STAS vs BTAS/TNBA which is the better show?

[BWDK]

Overall I think that the Batman series is better, but what I like about the Superman show is that it started from the beginning (Last SOK) and ended in an awesome finale (Legacy), I really missed something like that in BTAS/TNBA. What I disliked about Superman TAS were all those Superhero cameos, they should have focused more on Luthor or Darkseid instead of introducing a bunch of other Superheroes. Overall STAS should have been a bit more darker (like in Brave New Metropolis) that would have rocked :)

[The New Batman]

I like Batman the Animated Series the best. I didn't really like too many of the Superman cartoons. The only Superman cartoons I really liked was the Aquaman episode and the first GL episode. I really didn't care for the rest.

[Joker85]

Hands down BTAS!! STAS is good, don't get me wrong, but BTAS is much better!! :)

[The Game]

I hands down go with B:TAS, but then again I'm biased because I've always been a huge Batman fan and never Superman so much. But Batman:TAS was also the original, and feels more authentic, and was toatally cool when it first aired.

[Karkull]

I liked both shows--A LOT--but, frankly, the Batman shows owed a lot to the comics before them. It was [slightly] less of a challenge--the main character was cut from the ever-popular tragic hero mold, there was over fifty years of celebrated comic book lore to draw from, and there was literally a gallery of popular/interesting villains to draw from. Creating a Batman television show was not that difficult (keeping in mind, of course, that they had some of the best creators that were up to the challenge).

The Superman show, by contrast, was much more difficult. First off, the main character has always been portrayed as the white-bread do-gooder; while Clark Kent was "the mild-mannered wimp" (which is never interesting). Making such a well-known character intriguing was a challenge. Timm, Dini, and company broke the mold by making a Superman different from all the rest. They played up the fact that he was an alien--there was always a sense of mistrust with him lingering throughout the series. He was quiet, mysterious, and had the lingering sorrow from being the last Kryptonian (which explained his dedication to being a hero--he didn't want his adopted planet to die as well [Bruce Wayne guilt on a global scale!]). He was also younger--gone was the stereotypical chisled jaw that had graced the older Supes (as he was always portrayed)--and wore darker colors (suddenly that red and blue suit didn't look so ridiculous). As for Clark, while he wasn't as featured as Superman was, he was underspoken, quiet, and tough.

Superman's history was always less defined--as his was marked with girl trouble, goofy adventures/powers, and a ton of goofy sidekicks. Plus, his forays into film and T.V. always left the villains at the sidelines--overly relying on the Clark/Lois romance. Unlike Batman, he had no Joker-fish story to draw upon, no notable mysteries, no nothing. Plus. everyone automatically loved Superman--where's the suspense? The creative team had to create it virtually from scratch.

Finally, the villains. As it has been said a million times, Superman had one of the worst galleries of rogues in comicdom. Here was a guy that could juggle plantets--and who were his foes? Dopes in suits? goofy robots? A man who blamed him for his hair loss? Timm and company went out of their way to recreate his enemies from the ground up--there were no good Bob Kane, Dick Sprang, Neil Adams, or Frank Miller stories/redesigns to go off of.

Man, did I go off on a tangent. To sum it up, I like the Superman show a little better because it was more of a challenge (the payoff was sweeter).

[Maxie Zeus]

I think BTAS was the better show, but Karkull is right about the disadvantages STAS had built in. I'm still don't think the crew entirely overcame them: a lot of the episodes seem to be just a lot of flying and brawling. But considering what they had to work with, Timm & Co. did a FANTASTIC job with it.

So: BTAS wins on points, but STAS wins on effort? :)

[The Mad Hatter]

I'll have to agree with the above comments. Not to mention the fact that Superman wasn't really re-defined in the show... not to say that his character was bad; on the contrary, it was very well done. But it wasn't a revolution with the character/mythos like B:TAS was. Then there's the fact that we've come to take Timm & Co.'s excellent work as a given. There was nothing before B:TAS, and when it came we were blown away. When S:TAS came out, it was more of the same. More of the same damn good character designs, plots, dialogue, music, etc. etc., but it lacked the "newness" of B:TAS. Maybe that's why the show, which I believe was still some excellent work, isn't looked as highly to as B:TAS.

But personally, I'll have to go for Batman... I just like the character and his rogue's gallery a bit more!

[Failure]

BTAS, overall it's a more consistently good show than STAS was.

