Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Superman or Batman?

Okay, since Sileas and me seem to be disagreeing about which superhero we like best, I thought I'd ask you FoLCs to weigh in with your opinion. So which one is your favorite superhero, Superman or Batman?

I prefer Supes to Bats, but Spidey is my favorite.

I've never been a Batman fan, unless you count watching the Adam West version from the 60's that I watched as a kid, which I don't. That was a show dedicated to campiness and not the actual legend, but hey, it was fun. It must have been really tough to write the lyric for that theme song.

When it comes to the comic book Batman, he's just too dark a character for me and even a bit insane in some ways. While Batman has a lot of cool gadgets, Superman is a way better superhero. IMO, of course.

I've watch a few episodes of the Adam West series, which I only thought of as being comical and I have seen all the Batman movies the last probably being my favourite, but since Dean and Chris Reeve are the only two men I've seen play Superman and I'm not keen on waching the new movie I much prefer Superman over Batman. Dean's is perhaps my favourite only because I was old enough to remember. Not that Chris didn't give a great performance it's just that his Clark Kent was all too geeky for my liking.

I never had any interest in any of them before LnC. Now Superman is my fave.

The only Batman incarnation that I truely loved was the animated Batman cartoon (and the comic version, Batman Adventures). It had Mark Hamill as the voice of the Joker (he was fabulous!) and the best portrayal of my all time favorite character, Harley Quinn. The visual graphic design was beautiful!

I'll watch just about any comic-based movie/series with casual interest. As for the characters, my husband (comic geek) and I have had FAR too many conversations/arguments about this question. His general view is that Superman was written as too powerful; that he can't be seen as very heroic because he's not really risking himself in most situations. He's also stupid - he could solve many situations easily if he used the right power from a distance instead of stumbling into situations that end up involving kryptonite. Batman has no powers, just intelligence and skill that he has aquired and worked for. Since he can be killed in every situation he's faced with, he makes the more heroic sacrifice as he fights crime. His favorite hero, though, is Spiderman. He's human because he can't pay his rent and has a bad job, and acquiring superpowers has not really helped his life at all.

By the way, I love my conversations/arguments with my husband because I have a philosophy minor and delve into deep questions with him. Has anyone else read "Superheroes and Philosophy", or any of the other books in the "Pop Culture and Philosophy" series?

I'd agree this is a bit of a downside to Superman.

It's for that reason that one of my very favourite moments in LNC is in UltraWoman, where Clark tackles the muggers in the alley.

He goes rushing in by reflex, not even thinking that this time things are different, and is almost immediately cut with the knife. You can see him pause, re-evaluate, the dawning realistion that this time he's not invulnerable, he can be hurt...

...and then - knowing that - he just goes steaming back in for another go. You gotta love him for that. <G>

LabRat

Superman with Dean Cain is my favorite. Although when they first came out I liked Chris as Superman (but hated the movie with Richard Pryor) I've since had that version of a superhero fall down the list.

The Superman movies with Chris and Margot were kind of campy now in my opinion. With Chis's version of Clark being the ultimate clumsy geek and Margot's version of Lois being much too manish. In trying to make her Lois the career driven news woman they took away all traces of femininity to the point that I could not believe that Clark/Superman or any man would find her particularly attractive or desirable. To me she even came off manish in the balcony scene. The characterizations were taken too far. They were over the top which put them into unbelievable campy versions.

I found Dean and Teri's versions much more believable with the exception of Lois's complete guillibility (sp?) with Lex. Being completely sucked in like that was not in character in my opinion. The not seeing through Clark's disguise is set by the Superman myth but Lois being a determined cynical investigative reporter should have had her digging so far into Lex's background before she ever tried to interview him that she should have had some idea that he was not what he seemed. It drove me crazy when it first aired and still bothers me now when I watch those episodes.
2. Spiderman (because they've been consistent with the actors and I like the character)
3. Batman (because I like the premise of the character)

Up until LnC, I liked Batman better than Superman. IMO, while the Batman movies weren't so hot, the Superman ones were worse. Christopher Reeves's Superman was so stiff and his Clark Kent...eesh. It wasn't until Lois Lane came as Teri Hatcher that I loved it (strong woman counterpart who's in on the secret and so forth). Dean Cain's Clark was so human as to make the superpowers just an extra rather than a dominant force (in agreement with Groobie's point). He's vulnerable, thus making him more likeable.

