Batman: A Marvel character in the DC universe?

I'd say the biggest difference between DC heroes and Marvel heroes is that DC's heroes were created over the course of many years by a bunch of unrelated people, while most of Marvel's more famous heroes were created within the span of a few years by a team of three or four guys. It's a distinction that manifests itself in many different ways, some obvious and some subtle.

^ In particular, DC characters are very isolated from each other except for the specific instances where they aren't, while Marvel tries for a shared universe. Granted, they haven't always linked them completely (in the old days Spidey tended to be more connected specifically to the Fantastic Four than to the universe as a whole, and in my opinion the premise of X-Men still doesn't mesh well with the rest of Marvel).

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

That mostly because the X-men don't allow other heroes to help them.

The Reaper Games starts anew.

It's not a matter of publicity but of functionality. Batman and Gotham are all but custom tailored for each other. In a city with an actually functioning police force, the Cowl hijacking their investigations would be a nuisance if not worse. Marvel's street level baddies themselves are more often superpowered mercenaries, rather than the theme-based nutjobs characteristic of Gotham. Consequently, vigilante heroes like Spidey and Daredevil function more like a rapid response SWAT unit, rather than detectives.

Speaking of which, Batman's veneered Rogues Gallery is also difficult to transplant to Marvel. Power is one thing, as supposedly major threats like the Joker or Bane are decidedly lightweight compared to powerhouses like the Green Goblin or Carnage. But more importantly, their "insanity" gimmicks make them pretty one-dimensional as opposed to Marvel's more free-form baddies. And the aforementioned villain-exchange policy means their murderous tendencies would easily garner the attention of Marvel's less morally restrained heroes... with messy results.

All in all, Batman's whole mythos is just too restricted for him to be a Marvel character. Too many things have to even up just right for him to play his part and look good in it.

edited 28th Jul '13 3:22:56 AM by indiana404

That's a fascinating insight. Stan insisted that the Marvel characters be set in New York cos that's where the writers were so it was a city they knew. I hadn't considered how much that would make them grounded compared to having fictional towns. In Marvel they wrote about the city outside their door, forcing the heroes who "live" there to adapt to it, rather than the other way around.

It also means that the Marvel Universe has to have a shared dimension. Gotham can be declared No Man's Land and Coast City can die but New York has to be eternal.

There was an idea to make Matt Murdock Mayor of New York before. That got knocked on the head cos of how much it would effect all the other titles.

edited 28th Jul '13 8:28:16 AM by Anteres

Precisely. The same goes for Batman's rogues - they're often complimented on being perfect symbolic Foils for aspects of his character. But narratively, that makes the whole conflict a Plot Tailored To The Batman. Put them against anyone else, and they'd fare nowhere near as well - Spider-Man would ridicule them, the Punisher would slaughter them, the Hulk would step over them, and Deadpool would take them out for drinks. To contrast, it wouldn't be out of place for Iron Man to go after the Abomination, or for Thor to have a bone to pick with Doctor Doom. That's how Marvel rolls.

In a way, most of DC's major players have this problem - their greatest strength as symbols is also their worst weakness as people, with personal motivations and relationships in and out of costume. They're so well matched against each other that they wouldn't know how to deal with anyone else while preserving that trademark symbolic effect. Thus, their Status Quo Is God. While Marvel made Magneto an X-Man, Doc Ock a Spider-Man, and Doom a godfather to Reed's daughter, DC is still pushing the same kind of conflict it did 70 years ago, and pretending this much vaunted symbolism keeps it fresh and relevant.

To be perfectly frank, I think, for the most part, DC and Marvel have become pretty much the same thing by now. The now decades-long cross pool of writers, while back in the day they tended to remain separate, and the overall shift of comics in general towards the darker and cynical soap opera with constant reboots and retcons, have played a big role in that.

If anything, I think it's the Marvel-favoring fans and the DC-favoring fans who stay separated in positions, each side coloring their own side of the fake conflict with their pre-set views and dogmas.

Eh, a lot of differences are still there due to all the stuff that's grandfathered in. DC still has super-exclusive villains for each hero, and in fact Geoff Johns' technique of building each DC hero he's written around a single coherent theme has strengthened the icon/symbol thing.

