namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
These three always seem to be the first names to come up when superheros are mentioned, so I thought it would be fun to debate which one is your favorite and why.
For me, it's Batman, easily.
First of all, I find Superman boring. By that, I mean that it's just too simple. It's the basis for all other superheros, BECAUSE it's simple. It's bland. Superman is the vanilla of superheros. The basis for any great superhero story is the struggle of duality, and I think of the three superheros we're discussing, Superman does the worst job of hitting on that. He's too perfect, too infallible, too pretty. And that flawlessness is what makes him boring and simple. That's why little kids love him so much. He's easy to understand and relate to. Superman doesn't require much thinking. There isn't much in the way of depth.
I like Spiderman a lot. The whole duality thing is done much better than Superman, at least in the recent three movies. The idea that power comes with responsibility comes across very well. One of the big drawbacks about Spiderman, imo, is the enemies. They're not developed enough. They're like cartoons.
Green Hornet 2 is suddenly instilled with the irrational desire to kill Spiderman because his father said to? And then just as quickly because some butler says 'your father was a liar', he suddenly changes his mind and becomes Peter's friend again? Not believable. The whole Topher Grace character in the third film was just laughable. That was the worst part of that film for sure. The character's reason for hating Spiderman was completely disproportionate to how much he hated Spiderman, and the way in which he transformed into Venom was completely stupid. Sandman was the only sort of cool enemy in part 3(Doc Ock was pretty cool in part 2). The thing about any dual-intentity character in a superhero story, good or bad, is that there has to be some conflict in that character, and it has to be developed on BOTH sides of the character. Harry Osbourne was written as a weak-minded son of a bitch, and his big conflict(his father's word vs Peter's word) wouldn't have been a conflict for a stronger-minded person. Brock/Venom just had no conflict about anything at all and, as such, was boring and underdeveloped. Terrible, pointless character. Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent.
The one other big drawback about Spiderman, for me, is that in the big action scenes, so much of it is CGI that the whole 'live action' idea is pretty much gone. Of course, it has to be CGI when you're talking about a guy swinging from skyscraper to skyscraper on a spiderweb thread, but still. It gets to look like a cinematic in a video game or something.
Now, onto Batman. First off, to get it out of the way, his enemies are by far my favorite...Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, The Riddler, Two-Face, on and on and on. But that's relatively minor compared to the other reasons I pick Batman.
The more I watch the Burton Batman films, the more impressed I am by the job he did of just putting a comic book on a screen. There was no CGI then, and the whole 'live action' concept is done EXTREMELY well in these two films. But on to more important things.
Batman just has a much darker aura about it than the other two. The themes are much darker, starting from the very point that Bruce Wayne became Batman. There is a HUGE difference between Batman and the other two that is imperative to one's appreciation and understanding of Batman, and that is this: Clark Kent became(or rather always was) Superman because of an accident of birth. On the level of the virgin mary's divine conception. Peter Parker became Spiderman because he was bitten by a spider. Both Clark Kent and Peter Parker became superheros because of freak accidents. Bruce Wayne is the only one of the three that CHOSE to be a superhero(after his parents were murdered), and in my eyes, that makes Bruce Wayne/Batman INFINITELY more interesting as a character and as a study of duality than the other two.
He's a total loner, and he's MADE THE CHOICE to fight crime as Batman, to totally alientate himself from from society(his headquarters are an underground cave for crying out loud), from having a normal life. I think Bruce Wayne struggles with reconciling his need to fight crime because of his parents with his desire to, like, have a normal social life and stuff, more than the other two ever do. I mean, Clark Kent/Superman hardly had anything to reconcile, and Peter Parker already had his girl in the last two films, so his struggle was really more about not letting the power go to his head, and that's just an easier struggle to overcome than Bruce Wayne's, imo. At the end of the Superman and Spiderman films, you sort of get the feeling that Clark and Peter have some semblence of a peace of mind. In the Batman films, especially when Michael Keaton and Christian Bale are Batman, when the films are over, you get the feeling that Bruce has no peace of mind whatsoever, and is just as mentally and emotionally uneasy as he was at the beginning of the film. And that makes him just much, much more interesting. And that's the crux of the reason I pick Batman so easily.
