Discussion in 'The Comics' started by ScottishFogg, Jul 16, 2008.
BTW: Batman wears underwear on the outside, too.
A good character driven story, like the comics are supposed to be. Has to have a character every one can relate to, adult and kids. Batman is that type of character. Superman is not. He has no real tragic beginning. Even though his real parents died tragically- Epically, He was to young to even have been affected by it in any significant way. He was sent to earth and adopted by parents who where the best any adopted kid could ever hope for. no tragedy there. he finds out that he has powers beyond any human and most alien beings he encounters because of the yellow earth sun. sure his adopted father dies later but every one expects there father to die at some point, they were old. Its sad but not significantly tragic. He goes on to become earths protector to do good and try never to do wrong. doesn't like hurting anyone ever under any circumstances. might as well be Jesus. No one can relate to that.
Batman now, is the complete opposite, the only things that are similar between them are:
1. They are both Heroes trying to be a good force in the world.
2. They wear suits, of course batman is 100 times better even when its stupidly drawn. ( I like the Batman the animated series look. I also like the new Nolan movies look.)
Now Smallville I like. It makes superman more, metaphorically speaking of course, human. but I've always liked Lex Luthor and the other villains better anyway... I watch the movies and read the comics for them. not superman. Lex luthor is more relateable imo.
I think the fact that Bruce, as a human man, can still stand shoulder to shoulder with Amazons, Aliens, Gods and Kings pretty much earns him the right to push them around.
I love the fact that for all of his strengths, Clark is still vulnerable to Bruce's beliefs, ideologies and methods.
But personally, I prefer how Loeb writes them.
They still have their differences and argue like there's no tomorrow, but they have mutual respect for one another and kick ass as a team when the chips are down.
Plus it's obvious Frank wouldn't be fond of Superman, the ultimate representation of authority and conventional morality...seeings how Frank has very little love for such things, IMO from what I've seen.
You simply have no sense for fantasy and excitement. Superman is wishfulfillment.
Yeah, that makes absolutely no sense.
Clark? He is just a disguise. What hurts him about beliefs and ideologies? Superman is an absolute.
The "dueling lovers" from Batman / Superman is just annoying and pretentious.
Yeah Superman the establishment puppet.
I always love the tired old "he's powerful so he's not relatable" argument.
Powers aside, Superman's got a lot more in common with the average joe than Batman. He grew up in a middle-of-nowhere town, and never fit in anywhere he went, which grew even more complicated when he discovers his real origins. He tries to be like everyone else, but his powers and the job that comes with it means he can never do that. Even surrounded by other superheroes, he's always put on a pedestal above the others, so he can never be just 'one of the guys.' And his upbringing on Earth means he's not at home with other Kryptonians, either. So no matter how much good in the world Superman does, no matter how many friends or loved ones he has, on that one basic level of having a shared experience with others, he is always completely alone.
That basic need to try and reach out to his fellow man, even though he can never really fit in, that struggle to establish his own identity, is one of the key elements of a heroic-everyman character. The fact that he's got incredible superpowers just means his conflicts are on a bigger scale, with the stakes that much higher if he fails. He's got plenty of tragic elements to his character, but he doesn't let them define him and turn into a 24/7 brooding-angst-machine like Batman. To me, that makes him a lot deeper than the guys who just shout out their drama at every given chance.
Contrast Clark's upbringing with Bruce, who spent his childhood spoiled rotten in one of the richest families in the world, then ran off for years on a quest that none of us could ever have enough money to afford. He then got to come back and take over a billion-dollar corporation that he had no hand in creating, and use his family's and his company's fortunes to make a bunch of weapons and gadgets that make him unbeatable. He never loses a major fight (especially not if he has "prep time") and always gets to be the guy who's right when the heroes start arguing. In that sense, he's far more invulnerable, and thus a more shallow character, than Superman ever was.
Based on past interviews, I've read. Frank Miller likes his heroes conflicted and flawed, almost hypocritical. Since Superman is not the kind of hero that visits prostitutes or takes drugs between heroic acts, he doesn't really see much to work with.
Bruce is a mortal and yet he has accomplished and triumphed just as much as Superman and as a result he's proven himself. Also, Batman clearly doesn't buy into the concept of "Superman" like nearly every other character in the DCU does.
While other characters see Superman as an ideal to aspire to or emulate, or they see him as an inspirational messiah to continuously praise...Batman sees him as an equal and doesn't think any higher of him then he should have to.
How could that not make any sense? I think you just don't want it to make sense.
Superman, Clark, Kal-El ... Whatever you want to call him, he's the same guy.
And Paul Levitz said this in a documentary and I very much side with it:
Clark sees the world as a place that can be made better, as opposed to Bruce who believes that the world is s**t and it's about surviving it rather than improving it, since improving it is close to impossible.
Since Batman's ideology is more realistic (even in reality), this makes Superman look quite foolish and by extension very vulnerable IMO.
Now I'm not saying that Superman isn't noble for feeling this way...but given the actions of humanity, it's rather naive...and that naivety usually leads Supes into trouble more often then not.
"Dueling Lovers" ??? No.
"Reluctant yet Understanding Allies" ??? Yes.
What's annoying about that? And even more so, what's pretentious about it? I mean if you know what 'pretentious' means, then how do you figure Loeb's take on Cla...I mean Superman...and Batman's relationship is such a thing?
In Frank's take, yeah...isn't that what we're talking about?
I have a feeling that had he been born dirt poor and his parents were still taken from him by a mindless act of voilence, it wouldn't change Bruce's desire to avenge them and make the choice to preserve justice.
He still would've become a vigilante crime fighter.
His wealth is nothing more than a tool and an advantage to his crusade. With wealth, he still becomes a vigilante crime fighter...but he's able to acquire the technology and safety gear in order to keep himself alive and do his job well.
As for being spoiled, I don't think so.
I seem to recall (not sure where) of a short flashback story:
Instead of doing so with an abundance of gifts and a lavish dinner, Thomas and Martha decided to celebrate Christmas by taking Bruce to work in a Soup Kitchen...teaching him the values of helping those who couldn't help themselves.
Even in "Batman Begins" it's clear that the Waynes don't spoil their son. Same goes for pretty much all other Batman material.
Well, even if he wasn't really pampered or coddled, you've gotta admit that Bruce started out with a lot more advantages than the average guy would get, and that was more of what I meant.
Supermans humble background amounts to nothing when you factor in his power, its just too much for one guy to have. Money is meaningless. Superman had to suffer no hardships growing up. he could do the farm work of hundreds thousands maybe
Yeah I understand, and you have a point
Even though I like some of his work, I wouldn't spend too much time thinking about why Frank Miller hates anything. He seems like a self-expressive artist and most of his work contains dark images and themes, women as prostitues and so on. I'd hazard a guess that Superman just doesn't appeal to him, and he chooses to express that he thinks Batman is better through those interactions in his stories.
Miller is as Miller does.
Um...no he doesn't.
Superman should have absolutely no self-doubts.
Are you ever going to say or do anything useful?
Easy: Miller learned at the knee of Steve Englehart. Now THERE is a Superman hater!
Miller sees bad in everyting. Batman is ANGRY. It's his hook. Catwoman is literally a ****e who goes areound wearing a cat costume when she steals. Green Arrow is Maimed and out to get the person he blames.
Miller has issues. He was actually at his peak when Stern wrote Daredevil and he just drew it.
Finally encountered someone who fits the "Proud to be an Oakie from Muscogee" type who actually hails from Muscogee.
Batman is a scared little boy who thought his tough guy act scared off his parents' killer. We know now that Chill was under orders from Boss Moxon to leave the boy as a witness, to help establish that Moxon had nothing to do with Thomas Kane's killer.
He's motivated to destroy crime out of shame that he was scared when he was 8 and thought he was going to be next.
Superman? We learn his true motivation later on. The damn TV show made DC get Clark and Lois engaged. Then the producers decided they didn't want them married, so DC obligingly broke off the engagement. Then the producers changed their minds.
Anyway, it's during that mess that Lois breaks the engagement and a bewildered Superman is talking it over with former lover Lori Lemaris. He gets so frustrated and genuinely angry he throws the engagement ring away. With his Strength that means hundreds of miles away.
Then he remembers that ring was the ring his father used when he asked his mother to marry him. And flies off after it.
Lori, who's a telepath, picks up a factoid in that emotional burst of his. Why he does what he does.
Jonathan and Martha REALLY did a good job raising him. He loves the planet he loves life, he loves the people. If he could reform Luthor, he would.
This is something beyond Miller's comprehension, and based on your comments I honestly suspect, yours as well.
But really. Feel free to rant about Superman wearing his uderwear outside and having an emblem on his chest while praising a guy who does the same AND wears a bright gold belt that seriously negates the shadow hiding that is so necessary to the character concept.
Comics are an entertainment medium after all, and if Ranting about your preconcieved notions of Superman makes you feel happy and entertained, those who make Superman books have succeeded, haven't they?
Frank has given interviews on this topic before.
I wish I could find them to show you.
But basiclly Frank feels that Batman and Superman could never be friends.He feels that the differences in their ideologies makes them incompatible as friends.
Frank see's Batman as a person who believes that their's no control in life unless you take it,That the system is broken and needs to be fixed, that the world is going to hell in a hand basket,that people are more prone to selfishness,hate and greed.
Ultimately he see's Batman as a the worlds biggest pessimist.
Frank see's Superman as a person who thinks the world is basically a "Nice Place", that with only a little help things will always turn out right,That the system works and doent need fixing,that people are more prone to selflessness,love and compasion.
Ultimately he see's Superman as the worlds biggest optimist.
And Frank feels that two people with 2 vastly different views on life and the world could never be friends.
I do not want Superman to be a genious.
I do not want Superman to be a god.
I do not want Superman so tuned up that there is just no conflict to be had in a Superman story.
Superman is a bright guy but not a genious. The super-intellect thing is a cheesey outdated notion that WASN'T an invention from 1938. When Supes was introduced ... he was a tuned up regular guy. Hell, he didn't even fly originally.
Yeah, but you people want Batman to be a genius. That is cheesy.
See here's the difference.....Batman would have to be a genius to be as effective and successful as he is and still survive.
And thats just a cold hard fact.
I like this conclusion too t:
I think you'd better want Supeman to have brains. That much power in an idiot's hands is asking for disaster.
A guy with microspcopic vison is going to pick up from sight facts about electronics and biology. And a lot more just because.
Now, I think the ideal model for the relationship between Clark and Bruce is found in the stories of Nero Wolf and the relationship between Wolfe and Lon Cohen of the Gazette.
Clark is the reporter. He wants the facts known. Batman is the secretive detective. He won't let you know the day of the week unless he sees some benefit to it.