Why does Batman dominate the DC Universe?

[The Romulan Republic]

This question arises from something that came up in the Justice League movie discussion thread:

Maybe its best to just regard the DC universe films as a Batman series, also featuring other heroes?

The DC universe is pretty much the Batman series, period.

Or at least that's how it feels sometimes. I'd rather the films didn't go down that route.

So my questions (as someone who mainly watches the films and rarely reads the comics- and mostly reads Batman when he does) are as follows:

First, is this a generally-held perception of the DC universe?

Second, if so, then why is this the case?

Certainly, it has been my perception that in the films, the only character who DC and film studios seem to know how to adapted well (or at any rate successfully), for the most part, is Batman (and even then, their are definitely hits and misses). So why is this? Is Batman somehow easier to translate to film and television? Is it that Batman is seen as a more "serious" character? Is it just that he has more appeal in an age when comics fandom seems to be dominated often by the gritty grimdark crowd, and those who mistakenly equate darkness with maturity (which is also a very superficial understanding of Batman, but I digress)? Is it just that Batman is the biggest name and the most recognizable at this point aside from maybe Superman (who is likely seen as too powerful, and/or too much of a "boy scout" to be interesting/relatable- also a very superficial understanding of Superman)?

[Crazedwraith]

Batman is for a superhero rather down to earth. He's relatable with the loss of his parents but also cool in the whole billionaire action hero angle.

He's also very flexible. You can go from camp fun (West) to Gothic Darkness (Keaton) to pseudo realism (Bale) to full on comic book epic (Affleck). he can be whatever's in at the moment. With Superman and Green Lantern you're stuck with the innate silliness of superpowers, especially in Green Lanterns case and rather less resonate motives. 'wants to do good' and 'space cop' respectively. I imagine I'm doing the full scope of their characters justice there but they're not as easily distilled as Batman is.

[Elheru Aran]

Off the cuff:

I was being somewhat hyperbolic. Superman is also a big name in the DCU, as is Wonder Woman to a lesser extent. Green Lantern also has some exposure. Beyond that, you pretty much need to be semi-aware of the comics to keep up with the rest, particularly if you didn't bother watching much of the Justice League cartoons back in the 00s.

To get deeper into how pop culture perceives the DCU:

That said... there are something like 5 or 6? Bat-Family titles. There's 2 or 3 Superman titles. Maybe a couple extra if you count Supergirl and/or Superboy. One Wonder Woman title (far as I know). Four Green Lantern titles, though only one or two deal with the main Green Lantern himself directly, the others deal with the adventures of the Corps and the other Green Lanterns. Obviously, the entire DC Universe is pretty big, particularly once you include in crossovers, their mergers with smaller companies (like IIRC? Wildstorm), and their older brands like Vertigo which published more 'mature' stuff like Hellblazer and Swamp Thing. The New 52 reboot was pretty big, 52 comics across the board being either rebooted or started up out of older material (for example, they shut down Hellblazer and reintroduced Constantine in the main DC universe with Zatanna and other mystics), but a lot of those 52 comics ended up folding pretty quickly. If you treat 'family' titles like Bat-family and Super-family as single entities... mmm... there's a lot out there, honestly. Flash has always been popular-ish. But overall I would feel pretty safe in saying Batman and Superman are the big sellers by far.

As far as stores go, walk into any mass market bookstore like Barnes and Noble or Books-a-Million, find the comic book section, and odds are good you'll see a full shelf devoted to Batman or Bat-Family books. You might get most of a shelf for Superman, and the rest will be assorted. Specialist comic book stores will have far more variety, of course, but also much less business by comparison.

Movie wise: Before BvS, there were 8 Batman movies, 7 if you discount the silly one from the TV show in the sixties. 7 Superman movies since the Christopher Reeve original, though that's treating Superman II as a separate movie, and III and IV were... bad. There are some one-offs like Jonah Hex and Green Lantern; none of these were particularly successful, though Watchmen was a pretty big deal but it's important to note that it's not really related to the DCCU. Wonder Woman did get a TV movie with Lynda Carter back in the 70s, and arguably the TV show really helped a lot with her visibility. When you start talking about recent years though, in relevance to pop culture, the Christian Bale Batman trilogy is pretty recent compared to the Christopher Reeve Superman films, and Superman Returns was barely a blip by comparison. There was also a pretty good gap between the last Reeve Superman film and Superman Returns, during which like... all of the 90s Batman movies happened and maybe even one of the Bale movies.