Also, and this is just my taste, the black and blue seemed more...scary and cool than the red and blue. It's so American and just not scary. Even now, I find the Batmobile a great idea even though I don't do the comics whatsoever.

I will admit that Batman Begins, the latest movie which I was forced into watching, hooked me in more than any other superhero movie. I love the secret identity stuff, and making Bruce Wayne's sad childhood so poignant was good movie material. I also am a sucker for gadgetry so I enjoyed that part.

As far as Spiderman, I'm sorry. Peter Parker (isn't that his name?) just doesn't appeal to me that much. A guy as a spider just doesn't strike me as heroic. Sorry to those diehard fans, but I don't do comics so I have no characterisation issues to deal with . Although, I did buy my pseudo-nephew a Spiderman bedspread.

I fell in love with Superman the first time I ever came across him, when I was twelve. During parts of my childhood I had been scared witless by some of my relatives, who firmly believed that you would go to hell if you sewed a button on a blouse on a Sunday or if you allowed the very thought of a forbidden word to slip into your mind. Things didn't get better when my grandfather told me that Jesus would very soon come back to Earth to bring his faithful ones to heaven. For months, I expected to wake up in the morning to find that all my relatives were gone, while I was left behind with Sunday-attached buttons on my blouses and four-letter words in my mind.

When I was twelve, I was sort of resigned to the fact that I was doomed to go hell no matter what I did. I might as well stop trying to be so good, so I actually enunciated the word h-e-c-k (well, the Swedish equivalent of it), and then I borrowed a bunch of comic books from my cousins. (They were boys, so they could read comics without going to hell.) And when I came across Superman... Well, it was like finding the god I had been wanting for myself all throughout my childhood. He was powerful, totally amazing, and altogether superhuman. And he was kind! Kind!!! He was smiling, tolerant, understanding. He kept helping people, getting them out of burning houses, catching cars about to fall off bridges, saving people being attacked by thugs, getting down cats that were stuck in trees... And he never killed anyone. He rarely used any violence at all. He just wasn't into punishing people. He was friendly, amazing and exhilarating, and for about a year, I sort of drank in Superman the way a person dying of thirst might drink herself senseless when she comes across a spring in the desert.

Then, when I had stuffed myself and sort of had enough, I read this Lois Lane comic where Superman proposed to Lois and made me totally believe that he was completely in love with her. And for the second time, Superman totally, totally overwhelmed me. The fact that I could see him as a man in love changed him for me, so that he wasn't any longer that detached, perfect god. And the idea of Superman, amazingly powerful, truly good but fallible, anxious to use his powers in the best possible way, and truly, truly in love with this one woman... Tell me, people, how can any fictional hero possibly compete with that?

Back when I discovered Superman, I also came across Batman. He was fun back then. Dressed in his bat-suit, he would be out at night, playing coppers and robbers with his little buddy Robin and the badguys of Gotham City. I really liked it, but it was the situations that appealed to me more than the hero himself. Still, the sheer rollercoaster weightlessness of the best Batman adventures from the late sixties was a heady experience. I still remember a story which made me fantasize that I, too, was out dressed up in a fancy costume, dangling from a batrope and playing giddy games of the night.

But then, at about the same time that I started seeing Superman as a man in love, old Bats changed too, and definitely for the worse. He became this moody, brooding bat-shaped silhouette, sitting perched on the highest roofs, feeling immensely sorry for himself, contemplating the unfairness of life. Occasionally he would explode in a burst of energy and brutality, violently attacking some hapless criminals. I was so disappointed in him; no, worse, I was disgusted. So I gave up on him about thirty-five years ago, but over the years I have nevertheless picked up the odd Batman comic book just to see what is going on in the world of Bats. (I haven't bothered with the Batman movies.) And guess what? The man seems to alternate between long spells of celibacy and intense periods of womanizing. Perhaps ten years ago, he had a son by a woman named Talia al-Ghul or something. Not that he himself knew about it, since he had already left her by that time. So, I just thought, maybe that will be the legacy of Batman. An army of little Batboys and Batgirls, sitting perched on roofs and howling at the moon, venting their frustration at having grown up without ever meeting their father? Ahh, people. Give me Superman any time!!!!