Your turn.
For me, it's Batman, easily.
First of all, I find Superman boring. By that, I mean that it's just too simple. It's the basis for all other superheros, BECAUSE it's simple. It's bland. Superman is the vanilla of superheros. The basis for any great superhero story is the struggle of duality, and I think of the three superheros we're discussing, Superman does the worst job of hitting on that. He's too perfect, too infallible, too pretty. And that flawlessness is what makes him boring and simple. That's why little kids love him so much. He's easy to understand and relate to. Superman doesn't require much thinking. There isn't much in the way of depth.
I like Spiderman a lot. The whole duality thing is done much better than Superman, at least in the recent three movies. The idea that power comes with responsibility comes across very well. One of the big drawbacks about Spiderman, imo, is the enemies. They're not developed enough. They're like cartoons.
Green Hornet 2 is suddenly instilled with the irrational desire to kill Spiderman because his father said to? And then just as quickly because some butler says 'your father was a liar', he suddenly changes his mind and becomes Peter's friend again? Not believable. The whole Topher Grace character in the third film was just laughable. That was the worst part of that film for sure. The character's reason for hating Spiderman was completely disproportionate to how much he hated Spiderman, and the way in which he transformed into Venom was completely stupid. Sandman was the only sort of cool enemy in part 3(Doc Ock was pretty cool in part 2). The thing about any dual-intentity character in a superhero story, good or bad, is that there has to be some conflict in that character, and it has to be developed on BOTH sides of the character. Harry Osbourne was written as a weak-minded son of a bitch, and his big conflict(his father's word vs Peter's word) wouldn't have been a conflict for a stronger-minded person. Brock/Venom just had no conflict about anything at all and, as such, was boring and underdeveloped. Terrible, pointless character. Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent.
The one other big drawback about Spiderman, for me, is that in the big action scenes, so much of it is CGI that the whole 'live action' idea is pretty much gone. Of course, it has to be CGI when you're talking about a guy swinging from skyscraper to skyscraper on a spiderweb thread, but still. It gets to look like a cinematic in a video game or something.
Now, onto Batman. First off, to get it out of the way, his enemies are by far my favorite...Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, The Riddler, Two-Face, on and on and on. But that's relatively minor compared to the other reasons I pick Batman.
The more I watch the Burton Batman films, the more impressed I am by the job he did of just putting a comic book on a screen. There was no CGI then, and the whole 'live action' concept is done EXTREMELY well in these two films. But on to more important things.
Batman just has a much darker aura about it than the other two. The themes are much darker, starting from the very point that Bruce Wayne became Batman. There is a HUGE difference between Batman and the other two that is imperative to one's appreciation and understanding of Batman, and that is this: Clark Kent became(or rather always was) Superman because of an accident of birth. On the level of the virgin mary's divine conception. Peter Parker became Spiderman because he was bitten by a spider. Both Clark Kent and Peter Parker became superheros because of freak accidents. Bruce Wayne is the only one of the three that CHOSE to be a superhero(after his parents were murdered), and in my eyes, that makes Bruce Wayne/Batman INFINITELY more interesting as a character and as a study of duality than the other two.
He's a total loner, and he's MADE THE CHOICE to fight crime as Batman, to totally alientate himself from from society(his headquarters are an underground cave for crying out loud), from having a normal life. I think Bruce Wayne struggles with reconciling his need to fight crime because of his parents with his desire to, like, have a normal social life and stuff, more than the other two ever do. I mean, Clark Kent/Superman hardly had anything to reconcile, and Peter Parker already had his girl in the last two films, so his struggle was really more about not letting the power go to his head, and that's just an easier struggle to overcome than Bruce Wayne's, imo. At the end of the Superman and Spiderman films, you sort of get the feeling that Clark and Peter have some semblence of a peace of mind. In the Batman films, especially when Michael Keaton and Christian Bale are Batman, when the films are over, you get the feeling that Bruce has no peace of mind whatsoever, and is just as mentally and emotionally uneasy as he was at the beginning of the film. And that makes him just much, much more interesting. And that's the crux of the reason I pick Batman so easily.
Your turn.
Last edited:
