OK, now not everyone's going to agree with me here - in fact most of you won't. So be it.
People are always going off about Superman being boring because he's so powerful that there's no tension to his stories. Then, in 99% percent of these rants, the first comparison is to Batman, that he's more "relatable" because he's a non-superhuman being in danger.
I have a few problems with this particular comparison.
First off, is there really that much more tension in any given Batman story? I'm not even going to the meta-level here in the sense of "Warner Brothers and DC comics will not kill their cash cow" either. Batman, as a character, is usually so hyper-competent, so well-prepared, that nearly any threat he faces has little to no chance of more than temporary success. You don't see a lot of stories where Batman is continuously rocked back and manages to barely eke out a victory. What you usually see is Batman temporarily mystified or setback, to be followed by a turnabout caused by his impressive intellect and a victory. A few stylistic and genre tics aside, isn't that the exact same format as most Superman stories?
Then there's the relatability arguement. Clark Kent was a kid who found out he could do something amazing, and tries to balance using his talents to the utmost to help others while trying to maintain some semblance of a life for himself. Bruce Wayne is a billionaire who lives in a mansion, and could live a life of luxury if it wasn't for the fact that an early childhood trauma drove him to develop a level of focus that is frankly inhuman. He's honed his body and mind to the absolute limit of performance, giving up luxury (except for the apperance of such - but at what point is the appearance of luxury actually a luxury?). He's directed his talents towards a very specific, narrow goal (the elimination of crime - mostly in terms of street/violent/urban crime) with very specific tactics and strategies and weapons. I'm not even sure where to begin relating to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment