Batman v Superman: The Generational Struggle of Making Superman Fans in a Batman World
Or, I Try to Answer All of Your Questions About Everything.
Many of us born in the late-80s and early-90s who had an interest in superheroes, grew up in a categorical Batman world. I myself, have been a Batman Kid for the majority of my existence. It was near-impossible not to be! By the time I was five-years-old, I had been introduced to an unknown amount of reruns of the 60s series, become absolutely enamored with Batman Returns through its inescapable marketing and incredible Kenner toy line, and was also hooked on the now-timeless animated series. That makes for an incredible head start for The Caped Crusader heading into 1993 when so many of us around the same age had our first true, significant Superman memory
where they fuckin’ killed him.
I’m not saying The Death and Return of Superman is bad. It’s a landmark moment, not only for the Superman character, but for comics as a medium. However, I am saying that it set in motion an unnecessary amount of adaptations in movies, both live-action and animated features since the first one was released in 2007. I am saying, “Let’s kill Superman every three films before it means anything,” is a ridiculous strategy to keep trying if you’re trying to grow the fanbase. I am saying that it has played a major part in warping the public perception of the character.
Ultimately, a tide turned, Batman became DC’s unanimous top draw and has consistently created new fans every year for decades. Everyone knows him, knows his story, knows his personality, wants to be him, and so on. Whereas Superman, once the most popular superhero, has not found the same long-term success so far in my lifetime, and one of my biggest takeaways from my Superbinge is that if you asked 10 non-comic-readers to describe Superman, his powers, his personality, etc. I’d wager you would hear at least six different individual, inconsistent perceptions of the character and his capabilities, and at least three would think he was boring.
You may wonder what happened, and in my eyes, it starts with The Caped Crusader having multiple go-to film adaptations (and more), and that, for various reasons heretofore undiscussed, every adaptation of Superman—even the best ones—cannot be used to create new fans.
Think about it. If someone said, “Get me into Batman, but I don’t want to read the comics,” there is objectively great Batman media that spans decades. Line up every live-action Batman film plus Mask of the Phantasm, grab a stick, put on a blindfold, spin around for 30 seconds, and start walking around swinging the stick like you have what my Grandpa called, “the worst slice he’s ever seen,” before he walked back inside his house and never tried to teach me how to golf again, and as long as you don’t hit Batman & Robin, you have a solid chance of creating a new Batman fan…unless they’re eight. That’s maybe a solid choice if they’re eight.
Quality of film notwithstanding, in that line there is only one that is no longer an accurate take on the character, and that’s the 1966 film, even if it’s perfect and wonderful.
The same can simply not ever be said for the other half of the World’s Finest.
If it pleases the court, together we are going to deep-dive multiple decades worth of media as I will now present my case:
Richard Donner’s 1978 classic adaptation of Superman is the reason we have superhero movies today, and is currently the best, most comic-accurate representation of the character. Christopher Reeve feels believable as both Clark and Superman, and captures both aspects of the character in a way that hasn’t been seen on the big screen since. The robust but equally important ensemble are well lead by Margo Kidder providing a top-tier Lois Lane. There is the absolute treat that is John Williams’ score, including the timeless title theme. It’s a great definition of, “movie magic,” where even when the special effects can feel dated, you can see the effort to make it seem as real as possible. It has a great sense of reverence for the source material, and even influenced the canon in various ways including, the S logo becoming the symbol for the House of El because silly Marlon Brando also wanted to wear the S, and Krypton and the Fortress of Solitude being crystal-designed structures. In short: If Comic Book Movie Mount Rushmore existed, this is the George Washington portion.
So what could go wrong with this being someone’s introduction to Superman?
WELLLLLLLLLLLLL, there are some things.
For starters, this clocks in at a whopping 150-minutes, so pack a lunch. I do not mind long (over 130-minutes) movies, however this is a length that does not feel necessary. While it successfully covers a lot of ground, it can feel glacially slow, especially in the first act—or even more specifically in the five-plus minutes of opening credits. But hey, we can write that off, right? It’s a product of its era and the size and magnitude of this could just as easily be Donner and crew taking this seriously and wanting it to be taken seriously.
Secondly, Gene Hackman turns in a phenomenal performance as Lex Luthor, and I’m not taking that away from him. I do not like this version of Lex Luthor. The Lex Luthor character works best as the billionaire, genius, narcissistic, megalomaniac, scientist. Lex Luthor is a villain not only because he wants to prove Superman can be broken, or because Lex feels Superman damages the public’s perception of Lex being Metropolis’ savior. What makes Lex truly evil is the fact that, like the billionaires of today, if they actually wanted to save the world, they would. The Luthor we get here is a lot of those things, but also more like a real estate tycoon. Can we write this one off? It’s a personal gripe so maybe, it just depends on if you vibe with the inerpreta—
OH SO HE CAN FLY SO FAST AND SPIN THE EARTH BACKWARDS TO REWIND TIME?