However, when STAS was good, STAS was great. I dont think there were any BTAS episodes that moved me like Apokolips Now and Legacy. Superman wasnt as interesting a character as Batman, so he needed a villain who could challenge him. Darkseid was the only villain I found interesting. And maybe Brainiac somewhat. The other good eps, like Brave New Metropolis (is that the name?) and the episode where Clark "died" were excellent as well. But not because of a villain, but because its Superman having to do things different, being more intelligent about things.

I thought villains like Livewire, the Parasite, even those two phantom zone people were complete bores and absolutely annoying and really brought down the show. But overall STAS was pretty good, maybe on par or just below TNBA, but not nearly as good as BTAS.

[X-human]

It's also possible that the creators/producers just didn't like Superman as much as they liked Batman. Batman Beyond came back for the big win after all, so they knew how to keep things fresh. They did change Superman around a bit after all. And are you more willing to change something you love or something you don't like?

BTAS stuck very close to the legacy of Batman, but Superman was mixed up a bit so that the creators felt they had a character they were more comfortable with.

But Superman is a very strong character, and I think the Richard Donner film is an excellent case in which Superman really shined. I just don't think the creators really had their hearts into the animated series.

[Nightflower]

Hey, finally something I agree on with BWDK! Lol
Yeah, I liked Batman the series better than Superman the series, but that's because I like Batman better than Superman. Both were really exceptionally well-done.

However, I don't think that you can say you should make STAS "darker" any more than you can say you should make BTAS more "kid-friendly". Superman is optimistic and heroic (despite differences and romantic difficulties). Being dark is just not his thing.

I think Karkull makes a very good point.

[optimal321]

First it's BTAS, no question. But i don't think i've ever really compared TNBA and STAS. STAS was really a great show; i had a lot of fun watching it. And i guess since i didn't watch BTAS from the start of its run, STAS was fresh, new and exciting to me. So, maybe if i'm not considering BTAS and TNBA one show, STAS comes a little before TNBA. But it's really too close to tell. Karkull made me think about it too much :D

[Kal-el]

Picking between the two is very difficult for me. B:TAS was excellent, as we S:TAS. I love both characters so ver much. In the end, I will disagree with most here and go with S:TAS. I've always loved Superman more than Batman. I feel that he carries around so much guilt and remorse, though doesn't show it. He has taken on such a responsibility on this planet, and in this solar system for that matter, that failure is crushing to him. The powers he has make him near god-like and onewould think everything would be easy for him...but they aren't. In a way, Batman and Superman are very similar in a way...they both were unable to do anything about the massive tragedies in their lives. The difference is how they manifested the desire to make things "right" in their worlds. Gotham is Batman's world, the earth is Superman's world.
So, after all that babbling, I'm going with S:TAS.

[MattL.]

Batman always tends the win these arguements because Batman always been a better media whore. :p

I've never been the type to like one over the other. I like both Superman and Batman equally.

What strikes me is that *both* shows acomplished boilingthe characters and their mythos down their essence. Down to the things that have made them last so long.

They then took those things and put them in a kind of timeless setting. A mythical version of the 20th (and in BB the 21st) century. Thus secruring a certain timeless to them while still getting to have fun of using elements from the era in which these characters were first born.

Obviously Superman is the harder challenge of the two to do, but they answered the challenge beautifly. From all the interviews I've read while they may be bigger Batman fans, Timm and co. *do* like Superman alot. They just recoginized that he is a harder character to do. Which is not something that makes him a lesser character by any stretch.

They didnt try to put him a leather jacket and a nose ring to make him hip or anything like that. Even though Superman is not as elastic as Batman, they stuck to the core of what makes the character work and found ways to cut off alot of the BS surrounding the character and still keep him the classic icon of aspirational nobility that he was always meant to be.

For me, both shows stand equally as the greatest execution of Batman and Superman ever done in other media. To some degree even exceeding their comics counterparts.

I guess if I were truly forced to, I'd say Superman was the better series because the challenge was so much greater. Again, Especially given the era in which it was made. An era where everyones vision of the heroic ideal started and stopped with Wolverine.

I've talked to people who really dont care that much for Superman but one of the most common things said among them is that they liked the animated version.

[Nightflower]

What is Superman's guilt, remorse and failure?

[Karkull]

Originally posted by Nightflower
What is Superman's guilt, remorse and failure?

Superman's guilt stems from him being the "Last Son of Krypton." Whenever someone is the sole survivor of a catastrophe one can feel guilt over why he was spared and so many others had to die (sadly, some New Yorkers have experienced this recently). I believe that this is why he protects Earth so zealously--he doesn't want his adopted home to go the way of Krypton.

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by Nightflower
What is Superman's guilt, remorse and failure?
His guilt is due to his being the last kind of his race and knowing that he can do nothing to save them or bring them back, despite his amazing powers. IMHO, that...and the overwhelming burden Superman has imposed on himself to protect his adopted home, nearly set him up for failure (at least in his own mind). While he can protect the world from many things, he can't save it from EVERYTHING. One definite thing he cannot save the world from is itself, but he tries by setting the extreme example of doing good, and standing for truth, justice, freedom, etc. His failure is not being able to save the world from everything. This heavy burden is a topic that has been covered numerous times during the Superman histories. In the animated mythos, the people he couldn't save (Dan Turpin) and the destruction he can cause (during "Legacy") are a source of great discomfort to him. Also, would some of these things happen if he wasn't on earth? Does his presence alone cause death and destruction? Superman/ Clark Kent is an extremely deep character to create. While Batman is motivated by an event that can be understood on a more human scale, Superman's motivation is a much grander beast. Superman has always been a symbol of hope...something that he has seen in humanity and tried to not only emulate, but be the biggest example of on earth. Almost a reminder of how good humans can be, from a being that is not human. The greatest form of flattery is emulation. He is often pained, IMO, when humans loose touch with their most positive attributes...attributes that he has taken on and exemplified in his actions, and existence.

[kid_flash]

Very nice analogy on the Man of Steel, Kal-El.

I think the reason BTAS came out as a better show was that the creators liked him better and were more comfortable. I remember reading somewhere from Bruce Timm how hard it was to do STAS after the overwhelming success BTAS had, mainly because Batman and Superman are two extremely different characters.

Traditionally, Batman's a more "let's-probe-his-damaged-pysche" character, which gives his stories a pyscological edge and is very easy to do character-focused episodes, rather than action-focused ones (which was big in STAS, with the exception of a few).

And it's even harder to probe the psyche of Superman in TAS, because it starts from the beginning. There are four major things that I can think of that trouble Superman in comics: Not being able to save everyone, survivor's guilt, keeping his place in the world, and killing. The first two were already explained, so I'll go into the last two, which are sorta the same thing:

Keeping his place in the world: One of the things that always fascinated me about Superman is his ideals. Truth, Justice, and the American Way. And we have these new-age heroes coming in who are flushing that down the toilet. You look at the top sellers in comics, and a number of those are the X-Men books, which have grown increasingly violent and dark since Morrison and Casey took over their respective books. I'm not dissing those in any way, I actually love their stuff, but the fact that they outsell Superman says something. I highly recommend reading ACTION COMICS #775 and #783.

Killing: Superman, under any circumstances whatsoever, will not view killing as a prime option. He'll only do it if there is absolutely no other option. One of the biggest burdens he carries with him is killing the three Kryoptonian criminals in (I believe) SUPERMAN #22-25. That bothers him to no end. The whole "I won't kill" deal was tested to the extremes in Our Worlds at War. And you could really feel that when, at the end of ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN #595, Superman declared that he would have to kill Brainiac. That was a huge thing for him to say. Most other superheroes would say "Oh, gee, I gotta kill him. Well, too bad." BLAM! Dead.

Anyway, I've rambled far too long. STAS is my favorite out of the two, 'cause Superman's cooler. BTAS was done better, but STAS is my fave. But JL kicks it's butt any day :)

[Kal-el]

Thanks KF. You gave a very good explanation as well. I like what you said about the killing. That is one of the reasons I feel "Legacy" should be covered in some way, shape, or form...to deal with the events that happened and the death that he may have caused.

[Karkull]

But Superman on the animated show has killed people before. He let the Preserver die in The Main Man and Jax-Ur & Mala in Absolute Power; not to mention that he tried to kill Granny Goodness, the Female Furies, and Darkseid in Legacy (and he did try to kill them--he didn't pull any of his punches). And that's not counting all the people he killed under Darkseid's control.

I've always found Superman's code against killing kind of odd in the comics--it's less defined than Batman's code against killing...and a little murky. This may sound cruel, but I'm glad that they relaxed it a bit on the cartoon (now he will kill, but only when it's absolutely necessary).