combination of societal elitism and gothic baddass outcast appeal.

(Ahem. Please excuse the rant.)

[Ascended]

The Batgod stuff and overexposure pisses me off from time to time. Batman himself is awesome.

But what does bother me most is probably the post-modern bias towards the anti-hero. There's a big range of characters who fit that, but it seems like notions of classic heroism are outdated and considered childish or old-fashioned. If you look at the MCU (and this is not a suggestion that the MCU sucks or anything like that), so many of their characters rely on an outright reluctance to be a hero at the outset. It's an extremely common trope, and Superman himself has at times expressed a level of reluctance, but his journey towards saving people as a mission was never mitigated by selfishness or misanthropy.

Ascended has posted elsewhere about how subtle characters are often deeper and more complex than those with in-your-face flaws that all too often limit or reduce the character to that very flaw. This overlaps with the idea that you need trauma to be a hero, or that you have to be weak on some level to be relatable. These are all prevailing myths about storytelling that simply aren't true, and Superman is the point of that. It pisses me off that people don't "get" Superman, and maybe a big reason for that is that Batman as a concept spoon-feeds you the gratification. Lurking in the shadows in black doesn't take the same risks as a bright colored costume, so the imagination fills in the gaps. Gruffness and a know-it-all attitude communicates overt dominance, rather than quiet confidence. Buried trauma is more romantic than well-adjusted sociability. Twisted, mentally ill gimmick-happy villains make a stronger impression at first glance than space gods and tragic evil geniuses. Gadgets and fancy cars are things casual consumers want anyway, more tangibly than flight and invulnerability and an awe-inspiring perception of the natural world. Not to mention the wealth and money that speaks far louder than the stability of a loving relationship and a meaningful journalistic career.

It's almost an overkill of modern male fantasy, now that I think about it. And I say that as a huge batman fan. When you break it down, everything about Batman's aesthetic and conceptual appeal is so exceedingly "cool" that it's impossibly easy for him to impress. I'm not saying there's not an admirable and complex human being underneath, or that he doesn't have incredible stories with rich setting and characters. But man is he designed to get you high. What an insane combination of societal elitism and gothic baddass outcast appeal.

(Ahem. Please excuse the rant.)

Very well said.

Batman appeals to the lowest common denominator. Superman requires a little more. Neither is the "right" or "wrong" approach but it's easier to get down with the traumatized playboy in fetish leather than the alien space god who has suffered more than anyone but still can summon up a genuine smile and excitement about the world.

[Ascended]

Yeah, I've often found this hypocritical - I'd like to see it even across the board, even if people are just trained to see "monsters" (no matter how sentient) and expect them to die (at least in a Superman story - I then watch Riverdale and think the kids would save themselves a lot of trouble if they just collectively killed every adult in town, lol)

I'd at least expect better from Clark, who knows better than to judge on looks alone. Other heroes who don't have his perspective? Yeah. I can see Barry ripping a white blob monster apart without even considering it's sentience, just because he doesn't usually fight weird white blob monsters. Clark's been on planets where white blob monsters have a more peaceful and advanced society than our own, so he at least should know better.

But then, Clark has a surprising body count of his own, with a lot of white blob monsters included, so......what he "should" know isn't actually reflected in his character.

[JAK]

The Batgod stuff and overexposure pisses me off from time to time. Batman himself is awesome.

But what does bother me most is probably the post-modern bias towards the anti-hero. There's a big range of characters who fit that, but it seems like notions of classic heroism are outdated and considered childish or old-fashioned. If you look at the MCU (and this is not a suggestion that the MCU sucks or anything like that), so many of their characters rely on an outright reluctance to be a hero at the outset. It's an extremely common trope, and Superman himself has at times expressed a level of reluctance, but his journey towards saving people as a mission was never mitigated by selfishness or misanthropy.

Ascended has posted elsewhere about how subtle characters are often deeper and more complex than those with in-your-face flaws that all too often limit or reduce the character to that very flaw. This overlaps with the idea that you need trauma to be a hero, or that you have to be weak on some level to be relatable. These are all prevailing myths about storytelling that simply aren't true, and Superman is the point of that. It pisses me off that people don't "get" Superman, and maybe a big reason for that is that Batman as a concept spoon-feeds you the gratification. Lurking in the shadows in black doesn't take the same risks as a bright colored costume, so the imagination fills in the gaps. Gruffness and a know-it-all attitude communicates overt dominance, rather than quiet confidence. Buried trauma is more romantic than well-adjusted sociability. Twisted, mentally ill gimmick-happy villains make a stronger impression at first glance than space gods and tragic evil geniuses. Gadgets and fancy cars are things casual consumers want anyway, more tangibly than flight and invulnerability and an awe-inspiring perception of the natural world. Not to mention the wealth and money that speaks far louder than the stability of a loving relationship and a meaningful journalistic career.

It's almost an overkill of modern male fantasy, now that I think about it. And I say that as a huge batman fan. When you break it down, everything about Batman's aesthetic and conceptual appeal is so exceedingly "cool" that it's impossibly easy for him to impress. I'm not saying there's not an admirable and complex human being underneath, or that he doesn't have incredible stories with rich setting and characters. But man is he designed to get you high. What an insane combination of societal elitism and gothic baddass outcast appeal.

(Ahem. Please excuse the rant.)

Amen. Holy moly, was that on point. Well done!

I'd at least expect better from Clark, who knows better than to judge on looks alone. Other heroes who don't have his perspective? Yeah. I can see Barry ripping a white blob monster apart without even considering it's sentience, just because he doesn't usually fight weird white blob monsters. Clark's been on planets where white blob monsters have a more peaceful and advanced society than our own, so he at least should know better.

But then, Clark has a surprising body count of his own, with a lot of white blob monsters included, so......what he "should" know isn't actually reflected in his character.

True. And if I was writing him, he'd know better - for the same reason he no longer tells people to "slap a"... you know where I'm going with that. Just throwing that out there.

[stargazer01]

But man is he designed to get you high. What an insane combination of societal elitism and gothic baddass outcast appeal.

well not for me. I never understood what's so cool about Batman honestly. He's just a fragile human.

To me Superman in many incarnations, including animation, and even Momoa Aquaman are the coolest superheroes so far. I think Batman looks silly a lot of times. Momoa Aquaman could totally kick his butt. Wonder Woman too.

[marhawkman]

I'd at least expect better from Clark, who knows better than to judge on looks alone. Other heroes who don't have his perspective? Yeah. I can see Barry ripping a white blob monster apart without even considering it's sentience, just because he doesn't usually fight weird white blob monsters. Clark's been on planets where white blob monsters have a more peaceful and advanced society than our own, so he at least should know better.

But then, Clark has a surprising body count of his own, with a lot of white blob monsters included, so......what he "should" know isn't actually reflected in his character.

Superman is the kind of guy who doesn't like killing, but sometimes sees it as necessary. He won't kill white blob monsters for trespassing in Central Park, but he might kill them for trying to eat the Humans relaxing in Central Park.

[stargazer01]

Your not really putting yourself in his shoes dude. How would you feel if you've tried you hardest to always do the right thing, to live up to the ideals your parents instilled in you only to have the world turn on you for something you didn't even do? He had a guy trolling him behind the scenes, He had a Guy in Gotham getting Praised by the establishment for being the very thing they accuse him of being whilst the little guy lives in fear. His Boss doesn't take him seriously, His Girl friend loves jumping into the deep end Arrggg. Who wouldn't be a little bummed out with all that going on? His Cat out of the Tree moment was him save that girl from the Fire. He's smiling as he hand her off to her parents I think but his joy dies as the people treat him like an Angel descending from on high which is Not what he wants. Contrast that to Batman's ceiling Scurry and you'll see that whilst Batman wants to be treated like an Otherworldly being, Superman does not.

Ideals? Pa Kent told him to hide his powers. He didn't motivate him to be a hero. Clark became one despite that. But he didn't seem to enjoy it. The world turning on him was the wrong story to tell at this point in his story arc. We needed a solo sequel to further develop Clark into the beacon of hope he is supposed to be. He didn't earn the title in the Snyder movies because according to his story, people didn't trust him. Or we didn't see that part of the story because WB were in a hurry to catch up to the Avengers.

Also, I don't watch Superman to feel depressed. I watch him to feel inspired and to escape real life for a bit.

But in a way, I'm glad some people liked BvS. I can see why, it just wasn't exactly what I needed.

[Agent Z]

I'd at least expect better from Clark, who knows better than to judge on looks alone. Other heroes who don't have his perspective? Yeah. I can see Barry ripping a white blob monster apart without even considering it's sentience, just because he doesn't usually fight weird white blob monsters. Clark's been on planets where white blob monsters have a more peaceful and advanced society than our own, so he at least should know better.

But then, Clark has a surprising body count of his own, with a lot of white blob monsters included, so......what he "should" know isn't actually reflected in his character.

This even got lampshaded in a way in Rucka's first WW run. One of Max's spies said the reason why Diana got away with decapitating Medusa on t.v. was because she had living snakes for hair while Max "looked like everyone else".

Hell, even Grant Morrison had Clark say that his no killing rule didn't apply to sentient mechanical life forms. And he just stood by as Ultraman killed the antimatter Brainiac.

[Agent Z]

Ideals? Pa Kent told him to hide his powers. He didn't motivate him to be a hero. Clark became one despite that. But he didn't seem to enjoy it. The world turning on him was the wrong story to tell at this point in his story arc. We needed a solo sequel to further develop Clark into the beacon of hope he is supposed to be. He didn't earn the title in the Snyder movies because according to his story, people didn't trust him. Or we didn't see that part of the story because WB were in a hurry to catch up to the Avengers.

Also, I don't watch Superman to feel depressed. I watch him to feel inspired and to escape real life for a bit.

But in a way, I'm glad some people liked BvS. I can see why, it just wasn't exactly what I needed.

Jonathan told Clark to "think before he leaps" and to be careful about revealing his powers when people wouldn't be so accepting (I also don't get why Jonathan gets so much flak for this when Hippolyta is the one actively trying to stop her daughter from helping man's world and Jonathan didn't have a prophecy that his son would stop a war god from committing global genocide). It wasn't being a hero that was making Clark upset, it was the mistrust and hostility he was receiving and we did see him being happy in moments where he had reason to be happy.

[The True Detective]

well not for me. I never understood what's so cool about Batman honestly. He's just a fragile human.

To me Superman in many incarnations, including animation, and even Momoa Aquaman are the coolest superheroes so far. I think Batman looks silly a lot of times. Momoa Aquaman could totally kick his butt. Wonder Woman too.

If being able to beat someone up is the sole judge of what's cool, Galactus must be the coolest character ever.

[manwhohaseverything]

If being able to beat someone up is the sole judge of what's cool, Galactus must be the coolest character ever.

Tell that, to batgod fans. And the guys that came on board cause of "the one man who beat you".

[Kuwagaton]

well not for me. I never understood what's so cool about Batman honestly. He's just a fragile human.

He's not a fragile human. Most of his stories don't take place in the context of Superman so he's correctly identified as the ultimate man. He's in the same mold as Superman, after Doc Savage and the Shadow. The things that he pushes can push him back often than not, but he usually gets to remain a step ahead. And when it's time to claim victory, he can provide sharp and satisfying wish fulfillment because he pretty much never has to hold back.

As a hero the reason I like Superman more, where I usually prefer the ninja type, is because his fantastic abilities make him much more relaxed. He's kind of a gentle giant, and it should stir up shame in those he has to lay his palms on. "You just got wrecked by a dude who begged you not to fight."

I might not have been understanding the idea of calling him passive or not before. I kinda see him as passive in that he would love to have these things play out without his interference, although he never says no to a real need and does whatever he sees fit at no personal gain or satisfaction from his own job or the adulation of others. For all you hear about how he uses Superman for his success, he doesn't want spotlight. It's just that he recognizes his responsibility to perform in it since it comes with the territory, especially as his career slides into the mentor or elder statesmen roles.

To me Superman in many incarnations, including animation, and even Momoa Aquaman are the coolest superheroes so far. I think Batman looks silly a lot of times. Momoa Aquaman could totally kick his butt. Wonder Woman too.

You mentioned darkness and even there I feel like many other characters by comparison make him look like Pokemon. Though in fairness Lavender Town is still some of the most disturbing stuff in a Nintendo game. But other heroes shouldn't deter Superman or Batman because for the most part they are all just followers.

Superman is the kind of guy who doesn't like killing, but sometimes sees it as necessary. He won't kill white blob monsters for trespassing in Central Park, but he might kill them for trying to eat the Humans relaxing in Central Park.

Superman won't "kill" the blob if he recognizes it as a living being and his actions as the cause of death. You can call that sort of thing a cop out but it sets an adequate pace for the idea.

I saw someone say he killed Zod twice. Doomsday in the movie was the undead.

Ideals? Pa Kent told him to hide his powers. He didn't motivate him to be a hero. Clark became one despite that. But he didn't seem to enjoy it. The world turning on him was the wrong story to tell at this point in his story arc. We needed a solo sequel to further develop Clark into the beacon of hope he is supposed to be. He didn't earn the title in the Snyder movies because according to his story, people didn't trust him. Or we didn't see that part of the story because WB were in a hurry to catch up to the Avengers.

Also, I don't watch Superman to feel depressed. I watch him to feel inspired and to escape real life for a bit.

They had Perry affirm those same fears really so that people wouldn't come to this conclusion. It wasn't really about protecting Clark even if he was their priority. Clark coming out was unprecedented and something really too big for the world to handle. At least as prepared by some random farming couple. They had no idea how to unleash what he was or protect him from the consequences, and that genie couldn't ever go back in the bottle. The "maybe" controversy misses the point that it was a disaster as these things occur. Is it fair that people die? That question has nothing to do with Clark. People will die. Is it cowardly to say Clark isn't obligated to save them, as Martha did? Selfish? Well, Jonathan gave his own life for the point. His mom saying that later in all of his turmoil goes toward the autonomy people want to see in his journey as a hero. He doesn't have to give his life, but he will and does.

[Lokimaru]

Here’s the thing: Clark was only a hero when he wasn’t listening to the Kents, because the Kents are really shitty people in Snyder’s film. Their moral lesson can be summed up as “Look out for number 1”. “Put yourself first and the world second”. And you know what? I could get behind that interpretation if ended with Clark rejecting their upbringing and choosing to step into the light because it’s what he wants. But that’s not what happens. Clark hides because that’s what his Earth dad tells him to do and then he comes out because it’s what his space dad tells him to do.

WRONG! Clark's Parents wanted him to wait till he was Ready to face the Burden of Being Superman As seen in BvS cause there are Consequences. A parents number one job is to protect their kid and make sure he or she is ready for what this world has in store for them. A lot of People in this world wouldn't be Happy with a God flying around righting wrongs. Ma and Pa wanted being someone who helps people in the way Clark can to be his Choice not just some Obligation. That literally the Main Theme of MoS. Choice. Clark helps people because it's the right thing to do and he likes doing it because he cares Period. HE DOES NOT HAVE TO. It's his choice to put others before himself. That is what makes him Great.

[DochaDocha]

Jonathan told Clark to "think before he leaps" and to be careful about revealing his powers when people wouldn't be so accepting (I also don't get why Jonathan gets so much flak for this when Hippolyta is the one actively trying to stop her daughter from helping man's world and Jonathan didn't have a prophecy that his son would stop a war god from committing global genocide). It wasn't being a hero that was making Clark upset, it was the mistrust and hostility he was receiving and we did see him being happy in moments where he had reason to be happy.

I think this goes back into how Superman and his supporting characters get held to a higher standard than other heroes. Hippolyta seems to be allowed some moral grey area, but the Kents are supposed to be like Uncle Ben, the gold standard for parental and moral guidance.

If being able to beat someone up is the sole judge of what's cool, Galactus must be the coolest character ever.

I'd say that for a lot of fans of superhero and fantasy genre, being able to beat someone up is a large part of what makes 'em cool.

As a hero the reason I like Superman more, where I usually prefer the ninja type, is because his fantastic abilities make him much more relaxed. He's kind of a gentle giant, and it should stir up shame in those he has to lay his palms on. "You just got wrecked by a dude who begged you not to fight."

I hear you. If a lot of the bad guys get their comeuppance for tugging too much on Superman's cape, then we don't feel like Superman was punching down so much as this guy got what was coming to him.