Speaking of TV shows: Batman's was a loooooong time ago, likewise Wonder Woman. In the 80s-90s they had a Superboy series and Lois & Clark. Smallville in the 00s. Birds of Prey sorta counts as Bat-Family? And there's some assorted stuff that didn't really make it like Human Target and Constantine. There's the Arrowverse of late, and they get props for that, but the TV Flash is a very different animal from how they're going with the movies. The Arrowverse does get props for raising the visibility of some of the lesser known heroes, Green Arrow being the obvious example. And anecdotally, I did note an uptick in Flash TPB's on the shelves after that show came out. So... YMMV.

Animated shows: Superman and assorted relations were big in the 60s Filmation era, then we got the Super Friends and all that Silver Age cheesiness in the 70s. Some assorted Superman and Batman stuff till we get to the 90s and BTAS. Post BTAS that's: 7 Batman series, a few team-ups with Superman, JL and JLU. Teen Titans. Superman only gets ONE animated series after the 80s.

When you get into animated movies... the disparity becomes pretty blatant. 20 for Batman, though most are based on TV shows (BTAS, Batman Beyond, Batman Unlimited) or toys (Lego Batman, though I didn't even count that). Superman only gets 5 solo films and two team-ups with Batman. The Justice League does get a good few animated movies.

Bear in mind that the current generation that pop culture is targeted at grew up starting in the 90s or so. This is when most kids get exposed to TV and comics. The 90s were very Batman centric when it came to that, largely due to Frank Miller, the Batman movies, and the animated shows. The current generation of young (ish) working adults grew up with this rather than the Superman of the 70s, which generation Lois and Clark was targeted at. Thus the DC Universe is pretty much The Batman Show, with Superman And Others, thanks to this.

EDIT: Now if you want to analyze the characters on their literary merits, that's a different discussion which I'll have to get back to you later on...

[The Romulan Republic]

snip

Okay, long-winded ramble on the themes of superhero stories incoming:

I do tend to feel that Batman has one of the most clear yet compelling core concepts to me of any Superhero, and one which readily lends itself to some very compelling and relevant themes. There are many different possible interpretations, of course, but in essence:

-You've got the motivation of murdered loved ones driving a vigilante crusade. A fairly compelling, if now cliché, premise.

-Batman's reluctance to kill, his determination to save life, which (combined with the nature of the loss-of his parents as a child-being one that completely reshaped his identity) elevates it above just another revenge fantasy.

-The tragedy evoked by the shear hopelessness of his ultimate goal (to defeat crime- or to defeat death, depending on how you interpret his fixation on the "No killing" rule), counterbalanced by the individual crimes he does thwart and the lives he does save along the way.

-You can get some very interesting political subtext out of Batman's position, if you choose to interpret it that way.

I've argued before that one of the defining qualities of the superhero genre is that superheroes tread a fine line between a fascist archetype and a libertarian one. Between the "superior being" who exerts their will by force, and the lone individualist hero who takes the law into their hands because a corrupt or incompetent government isn't up to the task. Their is, implicit in any superhero story, a question about what constitutes a "superior being" and what rights or responsibilities such a being would have; and a related question about when one has a right, or obligation, to cross legal boundaries. How you answer those questions is what generally separates a classic superhero from a classic super villain.

I think that Batman provides a particularly compelling avenue for exploring these social/political themes given his role as a self-made, non-super-powered hero (albeit one who benefits from hereditary wealth and social privilege), as well as the nature of Gotham- a city so corrupt that a violent vigilante crusade can legitimately be seen as the lesser evil.

Ultimately, I feel that Batman, like Superman, can be seen as personifying (or deconstructing) an aspect of American political culture* (which probably has something to do with why they make such natural foils for each other, beyond the obvious differences in appearance, methods, and power-sets). Whereas Superman represents the more globalist view of America as a nation of immigrants and America as "world police"/saviors, Batman represents more overtly a libertarian ideal: of both the businessman who uses his wealth to benefit both himself and society, and of the lone vigilante who takes the law into his hands when the government fails.

The only other superheroes who are similarly clear yet nuanced and compelling conceptually, to me, are Superman and Captain America. And for villains, Joker and Magneto. And of these Superman's seems to take more effort to draw out, perhaps because you have to look past the obvious and see him as more than "All-powerful boy scout".

Granted, I'm not really a comic book expert, so I may be missing some gems, particularly among the lesser-known characters.

*I do think that, while of course not unique to America, the skepticism of government and idolization of individual heroism, including vigilantism, is particularly apparent in American culture. But of course, because they ultimately deal with more universal human questions, you can relate these same debates to other nations and times, and receive somewhat different answers to the same questions.

[Batman]

I dominate because I sell. and I sell because I'm one of the few DC characters for whom the grimdark approach works (they made it work for Oliver on TV...by turning him into me painted green). That seems to be the only approach they understand, and for most DC heroes, that approach doesn't work. I shudder to think what they'll do with Shazam. That guy's supposed to make Clark look like me by comparison

[The Romulan Republic]

I actually think that "all grimdark, all the time" is a rather shallow approach to Batman as well. Its not as obviously stupid as doing it with, say, Superman or Wonder Woman, but it misses a lot of what makes Batman who he is.

That's a big part of why I promote the no killing rule as an integral part of the character, even though it wasn't originally part of the character. Because its one of the main things that keeps Batman from descending totally into masturbatory grimdark, sadism, and purile revenge fantasies.

[Elheru Aran]

I dunno, there's a looooong way you can go in all the wrong directions even without.killing....

[Batman]

I absolutely agree. But the thing is for me it mostly works, whereas for the likes of Clark it's 'What the everloving fuck? Have you ever read a Superman comic in your life?' level wrong. YOU. DO. NOT. DO. GRIMDARK. SUPERMAN. Except possibly in an Elseworlds where things are so fucked up that even Clark has to go dark, and with his powers, that'd have to be a pretty fucked up world

[The Romulan Republic]

I dunno, there's a looooong way you can go in all the wrong directions even without.killing....

Sadly true, but it nonetheless serves a few important purposes:

1. It draws a clear line between Batman and even the more sympathetic of his rogues' gallery.

2. It goes a long way towards explaining why, for example, an honest cop like Jim Gordon would tolerate and even work with Batman on a regular basis.

3. It ties into his motivations (though this doubtless varies depending on which version of the character one is dealing with). That being, that he does not fight crime merely out of anger or hate or a desire for revenge, but to protect people and preserve life. Because he doesn't want anyone else to go through what he did.

Their are lots of super-powered rogues with sympathetic backstories who kill, and commit other horrible crimes, in the name of a sympathetic cause.

This line more than anything, I think, is what makes Batman a hero, rather than just another one of them.

[Q99]

So my questions (as someone who mainly watches the films and rarely reads the comics- and mostly reads Batman when he does) are as follows:

First, is this a generally-held perception of the DC universe?

Second, if so, then why is this the case?

No, but he is a very major figure in it.

Batman is popular enough he has his own corner of the universe with multiple titles, and crosses over a lot. Most people have met him- and other heroes. So he's got a large footprint on the universe, about as big as Superman's.

There's also been some periods where his effective powerlevel is treated as... very high. The 'Batgod' era. This mostly applied to him fighting other heroes and being very effective in JLA and didn't lead to him dominating wider stories much to speak of, but it still left an impression.

And, right now? There's an event base on a Dark Multiverse, where 7 evil Batmen are invading, each with ties to a specific JLA member. Like in one of them, he lost so much he captured Flash and stole his speed. In another, he was in love with Wonder Woman and together they fought Ares and he succumbed to temptation and took up Ares' helm gaining his power. And so on (In case you're wondering on 'Wait, 7? So is one of them just plain evil-Batman?' Nah, the seventh is undead Joker Batman, who was transformed by a virus hidden deep in Joker's heart, infected when he killed Joker). So *right now* the current event is the Batman show, but for good reason and it's just one arc.

Certainly, it has been my perception that in the films, the only character who DC and film studios seem to know how to adapted well (or at any rate successfully), for the most part, is Batman (and even then, their are definitely hits and misses). So why is this? Is Batman somehow easier to translate to film and television? Is it that Batman is seen as a more "serious" character? Is it just that he has more appeal in an age when comics fandom seems to be dominated often by the gritty grimdark crowd, and those who mistakenly equate darkness with maturity (which is also a very superficial understanding of Batman, but I digress)? Is it just that Batman is the biggest name and the most recognizable at this point aside from maybe Superman (who is likely seen as too powerful, and/or too much of a "boy scout" to be interesting/relatable- also a very superficial understanding of Superman)?

It helps that Batman is very flexible like Crazywraith mentioned (He can be fun, he can be dark, he can be alone, he can be with Robin, etc.) and yea, a lot of good writers 'get him,' since they only need to get one version of him to make a good story. He's been done well onscreen enough ways that there's a good blueprint and someone who went off it would often be called on it... note BvS did toe the line in some ways and got some complaints on how brutal he was, but that was consciously done at least.

