TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Something odd I've noticed about Superman and Batman adaptations.

Go To

Austin Since: Jan, 2001
#1: Nov 21st 2012 at 4:45:23 AM

It seems like Superman usually gets live action TV shows, while Batman gets animated shows.

Why is that? Since Superman is a lot more fantastic than Batman, should it be the other way around? Shouldn't Batman be much easier to do in live-action than Superman?

fakeangelbr The Awesomest Character from Fortaleza, Brazil Since: Jan, 2010
The Awesomest Character
#2: Nov 21st 2012 at 4:52:59 AM

While Batman is more grounded than Superman he is no less fantastic than the Blue Boy Scout.

Always keep in mind his wonderful toys.

Donate money to Skullgirls, get a sweet poster.
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#3: Nov 21st 2012 at 5:09:55 AM

Superman is a much less physically demanding role.

Proportionate to Batman, Superman has to make very little physical effort to be effective; he doesn't need to be acrobatic, or do martial arts, or swing across cities. Lifting a falling plane for Superman would be the equivalent of lifting a 30 lbs box for the rest of us.

edited 21st Nov '12 5:10:14 AM by KingZeal

Austin Since: Jan, 2001
#4: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:37:40 AM

By "fantastic" I meant his stories should require a lot more special effects. A lot more special effects.

edited 21st Nov '12 7:37:50 AM by Austin

fakeangelbr The Awesomest Character from Fortaleza, Brazil Since: Jan, 2010
The Awesomest Character
#5: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:41:27 AM

Batman does too.

In fact, he would be more expensive since his special effects would be pratical in nature.

Slapping in some CGI would be cheaper.

Donate money to Skullgirls, get a sweet poster.
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#6: Nov 21st 2012 at 8:48:26 AM

There's kind of an Uncanny Valley of special effects, wherein there is a point between "Ordinary" and "Fantastic" where the story is at its hardest to tell visually. Batman falls into that area.

Superman can be done with CGI, props, and careful stage magic.

Batman requires impressive stuntwork that Superman doesn't need to be able to perform. His abilities are too human to just fly him around on a wire and shoot digital lasers from his eyes, but to portray his skill and martial ability, you would need some very impressive stuntment, choreographers, and probably a few highly-trained martial artists on staff at all times to make sure he moves in a realistic way.

Cartoons can get away with a much lower degree of realism.

edited 21st Nov '12 8:49:19 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
RJSavoy Reymmã from Edinburgh Since: Apr, 2011 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
Reymmã
#7: Nov 21st 2012 at 2:31:32 PM

[up] There's also simply the appearance of the character in costume. Superman is usually drawn to look like a fairly normal bodybuilder in a circus-performer's jumpsuit. His face is sort of generic, so all kinds of actors can portray him. His moves are very basic and show might rather than skill: he flies as if he were lying down, punches things, looks stern with arms crossed and so on.

Batman however is often drawn in a way that works best in a fairly simple art style that distorts the features. His eyes are glowing white triangles, his costume is a graceful silhouette against the night sky. His cape trails his jumps across the rooftops. His costume as a whole has to be quite plain and slim yet still look like it protects him and carries all the gadgets he might need. He moves and fights in a graceful, skilled, calculated manner, that of a genius and martial artist. All this is much harder to translate to a real costume and actor, and if it fails the end result is not Batman but a man in a bat-suit.

A blog that gets updated on a geological timescale.
Austin Since: Jan, 2001
#8: Nov 21st 2012 at 6:17:27 PM

Interesting. Thanks for the explanations.

Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#9: Nov 21st 2012 at 10:35:38 PM

It's easier, I think, to find a palatable approach to Superman that would work on TV. Though I personally feel that Lois and Clark and Smallville were both pretty bland (and the original Adventures of Superman with George Reeves was a different animal altogether), they both were acceptable, if unimaginative presentations of Superman.

Though I'd love to see some top talent do a really good Batman tv show. Maybe if Joss Whedon's SHIELD works, we'll see something.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#10: Nov 22nd 2012 at 12:20:41 AM

There's also the fact that Batman wears a mask while Superman doesn't: most actors don't like spending most of their screen time with their face obscured.

comicwriter Since: Sep, 2011
#11: Nov 24th 2012 at 8:10:02 AM

[up] For whatever reason, directors don't tend to like it either. Maybe they find it dehumanizing or something? Because with the exception of Batman, most of the modern slate of superhero films have the protagonists unmasked at key points, especially near the emotional climaxes.

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#13: Nov 24th 2012 at 5:46:43 PM

Also, most of Superman's live action enemies have been variations on the 'mad scientist' or even 'gang boss' archetypes. The most colorful Superman Rogues like Mxyzptlk and the like have been largely untouched, and when they are, like in Smallville, they are severely toned down in their outlandish looking aspects.

While with Batman's Rogues Gallery, which tends to be much more theatrical and garish, them being larger than life looking is pretty much the point, and that often is hard to translate to live action (especially in the lower budget TV setting) without looking campy or silly. Granted, when they really try it, they can pull it off neatly, like both Movie Jokers, but then we have things like Schwarzenegger Freeze...

Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#14: Nov 24th 2012 at 9:08:45 PM

I'm hoping that after Whedon's success with the Avengers, we'll see more directors and screenwriters try to go full-on superhero (as in not toned down or scaled back...wear you colors proudly, you know?). Done well (played straight and allowed to establish its reality, and allowed to have consequences) it can all be quite cool.

I'm just glad that Luthor isn't the villain for the new Superman film; I'm a little leery of it's being Zod, but we'll see.

Canid117 Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#15: Nov 24th 2012 at 10:18:29 PM

Didn't you know that Lex Luthor and General Zod are the only members of Superman's rogues gallery? Or so Hollywood seems to believe.

"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#16: Nov 25th 2012 at 2:16:45 PM

[up]And Hollywood's still not quite sure about Zod.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Austin Since: Jan, 2001
#17: Nov 28th 2012 at 6:18:24 AM

About that, does it seem like the first entries in comic book movie adaptations nowadays often don't go with the character's archenemy? Luthor won't be the main villain in the Man of Steel, The Joker was saved for the Dark Knight Returns, Sinestro wasn't the main villain in the Green Lantern movie, and the Amazing Spider-Man used The Lizard instead of the Green Goblin.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, give some of the lesser knowns some exposure, it just seems like an odd coincidence.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#18: Nov 28th 2012 at 7:01:33 AM

Half the movies these days are created as reboots to former franchises. We'd already seen The Joker in Burton's Batman, so they probably wanted to use more characters from his rogues' gallery. Same being true of the fourth Spider-man.

In Iron Man, the Mandarin was likely a hell of a lot harder to sell than Obadiah Stane. And it would have lost the personal betrayal.

In Hulk and Incredible Hulk, I remember the producers saying that Hulk's villains kind of sucked, and it was hard to think of villains who were physically a match for him. That's why they went with Absorbing Man (a Thor villain) and the Abomination over the Leader. However, he still battled Thunderbolt Ross in both films.

However, Captain America, Thor, the Fantastic Four, Daredevil, and the X-Men all battled their archenemies.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#19: Nov 28th 2012 at 8:01:40 AM

You know, as much as Absorbing Man is touted as a Thor villain, I've never actually seen him fight Thor. All adaptations and modern incarnations of the character I've seen have fought the Hulk. I know he started as a Thor villain, but it's been so long since he's fought Thor that I think he can safely be reclassified at this point.

With regard to archenemies: I think part of the reason we're seeing less of them in first-movies is because of the fact that most of the best villains in comics take some time to tell their story.

Look at the Green Goblin. The Green Goblin is one of the most iconic Spider-Man villains of all time, if not THE most iconic. Over the course of the character's history, his supporting cast have provided a great number of fantastic villains for Spider-Man to fight, while Norman Osborn himself and his son forged deep, personal attachments to Peter Parker's life.

The Green Goblin is defined as Spider-Man's archnemesis both for the brilliance of Norman Osborn that can rival Peter Parker, as well as for the long, storied history between the two characters. From the mystery of the Goblin's identity to the night Gwen Stacy died and everything inbetween, the Goblin earned his place as THE villain of the Spider-Man franchise.

Compare to the Goblin's portrayal in the Spider-Man movie. He appeared for one film in which he managed to cause a little bit of a ruckus, almost killed MJ in a pale imitation of a major event from a far more iconic version of the character, and then died pointlessly, leaving no real impact on Spider-Man's life but for the effect he had on his son, Harry Osborn, who went on to become the true driving force behind the trilogy, with three whole films to flesh out his story.

