Have to go with Batman myself. DC comic characters always tended towards being demigods and Superman is the epitome of that trend, even the 'powered down' versions. I prefer my heroes to have some humanity. Clark Kent is a minor god trying to pretend he's a man, and that's less compelling to me.
Not an answerable question. The characters differ wildly by era and by author. The Batman that doesn't thrill you is pretty much just the post-Miller Batman. Frank Miller changed the character in a way that became the standard for twenty years; but recent authors have taken small steps away from that standard.
In the 70s and early 80s, Batman was a much different character. The emphasis was more on the detective/leader and less on the brooding.
Meanwhile, in the 70s, at least two of your statements about Superman were patently untrue: Superman was the real person, and Clark Kent just an aspect (Elliot S! Maggin called Clark Superman's hobby); and then this...
Where lesser men would eventually turn despot for the good of mankind, Superman doesn't. He could, and he knows he could and maybe at times even wants to because it would be easier, but he doesn't.
...wasn't quite true, either. The character then had a primary flaw/strength: he could not conceive of misusing his power, and was a little puzzled how anyone else could. The Kents had raised him with such a clear vision of right and wrong that the idea of turning despot literally could never cross his mind. Again, Mr. Maggin: "There is a right and a wrong in the universe, and the distinction is not very difficult to make." It made him both inspiring and a touch naive.
As a general rule: I'll choose Superman, all the way. As a specific: I'll take Superman as written by Mr. Maggin, best Superman scripter ever.
But frankly, if I see either book on the shelf, I'm reading it.
Otherwise: I recall hearing once about a Superman version who had grown up to defend "Truth, Justice, and the Soviet way!" That could be a compelling story.
Well, I guess the Superman or Batman we like or dislike is a product of whenever we found a version of them we could grasp on to.
Superman or Batman of the 40's-70's isn't a Superman or Batman I know. Never met the blokes.
Then, I guess I'm talking about the modern iterations of them. What's currently being printed. But, if you're not reading what's currently being printed, that doesn't help.
Otherwise: I recall hearing once about a Superman version who had grown up to defend "Truth, Justice, and the Soviet way!" That could be a compelling story.
Yep. Superman: Red Son. Good story. The ending was stupid though.
Well, I guess the Superman or Batman we like or dislike is a product of whenever we found a version of them we could grasp on to.
Exactly. Just some of us old farts have been reading through several versions. I would argue that as a reader, I've lived through five, maybe six different versions of Superman: 60s; 70s with Kirby and O'Neill (neither of whom really liked the character, so they tried to make him one they liked); post Kirby and O'Neill, dominated by Bates and Maggin; post-Maggin, pre-Crisis; Byrne/Wolfman and following; Stern and following; and Loeb and following. Then I've read a lot of the older stuff as well.
Then, I guess I'm talking about the modern iterations of them. What's currently being printed. But, if you're not reading what's currently being printed, that doesn't help.
Among the current stuff, Superman is clearly the more interesting character. He's still growing. Letting him marry Lois and develop as a character was the smartes thing DC has done in decades, removing a major roadblock in his development. Batman just swings back and forth on a pendulum: more angst, less angst, more angst, less angst... By making that his defining trait, they made it hard for him to go anywhere creatively. The growth is all among the supporting cast. The new efforts to make that cast into a "family" and to force him to see himself as a father figure have potential; but so far, that aspect has been handled inconsistently at best.
Superman. He's, well, super. Batman is just a normal guy with a lot of money, training, and gadgets.
Also, Superman's writers tended to get him involved in a lot of very weird situations, what with time travel, Bizarro worlds, "imaginary" stories, super-animals, and etc. That just appealed to my budding sense of appreciation for sci-fi, I guess.
And it didn't help matters that I thought that the Adam West Batman was a total dork who was probably involved in some sort of unseemly (and, thankfully, unseen) relationship with Robin.
I'm going by what I remember from childhood, of course. I guess both characters survive in popular culture to this day, and have gone through some metamorphoses, but I don't think I've looked at either of them since I was 12 or 13.
Batman. He actually chose to do what he does. What would Superman do, other than beating up people who can't beat him back?
How did Superman not choose to do what he does? No one put a kryptonite loaded gun to his head.
And as mentioned above, Superman deals with larger things typically than the thuggery Batman does. Serial killer on the loose? Call Batman. Darksied wants to invade Earth? Call Superman.
Batman. The dark brooding!! He's the super hero for New Yorkers.
I thought that was supposed to be Spider-Man?
Now that I think about it, do any DC characters patrol New York?
Green Arrow: Star City
The Flash: Central City
Superman: Metropolis
Batman: Gotham City
Green Lantern: The Galaxy
Wonder Woman: ...wherever... I guess...
Hawkgirl: ?
I can't think of any. Guess that goes to show what DC thinks of New York I guess.
Superman. But only the variant where Superman is what he does, and Clark is who he is. We only see that variant on TV but thus far the movies have played Supes the opposite way.
That's the Superman I love. "Superman" is the mask for Clark Kent whereas "Bruce Wayne" is the mask for Batman.
Kevin, I think that the same argument applies to Batman. Bruce Wayne as the mask, rather than Batman, makes the character much more shallow. The genius of the atman movie reboot with Christian Bale was that they inverted that, and made Wayne the real him, with Batman being a persona, just another tool.
I am more interested in Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent as characters than in Superman and Batman. A Wayne/Kent story would be ideal. A Batman/Superman story would be 2-dimensional and dull. Both these men are more alike than the differences in their costumed personas indicate.
The genius of the [B]atman movie reboot with Christian Bale was that they inverted that, and made Wayne the real him, with Batman being a persona, just another tool.
I think you need to re-watch Batman Begins. At the end of the film, where Bruce is sifting through the ashes of Wayne Manor, Rachel Dawes point-of-fact says that Bruce Wayne is the mask. The Bruce Wayne she loved hasn't come back to her yet.
To quote:
Rachel: I never stopped thinking about you. About us. And when I heard you were back, I... started to hope. But then I found out about your mask.
Bruce: Batman's just a symbol, Rachel.
Rachel: No. This... [indicating Bruce Wayne's face] is your mask. Your real face is the one that criminals now fear. The man I loved... the man who vanished... he never came back at all.
Or, at the very least, he's might be an anchor baby. He wasn't born here, no, but if a foreign born baby was dropped off in the U.S. with no way of knowing where they came from, they'd probably get citizenship.
He wasn't born here, no, but if a foreign born baby was dropped off in the U.S. with no way of knowing where they came from, they'd probably get citizenship.
See, that's where you have to ask which Superman again. In Jon Byrne's version, the gestating embryo was held in a birthing matrix until it landed in Kansas. Ergo, Kal El was born in the USA.
The later authors are -- in theory -- working from Mr. Byrne's continuity. Ergo, the modern Superman is a native-born American.
Superman: Birthright and Superman for All Seasons, the two most recent tellings of the Superman origin story (that I know of) have him being dropped off as a tyke.
That's why I said "in theory". Those two books -- both better than Mr. Byrne's, in my opinion -- muddied the waters. This is, in theory, unbroken continuity from Mr. Byrne's miniseries, but those two books contradict the miniseries in key aspects. So there's a new Superman in there somewhere, probably starting right around The Kingdom.
I'm gonna have to go with Batman. Superman is invulnerable, unless kryptonite comes into play, which essentially limits every story. At least Batman faces actual jeopardy.
Kevin, its reassuring that Wayne doesnt believe Batman to be more than a mask. Rachel says otherwise, but its what Bruce Wayne wants that is more important. Part of Wayne
s struggle is to prevent it from becoming so. Thats great character tension- a true internal battle, and one which i hope we see Wayne struggle with throughout the franchise. At least tere IS a struggle over his identity. It still humanizes him, and in fact humanizes him more, if the question of who he is remains an open one.
Batman, if I had to choose. Unfortunately I don't much like the current mainstream portrayals of either character. My favorite recent portrayals are all in Elseworlds books, particularly Kingdom Come.
John Byrne's Generations series are also an interesting twist. They take place in something close to realtime, starting with Bruce Wayne and Kal-L's first appearance in 1939 and following their descendants.
Have to agree about Red Son, Kevin. Nice concept and artwork, but it didn't hang together well, and the ending made no sense at all.
I'm gonna sound like a broken record here; but again, it depends on which Superman. In some versions of DC Science, all humanoid races in the galaxy shared a common ancestor race, and so were genetically cousins, at farthest. (In one version -- and I know this sounds absurd, but this was "official" for a brief while -- the "common ancestor" was a fleet of bio-engineered starships, the waste products of which included microorganisms that had a strong tendency to evolve into humanoids. Yes, some writer actually persuaded some editor to declare that we're all a bunch of semi-evolved starship feces!)
In other versions of DC Science, there's no explanation for the physical similarities, but humans and Kryptonians have no common ancestry whatsoever. In current continuity -- or at least, 90s continuity, which may change at any moment -- Superman's DNA has proven to be so much more complex than human DNA that all attempts to clone him have been failures (this in a universe where clones are common).
But then there's the storyline I just picked up, where the authors are dropping none-too-subtle hints that Lois is or soon will be pregnant. That was supposed to be impossible in current continuity. If it happens, well... Let's just say that comic book companies change the rules about as often as I change my socks.
Now that I think about it, do any DC characters patrol New York?
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin... Man, you need to read some old stuff. For a long time, that was where the Titans were based. I still kinda think of that as home for them, though I think they're still in San Francisco today.
During her "powerless" phase in the 70s, Diana Prince was based in New York, working at the UN.
Kyle Rayner, the gen X Green Lantern, was based in New York for a while. Now he's based in space. (You can be forgiven for overlooking Kyle...)
I think both Catwoman and Nightwing once made New York their home for a while, though I'm not sure.
That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting.
Batman has always been for me, going back to his Bob Kane days, when Batman used to kill, a role model in certain respects.
Superman is also, but not as to his capabilities, which no real man could emulate, but rather as to his psychological devotion and unwillingness to surrender his ideals, I just happen to find some of his ideals stupid.
As do I generally find the modern superhero ideal (and I know where it came from) of refusing to kill both juvenile and counterproductive.
Batman apprehends criminal then criminal is declared insane, not responsible, or sent to prison, escapes or is paroled, and ends up slaughtering countless innocents because of a misguided and silly inclination against killing, but knowing the outcome of his actions Batman (or most modern superheroes) is content to in effect sign the death warrant of dozens of innocents in a cavalier fashion as being somehow vaguely and childishly related to some ideal about it being too easy to kill. Tell that to every kid or woman he gets slaughtered by simply not snapping the neck of the Joker or not setting fire to the rest of Black Mask.
They (the superheroes) will not kill but they are more than comfortable (aside form weepy words and crocodile tears) with the idea of innocents definitely being murdered as a result of their slavish and ill considered inactions, than they are with any action which might really prevent such murders, either in the present or the future. In the real world that kind of attitude is not only ridiculous, it is a definite psychological malignancy. They fret and foam at the mouth about how they could not live with themselves if they killed and yet the haunting they undergo as a result of not preventing the death of an innocent is some vapid and pussified, "if only I could have found a way." You could have dumbass. I've never lost a second's sleep over the fact that some action of mine led to the not to be negotiated end of some murdering bastard, but I've lost lots of sleep over the people I did not prevent from being slit open by some murdering bastard.
