Why does Batman dominate the DC Universe?

[Vendetta]

Batgirl actually got better in the New 52 reboot.

Yeah, and it only took 23 years.

Batman got magicked better in what, 6 months?

That's part of Simone's point. Female characters take much longer to recover, if they ever do, and their injuries or depowerment are usually part of someone else's story not a story about them.

[Elheru Aran]

For a more substantive comment: I will second (third? fourth?) the notion that Batman, as an average(ish) human, has more popular appeal than the other heroes.

Clark literally comes from a different planet and flies, among all the other powers; Diana is a princess who's (depending on the story) descended from literal Gods and comes from a magic island; Aquaman can talk to fish... excuse me, 'the water' or whatever it is nowadays, can swim ridiculously fast and effectively rules most of the Earth, and so on and so forth. Even Barry can run ridiculously fast, Kyle/John/Hal/Guy get a magic-science ring that lets them fly through space and do crazy things with their minds.

Batman? He's just rich. And extremely well trained. He's not super-strong (well, compared to the other heroes). He's not super-fast, he doesn't have a magic lasso or the ability to talk to fish, he can't shape-shift or go into space without a suit. He's just a very smart, very rich, and very capable human being. Even Captain America (to call out the Distinguished Competition's... er, competition, for a moment) is enhanced by science. Note, however, that in recent decades Iron Man has become quite popular to the point where he's one of the leading figures of Marvel... and he's the closest thing to Batman in Marvel (yes, there's Moon Knight and a few other guys if you want to be pedantic).

So there's definitely the whole 'I could do what he does if only I was super-rich/skilled/fancy like him, because he's only human, he's not THAT special... okay maybe he is but he's not an alien or whatever you know what I mean' thing going on.

Another factor on the commercial side of things: DC has been making graphic novels for years. That's full on self contained novels, mind you, not just binding storylines together in single volumes. The Dark Knight Returns came out, what, late 80s, early 90s? And it's remained continuously in print since. Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum (the one with Dave McKean, not the game), and so forth: continuously in print. Of course this is only a small portion of what DC does... but it's still notable because in comparison to Marvel, they've got a lot more, and theirs tend to be better known. I mean, who recognizes 'The Futurians'? Or 'Revenge of the Living Monolith'?

[Q99]

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.

Ironically, Silver Age stories were all *about* that. One of the big laughs about Superman 'he just beats his foes in one punch and always knows what to do,' thing is his stories used to be primarily logic puzzles or moral quandaries.

That and just having freakin' weird stuff happen.

Double irony- Silver Age Batman stories were largely trying to ape Superman stories by having him deal with lots of weird stuff because they didn't know what else to do with him, he only moved back to what we're talking about more in the 70s.

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.

Personally I found her nu52 take too dark until the Batgirl of Burnside era.

And I like that they've returned Cassandra to the fold.


Btw, while I agree with the, 'if something has a bad take, it'll eventually go away,' thing normally holds true, I'll add it's often not a return to the status quo. Modern Batgirl is so so much more than when Babs was originally Batgirl, and takes parts from both her Oracle stint (obviously) and parts of the Batgirls that came after. Comics is always changing, sometimes obviously, sometimes subtly.

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.

Ahh, that was horrible! Not just for WW, all the powered heroes were turned to serve how cool Batman is, but it had the story (1) have her convert to Catholicism, 'cause, and (2) ignore she's already worked as a non-powered martial arts hero! Her skills could stand to be broadened, learning detective work would be good, getting grapple line gear and such, but Diana can seriously just hit the beat five seconds after losing her powers.

[Elheru Aran]

The special events are definitely a toss-up. JLA has its fans, but it was (for better or for worse) a very 90s book, shoulder pads and all. New 52 had some good stories, some turkeys, and some 'just why, nobody asked for this'. Like teen-idol Lobo. It didn't help that just a few years previously DC had pulled off a pretty fantastic... reboot? story change? whatever, with Identity Crisis leading into Infinite Crisis leading into 52 culminating in Final Crisis. Okay, that last one kind of soured the milk (seriously, I'm not sure why Grant Morrison keeps getting jobs in any mainstream comics universe, he's far better off doing his own thing) but the rest of it had been very well plotted and put together. And to keep it on the Batman topic, they actually attempted to kill him off in Final Crisis. Not that it stuck, mind you (not that we ever really thought it would anyway), but it made waves back then and shook up the Bat-Family handily.

The Bat-Family, by the way, is at least a SMALL piece of his appeal. The character of Batman has history; you know he's gone through several Robins (even though it shouldn't be *quite* possible for a man his... current age), he has people associated with his 'brand', and if any of them drop out of the picture, it leaves a distinct gap that people are going to be interested in. The return of Jason Todd was a minor flap. Dick Grayson striking out on his own and becoming Nightwing, joining the Teen Titans and then doing his own thing as an adult, was a steady change in the character's maturity. Batgirl became Oracle, became Batgirl again. Commissioner Gordon is always his strongest ally on the police force... to the point where he was de-aged and took on the Batman mantle in a mecha suit!

Superman? He's got Lois. Martha (sometimes Pa as well) Kent. The dog. Supergirl. If you wanna stretch a bit, there's Steel. But the focus is always Superman. You can ditch all the others and it's still a Superman story. It's harder to get rid of the Bat-Family.

The 'bad take will change' thing of comics can be as much a drawback as a plus if you like previous interpretations of a character better than current ones. Eric Masterston/Thunderstrike had his fans, even if he wasn't the 'proper' Thor. Claremont is still thought by many to be THE X-Men writer, even though Morrison set the tone for the book at the end of the 90s-- 00s with his X-Men. Nostalgia is a strong force, I suppose I'm saying, which shouldn't be news to anybody.

[Q99]

I'd call JLA more an early 00s book. Shoulder pads largely gone, lotta emphasis on hope and larger than life heroics. Some call it the starting point of a 'cinematic age' of comics.

It didn't help that just a few years previously DC had pulled off a pretty fantastic... reboot? story change? whatever, with Identity Crisis leading into Infinite Crisis leading into 52 culminating in Final Crisis. Okay, that last one kind of soured the milk (seriously, I'm not sure why Grant Morrison keeps getting jobs in any mainstream comics universe, he's far better off doing his own thing)

He *did* make the hugely successful JLA, revitalizing the franchise! And his Bat run near the time of the reboot was fairly huge too. Multiversity I gather was a hit as well. So, people still like him in short, despite knowing he gets the odd flub.

I liked FC a lot better than Identity crisis personally, but it's hard to disagree that they were kinda falling apart organizationally around that point- not due to Final Crisis itself, which didn't change much in the world, but rather Countdown to Final Crisis, 52 issues that, although it started writing after the first several issues of Final Crisis were in and finished, failed to actually lead into Final Crisis in any significant way and was largely a gigantic waste of time.

And to keep it on the Batman topic, they actually attempted to kill him off in Final Crisis. Not that it stuck, mind you (not that we ever really thought it would anyway), but it made waves back then and shook up the Bat-Family handily.

Yea, he was really sent backwards in time and yadda yadda. Comics!

The Bat-Family, by the way, is at least a SMALL piece of his appeal.

Btw, this is a mirror of Wonder Woman's problem- her Amazons and friends are part of her appeal, but about one in three writers swap out her supporting cast for a new ones.

[Majin Gojira]

Btw, this is a mirror of Wonder Woman's problem- her Amazons and friends are part of her appeal, but about one in three writers swap out her supporting cast for a new ones.

That's been a problem with her for ages.

Hell, =even when it is remembered, it bites Wonder Woman fans in the ass.

In the wake of Brian Azzarello's divisive run (it's a good story, but it does major damage to the mythos for both Diana as a character, and the Amazons). So much so, that followups without Azzarello were tanking.

Bad news, and with the movie on the way they needed to get back to basics. In comes Rucka who knocks out a stellar run, re-establishing classic parts of her mythology, bringing back fan favorite supporting characters, and making the story of Cheetah actually deeply tragic.

Then Marc Andreyko comes in and manages to, in a single issue, destroy all the good faith Rucka earned by bringing back the most hated element of the Azzarello run: the "man-azons" and the whole "Amazons raped and murdered passing sailors like sirens and aren't immortal" thing. And gives Diana a brother.

One step forward, two steps back.

Sorry, but I had to vent about that bout of idiocy.

[Q99]

Yea, really. What stupid editor approved that? I know Rucka insisted on having a different editor to work under (the one he refused to work under is the one just fired for harassing women, btw), and I wonder if when he left they went back to normal.

Also, minor correction, Andreyko was on Wonder Woman '77. Shea Fontana was the one who moved in after Rucka.


Something similar happened last time after Rucka's run too. Critically acclaimed, and towards the end great sales even, so they hired a novel writer, Allan Heinberg, to do a run... which tossed out what came before for an extremely mediocre 'Who is Wonder Woman,' story with tons of delays (Allan later got on the WW movie, but I gather people who came later in the process like Jenkins seriously revised things), then after *that* we got Amazon's Attack, which was just trash. Call in Gail Simone, for a repair job! Did nice work, critically and fan acclaimed again, but sales, while stabilized from their freefall, were lowish, so they did a stunt casting of JMS who... threw everything out for his Odyssey story! And he got replaced after 5 issues by Phil Hester and Odyssey is basically an elseworld's story now (actually one of the few good Diana elseworld's story ironically enough, Hester did good work). I'd be more sore about that if they didn't then do another reboot right after.

So yea, three times now in just over a decade DC has followed up critically acclaimed runs that use and build upon WW's mythos, with, "Nah, let's toss it out!" stunts where they give someone a blank check to trash things.

[Zixinus]

I think the appeal of Batman is that he is the average's person superfied by not-inherently-fantastical (or not outright anyway) means. He is what many people would like to be if they could take on crime, if they had the motivation (tragic past) and opportunities (rich heir to technological megacorp). In Western thought in general and US culture in particular, the idea of a ultimate self-improvement can solve everything is there.

And that's a mayor theme to Batman in general. Sure, he gets ninja-training and stuff, but he seeks them out and earns it through hard work. His inheritance always acts as a maximalizer and enabler, not as entitlement.

Sure, his commitment and willpower (and phsyique and reflexes, etc.) are superhuman. But not outright. Anything he has he gained or could be gained. It is true for his gadgets, that tend to require some skill to use if he doesn't make it (or design it) himself. Batarangs are a prime example. The grappling gun he uses to navigate around would require immense skill not to die from. And so on.

[Zixinus]

Addamantum:
He is superheroic by augmentation of internal characteristics and natural products of them, rather than external (like super-strength or power given by artifact and so on). He has supreme mastery over himself. He has supreme willpower. He commitment is absolute. Yet his self-control also stops him from being the monster he regularly fights (most of the time).

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I cannot help but notice some parallels between Wayne and Luthor, the chief differences between them is how they use their immense wealth and resources. I do wish they'd come into conflict with each other more in BvS.

I have the HISHE answer to the question right here: it's because he's Batman!

[The Romulan Republic]

I do think Wayne and Luthor make good foils for each other (as does Superman, in different ways). Even though they also have an existence separate from Batman, I actually consider Lex and Superman two of my favourite Batman characters.