A quick warning before I present my arguments: I do not read comic book. Therefore, all of my arguments are based on film adaptions and what knowledge I have gained over the years.
Recently we spent an entire class period discussing who our favorite superheroes are. I found this discussion to be quite interesting. From the time I was little my answer to that question has been the same: Superman. I realized that not everyone held Superman in the same regard as I did, but it was a little surprising to see just how much of our class found Batman to be the superior choice. Attempting to argue the virtues of Superman without resorting to the old “He is the best because he is the best. Duh.” argument made me consider just what it is that makes Superman my hero.
One of the arguments raised against Superman was that he is too perfect, too static, too boring. I do not think this is true. While Superman may not be the conflicted individual that Batman is, he has the ability to do wrong. However, Superman has a moral code that he has chosen to uphold. Superman sees wrong doings being committed in Metropolis and attempts to stop them. Having the powers that he does, he often succeeds in thwarting the villains. I do not think this makes Superman boring. He is what people should strive to be. Do what is right, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Superman falls into the camp of Immanuel Kant. Kant’s categorical imperative says that if an action can be considered wrong by itself, it is always wrong. In other words, circumstances do not matter only the action does. Superman tries to always do what is right. Superman agrees with Kant that killing is wrong and therefore it must never happen. This is why he swore to never take a human life. While I do not necessarily agree whole heartedly with Kant, I envy the simplicity of the categorical imperative. One of the reasons I love Superman is because he embodies this simplistic “do no wrong” lifestyle.
There are countless movies today that contain a protagonist troubled by inner demons. Batman falls into this category. Many in the class claimed that this made Batman more interesting than Superman and therefore the better superhero. I argue the reverse: it is Superman’s perfection that makes him the more interesting hero. He is so different from the usual protagonist that it is fascinating to watch him. Superhero movies provide an escape from the world. There is evil everywhere and it is nice for a time to pretend some being greater than ourselves can swoop in to save the day. Batman does not provide this sanctuary and Superman does.
People need superheroes in the same way they need God. There is so much evil in the world, so much greed and ager, so much pain and suffering that we need a higher being to believe in. Someone who knows more than the rest of us. That can save us when it seems there can be no salvation. In this regard, Superman is far ahead of Batman. Superman embodies everything it means to be a superhero, and that is the reason I love him.
Is superman the best superhero?
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that if Superman and Batman were in a fight my money would be on superman. Does this make him the best superhero? Maybe, but he is definitely not the most enthralling of a character. Your point about superman’s moral code, whilst batman is just a conflicted individual is only half right Batman has the same moral code even while though he does have a troubled past. This makes his character more relatable to the average person and therefore more well liked. Thwarting villains is not the only necessary component of a superhero. Batman also follows the same categorical imperative as superman; he will not take a life even if it causes injury to himself to avoid it. As seen it the clip attached. This makes his Character more interesting because he actually has something to lose as opposed to the Man of Steel who can fly up to the villains without fear of any repercussions to his actions. Other then being impervious to bullets and being able to fly/move faster then a speeding bullet they are very similar characters. Both are orphans with the moral absolutions, not to kill, but lying in order to protect your identify is allowed. Contemportary deontology argues that Principle of permissible Harm, which states that one may harm in order to save more if that harm is for the greater good. This applies more to Batman as superman can be much cleaner in his heroics as he has such a superhuman advantage over his opponents. So having such similar back stories the ordinary character with the high tech gadgets and daily struggle to protect his city is the more interesting character, no matter what you define as the best superhero.
While superman and Batman might have similar Box office numbers it is irrefutable that the Dark knight is the most popular by far
Batman Begins
Budget:$150,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend:$48,745,440 (USA) (19 June 2005) (3858 Screens)
Gross:$371,853,783 (Worldwide
Superman
Box OfficeBudget: $209,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend: $52,535,096 (USA) (2 July 2006) (4065 Screens)
Gross: $391,081,192 (Worldwide)
The Dark Knight
Box OfficeBudget: $185,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend: $158,411,483 (USA) (20 July 2008) (4366 Screens)
Gross: $1,001,921,825 (worldwide) (1 December 2010)
I have a response to both of your main points: that Superman and Batman have the same moral codes and the use of box office numbers to prove Batman is more liked.
DeleteFirst, I do not believe that Superman and Batman have the same moral code. I yield the point that in the new movies Batman will not kill. However, if you look at the 1989 version of Batman with Michael Keaton, Batman drops Jack Napier into a vat of toxic chemicals.
http://youtu.be/33JK0zOtJOk
Now you could argue that Batman does not purposefully kill Napier, but he does. Batman does catch Napier when he falls off the catwalk. However, after Napier lets go of the bar he was holding, Batman lets go as well. Batman could have reached down with his other hand and saved Napier. You said that "[Batman] will not take a life even if it causes injury ti himself to avoid it." The scene above discredits this argument as there is much more Batman could have done in this situation.
Even if it is assumed that both Batman and Superman refuse to take a life no matter the cost, this does not mean they have the same moral code. The decision to kill or not is not the only content of a moral code. Almost every action taken reflects the moral code of the person performing it. Batman is always tiptoeing the line between hero and vigilante. This is why people think he is more interesting than Superman, who is sure of where he stands. The clip below is a wonderful example of this. Harvey says that "you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." No one who straddles the line between hero and vigilante will stay a hero forever. As Batman falls into this category, he cannot be the best superhero.
http://youtu.be/UfcemNhlqyA
As for the box office numbers, I am not sure it is fair to compare the these three movies. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, as well as The Dark Knight Rises, are a reboot of the Batman character. The story was updated for the time and interests of current audiences. Superman Returns, on the other hand, was a continuation of the original Superman movies from the late 70's/early 80's. The new Superman movie, Man of Steel, is written by one of the writers of the Batman movies. It is intended to be a revival of the Superman character. Consequently, it would place the competition on more level footing if this movie were compared to the Batman films.
Your first point is voided out by the fact that Jack Naper is not actually killed in the scene you depicted so therefore there is no point to argue. Batman tried to save him from falling into the vat of chemicals but it is quite a feat to pull a 200+ man up by just his arm, remember Batman is not super strong like Superman he is just a regular guy so if the joker was not trying to be pulled up this is not Batman’s fault that he fell. My original point is still valid and your counterpoint has no ground to stand on as first batman tried to save him again Kant says that it is the intention that matters not the outcome, and secondly he was not killed in the scene.
DeleteYour second point about either dying a hero or living long enough to watch yourself become the villain applies equally to all superheroes; it was also added as foreshadowing to what happens to Harvey. So how does this further your point? It seems like a counterintuitive argument as Batman is more likely to die so therefore it is more likely that he will die a hero rather than live to become a villain. Superman has already been the villain when exposed to red kryptonite, but as far as I know Batman has never been the villain, just a vigilante. Also vigilante is defined as a self appointed doer of justice, so I don’t see how superman does not fall into this category.
As for the Box office numbers they were meant in jest but the Dark Knight Rises and The Man of Steel will be on a much more level footing so we can see when the data comes in for that.
Sorry almost forgot the video clip
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oX6CMc4v7I&feature=endscreen&NR=1
This is a nice debate that brings in Kant's categorical imperative. I like Veronica's statement: "While I do not necessarily agree whole heartedly with Kant, I envy the simplicity of the categorical imperative. One of the reasons I love Superman is because he embodies this simplistic “do no wrong” lifestyle."
ReplyDeleteHaving such a code of ethics does seem to make things black and white--thus the "flat" nature of Superman's choices seems to be a debatable point in opting for Batman--a superhero embodies the complexities of moral choices in a contemporary age where the drama rests in asking ourselves if the ends justify the means--a point nicely stated by amalyzing Batman as part superhero and part vigilante.