How Did Batman Become DC's Flagship Character?
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on April 29, 2020, 8:02 a.m. by DemonDragonJ
Superman used to be the flagship character for DC Comics, but, in recent years, it seems that Batman has assumed that role, which would not be a problem by itself, but Batman is now so popular that he is eclipsing DC's other characters, and, even worse, DC seems to rely upon him to sell products or otherwise enhance a product's appeal (akin to how Marvel often uses Wolverine simply to increase the popularity of their products), which I feel is very insulting to the other characters and also assigning too much important to Batman. In fact, people have written articles speaking of how Batman is a toxic character due to him overshadowing others and DC's reliance upon him.
I suspect that this popularity may be due to a combination of Batman: the Animated Series and Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, which were amazingly well-written stories and still are very popular to this day.
What does everyone else say about this? How did Batman become DC's flagship character?
ThePerilousRealm says... #3
Because Batman is awesome. One of the best super heroes ever. Ironic because he has no natural "superpowers" beyond the cleverness of his mind and the balance of his bank account (which he can use to defeat anyone or anything).
April 29, 2020 9:09 a.m.
What other options does DC have for a flagship character?
Superman? To quote Badman...He's f*cking white bread. He's boring.
The Flash? Maybe if his live action film hits in the way the first Iron Man movie did. Remember, before that film (and Downey's portrayal) no one cared about Iron Man. He was not a top tier character for Marvel at the time.
Aquaman? He barely rates importance in the Justice League, he sure isn't leading the company as a flagship.
Wonder Woman? Intriguing and possibly the most realistic choice. Alas, despite the number of great female characters, creators, and artists working in comics today, a lot of the fandom is still filled to the brim with toxic masculinity and they'll never allow this. And by allow I literally mean "buy" as they just won't spend the money to support this.
Who else does DC have to push to the forefront and sell their product? Batman, for any/all of his faults, is still the coolest and most bankable product they have.
April 29, 2020 9:26 a.m.
jconeil1988 says... #5
FSims81 they have the Green Arrow, or rather did until the ending of Arrow on the CW, but even then, they pretty much made Arrow into Batman, so, there is that. Batman is Batman.
April 29, 2020 10:16 a.m.
I want to add two points to the above posts:
I think you are doing Batman a disservice by assuming his popularity began with The Animated Series and Nolan's trilogy. One of the keys to Batman's success is his generational appeal. Between 1966 and 1968 there were 120 episodes of the campy--but well-loved--Adam West Batman series, which also spawned films and various spin-offs and crossovers.
Tim Burton's 1989 Batman kicked off pretty much every modern superhero movie trend. It's dark and gritty atmosphere served as the precursor to the modern D.C. film aesthetic; In Burton's ability to perfectly balance action, fun, and being a bit over-the-top one can see the precursor to Marvel's successful formula.
Burton's 1992 Batman Returns was likewise solid, and though the franchise started to go downhill with Batman Forever (and really went in the proverbial toilet with Batman & Robin) those first two films were enough to bring an entire generation into the Batman fold.
Let's also not forget that the fantastic Teen Titans, while not about Batman himself, focused on Robin, a character intrinsically tied with Batman. Batman also got a boon from the excellent Arkham video game series.
To Superman's credit, he also has strong generational appeal, dating back to the days of teleplays on the radio. His character was boosted by two excellent films--Christopher Reeve's Superman and Superman II and a fairly strong portrayal in the D.C. animated universe.
However, while Batman flourished in the late 80s and early 90s, Superman waned. His D.C.A.U. appearance was eclipsed by Batman in the same media. Smallville was a show with a good deal of potential--but potential that was ultimately wasted. 2006's Superman Returns was hot garbage. Man of Steel suffered from Zach Snyder's inability to direct anything other than bland, emotionless slogs.
Where Batman has benefited from a recent string of successful franchises across several different media; Superman has been on a downhill trend.
A hero is only so interesting as its villain, and Batman's rogue gallery is probably the most notable among any superhero.
People who are not too familiar with comics can probably name one or two of Superman's rogues--Lex Luther for sure, and possibly Zod due to Superman II (and even then, probably only by name due to wonderfully cheesy lines like "Kneel before Zod"). That's not to say Superman doesn't have other potentially interesting villains--just that his villains have not made a significant impact in the public psyche.
Compare to Batman. Even those who are not overly familiar with comic books are likely able to identify the Joker, Catwoman, Harley Quinn, and Poison Ivy. Though perhaps not as mainstream, Mr. Freeze, the Penguin, the Riddler, and Two-Face are all quite iconic as well.
TL;DR: In addition to Batman just generally being a cool character with great merchandising potential, Batman has been consistently good for far longer than you're giving him credit for and has a number of interesting supporting characters lending themselves to a franchise model.
April 29, 2020 10:28 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #7
Caerwyn, all of that is very true, but that does not excuse DC relying upon Batman as heavily as they do; as FSims81 mentioned, Marvel took some great risks with making movies of their lesser-known characters (I watched all of their animated series in the 1990's, so I was already familiar with Iron Man, but even I had never heard the Guardians of the Galaxy before their movie), but those risks paid off, and now the general public is familiar with those characters.
Both the Wonder Woman and Aquaman films were, as far as I know, critically and commercially successful, so I feel that those characters are now well-known to the general public, so I hope that that encourages DC to take more risks with experimenting with other characters representing their company and brand.
April 29, 2020 12:35 p.m.
I agree Marvel benefited from using lesser-known heroes. Because their characters were relatively obscure, they had to focus on writing and casting to ensure people would want to visit their films. They got extremely lucky right there at the beginning - hiring a washed up actor with a history of substance abuse and a director whose prior film lost money at the box office was not exactly a safe move, but both Downey and Favreau paid off in spades.
But they didn’t choose to use lesser-known heroes - they were forced to do so. Marvel was financially in trouble in the 90s and sold off the movie rights to every popular character they owned. They even tried to sell off characters like Iron Man and Thor, but no one would buy them.
So, out of necessity and from the bottom of their barrel, they were able to create a media empire of unrivalled success.
D.C. never had that problem—they still had all their popular characters. So, they’ve committed to a formula rife with mediocrity, counting on the weight of their character’s names to sell films. Whether that came at the expense of quality, I am not qualified to say - the only two DCEU films I’ve seen are Man of Steel and Wonder Woman, and both were sufficiently awful that I won’t be revisiting the franchise anytime soon.
April 29, 2020 1:33 p.m.
To start, I really like the character Wonder Woman. After Green Lantern she was my favorite character in the DC Animated universe, and, as someone who studied classics, I have a weakness for anything mythology-adjacent. I really wanted to like the movie, which is why I set aside my distaste of Man of Steel's recalcitrance mediocrity enough to go see WW in theatres opening weekend.
Here's why I did not like it:
-
There were a number of glaring plot holes. Some of these, like Steve's plane being able to survive any inclement weather for a long distance (WWI planes were mostly wood held together with prayer) were resultant from switching the character's origin from WWII to WWI so as not to conflict with Captain America. Others were just sloppy writing, leaving plot holes so large you could drive an entire battleship through them (provided you promptly forgot about the battleship the moment the camera cut away from it).
-
The movie spent the first 90% promoting the message "mankind can be evil in and of itself, without the involvement of the gods." In the last 10% it undermined its entire message by saying "na, the gods were behind it all along."
-
The "twist" at the end--that the British guy was actually the God of War, was telegraphed way too early, so it hardly came as a surprise. This lack of surprise served to further undermine the "mankind can be evil" message of the first 90%, since you knew the film would backpedal on it.
-
I thought Gadot was a mediocre actress, who spent the entire film making the same slightly clueless face. Further, Steve and her had no chemistry, so I did not really believe their relationship. That was made even worse by the incredibly awkward and unnecessary sex scene.
-
The film literally ended with WW walking out of a sunset talking about how love will save us all. That's about the most boring symbolism a filmmaker could use (sunrise = new day = new hope!! get it!) with one of the most basic messages one could use.
-
I had already seen the "super soldier fights against rogue science wing of the German military where the male protagonist sacrifices himself in a plane to stop the superweapon" when it was called Captain America: The First Avenger. WW failed in the comparison--it lacked the charm and humor that makes the Marvel movies successful, instead being bleak, depressing, and ultimately soulless.
Those are the biggest issues I had with the movie. That's not faulting anyone who did like it--I just found it to be an all-around amateur movie that did a dissevers to one of comics' greatest heroes.
April 29, 2020 8:12 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #11
Caerwyn, most of those points are excellent points, but I still feel that the movie's positive traits outweighed its negative traits. However, I do have one question:
Wonder Woman spoilers Show
April 29, 2020 8:25 p.m.
They overplayed the Ludendorff as Ares card, to the point it was obvious he was not Ares. Likewise, they overplayed Morgan's message of peace to the point it was obviously a sham. The fact they kept bringing up Morgan despite his being in a whole different country solidified the fact the character was more important to the story than he otherwise seemed to be. Combining all that together, I found it telegraphed his role as Ares in a rather unexciting manner.
April 29, 2020 9:23 p.m.
WW was severely corny, Watch again in a few years and it won't hold up. Ridiculous cgi Amazon's and contrived Alonso nooooooos! It's pretty rough although well received I guess.
April 29, 2020 10:26 p.m.
Darn autocorrect.. *slowmo nooooooooooos! Though corniness, & bad cgi abound, I enjoyed Shazam for what it was; that is a title they can IMPROVE & can hold water in its' own niche.
As far as lesser known stories I wish they continued: When Martian Manhunter's body was destroyed & his consciousness latched onto Stargirl -that was friggen amazing! OR Jaime Reyes as Blue Beetle... again that RULEd!.
& Batman has been so written to death. Depending on who is writing him he does have a super power: infinite contingency plans, humans are more fallable than this.. even mega genius humans. Depends on the writing though, sometimes there is some Deus Ex Machina storytelling with him, other times it is top notch
April 29, 2020 10:35 p.m.
Batman is the only character in DC that has more than 1 way to solve a problem, making him the most complex character.
When Superman has to solve a problem, he gets a new never-before-seen super power to solve it, like flying around the Earth to reverse time. Being a God that can do anything and everything is not particularly interesting. Restrictions breed creativity.
Aquaman is too limited to water, Flash just runs faster than before to solve all his problems, Wonder Woman is basically a bit more limited, but still akin to Superman.
Batman embodies "restrictions breed creativity" - think of any superhero media - the more restrictions are placed on a character, the more interesting they are. For example, I did not like that the endgame in Endgame involved timetravel - which solves any problem and lowers the stakes into non-existence. However, since travelling back in time did not affect their future at all, I was not bothered by it that much.
Batman is the same - his powerlessness is incredibly limiting, making any time he breaks through it exciting.
April 30, 2020 2:24 a.m.
That's not a super hot take on Superman, but to be fair my take that it all depends on the writing is a copout too... Though true.
Superman IMO just requires more creative writing to pull you in. All Star Superman was quite good, particularly by involving Superman outside of the typical conflict vs evil scenario. Thor isn't incredibly limited but there were GREAT arcs where Thor was simply galavanting around the galaxy. Likewise, Dan Slott's Silver Surfer was awesome, it involved a Godlike being with few limits, but it was an adventure & as much about the character's impact around the universe when grounded by a human companion (sortof a Dr. Who thing). Martian Manhunter fractured into several different supposedly human personas (who sometimes accidentally used their powers). There are great stories to be had for godlike beings too. Blue Beetle was getting sweet with the whole: galactic bounty hunter forced reality television thing, what a story that would have been if they just stuck with it!
Flash's Rogues are a real solid cast of villains.
At times Batman's whole: "I knew you'd do that" does not write off as powerlessness, it almost feels like he has precog perception when it is taken too far. That is actually why I like Bane breaking the back, shows more high-stakes human failing in a character that too often doesn't have the mortal repercussions of truly being human. Also, Batman needs to pay more for OMAC still & not in a way that he just magically foresees because he's Batman.
May 1, 2020 12:26 a.m.
aaron_the_great says... #17
maybe dc saw the popularity of the iron man trilogy and thought of how similar they are and tried to take of with that
May 27, 2020 9:36 a.m.
aaron_the_great - Iron Man came out in 2008. That‘s the same year as The Dark Knight; three years after Batman Begins; and nineteen years after Burton’s Batman. It is also well after Batman kicked off the animated series in 1992, which he continued to be a flagship character in until the animated universe ended in 2006.
The first of the Modern Batman films was released in response to Marvel’s sudden success with superhero movies - the first two films of the original X-Men trilogy (2000 and 2003) as well as the first two films of Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy (2002 and 2004). Marvel proved Superhero movies could still be successful after Batman and Robin.
So, while Marvel films can explain why Batman was again brought back, that doesn’t answer the question of why Batman was chosen specifically. And Iron Man simply has nothing to do with Batman’s flagship position or the return of Batman - it came temporally after both events.
Gleeock says... #2
Agreed. Also, for a dark detective who is supposed to be steeped in mystery; the oversaturation tends to undermine that aspect of the character. Really, he shouldn't team up as much either, he should basically make infrequent sudden appearances in other stories with some cool gadgets then disappear as mysteriously as he came. Oversaturation & involvement with the DC 'greater powers' has also, at times, caused him to seemingly have the power of endless contingency plans, which is not a very human trait for a human character. It is quite difficult though for DC to turn over a new leaf, really this is mostly true for all major titles - Marvel had a brief run at fresh, but to do this they need writing & title consistency with frequent high-end stories...This doesn't usually happen & as soon as there is a delay or poor single, they usually pull the plug.
April 29, 2020 8:51 a.m.