Ann

I'm sorry, Rat, but that is just rubbish. It's a cop-out used by bad writers as an excuse not to have to do any work. It's just like Moonlighting syndrome -- romance stops when the characters get together/get married/make love/whatever -- and it's drivel. This is SUPERman we're talking about, so make him super! It means you have to use your imagination, just as you do to have romance with a couple who have been together for a long time (or even <shock! horror!> got married), but that's what a writer is supposed to do, and if s/he can't cope with the concept of Superman, then s/he had better stick to mud-grubbing and let those who can soar in the sky.

We've seen what happens when Superman is downgraded to Slightly-Above-Average-Man; that's what happened in the animated series, where "Supes" spent something like half of each episode being kicked around by the lamest of villains -- and then he'd go and save Earth from a comet the size of Nightfall. To quote Clark: "Give me a break!" L&C was bad enough that way, but STAS was just plain ridiculous.

As for the accusation of the Big S not being heroic enough, that falls down on (at least) two counts: first, having him risking himself is not the sole measure of heroism, and even if it was, it is possible to come up with ways of having that happen -- they just require more imagination than "The bad guy has a gun"; and secondly, it's easy enough to come up with threats that don't impact on Superman directly, but do threaten him in other ways -- his family and friends, his self-esteem, his motivation, even his identity. The drama is still there, but it's true drama rather than a physical threat. L&C did this a number of times, and probably the best example of it in Superman media of all types is Miracle Monday by the great Elliot S! Maggin. Don't try to tell me that a man who rationally and deliberately vows to spend his entire life fighting an agent of Hell who has destroyed his Clark Kent identity and intends to destroy the world is not heroic. But then, Maggin is a Superman writer with few peers, not someone looking for an easy ride and disparaging anything that might actually require him to use his imagination.

Batman... well, I like the idea of the character and I have read and enjoyed many Bat-stories over the years, and even more featuring Batman and Superman as the World's Finest Team -- but I don't like the character as he is written these days. Oberunterfuhrer O'Neil, Frank Miller, Brubaker and all their devotees have a lot to answer for, for turning the obsessed but still human Batman into the modern Psycho-Bat.

In fact, Psycho-Bat is now a lot like Spider-Man -- a character specifically designed to do two things: beat up the bad guys, and suffer. The pair of them are an angst-fan's delight; neither of them are ever allowed to be happy for more than a page-and-a-half at a time, and even that's pushing it. I really cannot understand why people enjoy reading that stuff, but they seem to, Finagle only knows why.

It boils down to this: Superman (when properly written, a caveat that must always be made) is a symbol of light, of hope and of aspiration; he is the Man of Tomorrow, someone that his creators envisaged as what they (and all the people they wanted to appeal to) would like to be, someone that Humanity ought to aspire to becoming like -- and we'd be so much better off if we did. Batman is a figure of fear, of darkness and of vengeance, who is nonetheless "heroic" in that he works for the safety and well-being of his fellows by dealing with threats from criminals. He is a vigilante, working from the shadows, needing to terrify to do his "job;" fear is an inherent part of his very existence.

Now, I have always thought that the differences between these two characters, icons of the light and the dark, are what makes them work so well as a team, but I'm afraid that, if it comes to a choice, I have to go with the light. Superman gets my vote.

As for Spidey -- well, I'm sorry, Parker-fans, but Pete is basically a superhuman pinata.

Phil, whose favorite "superhero" (because he's not) is Orion of the New Gods

After re-reading the postings before my first one and then the ones that come after it finally became clear to me why I prefer Superman.

Batman and Spiderman from what I know of their mythos (from the movies mainly) went into "crime fighting" as a reaction to what had happened in their lives. They basically wanted revenge in one form or another. Whereas Superman appears to have chosen to do what he does because he believes that having such power has to be used responsibly. That means helping where you can and not hurting anyone in the process, including the 'bad guy'. To use his powers for personal gain is to diminishing these gifts. He is something to aspire to, to help because you can.

To keep from starting another debate here, lets just say that their are many different professions that should take that attitude as well, instead of demanding outrageous salaries for their 'abilities'.

I gather you disagree with my pov, Phil. That's fine. However, disagreeing with you doesn't make my opinion rubbish and I'd have expected more respect than this from you. I have no problem with my imagination when it comes to writing - for any character.

LabRat

Actually, Labrat, I don't think that's what's Phil is saying because I agree with him and I'm certainly not saying that to call only your opinion rubbish. Believe me, I've run across the same opinion in other loops and think it's rubbish there too. I've had published writers tell me that characters are only truly heroic, and notice I'm not even saying super-heroes there, if they're dark and broody and angsty as you know what. So they actually look down their noses at the well-adjusted, good guys. Give those good guys super powers of any kind and those same writers start whining and complaining that there's no story there. Oye. Where are their brains?