It’s unavoidable. Every time. This is the one the will always come up. It was even the hurdle I could not get over when I first watched it somewhere around 2005 in yet another attempt to see why the man has maintained for decades. This particular scene has become one of the most injurious moments to the Superman character in the modern public eye in its entire history. How can any threat be taken seriously if our dude can pull a Missy Elliot and ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gnaht sih, tup?
It’s a devastating blow to what remains Superman’s best live-action adaptation almost fifty-years later, but that’s a whole other thing later.
Okay, but the three sequels?
We’re gonna speed run these. Because most of them aren’t worth watching.
There are two versions of the “Superman II.” There is the theatrically released “Superman II” directed by Richard Lester, who replaced Richard Donner partway through production, and then there is Donner’s version that was eventually released in 2006.
The theatrical release of the sequel is mostly good, but definitely inferior to the first film. The most significant differences are a great scene in Paris that does not occur in Donner’s version, and the tone of Lester’s version is far more comedic that trends toward cartoonish and begins eroding the reverence for the source material that Donner had shown.
Also, Lois figures out Clark is Superman, but at the end he erases her memory of it with a kiss.
That might actually be worse than rewinding time…
Just wait. Richard Donner’s version of the sequel makes a more complete vision that he began in 1978. It has to utilize test footage and incomplete footage, so while it is a more complete version, it does feel incomplete despite being my preferred version, but also not on the same level of the first. It’s far less jokes-a-minute, which is good, but you lose the Paris scene, which is a bummer.
Also, there’s no amnesia kiss!
Oh, thank God.
Right? Instead he just rewinds time again!
Godda—
If you think that’s bad, don’t worry, you’ll hate this.
Richard Lester returned to direct Superman III, and he doesn’t just lean into the comedy from Superman II, he goes for it almost exclusively, making for a completely different tone that focuses more on the comic in “comic book.”
It’s not the only change, though! The story has a new villain in Robert Vaughn’s Ross Webster, and alongside him is comedian Richard Pryor who received second-billing. The third Superman film is heavily Clark-centered as he spends a large portion of the two-hour runtime in Smallville reconnecting with Lana Lang. Now, in exchange for this Margot Kidder is effectively written out of this misstep of a movie within the first five or ten minutes.
That sounds interesting at least. How is it?
Bad. It’s very bad. Unenjoyably so. It’s not really worth watching unless you’re wanting to watch all of the Superman movies. I’ve learned it’s a semi-controversial opinion, but I actually prefer, “Superman IV: A Quest for Peace” to this one.
So Superman IV is better?
I didn’t say that.
But you just said you liked it better.
Oh, but it’s so much worse.
I don’t get it.
That makes sense. If the first Superman is the reason we even have superhero movies today, then both “Superman III” and 1987’s, “Superman IV” are reasons we should have never gotten any more.
“Superman III” is not fun to watch. It misses the mark in so many different ways, and feels so far removed from where the series had started.
Regarding “Superman IV,” however, this total failure of a movie can be enjoyed with the right crowd of people, or the right drinks. It’s bad with a little bit of heart the third film lacked.
I still don’t get how that makes Superman IV better.
Quest for Peace has elements of getting the characterization right better than most of the movies past of present. The idea that Superman would advocate for global peace after receiving a letter from a child who was concerned about the fate of the world in the face of The Cold War and deciding to is about as Superman as it could get.
But…
But, I don’t think his actual solution would be to take it upon himself to impose a global nuclear disarmament. But the spirit of the character is certainly there, which really gives Peace the edge, alongside it being my preferred kind of bad.
And say what you will about the quality of either of them, Christopher Reeve truly gave it his all every single time, and embodied the character in a way that wouldn’t be seen again for decades.
Does he rewind time in this one?
No but he does rebuild The Great Wall of China with his eyes.
Are you fucking kidding me?
No I am not.
So at this point everyone was done with Superman movies?
It was at least six Batman films, three Blade films, three X-Men films, two Spider-Man films, one Daredevil film, one Daredevil spin-off film, a Catwoman film, a Steel film, and a Fantastic Four film before we saw Superman on the big screen again in 2006 with then-and-still-problematic Bryan Singer’s swing at the Man of Tomorrow in Superman Returns.
You obviously have an opinion on this one, so go on…
Well, there is some Batman stuff to discuss before we jump straight from 1987 into 2006 that’s important.
