Weekly Standard Tackles the Great Debate of Our Time: Spider-Man vs. Batman

[Lars C]

Nah. Denny O'Neill and Neal Adams did wonders with the caped crusader. And Spidey has kinda list his way more recently.

[Confuzzled Mutie]

Nah. Denny O'Neill and Neal Adams did wonders with the caped crusader. And Spidey has kinda list his way more recently.

Oh yeah, totally forgot that Ra's and Talia came in the 70s'. I also really need to read "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" and "No Hope in Crime Alley". Though it is to be noted that most of the early notable Batman stories came soon after "The Night Gwen Stacy Died" sent ripples across the comic medium.

Also, DC keeps rebooting to help streamline its comics like Batman. Before NOW!, Marvel did not bother as they were better organized(And NOW! is more of an answer to the New 52 than a relaunch for streamline sake). I don't think Spidey has lost his way, but OMD was a humongous obstacle in his path of progress. I still wish he overcomes it in the near future and swings full steam ahead stronger than ever before.

[Mister Mets]

Well Bruce Wayne would never let one of his most dangerous foes mind swap him and die in his enemy's broken down body and allow his foe to enjoy his body/life

Yeah, but he died to save Clayface in "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?"

[Lars C]

Oh yeah, totally forgot that Ra's and Talia came in the 70s'. I also really need to read "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" and "No Hope in Crime Alley". Though it is to be noted that most of the early notable Batman stories came soon after "The Night Gwen Stacy Died" sent ripples across the comic medium.

Also, DC keeps rebooting to help streamline its comics like Batman. Before NOW!, Marvel did not bother as they were better organized(And NOW! is more of an answer to the New 52 than a relaunch for streamline sake). I don't think Spidey has lost his way, but OMD was a humongous obstacle in his path of progress. I still wish he overcomes it in the near future and swings full steam ahead stronger than ever before.

I think reboots now and then is a good thing - it keeps the characters fresh. Marvel mostly just let's the stories go, for good and bad, "evolving" characters. But sometimes it's hard to see what separates Spidey from the rest of the heroes, these days.

[Confuzzled Mutie]

I think reboots now and then is a good thing - it keeps the characters fresh. Marvel mostly just let's the stories go, for good and bad, "evolving" characters. But sometimes it's hard to see what separates Spidey from the rest of the heroes, these days.

But DC in a bid to be "overtly edgy" just loses ALL control over its characters. Which is why "reboot" is the only way to get them out of the mess they find themselves in. As for Pete, he is still the only lead superhero in comics who has aged from naive young high schooler teen to idealistic college goer to responsible family/working man. And when written properly, no other hero rivals Peter's thirst to better himself as an individual and skilled superhero. Marvel shouldn't have hampered the character's progression as gaining experience is key to his character. Oh well.

[Xenon]

So......that was a lot deeper than I expected. Kinda academic.

One thing I think people here are misunderstanding is that it's not that he's saying Batman is irresponsible, he's simply talking about the difference between the core ethos of the characters. His argument is that Spider-Man's philosophy is one of individual responsibility, meaning each person, superhero or not, is accountable for their own actions. He webs them up and leaves them for the cops, the representation of order and justice, to face the consequences of the crime they tried to commit. he doesn't try to change the world or address systematic flaws or look at why the thief stole in the first place, he just see them do a bad thing and punishes them accordingly, or rather, delivers them to the authorities for punishment. Batman, by contrast, seeks to change and control the world so as to prevent crime. His goal is to institute systematic change of his world, his city, so that crime simply doesn't happen. It's why he seeks to drive terror intothe heart of the criminal. It's why he funds city rejuvenation projects. It's why his villains get sent to an asylum rather than jail. Because attempting to fix or correct the attitudes of an individual is n attempt to have control.

Essentially, what he's arguing is that Spider-Man and Batman approach the problem from two radically different perspectives. Spider-Man takes the micro approach, dealing with each individual problem, while Batman takes the macro approach, attempting to fix the system that he beleives creates those problems.

I've always kind of gone back and forth on this one.

But as long as Batman doesn't hand over the Bat-cave to the Joker and asks him to take good care of Dick, Damian and Alfred...it's looking pretty good for Batman in 2013.

Amen to that.

The writer also makes the essential mistake, I think, of believing Bruce Wayne is not trying to become a better man.

That's not really the point, I think. It's not that Bruce isn't trying to be a better man, it's that him being a better man isn't his central motivating factor. It's irrelevant to his core ethos of fighting CRIME as a whole.

[Xenon]

The link below provides a really awesome comparison of the characters. Some of you might have read it before. It's really good.

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/0...cter-ever-yes/

That is quite amazing, actually, and hits some similar points. Definitely worth a read.

[Lars C]

So......that was a lot deeper than I expected. Kinda academic.

One thing I think people here are misunderstanding is that it's not that he's saying Batman is irresponsible, he's simply talking about the difference between the core ethos of the characters. His argument is that Spider-Man's philosophy is one of individual responsibility, meaning each person, superhero or not, is accountable for their own actions. He webs them up and leaves them for the cops, the representation of order and justice, to face the consequences of the crime they tried to commit. he doesn't try to change the world or address systematic flaws or look at why the thief stole in the first place, he just see them do a bad thing and punishes them accordingly, or rather, delivers them to the authorities for punishment. Batman, by contrast, seeks to change and control the world so as to prevent crime. His goal is to institute systematic change of his world, his city, so that crime simply doesn't happen. It's why he seeks to drive terror intothe heart of the criminal. It's why he funds city rejuvenation projects. It's why his villains get sent to an asylum rather than jail. Because attempting to fix or correct the attitudes of an individual is n attempt to have control.

Essentially, what he's arguing is that Spider-Man and Batman approach the problem from two radically different perspectives. Spider-Man takes the micro approach, dealing with each individual problem, while Batman takes the macro approach, attempting to fix the system that he beleives creates those problems.



Amen to that.



That's not really the point, I think. It's not that Bruce isn't trying to be a better man, it's that him being a better man isn't his central motivating factor. It's irrelevant to his core ethos of fighting CRIME as a whole.

I think Bruce kind of sees himself as lost, but he would never want to see what happened to him happen to another. That's what he's dedicated his life to, and that's very noble. Putting the needs of the people of Gotham before himself. In that regard he's as good man as can be.

[Meehaul]

I think what has been missing from Spidey for some time is a philisophical grounding--that's part of what made the character so interesting from the beginning. Much of what makes folks like Moore or Morrison such fun reads is that there is always something deeper going on in what they write. They're really playing with ideas and forms. Stan and Steve (in particular) gave the character a philosophical mooring that made him interesting--something fairly unique at the time. It's that ground that makes me dislike things like the marriage--especially to MJ--or his membership in the Avengers, or his acquisition of wealth. For Slott truly to do memorable things, he needs not to improve his writing or plotting, he needs to consider the philosophical stance from which he writes. And, inho, he needs to read the Brevort manifesto daily. AF 15 and ASM 1-38 truly are, at least for me, the Spider-Bible.

[Confuzzled Mutie]

I think what has been missing from Spidey for some time is a philisophical grounding--that's part of what made the character so interesting from the beginning. Much of what makes folks like Moore or Morrison such fun reads is that there is always something deeper going on in what they write. They're really playing with ideas and forms. Stan and Steve (in particular) gave the character a philosophical mooring that made him interesting--something fairly unique at the time. It's that ground that makes me dislike things like the marriage--especially to MJ--or his membership in the Avengers, or his acquisition of wealth. For Slott truly to do memorable things, he needs not to improve his writing or plotting, he needs to consider the philosophical stance from which he writes. And, inho, he needs to read the Brevort manifesto daily. AF 15 and ASM 1-38 truly are, at least for me, the Spider-Bible.

At its core it is a coming of age tale. And it wasn't the Ditko era but the Lee/Romita years where Spidey peaked in popularity and sales. Mainly because during Romita's run, he and Stan perfectly managed to capture the thrill and hope of the endless possibilities held by the future for the youth. Mary Jane's character best personifies all the appeal and magic of the Lee/Romita years, which is why she is a staple in the modern day Spider-Man universe and will never go away.

People tend to hope for a better and brighter future, rather than relate to a character wallowing in misery. Which is why Romita's more charismatic, successful and capable Peter Parker clicked better than Ditko's stark and pessimistic depiction of the character and his world. And at the end of the day, Marvel is a business and they are going to pick that tone for the series which is the most universal one. And that would be the versatile tone John Romita and Stan Lee set for ASM, not Steve Ditko.

[Scott Taylor]

Er.. "Spider-Man No More"? Spider-Man 2, the movie? "No One Dies"? Also, as the WS article correctly points out, Batman's methods of "looking out" for Gotham borders on tyranny, especially as depicted in the Nolan trilogy.

Batman does it full time. Its his reason for being. Spider-man dabbles in being the savior of the City. Keep in mind there are tons of other heroes in Marvel's New York City. Hardly anyone who isn't a bat family member in Gotham.

[Meehaul]

The Romita era made him a less interesting character. Suddenly, everyone was pretty and popular. Millie the Model became the template for Spidey--with the exception of a small handful of ground-breaking stories (like the Night Gwen Stacy Died). Even Aunt May started to look better. MJ was an awful choice as a girlfriend--largely because she was a copy of a Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark girl. Pete simply became another long-underwear hero-which is why he became more mainstream, more popular, and less interesting. Alan Moore gave an insightful interview on this very topic. The Lee/Ditko version was a game-changer. The Lee/Romita version watered things down considerably.

[Confuzzled Mutie]

The Romita era made him a less interesting character. Suddenly, everyone was pretty and popular. Millie the Model became the template for Spidey--with the exception of a small handful of ground-breaking stories (like the Night Gwen Stacy Died). Even Aunt May started to look better. MJ was an awful choice as a girlfriend--largely because she was a copy of a Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark girl. Pete simply became another long-underwear hero-which is why he became more mainstream, more popular, and less interesting. Alan Moore gave an insightful interview on this very topic. The Lee/Ditko version was a game-changer. The Lee/Romita version watered things down considerably.

To each his own but a coming of age tale basically requires progress and the promise of a brilliant future, which is what the Lee/Romita era provided. And look at the fleshy substance produced from that collaboration and era --> "Spider-Man No More", Harry's drug problems, "Death of Captain Stacy", to name just the most prominent stories.

And if Mary Jane wanted to be a Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark girl she wouldn't have hung around with the aging Aunts May and Anna and May's nerdy nephew and his friends' circle. She was/is a girl with big dreams and aspirations and her fierce sense of independence and dignity sets her apart from the vacuous debutantes trying to get Wayne or Stark's attention. Also, even in the Lee/Romita era, her personality was on fire. A flamboyant showboat like Tony Stark wouldn't really date her as she would take all of the attention in the room away from him, not because of her beauty, but because of her immense charisma and wit. As Gerry Conway once said, Mary Jane Watson was the most interesting female character in comics at the time. Mainly because she was a fresh creation in the post Second Wave of Feminism era, representing the finer aspects of emboldened and confident young women who weren't ashamed of showing off their personality and sexuality.

Also, Alan Moore, seminal genius though he is, is not always a 100% right all of the time. He recently went on a tirade about how flawed American aspirations are because they look up to superheroes. However, I would like to read his views on the Lee/Romita era of ASM. Do you have a link?

[Confuzzled Mutie]

Batman does it full time. Its his reason for being. Spider-man dabbles in being the savior of the City. Keep in mind there are tons of other heroes in Marvel's New York City. Hardly anyone who isn't a bat family member in Gotham.

You can't blame Spidey that NYC is overrun with superheroes these days. Still, he was one of the very first NY superhero in the MU. As for Batman, I agree with the article that he tries to superimpose his own morality and virtues on the people of Gotham. Basically treating all of them as helpless children and encouraging their collective dependency on him as a "big daddy" figure. This was most apparent in the Nolan movies.

At least Spidey is respectful of the abilities of his fellow New Yorkers, referring to himself as only "Friendly Neighborhood".

[Scott Taylor]

You can't blame Spidey that NYC is overrun with superheroes these days. Still, he was one of the very first NY superhero in the MU. As for Batman, I agree with the article that he tries to superimpose his own morality and virtues on the people of Gotham. Basically treating all of them as helpless children and encouraging their collective dependency on him as a "big daddy" figure. This was most apparent in the Nolan movies.

At least Spidey is respectful of the abilities of his fellow New Yorkers, referring to himself as only "Friendly Neighborhood".

Spidey is redundant, thats all I am saying. Its not a flaw against his character. But if he were the only hero guarding New York, I suspect he would take his job a bit more seriously.

And your description of Batman sounds alot more like Bane or Ra's Al Ghul in the Nolan films.