So, Phil is right to challenge this perception as rubbish for two reasons. The first is the reason he gives about basic writing and stretching ourselves to find ways to make those good guys work regardless but there's another even more intriguing one - if the "hero" is the only one who can be dark and angsty, then when do we get the dark and angsty "heroines"?

Yes, that may sound like a play on words solely for gender purposes but think about this, would L&C have worked quite as well if Lois had been just as well-adjusted and positively minded as Clark?

Hmmm?

There are certainly many valid perspectives to consider in this debate.
Phil said:
The philosophical question, then, is what is a hero? What makes someone heroic? Some quotes from Jeph Loeb and Tom Morris in "Heroes and Superheroes" from "Superheroes and Philosophy":
Certainly, it can be agreed that Superman is a hero. He does things for the public that can be judged as morally good as an example to everyone that we're supposed to be care about our world and the people around us.
All superheroes, angsty or not, can provide people with examples of heroism, allowing us to see the everyday heroes around us, and providing an inspiration to become the kind of people that the world needs. (Disney's "Higleytown Heroes" does this for the preschool set, as well.)

Kmar wrote:
But does Superman really act without personal gain? Mark Waid in "The Real Truth About Superman" (also from "Superheroes and Philosophy") argued that Kal-El, like all people, operates according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. And while he has little need at the lower levels (nourishment and safety are pretty much taken care of), he does feel the social need for community with others.
By embracing his Kryptonian abilites, Kal-El is able to contribute to the people around him and fulfill his need for social community.

However, I believe that Lois and Clark's Clark Kent is very different from the movies' Superman. "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do", versus Superman is the real person and Clark is a poor disguise. It's Clark's humanity, as evidenced in Labrat's example from Ultrawoman or in KSaraSara's "Away From the Sun, part 27" (a powerless Alt-Clark jumping in front of a bullet meant for Alt-Lois) that appeals to me. For all of the traditional Superman's moral uprightness, I question his relevance as a real person in today's world. Again from Mark Waid:
I love the image of Clark in a t-shirt and jeans, sparing with a passionate Lois. Of course, Beverly is right that L&C would not have worked if Lois were well-adjusted and positive-minded. But this incarnation of Clark had his flaws, too. I adore that he was prone to jealousy, could be stubborn and wrong, could love someone so passionately. Clark's Kryptonian abilities allowed him to form a beautiful ornament for Lois' Christmas tree, but he had no power to make her fall in love with him until the right time. His abilities allowed him to provide aid to the citizens of Metropolis but forced him to run out on the woman he loved. And despite all of the powers he possessed, he never had what I felt was the most outrageous power ever given to Superman, the ability to fly backwards around the Earth and turn back time.

For me, "Lois and Clark"'s Clark had humanity. That's why I loved the show. That's why I like this incarnation of Superman without really caring much about any of the others.

Umm, TOC, you didn't think you'd start this when you posted the poll, did you?

Susan (who thanks Martin Luther King Jr. for, among his many other contributions to society, giving me the day off to write all of this stuff!)

Yeah, but the thing to remember is that those weren't dark, angsty, brooding hero flaws but perfectly normal "human" ones that anyone might have. This is where I really do believe that people sell Superman short and give Batman a pass. I don't care if a hero can bench press planets, I care he still has family problems in spite of that and honestly tries to overcome them. That's heroic. What's not heroic is totally giving up on family in order to sit and brood about it and yet that's the accepted heroic mold.

Or at least all of this is true of the Superman where Clark is the real person. When Superman is the real person and Clark the disguise it creates a whole other dynamic which doesn't necessarily allow for family to begin with. Yet another reason why I'm having major doubts about the new movie. Things definitely seems to be going backwards there. I think their hearts may be in the right place but I have serious doubts about most writer's and producer's ability to come through with something palatable.

Okay, call me a cynic there but that's the way I feel.

Same here.

Sorry to go off on a slight tangent, but this was always rather hilarious to me in Superman: The Movie. Lois got killed during an earthquake. So tell me what happened to the earthquake when he turned back time. Wouldn't the earthquake still be going on? And if he takes time out to save Lois, wouldn't somebody else die in her place? Instead, everything's fixed and the earthquake is no where to be seen.