Or even looking at the event comics of the last few decades. Secret Invasion? That's not Crisis Crossover material for DC, that's another day in the life of the JLA. Siege, likewise. DC's crossover events have been reality-shattering universal-scale super threats...Marvel's events are still generally Earth-threatening or country-threatening events, or built more around hero vs. hero conflicts.

edited 28th Jul '13 1:40:53 PM by TheEvilDrBolty

Okay, maybe it was wrong of me to ask if Batman himself would fit in Marvel. Maybe I should have asked if Batman's local part of the universe would fit in Marvel.

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

'Batman is perfect.'

...BWAAAAAA—HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA—HAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Sorry, sorry, but I just—! Sorry, but I honestly cannot agree with the notion that Batman is perfect; in fact, he may be anything but.

Batman, on the surface, may seem perfect; he is indeed a paragon of future, at least on the surface. And yet, whereas why Superman is the way he is tends to be pretty simple, — an immigrant who was raised by loving adoptive parent's, and now wishes not only to protect his home, but make it the best it can be — Batman is the way he is because his parent's got offed by 'some punk with a gun. '. The whole experience resulted in a man that, at least in his 'civilian' life, seems to be well-adjusted, and in his Superhero career, he mostly seems infallible. But whereas Superman won't kill out of principle, Batman won't kill because he is psychologically inhibited to kill, due to his childhood traumua. Whereas Superman dresses up due to the symbol from his home-planet, as well as a mean's to inspire people, Batman dresses up — and like a Bat, I might add — because he sees bat's, a creature of fear, as a means to combat his own fear, that of his parent's dying before his eye's. And because of all this, whereas Superman is a pretty nice, approachable guy, Batman is grim, moody, brooding, and generally unapproachable much of the time, at least outside of Superhero work, or unless your name is Alfred or Dick. And even then, it isn't perfect. Batman is a psychological wreck. But it's because of this wreck, that he's pushed to be a 'perfect' Superhero.

edited 28th Jul '13 2:49:45 PM by kkhohoho

The thing with Batman is, his worst handicap is his own inability to live up to the impossibly high standards he has set. No matter his achievements, he won't ever be satisfied with them, and thus he can't ever be happy. He's the ultimate perfectionist, and that on itself is a huge character flaw.

Local part, as in, say, Gotham and the Bat-family? Possibly, but it still requires a lot of concessions that Marvel heroes just aren't going to let fly. For one, they won't Stay Out Of Gotham, utterly shattering the symbolic balance there. Two, Marvel's heroes are much less restrained when it comes to lethal force, and more than opinionated enough to tell him where to stuff his Thou Shalt Not Kill code. Last but not least, Marvel stories have evolved well beyond "the villain is out of Arkham again, go get'im". If an X-team has to confront a rogue mutant in downtown Gotham, without blowing it half to bits, all Batman would do is get in the way. He's a vigilante, not a rights activist or negotiator.

Some time ago, it actually struck me that pretty much all of DC's top brass are just vigilanties by trade, while Marvel's A-list is a lot more varied. The Asgardians and the X-Men have their own agendas to follow. Captain America is a soldier. Iron Man is a weapon. The Hulk is a self-propelled disaster area. The Fantastic Four are a sitcom. Only Spider-Man and Daredevil really fit the heroic vigilante mold. Consequently, it's never a safe bet on exactly what any of them would do when placed in identical situations. The whole existence of the Avengers is a testament to all these kinds of people having to work out their vastly conflicting motivations and methods.

Batman doesn't work like that. He's a vigilante who only functions well around other vigilanties, and his control freak tendencies mean he'd be constantly at odds with anyone remotely different from him. That's why the Bat-family is a bat-family - all cast from the same mold, as he just can't have it otherwise. Put them next to the extremely diverse X-cast and see how long it'd take before someone gets SNIKT!-ed.

edited 28th Jul '13 3:03:46 PM by indiana404

Except that none of that detracts from my argument. He's one of the world's top experts in everything. He's handsome, charming, rich, brilliant, speaks numerous languages, is among the top martial artists in the world, is the top detective in the world, is an expert in biology, chemistry, engineering, escapology, disguises . . . name a skill, he's an expert in that skill.

