What does Batman do better that Spider-Man lacks character wise?

[okpanic]

Er, no.
Acutally most of the time it is about his intelligence.

Um, er, er, um
Looks like "most of the time" doesn't cover this thread, as you just need to refer to a majority of the pro-Batman posts in this thread to see my point fortified.

[Spidey_Legend]

Batman managed to endure Jason Todd's uprising rage
Spider-Man couldn't stand sitting with Frog Man, Ollie Osnick, or any of the kids he encountered, he wasn't even good with the Young Avengers in his one day as a teacherspoilers:

Waiting for Alan2099 or anyone else to defend Spider-Man and counter my poorly thought post

end of spoilers

He didn't have any problems with Anya in Araña - Heart of a Spider #04. In fact, he was really supportable and like an older brother figure to her.

[Sillia]

I think it's because Batman offers more in terms of being an indulgent fantasy than Spider-man does. I don't just mean the extent of his power, but also the things he can do. He's rich. He's got his own code, but he never has to listen to anyone. He isn't beholden to anyone's rules but his own. He's generally successful at anything he does. He does things that give other heroes pause.

Basically, he can do whatever he wants and still be revered as a hero. Other heroes can't, for a variety of reasons. Maybe their personal code won't allow it (Superman), or their circumstances won't allow it (Spider-Man). The closest person I can think of in terms of do whatever you want and still be a hero would be Wolverine... and I don't really think it's a surprise that that they both share similar levels of popularity.

[Spidey_Legend]

Some people thinks Batman is better because he is rich and a playboy which is a lot of people fantasy. Bruce Wayne as a character doesn't have any more. Batma, on the other hand, is a little better than his civilian counterpart.

[Shadow Skill]

I think it's because Batman offers more in terms of being an indulgent fantasy than Spider-man does. I don't just mean the extent of his power, but also the things he can do. He's rich. He's got his own code, but he never has to listen to anyone. He isn't beholden to anyone's rules but his own. He's generally successful at anything he does. He does things that give other heroes pause.

Basically, he can do whatever he wants and still be revered as a hero. Other heroes can't, for a variety of reasons. Maybe their personal code won't allow it (Superman), or their circumstances won't allow it (Spider-Man). The closest person I can think of in terms of do whatever you want and still be a hero would be Wolverine... and I don't really think it's a surprise that that they both share similar levels of popularity.

This, also add Deadpool and Hercules on that list of indulgent fantasies based on how popular they are now.

[LunarMoon]

I think that in general, Marvel has a much better grasp of the characters behind the mask. DC has these idealized people that I don't care about. I could care less who Superman or Batman is in their secret identity, same goes with Green Lantern or the Flash. I don't care if it's Hal Jordan or Kyle Rayner, or Wally West or Barry Allen, and most certainly if it's Bruce Wayne or Dick Grayson behind those masks.

When it comes to Marvel, I simply can't imagine anyone besides Tony Stark being Iron Man and Peter Parker being Spider-Man. Is it preference? I dunno, I just don't really find myself caring much for Bruce Wayne as a character, seems wooden and boring. On the other hand, I care about Peter Parker's life. He's a flawed character that feels more real to me. The main thing that makes the difference to me, is his supporting cast of characters. They flesh out Peter's story and makes his world feel like it's worth caring about.

This is one of those things that may have been true 50 years ago, during the Silver Age, but that really doesn't hold much water now. If this is truly your sentiment, then you're probably the first person I've run into with no preference between the likes of Guy Gardner or Hal Jordan as the main Green Lanterns. They're extremely different characters, even more so if you try comparing someone like Guy to straight-laced individual like John Stewart. You can call Guy many things but "idealized" isn't one of them.

As for Batman, he arguably has the best supporting casts between both DC and Marvel: Nightwing, Red Hood, Damian Wayne. Every Robin has their own little fanbase, and pretty much all of them could, and have, carried a book on their own. Ditto with the Batgirls. Spiderman’s support characters don’t even compare, here. X-Men, Green Lantern, Superman, and The Flash come to mind when I think of franchises with really good support characters. DC has the one up here, since they tend to focus upon “Families.”

If I had to provide a summary of the topic’s query, I’d say that Batman has a better supporting cast, along with a better rogue’s gallery: Mr. Freeze, The Joker, Two Face, even The Penguin. Arkham City did a great job of really showcasing how colorful Batman’s rogue gallery is. Psychologically, I’d say they’re equal. Peter may be more of an everyman, but things like The Killing Joke, The Dark Knight Returns, Mask of the Phantasm, and A Serious House on Serious Earth were essentially Batman’s character studies.

Even Spider-Man hasn’t really had a definitive, character defining, work like the above list, but many writers have found the whole “Batman is as crazy as the villains he fights” angle to be an intriguing one to sketch from since the Dark Knight Returns was released. As two-dimensional as many people in this topic would claim him to be, writers love to psychoanalyze and take apart Batman (“little boy in a playsuit crying for mommy and daddy”).

[okpanic]

Au contraire, there's Kraven's Last Hunt, The Night Gwen Stacy Died, The Death of Jean DeWolff, Spider-Man: Blue, If This Be My Destiny/The Master Planner saga, Spider-Man No More... maybe even the recent No One Dies...

As for Batman, he arguably has the best supporting casts between both DC and Marvel: Nightwing, Red Hood, Damian Wayne. Every Robin has their own little fanbase, and pretty much all of them could, and have, carried a book on their own.

This is a pretty skewed outlook that seems to focus on something in particular - that all the Bat characters you've mentioned also all happen to be superheroes themselves.
Meanwhile, not every superhero has a supporting cast that is a vigilante, especially Spider-Man.
His supporting cast (Mary Jane, Harry Osbourne, Aunt May, J Jonah Jameson, Robbie Robertson, Betty Brant) are classic characters, but they're not comparable because they can't spin webs or are fantastical enough to get their own solo series? I don't think you need to be a sideshow circus act to be a valid supporting character.

[LunarMoon]

This is a pretty skewed outlook that seems to focus on something in particular - that all the Bat characters you've mentioned also all happen to be superheroes themselves.
Meanwhile, not every superhero has a supporting cast that is a vigilante, especially Spider-Man.
His supporting cast (Mary Jane, Harry Osbourne, Aunt May, J Jonah Jameson, Robbie Robertson, Betty Brant) are classic characters, but they're not comparable because they can't spin webs or are fantastical enough to get their own solo series? I don't think you need to be a sideshow circus act to be a valid supporting character.

Being the main character of your own book does a lot for your characterization. In a superhero comic, unless you are a vigilante, it's difficult to get that kind of benefit. In addition, someone like Jameson would have to be written in a more multifaceted manner to be able to carry his own book; very few side characters, throughout fiction, are capable of doing so, which is why someone like Dr. Doom is one of the few villains that I know of who I can see pulling it off. Every one of the Robins are capable of pulling it off.

[RichSummers]

I love Batman, but he's not even the best character in his own Bat family. I find Babs, Dick, Tim(old DCU) and Damian far more interesting. I enjoy Pete's characterization much the same way I enjoy Dick or Tim. They tend to be infallible and optimistic to a fault (for the most part).

[Randumbz]

This is one of those things that may have been true 50 years ago, during the Silver Age, but that really doesn't hold much water now. If this is truly your sentiment, then you're probably the first person I've run into with no preference between the likes of Guy Gardner or Hal Jordan as the main Green Lanterns. They're extremely different characters, even more so if you try comparing someone like Guy to straight-laced individual like John Stewart. You can call Guy many things but "idealized" isn't one of them.

As for Batman, he arguably has the best supporting casts between both DC and Marvel: Nightwing, Red Hood, Damian Wayne. Every Robin has their own little fanbase, and pretty much all of them could, and have, carried a book on their own. Ditto with the Batgirls. Spiderman’s support characters don’t even compare, here. X-Men, Green Lantern, Superman, and The Flash come to mind when I think of franchises with really good support characters. DC has the one up here, since they tend to focus upon “Families.”

If I had to provide a summary of the topic’s query, I’d say that Batman has a better supporting cast, along with a better rogue’s gallery: Mr. Freeze, The Joker, Two Face, even The Penguin. Arkham City did a great job of really showcasing how colorful Batman’s rogue gallery is. Psychologically, I’d say they’re equal. Peter may be more of an everyman, but things like The Killing Joke, The Dark Knight Returns, Mask of the Phantasm, and A Serious House on Serious Earth were essentially Batman’s character studies.

Even Spider-Man hasn’t really had a definitive, character defining, work like the above list, but many writers have found the whole “Batman is as crazy as the villains he fights” angle to be an intriguing one to sketch from since the Dark Knight Returns was released. As two-dimensional as many people in this topic would claim him to be, writers love to psychoanalyze and take apart Batman (“little boy in a playsuit crying for mommy and daddy”).

The killing joke and the dark knight returns were both extremely awful. Batman may have interesting supporting characters, but he himself isn't really that interesting

[Optimus]

I think that in general, Marvel has a much better grasp of the characters behind the mask. DC has these idealized people that I don't care about. I could care less who Superman or Batman is in their secret identity, same goes with Green Lantern or the Flash. I don't care if it's Hal Jordan or Kyle Rayner, or Wally West or Barry Allen, and most certainly if it's Bruce Wayne or Dick Grayson behind those masks.

When it comes to Marvel, I simply can't imagine anyone besides Tony Stark being Iron Man and Peter Parker being Spider-Man. Is it preference? I dunno, I just don't really find myself caring much for Bruce Wayne as a character, seems wooden and boring. On the other hand, I care about Peter Parker's life. He's a flawed character that feels more real to me. The main thing that makes the difference to me, is his supporting cast of characters. They flesh out Peter's story and makes his world feel like it's worth caring about.

It's an interesting way of looking at things. I have felt for a long time that Marvel is much worse at replacing their characters than DC is. Wally replaced Barry and people love Wally. Kyle replaced Hal, I really liked Kyle. Marvel made weird decsions like replacing Peter with a clone of himself and replacing Tony with an alternate young Tony from the future. Or whatever, those were dark days for Iron Man and I really wasn't paying attention.

But is it really just that Marvel makes bad choices, or that their characters are inherently harder to replace? I still lean toward the former, but this is an interesting argument for the latter.

[LunarMoon]

It's an interesting way of looking at things. I have felt for a long time that Marvel is much worse at replacing their characters than DC is. Wally replaced Barry and people love Wally. Kyle replaced Hal, I really liked Kyle. Marvel made weird decsions like replacing Peter with a clone of himself and replacing Tony with an alternate young Tony from the future. Or whatever, those were dark days for Iron Man and I really wasn't paying attention.

But is it really just that Marvel makes bad choices, or that their characters are inherently harder to replace? I still lean toward the former, but this is an interesting argument for the latter.

Most of the characters that DC replaces their mainstays with are the ones that have been around for years. That's always been my theory on why people accepted Wally West (Kid Flash to The Flash) and Dick Grayson (Robin to Batman) better than they did Miles Morale. People already loved Dick, which is probably why his Batman run was so well accepted. And Green Lantern was just selling poorly, all around, when Hal Jordan was replaced. Meanwhile, you get a guy like Jason Todd to replace a beloved character like Dick Grayson, and people hated him for it. So, DC went back to the drawing board and had Dick okay the tenure of the new Robin, Tim Drake, so that he'd be more accepted in the fanbase; this ended up working. Bendis tried something similar in Spider-Men, most likely for the same reason.

[Shadow Skill]

http://www.boomtron.com/2011/07/bada...e-week-batman/

I guess this helps establish alot of points that Bats has over webhead.

You know I never got why Spidey or Ironman didn't make Ben tompsons most badass of the week list on his site.

Even Deadpool is on there. And he gets his ass kicked by Spidey more than any other hero he fights.

[Russ840]

To start ill say that I love batman and to me is second only to spider-man. But character wise he is a dull miserable boring twat lol

Just my opinion and how I see him. Still love the character but I think I love him because of everything else that makes him and his world i.e Villians and supporting cast

I love spiderman for just him. I love the rest as well but when I read spidey I am more interested in him than anything else where as with Bats it takes the whole picture for me to really enjoy it. Which is fine

I don't think there is anything bet about batman than spiderman at all character wise. Once again, just my opinion though.

[tigerkaya]

Why is it that every thread involving to compare Spider-man to different heroes is Batman.
I never saw the two as alike. Batman comics are primarily on him as Batman while the Bruce identity is just a facade. I know they have great rogues but Spidey's rogues are tame compared to Batman's who have descended to monsters. I always saw Spider-Man more similar to Flash. Both seem are more grounded and their rogues have some humanity. Thats my opinion on it anyway.