Two years after Quest for Peace, Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman movie—the second face on the genre’s Mount Rushmore—was unleashed on the world, setting in motion a series of successful adaptations both on the big and small screen, that would create a whole new generation of fans, all while fully distancing itself from its sixties silliness. This is a significant turning point in Batman just flat out becoming cooler.
But that only covers up to the mid-90s.
Similar to Superman and his four films over nine years, Batman would get four films in eight years. And, again mirroring the Man of Steel, Batman’s four films do see a considerable drop in quality in its third and fourth entries. Joel Schumacher took the helm of the last two 90s Batman films with 1995’s Batman Forever and 1997’s Batman and Robin, and also took the series back to it’s campier and comedic routes.
Is Batman and Robin as bad as Superman IV, though?
No, it doesn’t totally fail, but Batman and Robin really showed the disconnect in what people were looking for in a Batman movie. However, both are great examples of how far a series or franchise can fall from where it started.
All that said, Batman and Robin was bad enough that it wasn’t until 2005 before another Batman movie would be released.
Batman Begins?
Batman motherfucking Begins.
We don’t need to talk about it.
No. We all know. We all get it. It’s great. Changed it all forever.
So then in 2006…
In 2006, Superman Returns insists on being a lega-sequel of sorts to 1978’s Superman: The Movie, and Superman II that would retcon the events of the third and fourth Superman movie. So right away you’re asking audiences to have seen two nearly thirty-year old films that existed before Superman got rebooted and considerably depowered in the comics in 1986 post-Crisis of Infinite Earths, aka “no he can’t rewind time goddammit shut up.”
So it’s not really its own thing?
Exactly! It exists in the Reeve/Donner world, so right away nothing about this movie gets to truly feel authentic or new, you know? It isn’t Brandon Routh as Superman, it’s Brandon Routh as Christopher Reeve as Superman. They even use the same styled credits!
Oh, no, are they five minutes again?
No. They’re three.
Does tying it to the the original films work at least?
It’s difficult to say. One one hand, no. On the other hand, it captures the aesthetic well-enough, but there’s also a kid who takes a picture with a flip phone, and copies of the Daily Planet can be seen as being dated for the years 2005 and 2006, so I guess it wasn’t so much tying itself to the old movies, but more trying to bring the old movies into the present.
What does tha—how does that make any sen—why would they do that?
I don’t know. But, yet again, this is a Superman film that crosses the two-and-a-half-hour mark for completely unnecessary reasons, and I really mean that. You can find any part after the still-incredible plane sequence to take a thirty-minute nap, and I’d say there’s at least an 85% chance you wouldn’t miss anything. However, almost twenty years later, that five-or-so minutes where he stops the plane from crashing remains an all-time moment in the history of comic book films.
It’s pretty clear this one didn’t work either.
No, it really fell on its face. There were talks of a sequel but the middling critical reception and its box office returns were about as uninspiring as Superman Returns itself.
So they just didn’t try again for a while?
I think they were trying to pick their spot better next time. And when the time came to try again, in 2013 the entire landscape of comic book movies changed between the Nolan trilogy of Batman films from 2005 to 2012, and the launch of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in 2008 and it’s critical and financial success in accomplishing Phase One up through The Avengers in 2012.
Now seems like the best time for a successful modern Superman movie.
You would think! DC/Warner Bros decide they want the best of both worlds and create what we now call the DCEU, and it would start with Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel, which was promoted as a more grounded Superman film; something that would bring the hero into the real world like Christopher Nolan did for Batman.
That sounds like something people could really get behind!
It does! But here’s the problem: It’s a Superman movie for Batman fans, and in the bigger picture, the entire construction of Snyder’s DCEU/Snyderverse is written and perceived through a Batman lens.
You’re starting to sound pretentious.
Let’s look at two popular Batman comics, the first being The Dark Knight Returns, the other being Batman: Hush. These are really popular Batman books where he has to fight Superman. In one of them, Superman is written as “Yes, Mr. Reagan” stooge sent to stop/combat Batman, and in the other, he’s temporarily evil thanks to Poison Ivy. In both these cases, Batman comes out on top, because it’s his story and Superman ends up looking lame or weak to the reader, because it isn’t his story.
In the big picture, that was the the intended Snyderverse, as evidenced both in his four-hour cut of Justice League, and in interviews. The total package would have been a trilogy of Justice League films, where in the second one, Lois would die and it would be Batman’s fault/he would be responsible for it, her death would allow Darkseid (DC’s ultimate bad guy) to corrupt Superman into turning evil because apparently in Zack Snyder’s brain, Lois is the only emotional tether keeping Superman human, and in the third movie, it’d be Batman, with the help of some others, that saves the day.
So Snyder’s full vision for a DC Universe revolved around Batman, with help, being the ultimate hero, and most of it involving either Superman being dead or Superman being evil?
Yes.
And your argument is you can’t make Superman fans if you’re always making Batman look better.
Yes.
Or if you’re always killing Superman.
Yes.
Or making him evil.
Yes.
Okay that’s big picture though, and two of those movies are never going to happen, so how does that have an effect on Man of Steel?
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of who Superman is in Man of Steel.
It begins with Kevin Costner’s Pa Kent telling a young Clark that “maybe” he should have let the kids on the bus die. C’mon, guy… You’re telling me that, ”I don’t know,” couldn’t have been an acceptable answer?
Fair, but that doesn’t sound like a “fundamental misunderstanding.”
No, but at its core, Man of Steel is a contemplative piece that wants to examine the idea of “What if Superman existed in today’s more cynical world?” as he ponder his place in all of it.
Again, sounds great. Don’t see the problem here.
The problem is, after we unpack this, what you’ll find is Zack Snyder has actually created a really interesting, and actually pretty good Elseworlds story. It’s just not Superman if you’re planning on making a Superman movie that is going to launch your cinematic universe. And don’t worry, this took me a long time to figure out myself.
Okay, I’m listening.
In Snyder’s world, Clark/Kal-El is bent to the cynicism. He grapples with if he would be accepted, should these people be protected, does he even need to, etc., all the while he’s being politicized or worshiped as a religious icon, or being watched heavily by the military. It lines up, it makes sense.
So what’s the problem? A lot of people seemed to like the idea.
Because these are people who haven’t read an actual Superman comic book. Superman is a moral North Star. He doesn’t stand for any country, or race, or religion. He protects everyone and he fights for good. His greatest strength is in the fact that he has an unbreakable moral compass, and that he does these things because he has the power to.
He can, and already does exist in a cynical world that is filled with people who are unsure about him. But he, as Clark Kent at least, is surrounded by people who love him for who he is away from his abilities, that’s the heart, and all of that is missing in Snyder’s world.
Go on.
Clark/Superman is an immigrant—yes, from space, but an immigrant nonetheless—who grows up surrounded by love, who sees what humanity can be, and he drives himself to inspire us to do good and to do our best. He exists to help unbind us from the world’s cynicism, not to figure out his place in it. That’s the side of the character Man of Steel fails to show in yet another near two-and-a-half-hour long Superman film that overstays its welcome worse than my uncle started to around 8:30pm Christmas 2008 when he decided he was going to post up at our house until midnight because, “the church was close by,” and the man apparently had more mass on the mind than he did manners.
Well, maybe Zack Snyder would have explored all of that if he was given the chance.
Well, maybe Zack Snyder should have thought about that before he fuckin’ killed him in the second movie, well before moviegoing audience could get attached and the death could feel earned.
If one of your first three ideas with Superman is to kill him or turn him evil, your instincts are bad and you don’t understand the character.
Can you please wrap this one up? Closing statements on Man of Steel?
It’s a good movie that exists as a general mischaracterization, and it genuinely pisses me off that it isn’t better.
Wait, you aren’t going to mention his incessant use of slow-motion?
No because I don’t hate it! He’s a stylized director, but when he makes a “comic book movie” he does so to a very literal degree. I’ve always seen his often mocked use of slow-motion as what that panel would look like if you were reading it instead, or the exact frame he storyboarded for the scene. It happens a lot, but I’ve always seen intent behind it and not just something that he thinks looks cool.
You aren’t an Anti-Snyder guy?
No! Never was! Dude just wanted to make Batman movies, but got saddled with a whole universe to be responsible and that universe lacked any singular vision or direction.
Man of Steel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Ultimate Edition only, fools.), Wonder Woman (Shout out Patty Jenkins for getting the only good performance in Gal Gadot’s career.), and Zack Snyder’s Justice League are a series of films I find really enjoyable, and I get what he was going for, but it works more like a New 52/Earth One/Absolute/Elseworlds Universe.
and for the people who really did like it and for them that is “Their Superman”?
For both the Batman fans and the people who agree with Bill’s monologue about Superman in Kill Bill Vol. 2 because they don’t understand it’s coming from the villain’s perspective, who really loved the core of Man of Steel, and who want more of that tone, but it also coming with a better understanding of its titular character, I have exactly what you want, and you can pick it up at your local comic book store today:
Any final statements?
I titled this Batman v Superman because that’s what it always feels like it has been. A fight between who is cooler, the better hero, the better character, etc. It even is that away from the comics and in other media like the Injustice video game series, another one that relies on the evil Superman trope for Batman to save everyone from. It’s an ongoing pop culture battle that is perpetuated by the publishers themselves when it doesn’t actually matter.
They’re two sides of the same coin, but you don’t have to take my word for it:
Do you see what I’m getting at now?
Batman is more popular because he’s had more modern opportunities away from comics, that are both of high quality and faithful and accurate representations of the character, and that has allowed him to become more accessible to a wider audience. And that DC keeps accidentally harming the public perception of Superman by failing to give the character the same opportunities, and instead keeps wondering, “How do we make Superman popular today” all while going back-and-forth between mischaracterizing him, rehashing the same story, or using him in other media and comics to make Batman look better.
Y..Yes. That’s. Yes. Exactly that.
Could you just say that next time?
- *There is more, but if you want, you can stop here. And if you do stop here, thanks for making it this far and I hope I gave you something to do for a while. - Alex
So that about wraps up all th—
But what about the television shows?
No. What? No. You have more?
Can I just hit on a couple of the shows?
How in the world do you have more?
It’s not a lot and I’ll be brief, because frankly I would never ask someone to watch multiple episodes, let alone seasons, of a TV show to try and get into anything because I’m not a sadist. I’ll just ask them to read five-thousand word articles that explain why they shouldn’t instead.
Are you going to talk about Smallville?
No. Would you believe I didn’t have an extra 155 hours?
Oh, thank god.
If I did, would you have said, “Somebody save me”
…
That’s a Smallville jo—
I KNOW THAT’S A SMALLVILLE JOKE. GET ON WITH IT. LOIS AND CLARK. TALK ABOUT IT.
Hey I remember this one!
Here’s what’s good:
Teri Hatcher as a top-two (and it ain’t two) adaptation of Lois Lane.
Now-problematic Dean Cain is a great Clark.
A 1990s version of the 1960s Batman series.
Lane Smith as Perry White
And the not so good?
Now-problematic Dean Cain
A 1990s version of the 1960s Batman series.
Toyed with a will-they-won’t-they Lois/Clark wedding for two seasons that appropriately frustrated television viewers who were not aware that comic book weddings have more shenanigans and interference than a Roman Reigns title defense circa 2020-2024.
Caused The Death of Superman
Wait, what?
Oh, yeah! So, the premiere of the series in 1993 interfered with the comic-end of things.
How does a television show interfere with the comics?
DC intended to do, and had been actively building to, a wedding story that same year. Warner Bros execs asked them to delay it until the show and comic could eventually do them at the same time.
But they are different.
This next bit is purely speculative, but this definitely reads as, “we don’t think audiences understand the show and the comics are two separate things.” And it was this request that forced DC’s editorial to come up with a new 1993 storyline and they decided to go with the one
where they fuckin’ killed him?
Hey, now you’re gettin it!
Okay what’s next? Talk about the cartoon. Get it out of your system.
With pleasure!
Here’s what’s good:
Clancy Brown remains the best Lex Luthor
Tim Daly does great work
Adds a lot of character-depth to the roster of villains.
Underpowered Superman if that’s your thing
And the not so good?
Lois never finds out Clark is Superman
Nails the aesthetic, lacks the vibes.
Never had a Mask of the Phantasm movie. Instead had straight-to-video Brainiac Attacks, with Powers Boothe doing his best Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor.
Underpowered Superman if that’s not your thing.
Closing thoughts on The Animated Series?
I’m incredibly complementary of this series, and it has in fact aged remarkably well. If you could pick up everything about Superman: The Animated Series, make it live-action, and up the levity like 15%, I think you have a hit Superman film.
Damn. I wasn’t expecting that.
Neither was I, to tell you the truth. Came as a total shock to me. I didn’t even realize it until like maybe a week ago. It’s genuinely good more often than not.
Superman & Lois and we can go home?
Superman & Lois and we can go home.
Here’s what’s good:
Tyler Hoechlin is the best Superman and Clark. We have to come around to that fact sooner than later.
Elizabeth Tulloch is another Top-2 Lois Lane (Sorry, Erica Durance fans. I guess I’ll just never know.)
It’s Clark and Lois as parents, living back in Smallville. So already it’s different and fresh.
It’s not 22-episode seasons and there are only four of them.
And the not so good?
It’s a CW show, so you still have teen-drama written for teens about teen things.
It’s a CW show, so the seasons should have ended at 12 episodes but these are 15.
It’s a CW show, so there’s all the general CW-ness to it.
But that’s all of it. Thank you if you read all the way to bottom.
I hope I made my point, or maybe gave you something to do for a while.