If you do a super-grimdark Batman, it might not be the best Batman, but it's still within his established realm. A lighter one? Can also be great. Etc.. Whatever you want to do, you can look to the past and say, "I wanna do a take like that one, but..." as long as you keep enough other stuff in place, you're good.

With Superman, writers who don't get him or don't like him will often try and hammer him into something else (ironically, some very dark writers who love purile stuff... do get him. Like, Garth Ennis writes a solid Superman and Supes is one of the only heroes he respects), or others will lean too heavy on the iconicness and don't know how to build up said iconicness. I don't think he's that hard in truth, but those who think he's too hard will often put up hurdles in front of themselves because they don't think of just playing him straight.

That said... there are something like 5 or 6? Bat-Family titles. There's 2 or 3 Superman titles. Maybe a couple extra if you count Supergirl and/or Superboy. One Wonder Woman title (far as I know). Four Green Lantern titles, though only one or two deal with the main Green Lantern himself directly, the others deal with the adventures of the Corps and the other Green Lanterns.

There's normally 2~4 on Batman himself (right now there's fewer but Batman ships twice a month), but Batfam is solid with both Nightwing and Batgirl always adding +2, plus there's often another Bat related book or two. *Plus* stuff like Batman '66 and various crossovers.

I think Green Lantern is back down to two, the heyday of the lanterns has passed. Wonder Woman, normally one, but she's had a lot of mini series or such recently (Wonder Woman '77, the anthology Sensation Comics staring Wonder Woman, Legends of Wonder Woman, etc.).

[Q99]

I absolutely agree. But the thing is for me it mostly works, whereas for the likes of Clark it's 'What the everloving fuck? Have you ever read a Superman comic in your life?' level wrong. YOU. DO. NOT. DO. GRIMDARK. SUPERMAN. Except possibly in an Elseworlds where things are so fucked up that even Clark has to go dark, and with his powers, that'd have to be a pretty fucked up world

Weirdly, while I do think Superman really needs to be positive, I don't think he needs a no-kill rule.

Like, Superman's actually put down or tried to kill way more people than Bruce. They're just foes you don't think of when asked about 'has X killed?'. For example, throwing the Anti-Monitor in the Sun, teleporting Doomsday to the end of time, turning off Mageddon the Anti-Sun, crushing Solaris the Tyrant Sun, and heck, he did shatter Cyborg Superman (who turned out to be, like, super-immortal). Plus, Zod, like, three or four times depending on how you count it.

The main difference is, if you're dealing with a dark Batman who struggles with it (i.e. Adam West Batman doesn't need to worry), then there's a real feeling of 'if I break the line, I don't know where to redraw it and I think I'll just end up killing villains until I become a monster and and lose all sense of right and wrong.' This Batman knows that for his iron will, he's relying on learned behavior and is driven by a deep rage, so if he starts falling into bad patterns, things'll go south. He doesn't have a compass, he has a map.

Clark, flipside? He has a very strong moral compass. If you push a compass off from true south, it'll turn back towards it, and you can do so repeatedly. He isn't driven by rage, he's driven by "I have the ability to help, so I should help." You can make him uncertain and quit, or overcome him with loss, but he's not a "Once I kill once I know I'll do it again," he's "I am very, very good at not killing people and even if you make a situation where I do end up killing you- like, say, you made yourself a living solar bomb- then you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to take down the next ten, fifty, a hundred villains non-lethally, sometimes the same villain multiple times, and I'm probably going to shake the hands of some of them when they clean their act up."

Sometimes he is technically willing to kill. But a villain wanting to force it or be really bad isn't enough, because he's got the ability to help without doing so, and thinks it's better that way.



Oh, and Wonder Woman, normally recognized as most willing to kill- while true, she's also the most interested in talk and redemption, which is what writers who don't get her mess up. She's "Oh, if you're planning on killing others, I am totally willing to kill if it comes to it... but first, let's talk about why you're trying to do this, can I talk you out of it, and also I just tied you up with a lasso and took you to prison/redemption island/whatever so killing's off the table anyway. Like Clark, I am very good at not killing. You know, in practice I only kill monsters. And I mean, 'Grr I am a rampaging beast created for destruction,' monsters, since I'm good with animals too. Did you know my kill-count is probably less than Superman's and almost exclusively evil gods?"