Just something to ponder.

I've got a few random things to throw in, hopefully without really getting into the thick of things:

(1) Batman: TAS is one of my all-time favorite shows. It was done with love, and it was done like no other cartoon I've ever seen. They lost money on it, but they did it anyway. The animators voluntarily put in overtime to add little touches no one had thought to ask them for, because they cared that much. To me, it's the definitive version of Batman.

(I hate what they did to it after the series ended, when they brought it back as "The New Batman Adventures," but that's another matter.)

Anyway, the thing I really wanted to mention about it is Harley Quinn. She's also one of my favorite Batman cast members, and some of the best TAS episodes feature her. What's really cool to me is that she was created by the TAS team. She's since become popular enough that they wrote her into the comics, but she started in TAS.

(2) Superman is much harder to relate to, in some ways, than Batman. He has all of these powers, and while they're nice to dream out, they're hard to believe in.

I love the idea of Superman. I understand that he's very important. I feel like he should be liked more. When it comes down to it, though, I find that I enjoy Batman more. I enjoy reading about him. I enjoy watching him. I think they can do more interesting things with him.

(Of course, it all depends on the writing. I've seen awfully done Batman -- The Batman Strikes comes to mind -- and wonderfully done Superman -- L&C being the most obvious example -- and a bunch of stuff in between -- like the hit & miss Batman/Superman adventures.)

(3) The movies, and in particular, the time travel thing.

The movies were based on the Silver Age comics. A lot of outlandish stuff was taken for granted. Superman was the real guy, and Clark a silly disguise.

I don't like the way the movies kept giving him random powers (like super telekinesis in Superman IV), but the first movie was pretty much true to the comics of the time.

The time travel scene confused a lot of people. It took me a long time to get it. Here's how it worked, though, as best I can understand:

According to the Theory of Relativity, time slows down as you approach the speed of light. That's why if you go flying around near the speed of light, you'll come back "younger" than the people who stayed on Earth. Less time will have passed for you than for the people who weren't moving so fast.

It's really wierd (a lot of things about relativity are), but there it is. The faster you go, the slower time goes.

Theoretically, if you were to go faster than light, time would start moving in the other direction. It's even possible that, as we speak, there's another "world" full of things going faster than light. Things we can't see or feel or touch or interact with, but which are nonetheless there. For them, time would be sort of mirror-imaged. It would look to us like it was going backwards, and the slower they went, the slower time would go. The speed of light, to them, would also be an impassable barrier (the universal speed limit), but they wouldn't be able to go any slower.

That's the thing. It takes a theoretically infinite amount of energy to cross the lightspeed barrier. But... if you could do it... time would go "backwards."

So that's what's happening in that scene. He goes faster and faster around the Earth. We're travelling with him, so we see what he sees. Time slows down, then starts to go backwards. It's not that he's causing the Earth's rotation to slow and reverse. It's that time is slowing and reversing.

(This was done fairly often in the Silver Age comics, especially with The Flash. They took the real science and a healthy dollop of artistic license and just made it a fact that super speedsters could move through time.)

What about the earthquake? He saved everyone except Lois the first time. Then he went back in time and saved her, too. By going back in time, he was able to be in two places at once.

Make sense?

(Of course not! It's the Silver Age! Who needs it to make sense?)

Okay, I've rambled on more than long enough.

Movies:

I like the 1989 Batman best, followed by the 1978 (good year!) Superman. Then Batman Begins and Superman II. I won't get into the rest.

Batman > Superman

Animated Series:

Batman TAS is the best, followed by Superman. New Batman comes in below that, and may even be edged out by the old Superman animated serials, which at least have a classic quality about them.

Batman > Superman

Live action:

Lois and Clark, hands down, best live-action superhero show ever. The 60's Batman does have its campy charm, but... *shrug*

Superman > Batman

Comics:

The bat-titles have this annoying habit of giant summer crossovers. They take over all of Gotham with painfully bad stories (more hole than plot). Outside of that, though, I'm a fan. I read almost all of them. (Except Robin, Nightwing, and Birds of Prey.)

Tried the Superman comics, but just couldn't get into them. I'm reading the new Supergirl, though.

Batman > Superman

So... I voted for Batman, but it really depends on the incarnation. The writers, how it's presented, etc.

And that's a lot more than I meant to say (as usual).

Paul

Oh, I'm all about the characterization. Powers don't figure in at all (though vulnerabilities do).