Obviously.

The Tick

Nuff said!

He wouldn't even accept a tip. Nancyboy motherfucker.

Oh wait. He was once mind controlled into doing something bad. That changes everything. :|

Of course, Superman IS too strong. Sure, they nerfed him after Crisis, but they've made a character where the only way to keep him contemporary is to "power creep" da bad guyz. Superman spent the better part of 50 years being way too powerful, and was finally downgraded, but to "too powerful."

Now, they've temporarily re-envisioned him like 9 million times, each time giving him vulnerabilities and the like, but really, the guy's always been overpowered. And the comics are actually worse for this, because he's more than just "I stand in the way of bullets," he's a bloody supercomputer.

Superman is an incredibly complex character. The problem is that he is so complex that most writers have no idea what to do with him.

I could try to explain, but I would just fail miserably because my communication skills and way with words are crap.

In my opinion, Superman is just one of those characters that you either "get" or "don't get".

Agreed. He's either easy to write or impossible to write, whereas Batman's fictionally easy to work with.

There's nothing not to get. What there is to get is that he's iconic, he's the quintessential superhero. the original and the template, and is a major part of American culture. That's what makes him classic.

But as for him being complex and writers having no idea what to do with him...that's actually the exact opposite of what is the case. Superman is primal, and he's popular for being just what he is.

He's far from complex though, and in any case ever where the company or writers have tried to make Superman deeper, or make him more human and deal with heavier things, or even change him to be less cheesy and more vulnerable and realisitic..it has failed miserably.

They've tried to make Superman more complex, since he clearly isn't. They've tried to make him more deep and his status as a Superhero more on par with characters like Batman and Spiderman, who are able to evolve and change and do different things as well as have a wider range of emotions and weaknesses to work with.

But since it fails everytime with Superman, it has become clear that the people who want to see Superman don't want to see him change. He just has no flexibility. He has to be the all powerful, squeaky clean, all american hero with only one weakness and every power under the sun (no pun intended). That's where his appeal is rooted and that's where it ends.

So people who don't like Superman for these reasons never will, and his character doesn't allow for this to change. But in order for him to stay around they need to stick to the basics and have him be the same one trick pony generation after generation. Some will get sick of it, some never will want it, and others will be content to see a perfect tall dark handsome God-like Patriotic citizen from the 30's save the damsel in distress month after month. He's the small town farmboy who went to the big city and became a hero after his father died. It's called a Jungian hero journey. It's in just about everything, and sometimes it's coupled with a complex plot and variables. Other times it's straight forward and simple, like in Superman.

That's how it is, and that's probably how it will always be. But he is far from complex.
At least not as a charcter. The subject of why such a simple thing is successful, and it's primal nature and archetypes are a whole other story. You can teach an entire class on how deep that is in terms of it's relation to mythology and human nature, and how Superman mirrors the story of Moses and what not. But pound for pound, in the context of his stories, Superman is as simple as it gets for a hero.

So, The Rock might play Black Adam in a Shazam! film. That would be so crappy.

Batman is the only good thing DC ever produced. Ever.

Not that Marvel is so great, but they at least have X-Men, Iron Man and Captain America.

Generally, comics suck.

I don't know if you're referring to movies or comics.

BUt DC have a ton of great characters. Do they all translate to film? No. Many of them are not popular enough and a good majority would be difficult to translate/gain an audience for.


Movie-wise, DC has Batman, Batman Begins, Superman and Superman II. But they also unfortunately have Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Superman 3, 4, and Catwoman.

I'm on the side of "enjoyed Superman Returns and Batman Returns."

DC is great for Batman. I don't mind Green Lantern, and although I despise Superman and find him extremely dated, he is a legendary cashcow. Aside from Joker and the rest of Batman's villians, they have no good villians.

However, Marvel has Spiderman, Hulk, X-men, Iron Man, Captain America, Punisher, Daredevil, Blade, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Silver Surfer and a wealth of great villians.

Filmwise, not all of those have translated well. Some not at all. But nonetheless, in the world of comics their stacked with legendary characters with a lot of depth and mainstream recognition. As well as being a lot cooler and creatively stronger.

I have always disliked DC and all they bring to the table besides Batman and Gotham.

Marvel > DC, IMHO

I don't think Batman Forever is good by any means, but I do feel it gets a worse rap than it deserves. It sucked, but it's made out to be worse than it is because of how bad Batman and Robin ended up being.

Superman Returns was well done I felt, but it just didn't do much for me.
Batman Begins was extremely well done, and I realize its truer to the comic book form of Batman, but to me Batman 89 is Batman.
Batman Returns is awesome, but it's...different.
Hopefully Dark Knight is amazing.

I'm talking about comics, cartoons, movies, everything. Batman is the only good thing to come from DC (well and the Batman bad guys).

Marvel really isn't that great, and personally I think Spider-Man is one of the biggest pieces of super hero trash ever made (even worse than Superman). I liked him as a kid, but as I've gotten older I have really grown to hate Peter Parker a LOT. Anyway, Marvel is generally better, though still not great. I guess I should confess I never got too into Comics in general, found a lot of them to be hoaky and to esoteric. But I LOVED Captain America (which technically was made by Marvel's predacessor) and Iron Man was the shit. Plus, X-Men was probably my favorite comic series of all time, so, yeah...

Marvel > DC

I enjoy DC over Marvel. Yeah.

What I didn't get was the main criticisms all seemed to be based on the fact that it was comic bookish.

Well duh? It was based on a comic book? They went for a different direction?

Granted, I like the '39 batman. The Dark Knight from Pulp/Noir mags. So mostly, I prefer the first two, and then Begins was fucking awesome. But still....

Marvel vs DC was as mismanaged, mismatched and poorly executed as the WWFvsWCW invasion.

Talk about shitty matchups and a dissapointing execution of a dream angle.

Yea, I think it's clear that they were trying to shy away from Burtons darkness.
It worked in Batman 89, and then in Returns it got a bit darker and more bizarre. I liked it. But they were worried about how many action figures they could sell. They wanted it to be more kid friendly. Hence their seperation from Burton and Keaton, and the new direction.
With Forever they tried to segway from dark to campy. It's somewhere inbetween, so though it's not great, it isn't abysmal.
Batman & Robin was the intended goal. To make it campy. It failed miserably.

Batman Forever and B&R are based on the campy element of Batman from the 60s which is for better or worse just as much a part of Batmans legacy as the origins and dark roots. People rejected it, because of course the Batman of the 30s and 80s is much cooler. But they were only trying something new, and it was a failed gamble. I don't think they were trying to make a serious movie and failed, but instead succeeded in making a cheesy movie and it didn't go over well.

Not to mention Hulk/Superman was the most annoying. I expected Supes to Win, but it was like "Hey, one shot and you're down."


Crossovers are generally annoying. It took Batman one punch to take out Carnage. It took Spider-Man longer to drop the Joker. :|

B&R was awful. Forever was something new, with both a noir feel and a comic book feel. That and I liked Kilmer as Batman. The last movie of the four was pure Cheese, and more poorly executed than the TV show.

I can see why people would think it tried to be serious, with the way Clooney played Wayne, etc.

It's worth noting that the 60s Batman saw a near-death to Batman, because it just didn't move.

Yea, that's ridiculous.
Batman and Spiderman should have been a matchup from the getgo in Marvel vs DC.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/superhero.../batspider.jpg


Hulk vs Superman was mismatched. Aside from brute strength, whats the point there.
Iron Man vs Superman technically would have been a better more interesting fight.

Storm vs Wonder Woman and Silver Surfer vs Green Lantern were the only logical matchups.
Spidey vs Superboy?!

Kilmer really wasn't bad at all. Even Bob Kane said he preferred him best. Forever looks like a classic next to its sequel. I won't lie, I dug Carrey's Riddler.

60's Batman almost killed Batman, you're right. Unfortunately for years what was originally a dark, brooding vigilante became labled as Zap!Pow!Bam! and total camp bullshit.
Thanks to the comics of the 80s and Burtons take on it, it came back full circle and better than ever. Luckily Schumacher only crippled it and didn't kill it again.

In regards to Marvel vs DC, I used to do better crossovers with my action figures in my back yard back in the day.

Damn, I used to love my Xmen, Batman, and Spiderman animated series figures. Fantastic Four and Iron Man ones were great too. Shit, I even collected those Superman figures where he had the long hair.
Those were the days...

Wolvie and Lobo made sense too but was like... 3 panels?

yea that was okay. It did make sense to comic fans, and Lobo is a cool character, but at the end of the day he wasn't on Wolverines level to most people, especially at a time where Xmen was all the rage.

Wouldn't Wonder Woman vs Rogue make a bit more sense?

Meh, I think the Storm thing was fine.

Amalgam was the worse thing ever however. Dark Claw *scowls*

Actually - Thor/Wonder Woman would have made more sense than Captain Marvel/Thor. And I liked the concept of a Surfer/Lantern battle.

Doesn't matter either way, I suppose. I just thought Rogues strenths were a bit more comparable.

Superman is just too stacked to face anyone fairly.
Other than that, their depth lacks past Batman. I'd rather have just seen Batman run the gauntlet against Marvel haha

Or else a long, epic Secret Wars type storyline.

And Batman/Daredevil would have been the best option for Bats.

Yea Surfer/Lantern made a lot of sense. Since they were doing heros vs heros, I don't see how it would have hurt to bring in villians as well. It's all just a tweener clusterfuck, so why not just bring in popular villians that are more suited for certain matchups?

I still need to buy hte Secret Wars. haven't read those or the All/Unlimited Access series to this day.

Marvel vs DC made me stop reading.

Punisher is a pretty sensible one too.

I thought Lobo was a heel :$

Anyway, back to one of the original convos. Superman is a boring twat. That is all.

I need to check out the Batman/Spiderman/Carnage/Joker crossover. I'm familiar with it, but I've never seen or read the actual series.
Spidey and Bats are my 2 favorites all time probably, along with the Xmen.
And Joker and Carnage are gods among villians to me.

There's a lot of dynamic there for a great fued. Not just because their both awesome, but they both have enigmatic personalites and similar backgrounds when it comes to training.

Superman sucks. Can't stand how painfully boring and overpowered he is. Nothing fun about him. I'd be happy if I never saw another Superman anything ever again.

Also, reading a bit at the moment. Apperently Lobo turned into a face around the mid-90's and somehow was turned back into a teenager and joined Justice League.....


Yeah, DC can fuck themselves. Not saying that Marvel doesn't have equally convaluted/retarded storylines, but fuck that one may take the cake.

Yea, they just don't have the depth and wealth of characters that Marvel does. Batman and Superman keep them going.

Infinate Crisis saved them.

I dunno, DC just doesn't catch my interest. I haven't read their newer stuff, but their good guys were just that, good guys with cool/powers abilities. And barring Batman's and well... Luther, they have no dynamic heels. Where as most everyone in Marvel has someone cool to fight.