That has always bothered me about comics and have almost always made comics nothing more than comics to me, not to be taken seriously or realistically in the vast majority of cases. It just shows you who comics are written by, and they are written by fan base story-tellers and college grads who have no real experience in real matters of killing and murder (other than what they've read in the comic books, and far too many seem to think the real world should be that way, regardless of cost), as well as by people who through no fault of their own are forced to work in a medium that was once wrongfully accused as degenerate and never really worked up the balls since then to say, "screw you pansies, and fuck the criminals and killers too. I'm coming for you and when you are dead as cement dust then I'll wax poetic and philosophical about 'another way.'" So in that sense, a pox on most of their houses.
However that being said, and realizing the silly worldview of most modern comics I do enjoy them as fantasy and I do find particular psychological and other traits exhibited by certain characters admirable, given that context.
Among them, such characters as Batman, Daredevil, Superman, Spiderman, the Shadow, the Spectre, Dr. Fate, Wolverine, the Martian Manhunter, Hal Jordan, Iron Man (the modern one), Dick Tracey (he knew how to handle unrepentant criminals), and Hawkman.
Of all of these the Spectre and Batman are my favorites.
I especially like the current Batman-Superman book as a comic.
But I definitely wouldn't pattern myself in most respects after any comic character in real life because all comic characters tend to show very deep seated weaknesses (I don't mean like Kryptonite, but in things like sacrificing innocents merely to keep alive some terrorist or criminal for a chance at later malignancy and mayhem) and they almost all display psychological disturbances which would make them far less effective, not more, in real life - if they were realistic, which they aren't even close in most cases.
However almost all such characters do have certain key exemplary virtues which are worth emulating.
Batman ranks top among those because of his detective capabilities, and his abilities to anticipate and ambush, rather than just react, react, react, as is the case with most comic characters, superman included.
One of the silliest things in all of comicdom to me is the fact that you have literally dozens of characters which super-human, some even god-like capabilities, and it occurs to almost none of them to anticipate and thwart evil before it occurs rather than just sitting around reacting to whatever disaster the supervillians can devise like some crew of inexperienced suburban rent-a-cops.
Some like Batman and Spiderman use analytical tools and inherent capabilities to anticipate danger and disaster and try to work against it before it occurs, and a guy with access to technology and capabilities like Superman just basically waits to hear the sirens before flying into action. If the guy exploited his actual capabilities he would be there before anyone suffered, not tearing up half the city in some dumbass super-battle of catastrophic collateral damage with guys like Metallo he should have killed years and years ago. With those attitudes comics will always remain only comics.
The same for the Green Lantern and most of the high-powered guys. Martian Manhunter, etc.
The characters have just never really grown up and matured, never exploited their real capabilities, they have always remained more or less just teenage costumers, part-timers and amateurs in the bodies of juvenile demi-gods. Most of them definitely don't take their jobs seriously in that respect.
Badger is actually my favorite comic of all time. Nexus was a better fit to the pair at hand, though. Have you read either of the newer issues? Great stuff.
As to the conversation at hand, I'm really not a big fan of either, but to pick one I probably have to go with Batman. Throughout all of his incarnations he's a more complex, human character. Superman, in most incarnations is, to me, too one-dimensional.
Outside of the indies, I was a Marvel fan. My boy Thor is back and Hercules is in the spotlight again!
The recently concluded DC Animated Universe--which started with Batman: The Animated Series in the early 1990's and ended with the fifth season of Justice League/Justice League Unlimited in mid-2006--did a great job with both characters, along with being probably the greatest animated story universe ever to hit TV. I miss it still.
Jack, Jack, Jack... Now you poked the bear... Never poke the bear -- especially when he has to run a specific test only when the computer's battery reaches 47.5%, and it's currently going up about half a percent per minute. That leaves the bear lots of time to debate...
Batman has always been for me, going back to his Bob Kane days, when Batman used to kill, a role model in certain respects.
Mr. Kane only had Batman kill once or twice; and I'm pretty sure it was only once, the monsters of Hugo Strange. Even then, it didn't sit well.
As do I generally find the modern superhero ideal (and I know where it came from) of refusing to kill both juvenile and counterproductive.
I'm not particularly in disagreement here; but calling it juvenile misses the boat, in my opinion. The key word here is liberal. Much as I love 'em, the comics industry has pretty much always been drenched in liberal politics. Recall that in his earliest appearances, Superman trounced a crooked mine owner, a couple of warlords and their profiteering arms merchants, and other favored targets of liberal ire. And yes, he raced against the clock to save a woman from the gas chamber. Because opposition to the death penalty has long been a cherished aspect of the liberal political policy world. And so for the most part, the heroes have been -- if not anti-death-penalty -- certainly anti-death-dealing.
And honestly, I'm OK with that. If we're going to posit a world where beings of extraordinary power take it upon themselves to mete out justice where the authorities do not, I still would prefer that the superheroes act in a police role, capturing and investigating, rather than in a judge-jury-executioner role. The fact that they have all that power yet still draw that line -- "This we will do, because somebody must; but beyond this is only allowed to the duly elected government" -- strikes me as almost noble, even.
But then, I've often felt that the superhero story peaked with Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" If you've already read it, you know how it fits my argument. If you haven't, SPOILERS FOLLOW: Superman is reluctantly forced to kill, for the sake of all reality. Every single friend he still has (many having been killed by his enemy) agrees that he had no choice. But to him, he had crossed a line that meant he could no longer be trusted with his powers. So he exposed himself to Gold K, and was never seen again.
Batman apprehends criminal then criminal is declared insane, not responsible, or sent to prison, escapes or is paroled, and ends up slaughtering countless innocents because of a misguided and silly inclination against killing, but knowing the outcome of his actions Batman (or most modern superheroes) is content to in effect sign the death warrant of dozens of innocents in a cavalier fashion as being somehow vaguely and childishly related to some ideal about it being too easy to kill.