[Stewart M]

It's worthwhile to discuss Batman's themes, but the question is about Batman's commercial dominance, and I feel this thread is giving theme and tone undeserved weight.

Themes are icing. No one goes to a bakery and orders icing. Likewise, no one buys a movie ticket to watch a man read a philosophy textbook. They buy a movie ticket to watch The Matrix. The rest of the cake under the icing are the other mechanics of storytelling, and here Batman has some clear advantages over much of the Justice League.

A superhero has superpowers. A big-budget story is obliged to use these powers to drive the plot. Whether its funny or grim, a big-budget story about the Flash will have the Flash confront problems that can be solved with running very fast (a clever, self-aware plot may spring a problem that can't be solved with running very fast, but reconciling the shortcomings of running fast then becomes the plot).

Batman has the best story-telling superpowers: his brain and resourcefulness. Not because crime-solving savants are popular characters (though they are), but because this doesn't limit Batman's stories. Or rather, it limits him to the everyday, universal problems of the human condition - and that's the richest storytelling soil. Everyone has a brain, and all challenges involve thinking, so Batman can feel at home in any sort of plot or genre, whereas it would be difficult to make an Aquaman movie that doesn't involve lots of swimming as the crux of its central conflict. Many superpowers demand their users destroy a skyscraper to give a proper demonstration. Batman may not talk to fish or cause billions in property damage, but fish aren't that interesting and viewers don't have an emotional attachment to fictional buildings.

You could argue that Batman has his own super-specific brand. Practically, a Batman movie needs a car and a cave and fistfights and parties with tuxedos, but these things don't much tie down the screenwriter. There are at least two whole genres of fistfight movies (kung fu and boxing), so that action set piece won't go stale anytime soon, but I can easily imagine Cyborg's arm laser or even Superman's flight losing its grandeur if we saw it more than once a decade.

Side note: I believe one less-trumpeted factor for the success of Wonder Woman was the use of familiar, down-to-earth, and thus interesting weapons. Sword fighting has almost as rich and varied a screen history as fist fighting, and a director could easily film ten fencing matches with different styles. My personal favorite fight in the film was the pre-climax sword vs rifle duel. Bayonet fencing was actually a comprehensive art. The scene was far more compelling than the tired, over-baked Super Saiyan fight that followed.

And a superhero with a grounded, flexible power allows for villains with grounded, flexible powers. The Joker isn't the Joker because of a particular weapon or skill, he's the Joker because of a particular attitude (or mental illness). Being defined by a certain weapon would let him use that weapon, but being defined by an attitude lets the Joker use any weapon he wants. Meanwhile, Sinestro is obliged to float and hit people with yellow light, usually in space. Two-face, Riddler, Catwoman, Ras al Ghul, Bane to an extent: some of these characters have powers, but their goals and relationships and neuroses are given more weight because their powers don't have the spectacle to carry scenes on their own.

(I don't know if this is proof of anything, but two of the most visually spectacular superpowered Bat-villians who can get by on special effects, Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze, gave us Batman and Robin).

[Q99]

Don't forget Batman's other superpower, being rich, combines well with his brains.

It means not only can he come up with a clever answer, but he can carry it out with a cool toy, and if *you* had the cool toy and enough time to have training you could do it- and story wise it mostly just opens more possibilities. If you need Batman to have something to handle a problem, he can reasonably have it. If it'd cut the story short, he can reasonably *not* have it because it's an object, not a power.

So yes, the flexible powers definitely helps a lot.

(I don't know if this is proof of anything, but two of the most visually spectacular superpowered Bat-villians who can get by on special effects, Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze, gave us Batman and Robin).

Flipside, Mr. Freeze gave us the best Batman: The Animated Series episode.

Batman and Robin's problem was it used approximately none of the pathos that drives the stronger versions of the characters.

[Lord Revan]

Don't forget Batman's other superpower, being rich, combines well with his brains.

It means not only can he come up with a clever answer, but he can carry it out with a cool toy, and if *you* had the cool toy and enough time to have training you could do it- and story wise it mostly just opens more possibilities. If you need Batman to have something to handle a problem, he can reasonably have it. If it'd cut the story short, he can reasonably *not* have it because it's an object, not a power.

So yes, the flexible powers definitely helps a lot.

another benefit of Batman's powers being objects rather then innate powers is that even if those devices are something Batman should reasonbly speaking carry with him at all times, if they become of problem for the story you can break or have Batman otherwise loose those items without it being a major issue.

[Simon_Jester]

Right. It's narratively very easy to tell a story in which Batman loses his tools and resources and has to triumph entirely by his wits, which is a very popular and compelling class of story with roots running all the way back to classical mythology.

Telling a story where Superman loses his powers and has to triumph by his wits is much harder. You need exotic plot-ium just to take his powers away, then you need to paper over the fact that Superman isn't really that extraordinary or 'super' a man without his powers. A good man, yes, but not an exceptionally clever person. Superman just doesn't have consistent characterization as being the kind of guy who can trick and outwit people when he's at a physical disadvantage. Much the same applies to most other core DC heroes like Flash and Green Lantern.

Telling a story where Wonder Woman loses her powers and has to triumph by her wits is arguably even worse, because then you're depowering the feminist icon heroine, which just raises all kinds of shitty associations and awkward questions. Especially since depowering heroines as a plot device is such a recurring and creepy theme in the male-dominated comic industry that it has its own archival website

[Simon_Jester]

(ghetto edit)

Yes, "women in refrigerators" usually refers to female characters getting killed off, but it also applies to female characters getting crippled or deprived of their special powers.

[Crazedwraith]

It's not required for a hero to lose their powers to win a battle by using their wits though. Though it harder to write for someone who has as many powers as Superman.

[Simon_Jester]

I may have communicated poorly. I was thinking specifically about the class of story that sums up as "Our Hero loses many of their usual resources, and has to triumph through cleverness where they would usually triumph through force."

The core story of the Odyssey (that is, Odysseus's adventures) is basically this, for example. Odysseus is a Greek king with a strong force at his command. He starts out with a ship, a fleet, and a way home; he loses first the third, then the second, then the first, and finally is transported home by the mercy of the gods, with few allies to reclaim his kingdom.

It's easy to write stories in that vein for Batman, harder for Superman. Not impossible, but clearly enough harder to be relevant.

[Vendetta]

(ghetto edit)

Yes, "women in refrigerators" usually refers to female characters getting killed off, but it also applies to female characters getting crippled or deprived of their special powers.

Although really what it refers to is the tendency of stories to have bad things happen to female characters in order to provide motivation for male characters. A story where Wonder Woman loses her powers and wins anyway is not a problem, a story where Wonder Woman loses her powers and that is the impetus for Batman to win* is bad.



* JLA Act of God. Which can fuck off and die in a fire.

[Galvatron]

IMO, Batman represents humanity in a world where humans would otherwise be dominated by metahumans. The fact that he can remain in the game at all is a testament to human ingenuity and resilience, which is why I think he's so popular with casual audiences who may not be enamored with powered superheroes.

[Crazedwraith]

Apart from all those other powered and non-powered superheros that would stop that?

I don't think this 'powered hero = fascist' thing is as widespread an opinion as you think.

[Galvatron]

Is that a response to my post?

[Crazedwraith]

Is that a response to my post?

Yeah, but on second thought I've probably hared off on a tangent based on previous threads. Mea Culpa.

[Simon_Jester]

(ghetto edit)

Yes, "women in refrigerators" usually refers to female characters getting killed off, but it also applies to female characters getting crippled or deprived of their special powers.

Although really what it refers to is the tendency of stories to have bad things happen to female characters in order to provide motivation for male characters. A story where Wonder Woman loses her powers and wins anyway is not a problem, a story where Wonder Woman loses her powers and that is the impetus for Batman to win* is bad.

Well, Simone was also talking about how common it was for bad things to happen to female characters in general, and for the female characters to not recover and rebound the way male characters do.

Batman gets his back broken, he recovers. Batgirl gets her back broken, she doesn't. Barry Allen died in the Crisis on Infinite Earths and was remembered as a hero afterwards. Supergirl died in the Crisis and was retconned/forgotten into having never existed.

[Elheru Aran]

Batgirl actually got better in the New 52 reboot. One of the more controversial moves as Oracle had become a pretty popular and well rounded character in her own right. Both Supergirl and Barry are also back.

Which is another thing about comics, one thing that helps characters out (at least the popular ones) is that you know if they get a writer or artist that's terrible... it's all a wash sooner or later and the company will try to return it to the status quo. Grant Morrison put Batman through some major gyrations, and that was popular in its own way but also widely disliked, but then Scott Snyder pulled the book back to a more 'normal' version of the Dark Knight. Of course, with less popular characters, this can sink the comic entirely, but one can be pretty confident DC is never going to let go of Batman.