And his biggest flaw is that he's broody. Because we all know chicks HATE broody guys.

He's crazy, but his craziness in no way negatively impacts his ability to live his life. The guy is completely fucking perfect. And it is incredibly boring.

edited 28th Jul '13 3:05:15 PM by Tiamatty

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.

Batman isn't perfect because of all these traits, actually. No, Batman is perfect because DC's deification policy just wouldn't let him be anything else. It's like Never My Fault on a meta-level - his coLeagues may raise the occasional eyebrow at his openly volatile psychosis, but they'll never really question whether having such a lunatic on the team is really that wise. And any ordinary person not liking how a guy dressed like a bat is the voice of law and order in town, is obviously wrong, probably corrupt himself, or even working for the Joker.

Marvel stories like Civil War, while not that well handled, still manage to sell the point that sometimes heroes can be wrong. That they can turn on each other, and neither side would be clearly in the right, since some issues are just that complex. Conversely, DC offered us Batman: Under the Red Hood and Superman vs. the Elite, putting its A-listers against villainized strawmen, so that the questions they ask wouldn't have to be answered. Perish the thought that any criticism of the "Gods Among Us" may be justified!

It's like @Anteres put it in a nutshell - Marvel heroes adapt to the world in order to function. DC's capes have the world bend around them, so that they wouldn't need to.

edited 28th Jul '13 3:49:13 PM by indiana404

^DC also gave us the Cadmus arc where Superman was constantly losing it and really struggled to keep his power in check and worried about ever crossing that line (knowing that he already had in another universe).

Batman is a wreck and a lot of stories do delve into that. One of my favourite Batman stories is called Broken City, involves Batman chasing after some punk and then hearing a gunshot and seeing that a kid lost his parents while the punk gets away. The story involves him letting that case get really personal and losing control and really screwing everything up. And it's blatantly obvious that he's just projecting on that kid and he really has no handle on anything.

By the end he's in a horrid state and he's left crying under a gutter drain wishing for a day when he no longer has to do any of this and yet still believing it'll happen one day soon because one day he'll sort it all out.

I've really only seen Batgod in Grant Morrison's stories and on the Justice League (where it's a bit necessary to portray him on equal footing with the others). Most other runs portray him as a mess.

Do the other Leaguers have that much leeway to brand Batman 'a lunatic'? Depending on the continuity at work at the moment, Superman developed a worrying dual personality issue (the Gangbuster mess), Aquaman became a brooding loner hermit at the bottom on the sea who never shaved, Hal killed the Guardians and most of the GL Corps (yeah, Yellow Fear Monster, sure, convenient way to cover his ass), Ollie is a chronic mess of a womanizer and failure father figure, Guy Gardner is Guy Gardner, Plastic Man is a loon even if a harmless one, and so on.

Well, for the most part, the other Leaguers' psychoses get swept under the rug, to the point where Parallax or other such disasters are distant memories for characters and fans alike. Meanwhile, Batman... never really stops being crazy.

The very best, like no one ever was. Check out my Spider-Man fanfic here! [1]

At least he's consistent!

His psychosis prevents him from ever finding happiness. It's sort of like a curse. He has all of these nice things, sure, but...

He can do anything in the world, and yet can't ever be happy. How fucked up is that?

And the same arc had Cadmus Jumping Off the Slippery Slope by working with Lex Luthor, who himself had orchestrated the whole plot. Exactly the deal I mentioned before - The Complainer Is Always Wrong, and usually evil to boot.

As for Batman,

That's just it - he doesn't have to do any of this. Nobody's forced the cowl on Bruce Wayne's head and kicked him out of the street, that was his own choice. To contrast, when Peter Parker felt the burden was too great, he actually dropped the mask, and had to find further motivation to continue being Spider-Man.

Consequently, as his psychological issues almost never present a problem to the plot, rather than decorative bouts of self pity, he actually comes off as something of a Sympathetic Sue. Poor little billionaire with enough resources and spare time to pursue his utterly self-destructive hobby, never able to find happiness. It took The Dark Knight Saga to actually present a lasting effect of his physical and mental deterioration, and that one ended with him no longer being Batman for good.

edited 29th Jul '13 3:56:09 AM by indiana404

It's not really the way you're portraying it. Luthor might've been evil but the rest of Cadmus and the people who work for them are portrayed as people who are rightfully afraid and worried about the future of the world. There's a reason Dr Hamilton, one of Superman's closest friends, is the guy behind a lot of the projects (and the show portrays him as right to be afraid of Superman) and there's a reason guys like Captain Atom turned against Superman in...I think it was "Question Authority". By the end of the arc the League admits to their own flaws and strive to be a better, more transparent group, and really isn't that the whole point?