Then you're complaint isn't with Batman; it's with whatever state Gotham City is in this year (it moves, ya know), for not passing and enforcing a death penalty.
That has always bothered me about comics and have almost always made comics nothing more than comics to me, not to be taken seriously or realistically in the vast majority of cases.
Of course not. They're idealistic escapism. I don't study military tactics from Star Wars, and I don't study ethics and morality from comics. But liberal biased world view aside, I think comics can explore ethics and morality far more than Star Wars can explore military tactics. (I tell ya: give a squad of American Marines just their standard issue gear and training, and those Ewoks would be a bunch of bear-skin rugs!)
Batman ranks top among those because of his detective capabilities, and his abilities to anticipate and ambush, rather than just react, react, react, as is the case with most comic characters, superman included.
Jack, Superman long since weeded out of Metropolis all of the crooks who could easily be preempted. The ones who remain, practically by natural selection, have to be the ones who are effective at hiding their presence and their plans.
But even given that, he does patrol. He does scour for clues. He ain't a reporter for the pay, but rather for the easy access to news of the street and the world.
If the guy exploited his actual capabilities he would be there before anyone suffered, not tearing up half the city in some dumbass super-battle of catastrophic collateral damage with guys like Metallo he should have killed years and years ago.
Well, as multiple stories have pointed out, he's still just one man. He still can only be in one place at one time. In fact, that was a major plot element in the Redemption collection I just read: a woman who became convinced he was her guardian angel kept throwing herself into danger as a way to draw his attention to crime in her neighborhood. He knew what would happen, but was powerless to stop it: eventually, while he was fighting a world-threatening menace, she was gunned down.
And then there's Mr. Maggin's "Must There be a Superman?" thesis: if Superman does everything for us that he's capable of doing, he stunts our growth as a society. If Daddy's always there to make things better, we never learn to take care of ourselves.
The same for the Green Lantern and most of the high-powered guys. Martian Manhunter, etc.
The characters have just never really grown up and matured, never exploited their real capabilities, they have always remained more or less just teenage costumers, part-timers and amateurs in the bodies of juvenile demi-gods. Most of them definitely don't take their jobs seriously in that respect.
Which Green Lantern? Hal Jordan had to face the fact that he let his city get nuked. It drove him over the edge. (Yes, yes, they changed the story eventually; but that's how it happened originally.) Jon Stewart screwed up, and a whole planet died. Even Kyle Rayner, annoying twit that he is, has had to face both his potentials and his limits. The only true juvenile among them is Guy Gardner.
However, my personal favorite hero has always been Iron Man.
Man... don't get me started on Iron Man. I'm still pissed about how Marvel treated him during Civil War and afterwards. I knew Marvel didn't have the balls to say Iron Man was right and stick with it.
I've always liked Batman more than Superman, because I've always thought characters with a dark edge were more interesting than characters that were perfect and squeaky-clean.
But then I saw Smallville's Lex Luthor for the first time... ::drools:: I am more than happy to jump over to Supe's camp if he gets villains like Michael Rosenbaum.
Mr. Kane only had Batman kill once or twice; and I'm pretty sure it was only once, the monsters of Hugo Strange. Even then, it didn't sit well.
It sat very well with me.
Very, very well.
In that particular story he killed them to keep them from killing innocents. And he hung them to death, at least one of them that I remember in that story. And he allowed some of the others to fight themselves to death and properly made no attempt to intervene, as a matter of fact he got them fighting each other, as he has done in other cases. If only the modern one had that kind of balls on a regular basis.
I'm not particularly in disagreement here; but calling it juvenile misses the boat, in my opinion. The key word here is liberal. Much as I love 'me, the comics industry has pretty much always been drenched in liberal politics.
It is bullshit in any world, fantasy or not, to allow the innocent to be killed and murdered, frequently and relentlessly, just to save the guilty. It is psychologically perverse and it is juvenile, the kind of thing teenagers love to see in order to make for a good story. Thousands die so superheroes can slug each other and tear down cities. It's totally and irredeemably childish in nature. It's a teenage hard-on for power over Justice. Or a confusion of power with Justice. There is only one real form of justice, and that is preventing injustice. Everything else is just mopping up blood in buckets afterwards. If the bets answer is "I can't kill cause it will spoil my soul, but is can let most everyone else die to keep from soiling my soul" then that kinda fella doesn't really have much of a soul to soil.
Here is a really good story, Batman saves innocents by anticipating crime and capturing criminals before they strike, or kills Joker by hanging him before fifth mass murdering spree. Superman sets trap or some super-powered villain and then flings him into space where lack of oxygen and cosmic radiation does the rest.
I wouldn't poke at a bear myself. Never. I'd set a trap and when he came along shoot him in the back of the head repeatedly till he moves no more. Case closed.
And yes, I completely agree that a big part of the problem is liberal politics. Too often nowadays modern liberal politics is willing to sacrifice blood and heads and slit throats for an ideal about a greater good. To endure murder, rape, and mayhem in order rot promote some nebulous ideal about freedom and choice. Murder, rape, and mayhem have nothing to do with freedom, at all.
Freedom is free to go to the ballgame, walk down any street you wish, or pursue your own and other people's best interests.
Murder, and things like it, and allowing it to continue by omission because you lack the balls to end it, is very much more like slavery and stupidity, than freedom and wisdom.
I know it's just a fantasy world and it's just comics. And a lot of it is political. But that's exactly why it will always be comics, if it never changes. It is juvenile in the real world to allow the innocent to suffer for the sake of the damned and the guilty, and it is juvenile in a fake world to set that up as some kinda "grand virtue." (And graphic novels are different and some of the newer comics are changing, and that sits well with me.) But once you grow up, with mainstream comics all you are left with is the powers and the funny looking outfits. Otherwise it bears no resemblance at all to any reality worth living in.