Film Green Goblin was not the great villain of the Spider-Man franchise; he was just the first poor bastard to try and fail, because one movie isn't enough time to tell the story of a truly great villain.

edited 28th Nov '12 8:04:07 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#20: Nov 28th 2012 at 9:13:13 AM

"one movie isn't enough time to tell the story of a truly great villain."

It worked fine for Joker twice.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#21: Nov 28th 2012 at 9:31:00 AM

The Green Goblin is defined as Spider-Man's archnemesis both for the brilliance of Norman Osborn that can rival Peter Parker, as well as for the long, storied history between the two characters. From the mystery of the Goblin's identity to the night Gwen Stacy died and everything inbetween, the Goblin earned his place as THE villain of the Spider-Man franchise.

I'd personally argue that Green Goblin mostly gets that reputation due to hindsight rather than actual accomplishment. In the stories leading up to Gwen's death, the only thing that really made him significant was that he was the first villain to find out Peter's identity. And he didn't do it through some grand master scheme or something like that—he just beat the crap out of him and took his mask off. Then he grabbed his girlfriend and threw her off a bridge and died.

Then, for more than twenty years, Norman was dead—but like Gwen, his infamy grew in death. It wasn't until the ass end of the Clone Saga that Norman suddenly became this badass chessmaster mastermind.

edited 28th Nov '12 9:32:02 AM by KingZeal

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#22: Nov 28th 2012 at 10:28:01 AM

The Joker is anomalous in that he is an intrinsically simple character. He laughs, he blows things up. There isn't a story or a history to tell with the Joker; he's an event that causes things to happen around him, and those things that happen are the plot of the film.

There's no origin to tell with him, no iconic relationships to develop or complicated history to flesh out. You can just throw him on the stage and let him do his thing, and people will love it. Most villains aren't that simple, and those who are typically aren't as popular or beloved as the Joker.

As film has moved more and more into the realm where a sequel is not considered a possibility if successful but, instead, an outright certainty for franchises like comic books, more time can be spent developing villains, and throwing away the best villain you have in a oneshot film before the franchise can even get on its feet has become an unwise decision.

The biggest, baddest villain in a hero's rogues' gallery can be withheld and developed slowly. Amazing Spider-Man is taking that tack with Norman Osborn, as did Iron Man with the Mandarin, Avengers with Thanos, Incredible Hulk with the Leader, Green Lantern with Sinestro, etc. Their BIG villains had a reference here or there in their early films, but were kept offstage to build their menace, establish their characters, get the audience salivating and yearning for the moment when they come through to the big screen.

Even those films that do fall back on their best villain in the first do it differently. Captain America ended with the door open for the Red Skull to return, possibly in force depending on where he was sent by the Tesseract. There's a faint sense that we have not heard the last of him, and when he comes back, it will be BIG. Likewise, Thor used Loki for his first film, but he seesm to be staying around indefinitely; rather than Thor being "Thor vs. Loki, the Ultimate Showdown!", it came off rather as, "Part 1 of Loki's story", with clear impression that we've only just begun to breach Loki's threat.

With Man of Steel coming out, while Lex Luthor won't be the villain of the piece, I'd be surprised if he's left out of the film entirely, without even so much as a Luthorcorp namedrop or an offhand, ominous mention of him (possibly in the stinger). Man of Steel will likely wind up being a trilogy; better to pull Luthor out as the big, epic final villain, than to throw him away pointlessly in the first film.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Ronnie Respect the Red Right Hand from Surrounded by Idiots Since: Jan, 2001
Respect the Red Right Hand
#23: Dec 1st 2012 at 8:52:24 PM

no iconic relationships to develop
She wasn't around for Batman 1989, BUT Harleen would probably have a few things to say to you about her puddin'. tongue

Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#24: Dec 1st 2012 at 9:58:35 PM

[up] While I like Harley, her presence sometimes humanizes the Joker a bit too much.

[up][up]I think it's interesting that while the Joker does have an established origin, it's not really a story that's necessary to understanding his character, and it's one Nolan was wise in not telling. The Joker's much, much better, in my opinion, if you don't know who he is or where he came from.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#25: Dec 1st 2012 at 10:11:57 PM

To be fair, the Joker has several canonically-acknowledged, mutually-exclusive established origins and is actually the trope namer for Multiple-Choice Past.

edited 1st Dec '12 10:12:38 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

Total posts: 29
Top