Along with Cadmus there's Kingdom Come which ends with all heroes renouncing the concept of Superheroes and deciding they have no right to portray themselves as "above" humans and decide to work together with humanity. And there are stories like Red Son and Peace on Earth which show Superman dealing with politically charged conflicts in different ways, one in which he becomes a political leader and loses his way in struggling to keep his power in check and another which shows Superman's desperation to be as apolitical as possible leading to his inability to defeat 'real', more abstract concepts such as world hunger and how he strives to find another way (rallying the world as a symbol and hoping that small step sets off something grander).

Batman is forcing himself to do this. That's the point, that's what makes him a tragic figure. He believes that he can't rest until he's done, but he will never be done because the war on crime isn't really a war (to quote The Wire "Wars end"). It's not about responsibility for Batman, it's a selfish, child like desire in a belief that all it takes to stop crime is a badass with no limits or jurisdictions aside from some self-imposed code. He's in a state of arrested development and naturally his closest and most vulnerable relationships are with young children or a certain father figure that tends to him even when he grows into a bitter old man.

Broken City is exactly what you're talking about. Because of his inability to deal with his traumas and his projecting onto a young kid Bruce screws it up completely, indirectly gets a bunch of people killed and even if he solves the mysteries it's all in a way that's inconsequential, too late and saves nobody. That's why he's such a wreck by the end. That's why he cries and dreams hopelessly of a world where he wins because he can't face the reality, that being Batman isn't achieving what he'd hoped.

There are plenty of stories that explore the self destructive nature of his life. Dark Knight Returns being the most obvious but there's also Batman Beyond which shows a Batman years into the future having ruined every relationship he has and achieving nothing with Gotham, only finding some sense of closure by rekindling a relationship with a new character and even then he struggles to make it work.

Early years stories like Long Halloween show that he's only encouraging an escalation of the war on crime rather than doing anything to stop it (and his lack of foresight leads to screwing up Harvey Dent's life). And you've already mentioned the TDK trilogy which draws from most of these stories anyway.

Batman is not nearly the boring invincible sue you make him out to be...or alternatively you aren't reading the right Batman stories which do plenty to humanise him or show how flawed and vulnerable he is. Same applies to DC as a whole.

They're not unstoppable, perfect people. They're individuals who are challenged at every step of the way by antagonists, often representing more abstract or symbolic concepts and they use these challenges to try to become better people and try to become the symbols they strive to be. And those struggles and challenges make for some fantastic stories, and make it all the more satisfying when they're able to pull through and get a win every now and then.

edited 29th Jul '13 4:31:26 AM by ShadowScythe

Good points all around. I live and learn. I myself just prefer the more lighthearted iterations of the mythos, as too much darkness actually isn't all that realistic. Batman's always struck me as a man who spends way to much time suffering from depression, rather than someone like Spider-Man, who looks like he's actually dealing with his.

Still, there's this:

The problem with DC characters, in the context of transplanting to Marvel, is exactly that - they try to be symbols. Marvel's always taken pride in it's heroes having realistic flaws and motivations, rather than donning capes For Great Justice. Compared to that, the desire to be a symbol is no more a human motivation, than the desire to mate is a feeling. Batman's rather rigid symbolic relationships between him, his allies and his foes, would simply look out of place against the fluid and deeply personal conflicts between the Marvel cast.

Personally, I think it's The Flash who'd make a great Marvel character, as him and the Rogues are pretty similar in terms of connection to how, say, Spider-Man relates to his more neutral foes like the Lizard or Kraven, or even Venom on a rare good day. It's the utter, unending opposition between guys like Batman and Ra's al Ghul or Superman and Lex Luthor that drives me away from seeing them as people, rather than self-propelled symbolic plot devices. Seriously, guys, make like Deathstroke and Beast Boy, go to a pub, and talk things through. Poor Communication Kills, you know.

edited 29th Jul '13 5:03:50 AM by indiana404

I did not expect this on the internet. You're a pretty cool guy.

There's a golden period in Bruce's life around when he's forming the Batfamily. It features some of the more lighthearted moments of straight up heroism where he's starting to get over his losses by forming new relationships with like minded kids.

It's unfortunately relatively short lived by each subsequent tragedy (falling out with Dick, death of Jason etc) but I think it works with the overall arc of the character. And he does eventually deal with his suffering, it's just in elseworlds like TDKR or Kingdom Come and adaptations like Dark Knight Rises or the DCAU since he can't really deal with his pain without giving up being Batman and boy DC aren't going to let that happen to their golden boy. Same reason I guess Peter Parker is always going to suffer on some level even if he finds a way to deal with it.

On topic: I think Booster Gold and Ted Kord would fit perfectly in Marvel, as well as Buddy Baker. I haven't really read many Marvel characters who could be seen as similar to a traditional DC hero. Spiderman comes close but, as indiana404 points out, he's not really striving to be anything more than a guy trying to do what's right even if he has an unwavering sense of idealism in spite of all the shit he goes through. I haven't read enough Captain America to decide on him though he sounds like it and I'm keen to trawl through his backlog (his Marvel Now series is pretty sweet).

Marvel comics have always presented a more cynical place than their Detective counterparts, all the way back to Marvel Comics #1, which introduced us to Namor the Submariner. You know one of his earliest motivations was the destruction of the city he was raised in, New York, and he was presented as their main hero (he was willing to spare the babies at least).

Even in the goofy Silver Age it threw the misanthropic Incredible Hulk at us, an unreasonable, flip flopping immature rage monster and he was usually one of the more sympathetic ones (in his own books, others had no problem showing him as a villain)

Their teenybopper series X-men turned into a depressing commentary piece, if not on society, then at least of how society existed in Marvel world, (in hindsight their random space adventures do not seem so random, I'd want to get away from Earth too), with liberal hearings of power incontinence. Even Generation, which was supposed to be a return to form, centered around a family squabble over control, torture and a walking, hissing soul prison that involuntarily shredded everything it touched.

Oh The Fantastic Four's greatest triumph, over Galactus? Well don't over do it because even though he regularly makes entire biospheres go extinct we need him around because he holds back an archon that will do the same on a larger scale.

And while much has been said of Marvel's poster boy, Spider-man, one must remember it actually has two(three?) poster boys, the other(s) being Wolverine(and Deadpool), a violent, antisocial, beer drinking nonbather with a napolean complex and about of amnesia caused by horrific experimentation upon his body to enhance his fighting ability (an insane professional assassin whose body is locked in a never ending war with cancer).

For Batman being a "Marvel" character, I guess it has to do with the fact Gotham is often treated as a place so bad it is not officially recognized as part of the United States and that for however idealized Bruce may be it is very easy to make him seem disturbed or lacking in sanity despite it. He exists in a setting as cynical as any Marvel ever cooked up and could easily inspire as much mistrust and hostility as Marvel characters usually do without much changing.

Despite being chronically broke, Spider-man uses his amazing powers to patrol the streets rather than get ahead in life. Wouldn't Batman, with his lack of powers and enormous wealth, be a great foil to him.

Daredevil's art and stories tend to be pretty gritty crime dramas and Charles Atlas martial arts showcases. Batman does gritty crime fighting well and knows martial arts lets cross them over.

Wolverine's a gruff, antisocial and often a loner (despite X-men being a team book and all). Lets put him in a story with Batman, who is gruff and kind of a loner (despite Robin). Better yet, include Robin and Shadow Cat/Jubilee.

Batman and Captain America are both great strategists and athletes. Let's pair and contrast them. For that matter so is The Punisher, how would he and Batman handle each other?

Yeah, he's definitely a DC character. He does not kill like Wolverine or Punisher, he does not even have the history of it that Captain America does. His life does not suck as much as Spider-man's, Daredevil's or even Iron man's. But he's a DC character who can work in Marvel without many changes.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

That pretty much sums up every reason why I sometimes think Batman could be a Marvel character.

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.