But I don't give a shit about your meter or about particular storylines. I'm sure I've probably been reading comics at least as long as you and know this tale or that one. I care not about that at all. I've seen Wonder Woman snap necks and then Superman get all weepy and outraged. that's not what I'm talking about at all, some internet trivia battle about storylines and continuity. People aren't right about murder and terrorism and torture by meter rating or mathematical formulation or some floating out in space Neo-Platonic ideal about "this might not sit well with the audience." Who cares? I'm saying if that is the world of the comics, mainstream superhero anyway, and it is for the most part, a few variances aside, I personally would never trade the blood of a single little girl for the chance to match wits with the Joker over and over again, nor would I want to fly merely to duke it out with some alien and tear up half my city and kill God knows how many people just to prove I'm stronger. That's a juvenile world and a juvenile set of motivations for doing anything.
That's why it is fiction in the small sense, for the most part, and nothing else. Because the values of the "heroes" are all fucked up.
It would be in all reality a pathetic type of world to inhabit.
You'll believe a man can fly, and still be totally ineffective at doing anything really meaningful. Except fight the same guys over and over and over again and cause billions of dollars worth of damage over time and kill countess innocents to save his mortal enemies.
Hoorah!!!
Don't misunderstand me Martin, I got no beef with you or most of what you're saying as theory. Literary or philosophical. I just don't buy that whole line of reasoning or buy the precepts underlying modern comics. It is not an admirable set of ideals by which to live. Not in this world, not in any other.
Nevertheless, as fiction, it is fun to watch Superman fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes, but if the cost of doing business is what he will choke down in the comics for his "ideals" I sure as hell wouldn't wanna be that man. I wouldn't wanna be most any of them. Ever. They are for the most part very silly and powerless and self-defeating characters. I'm glad I'm not constrained to be like that.
Man... don't get me started on Iron Man. I'm still pissed about how Marvel treated him during Civil War and afterwards. I knew Marvel didn't have the balls to say Iron Man was right and stick with it.
Probably because of what Martin said, writing and politics. But he was right, very, very right.
The recently concluded DC Animated Universe—which started with Batman: The Animated Series in the early 1990's and ended with the fifth season of Justice League/Justice League Unlimited in mid-2006—did a great job with both characters, along with being probably the greatest animated story universe ever to hit TV. I miss it still.
Especially so, considering that Pruneface got voted got elected to office around here a number of years ago. And now we need somebody like Dick to shuffle Pruneface's ass off to Buffalo. Where the snows are said to be even more monumental than in this place.
So don't ever say you have either Choice A or Choice B. Especially in this age of forced and arrogant diversity.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
2.14.2008 8:31pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
In the 70s and early 80s, Batman was a much different character. The emphasis was more on the detective/leader and less on the brooding.
Meanwhile, in the 70s, at least two of your statements about Superman were patently untrue: Superman was the real person, and Clark Kent just an aspect (Elliot S! Maggin called Clark Superman's hobby); and then this...
...wasn't quite true, either. The character then had a primary flaw/strength: he could not conceive of misusing his power, and was a little puzzled how anyone else could. The Kents had raised him with such a clear vision of right and wrong that the idea of turning despot literally could never cross his mind. Again, Mr. Maggin: "There is a right and a wrong in the universe, and the distinction is not very difficult to make." It made him both inspiring and a touch naive.
As a general rule: I'll choose Superman, all the way. As a specific: I'll take Superman as written by Mr. Maggin, best Superman scripter ever.
But frankly, if I see either book on the shelf, I'm reading it.
'Nuff said.
Otherwise: I recall hearing once about a Superman version who had grown up to defend "Truth, Justice, and the Soviet way!" That could be a compelling story.
Superman or Batman of the 40's-70's isn't a Superman or Batman I know. Never met the blokes.
Then, I guess I'm talking about the modern iterations of them. What's currently being printed. But, if you're not reading what's currently being printed, that doesn't help.
So... ummm... Wonder Woman is hot.
Yep. Superman: Red Son. Good story. The ending was stupid though.
Exactly. Just some of us old farts have been reading through several versions. I would argue that as a reader, I've lived through five, maybe six different versions of Superman: 60s; 70s with Kirby and O'Neill (neither of whom really liked the character, so they tried to make him one they liked); post Kirby and O'Neill, dominated by Bates and Maggin; post-Maggin, pre-Crisis; Byrne/Wolfman and following; Stern and following; and Loeb and following. Then I've read a lot of the older stuff as well.
Among the current stuff, Superman is clearly the more interesting character. He's still growing. Letting him marry Lois and develop as a character was the smartes thing DC has done in decades, removing a major roadblock in his development. Batman just swings back and forth on a pendulum: more angst, less angst, more angst, less angst... By making that his defining trait, they made it hard for him to go anywhere creatively. The growth is all among the supporting cast. The new efforts to make that cast into a "family" and to force him to see himself as a father figure have potential; but so far, that aspect has been handled inconsistently at best.
Lines on paper, fanboy, lines on paper.
Also, Superman's writers tended to get him involved in a lot of very weird situations, what with time travel, Bizarro worlds, "imaginary" stories, super-animals, and etc. That just appealed to my budding sense of appreciation for sci-fi, I guess.
And it didn't help matters that I thought that the Adam West Batman was a total dork who was probably involved in some sort of unseemly (and, thankfully, unseen) relationship with Robin.
I'm going by what I remember from childhood, of course. I guess both characters survive in popular culture to this day, and have gone through some metamorphoses, but I don't think I've looked at either of them since I was 12 or 13.
Batman is actually a hero. Superman is just some guy who works in a lollipop factory bragging about how many lollipops he eats.
How did Superman not choose to do what he does? No one put a kryptonite loaded gun to his head.
And as mentioned above, Superman deals with larger things typically than the thuggery Batman does. Serial killer on the loose? Call Batman. Darksied wants to invade Earth? Call Superman.
And we’re in the middle of an ice storm.
I thought that was supposed to be Spider-Man?
Now that I think about it, do any DC characters patrol New York?
Green Arrow: Star City
The Flash: Central City
Superman: Metropolis
Batman: Gotham City
Green Lantern: The Galaxy
Wonder Woman: ...wherever... I guess...
Hawkgirl: ?
I can't think of any. Guess that goes to show what DC thinks of New York I guess.
Frankly, I like the car.
That's the Superman I love. "Superman" is the mask for Clark Kent whereas "Bruce Wayne" is the mask for Batman.
An army officer's personal assistant
A unit of mass used in the Khanate of Kazan
A province in Turkey
An early 20th century Indiana judge
I am more interested in Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent as characters than in Superman and Batman. A Wayne/Kent story would be ideal. A Batman/Superman story would be 2-dimensional and dull. Both these men are more alike than the differences in their costumed personas indicate.
I think you need to re-watch Batman Begins. At the end of the film, where Bruce is sifting through the ashes of Wayne Manor, Rachel Dawes point-of-fact says that Bruce Wayne is the mask. The Bruce Wayne she loved hasn't come back to her yet.
To quote:
Spiderman is the "New York superhero" for....
tourists.
He might be an illegal alien.
I think he was covered by Reagan's amnesty.
Or, at the very least, he's might be an anchor baby. He wasn't born here, no, but if a foreign born baby was dropped off in the U.S. with no way of knowing where they came from, they'd probably get citizenship.
So, Superman might also be a naturalized citizen.
See, that's where you have to ask which Superman again. In Jon Byrne's version, the gestating embryo was held in a birthing matrix until it landed in Kansas. Ergo, Kal El was born in the USA.
The later authors are -- in theory -- working from Mr. Byrne's continuity. Ergo, the modern Superman is a native-born American.
But since he could kick my ass, I’m not going to get too picky about it.
Still, “Superman vs ICE” has some good storyline potential.
s struggle is to prevent it from becoming so. Thats great character tension- a true internal battle, and one which i hope we see Wayne struggle with throughout the franchise. At least tere IS a struggle over his identity. It still humanizes him, and in fact humanizes him more, if the question of who he is remains an open one.
Man, I'm working on a project I reeeeelly want to talk about that relates to this...
Oh, that wasn't the question.
Actually, Captain America...but in the context of this conversation, Batman.
John Byrne's Generations series are also an interesting twist. They take place in something close to realtime, starting with Bruce Wayne and Kal-L's first appearance in 1939 and following their descendants.
Have to agree about Red Son, Kevin. Nice concept and artwork, but it didn't hang together well, and the ending made no sense at all.
I'm gonna sound like a broken record here; but again, it depends on which Superman. In some versions of DC Science, all humanoid races in the galaxy shared a common ancestor race, and so were genetically cousins, at farthest. (In one version -- and I know this sounds absurd, but this was "official" for a brief while -- the "common ancestor" was a fleet of bio-engineered starships, the waste products of which included microorganisms that had a strong tendency to evolve into humanoids. Yes, some writer actually persuaded some editor to declare that we're all a bunch of semi-evolved starship feces!)
In other versions of DC Science, there's no explanation for the physical similarities, but humans and Kryptonians have no common ancestry whatsoever. In current continuity -- or at least, 90s continuity, which may change at any moment -- Superman's DNA has proven to be so much more complex than human DNA that all attempts to clone him have been failures (this in a universe where clones are common).
But then there's the storyline I just picked up, where the authors are dropping none-too-subtle hints that Lois is or soon will be pregnant. That was supposed to be impossible in current continuity. If it happens, well... Let's just say that comic book companies change the rules about as often as I change my socks.
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin... Man, you need to read some old stuff. For a long time, that was where the Titans were based. I still kinda think of that as home for them, though I think they're still in San Francisco today.
During her "powerless" phase in the 70s, Diana Prince was based in New York, working at the UN.
Kyle Rayner, the gen X Green Lantern, was based in New York for a while. Now he's based in space. (You can be forgiven for overlooking Kyle...)
I think both Catwoman and Nightwing once made New York their home for a while, though I'm not sure.
That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting.
No fair! Tease!
Superman is also, but not as to his capabilities, which no real man could emulate, but rather as to his psychological devotion and unwillingness to surrender his ideals, I just happen to find some of his ideals stupid.
As do I generally find the modern superhero ideal (and I know where it came from) of refusing to kill both juvenile and counterproductive.
Batman apprehends criminal then criminal is declared insane, not responsible, or sent to prison, escapes or is paroled, and ends up slaughtering countless innocents because of a misguided and silly inclination against killing, but knowing the outcome of his actions Batman (or most modern superheroes) is content to in effect sign the death warrant of dozens of innocents in a cavalier fashion as being somehow vaguely and childishly related to some ideal about it being too easy to kill. Tell that to every kid or woman he gets slaughtered by simply not snapping the neck of the Joker or not setting fire to the rest of Black Mask.
They (the superheroes) will not kill but they are more than comfortable (aside form weepy words and crocodile tears) with the idea of innocents definitely being murdered as a result of their slavish and ill considered inactions, than they are with any action which might really prevent such murders, either in the present or the future. In the real world that kind of attitude is not only ridiculous, it is a definite psychological malignancy. They fret and foam at the mouth about how they could not live with themselves if they killed and yet the haunting they undergo as a result of not preventing the death of an innocent is some vapid and pussified, "if only I could have found a way." You could have dumbass. I've never lost a second's sleep over the fact that some action of mine led to the not to be negotiated end of some murdering bastard, but I've lost lots of sleep over the people I did not prevent from being slit open by some murdering bastard.
That has always bothered me about comics and have almost always made comics nothing more than comics to me, not to be taken seriously or realistically in the vast majority of cases. It just shows you who comics are written by, and they are written by fan base story-tellers and college grads who have no real experience in real matters of killing and murder (other than what they've read in the comic books, and far too many seem to think the real world should be that way, regardless of cost), as well as by people who through no fault of their own are forced to work in a medium that was once wrongfully accused as degenerate and never really worked up the balls since then to say, "screw you pansies, and fuck the criminals and killers too. I'm coming for you and when you are dead as cement dust then I'll wax poetic and philosophical about 'another way.'" So in that sense, a pox on most of their houses.
However that being said, and realizing the silly worldview of most modern comics I do enjoy them as fantasy and I do find particular psychological and other traits exhibited by certain characters admirable, given that context.
Among them, such characters as Batman, Daredevil, Superman, Spiderman, the Shadow, the Spectre, Dr. Fate, Wolverine, the Martian Manhunter, Hal Jordan, Iron Man (the modern one), Dick Tracey (he knew how to handle unrepentant criminals), and Hawkman.
Of all of these the Spectre and Batman are my favorites.
I especially like the current Batman-Superman book as a comic.
But I definitely wouldn't pattern myself in most respects after any comic character in real life because all comic characters tend to show very deep seated weaknesses (I don't mean like Kryptonite, but in things like sacrificing innocents merely to keep alive some terrorist or criminal for a chance at later malignancy and mayhem) and they almost all display psychological disturbances which would make them far less effective, not more, in real life - if they were realistic, which they aren't even close in most cases.
However almost all such characters do have certain key exemplary virtues which are worth emulating.
Batman ranks top among those because of his detective capabilities, and his abilities to anticipate and ambush, rather than just react, react, react, as is the case with most comic characters, superman included.
One of the silliest things in all of comicdom to me is the fact that you have literally dozens of characters which super-human, some even god-like capabilities, and it occurs to almost none of them to anticipate and thwart evil before it occurs rather than just sitting around reacting to whatever disaster the supervillians can devise like some crew of inexperienced suburban rent-a-cops.
Some like Batman and Spiderman use analytical tools and inherent capabilities to anticipate danger and disaster and try to work against it before it occurs, and a guy with access to technology and capabilities like Superman just basically waits to hear the sirens before flying into action. If the guy exploited his actual capabilities he would be there before anyone suffered, not tearing up half the city in some dumbass super-battle of catastrophic collateral damage with guys like Metallo he should have killed years and years ago. With those attitudes comics will always remain only comics.
The same for the Green Lantern and most of the high-powered guys. Martian Manhunter, etc.
The characters have just never really grown up and matured, never exploited their real capabilities, they have always remained more or less just teenage costumers, part-timers and amateurs in the bodies of juvenile demi-gods. Most of them definitely don't take their jobs seriously in that respect.
At least Batman does.
Badger is actually my favorite comic of all time. Nexus was a better fit to the pair at hand, though. Have you read either of the newer issues? Great stuff.
As to the conversation at hand, I'm really not a big fan of either, but to pick one I probably have to go with Batman. Throughout all of his incarnations he's a more complex, human character. Superman, in most incarnations is, to me, too one-dimensional.
Outside of the indies, I was a Marvel fan. My boy Thor is back and Hercules is in the spotlight again!
Mr. Kane only had Batman kill once or twice; and I'm pretty sure it was only once, the monsters of Hugo Strange. Even then, it didn't sit well.
I'm not particularly in disagreement here; but calling it juvenile misses the boat, in my opinion. The key word here is liberal. Much as I love 'em, the comics industry has pretty much always been drenched in liberal politics. Recall that in his earliest appearances, Superman trounced a crooked mine owner, a couple of warlords and their profiteering arms merchants, and other favored targets of liberal ire. And yes, he raced against the clock to save a woman from the gas chamber. Because opposition to the death penalty has long been a cherished aspect of the liberal political policy world. And so for the most part, the heroes have been -- if not anti-death-penalty -- certainly anti-death-dealing.
And honestly, I'm OK with that. If we're going to posit a world where beings of extraordinary power take it upon themselves to mete out justice where the authorities do not, I still would prefer that the superheroes act in a police role, capturing and investigating, rather than in a judge-jury-executioner role. The fact that they have all that power yet still draw that line -- "This we will do, because somebody must; but beyond this is only allowed to the duly elected government" -- strikes me as almost noble, even.
But then, I've often felt that the superhero story peaked with Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" If you've already read it, you know how it fits my argument. If you haven't, SPOILERS FOLLOW: Superman is reluctantly forced to kill, for the sake of all reality. Every single friend he still has (many having been killed by his enemy) agrees that he had no choice. But to him, he had crossed a line that meant he could no longer be trusted with his powers. So he exposed himself to Gold K, and was never seen again.
Then you're complaint isn't with Batman; it's with whatever state Gotham City is in this year (it moves, ya know), for not passing and enforcing a death penalty.
Of course not. They're idealistic escapism. I don't study military tactics from Star Wars, and I don't study ethics and morality from comics. But liberal biased world view aside, I think comics can explore ethics and morality far more than Star Wars can explore military tactics. (I tell ya: give a squad of American Marines just their standard issue gear and training, and those Ewoks would be a bunch of bear-skin rugs!)
Jack, Superman long since weeded out of Metropolis all of the crooks who could easily be preempted. The ones who remain, practically by natural selection, have to be the ones who are effective at hiding their presence and their plans.
But even given that, he does patrol. He does scour for clues. He ain't a reporter for the pay, but rather for the easy access to news of the street and the world.
Well, as multiple stories have pointed out, he's still just one man. He still can only be in one place at one time. In fact, that was a major plot element in the Redemption collection I just read: a woman who became convinced he was her guardian angel kept throwing herself into danger as a way to draw his attention to crime in her neighborhood. He knew what would happen, but was powerless to stop it: eventually, while he was fighting a world-threatening menace, she was gunned down.
And then there's Mr. Maggin's "Must There be a Superman?" thesis: if Superman does everything for us that he's capable of doing, he stunts our growth as a society. If Daddy's always there to make things better, we never learn to take care of ourselves.
Which Green Lantern? Hal Jordan had to face the fact that he let his city get nuked. It drove him over the edge. (Yes, yes, they changed the story eventually; but that's how it happened originally.) Jon Stewart screwed up, and a whole planet died. Even Kyle Rayner, annoying twit that he is, has had to face both his potentials and his limits. The only true juvenile among them is Guy Gardner.
Meters only at 34%, Jack. Poke the bear again...
However, my personal favorite hero has always been Iron Man.
Man... don't get me started on Iron Man. I'm still pissed about how Marvel treated him during Civil War and afterwards. I knew Marvel didn't have the balls to say Iron Man was right and stick with it.
But then I saw Smallville's Lex Luthor for the first time... ::drools:: I am more than happy to jump over to Supe's camp if he gets villains like Michael Rosenbaum.
Shallow? Me? What makes you say that? :P
Do you want to punch Lana Lang in the face too or is it only me?
I can't stand Lana Lang on Smallville. Never could. Clark could do soooo much better with Chloe.
It sat very well with me.
Very, very well.
In that particular story he killed them to keep them from killing innocents. And he hung them to death, at least one of them that I remember in that story. And he allowed some of the others to fight themselves to death and properly made no attempt to intervene, as a matter of fact he got them fighting each other, as he has done in other cases. If only the modern one had that kind of balls on a regular basis.
It is bullshit in any world, fantasy or not, to allow the innocent to be killed and murdered, frequently and relentlessly, just to save the guilty. It is psychologically perverse and it is juvenile, the kind of thing teenagers love to see in order to make for a good story. Thousands die so superheroes can slug each other and tear down cities. It's totally and irredeemably childish in nature. It's a teenage hard-on for power over Justice. Or a confusion of power with Justice. There is only one real form of justice, and that is preventing injustice. Everything else is just mopping up blood in buckets afterwards. If the bets answer is "I can't kill cause it will spoil my soul, but is can let most everyone else die to keep from soiling my soul" then that kinda fella doesn't really have much of a soul to soil.
Here is a really good story, Batman saves innocents by anticipating crime and capturing criminals before they strike, or kills Joker by hanging him before fifth mass murdering spree. Superman sets trap or some super-powered villain and then flings him into space where lack of oxygen and cosmic radiation does the rest.
I wouldn't poke at a bear myself. Never. I'd set a trap and when he came along shoot him in the back of the head repeatedly till he moves no more. Case closed.
And yes, I completely agree that a big part of the problem is liberal politics. Too often nowadays modern liberal politics is willing to sacrifice blood and heads and slit throats for an ideal about a greater good. To endure murder, rape, and mayhem in order rot promote some nebulous ideal about freedom and choice. Murder, rape, and mayhem have nothing to do with freedom, at all.
Freedom is free to go to the ballgame, walk down any street you wish, or pursue your own and other people's best interests.
Murder, and things like it, and allowing it to continue by omission because you lack the balls to end it, is very much more like slavery and stupidity, than freedom and wisdom.
I know it's just a fantasy world and it's just comics. And a lot of it is political. But that's exactly why it will always be comics, if it never changes. It is juvenile in the real world to allow the innocent to suffer for the sake of the damned and the guilty, and it is juvenile in a fake world to set that up as some kinda "grand virtue." (And graphic novels are different and some of the newer comics are changing, and that sits well with me.) But once you grow up, with mainstream comics all you are left with is the powers and the funny looking outfits. Otherwise it bears no resemblance at all to any reality worth living in.
But I don't give a shit about your meter or about particular storylines. I'm sure I've probably been reading comics at least as long as you and know this tale or that one. I care not about that at all. I've seen Wonder Woman snap necks and then Superman get all weepy and outraged. that's not what I'm talking about at all, some internet trivia battle about storylines and continuity. People aren't right about murder and terrorism and torture by meter rating or mathematical formulation or some floating out in space Neo-Platonic ideal about "this might not sit well with the audience." Who cares? I'm saying if that is the world of the comics, mainstream superhero anyway, and it is for the most part, a few variances aside, I personally would never trade the blood of a single little girl for the chance to match wits with the Joker over and over again, nor would I want to fly merely to duke it out with some alien and tear up half my city and kill God knows how many people just to prove I'm stronger. That's a juvenile world and a juvenile set of motivations for doing anything.
That's why it is fiction in the small sense, for the most part, and nothing else. Because the values of the "heroes" are all fucked up.
It would be in all reality a pathetic type of world to inhabit.
You'll believe a man can fly, and still be totally ineffective at doing anything really meaningful. Except fight the same guys over and over and over again and cause billions of dollars worth of damage over time and kill countess innocents to save his mortal enemies.
Hoorah!!!
Don't misunderstand me Martin, I got no beef with you or most of what you're saying as theory. Literary or philosophical. I just don't buy that whole line of reasoning or buy the precepts underlying modern comics. It is not an admirable set of ideals by which to live. Not in this world, not in any other.
Nevertheless, as fiction, it is fun to watch Superman fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes, but if the cost of doing business is what he will choke down in the comics for his "ideals" I sure as hell wouldn't wanna be that man. I wouldn't wanna be most any of them. Ever. They are for the most part very silly and powerless and self-defeating characters. I'm glad I'm not constrained to be like that.
Probably because of what Martin said, writing and politics. But he was right, very, very right.
It was awfully good.
Especially so, considering that Pruneface got voted got elected to office around here a number of years ago. And now we need somebody like Dick to shuffle Pruneface's ass off to Buffalo. Where the snows are said to be even more monumental than in this place.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.