Batman #1 Club 7 7

[Wayne-Tec]

Batman #1 would sell itself based on it being the first issue alone.

 

Being the 1st app. of the Joker adds a lot of luster to some collectors.

 

The addition of the 1st app. of Catwoman will mean a lot to some collectors, and little to others. The book, content-wise, it just packed with history.

 

Lex Luthor is far from an afterthought, but I don't feel he's one the same level as Catwoman. If anything, he is more popular than he would be otherwise by virtue of the fact that he is Superman's most notable antagonist.

 

Superman does not have the same caliber of rogues that Batman does, so Luthor is a big fish in a small pond in that respect. Superman may be more iconic than popular, so naturally, his most notable nemesis is going to gather some notoriety.

[Larryw7]

Bat 1s are forever popular. Even if someone pays a little more than current market value, the long term investment potential is real and the satisfaction of owning a Bat 1 is fulfilled. (thumbs u

 

You really hit the nail right on the head.

 

I've been fortunate enough to own some great books over the years, but none of them could compare to my Batman #1. If I had to choose between Tec #27 and Batman #1, I'd choose Tec #27 because of value and rarity but in terms of overall enjoyment, it's Batman #1 all day long.

 

There's many more Bat pages in Bat 1 than Tec 27. And someone called the Joker I think.

 

This is something that is a bit overlooked IMO. In the CGC era that we live in today, many books remain encapsulated. When looking at a slabbed Action #1 or Tec #27, it's easy to overlook the fact that the majority of those books are comprised of non-Superman and non-Batman content. Fewer stories, fewer pages = less history in respects to a page by page measure.

 

While I do feel that the supporting stories of both books are a bit underrated, they still do not hold a candle to their superhero counterparts. If they did, pre-hero issues of Detective, More Fun and Adventure would sell at rates comparable to their superhero counterparts. Those of us who love the history of the medium can appreciate them, but we're not likely to see billion dollar film franchises based off of them either.

 

Batman #1 doesn't just have bulk-content -- it introduced, arguably, the two most famous villains in all of DC Comics -- in addition to being the first issue of the solo series dedicated to DC's more popular hero.

 

Joker, yes, but Catwoman is definitely not more famous than Lex Luthor.

 

Just based on the 1966 Television show alone(Julie Newmar anyone? ), Catwoman is way more popular than Luthor will ever be. Add to that Batman Returns with Michelle Pfeiffer...The Dark Knight Rises with Anne Hathaway...no contest.

[Larryw7]

Bat 1s are forever popular. Even if someone pays a little more than current market value, the long term investment potential is real and the satisfaction of owning a Bat 1 is fulfilled. (thumbs u

 

You really hit the nail right on the head.

 

I've been fortunate enough to own some great books over the years, but none of them could compare to my Batman #1. If I had to choose between Tec #27 and Batman #1, I'd choose Tec #27 because of value and rarity but in terms of overall enjoyment, it's Batman #1 all day long.

 

There's many more Bat pages in Bat 1 than Tec 27. And someone called the Joker I think.

 

This is something that is a bit overlooked IMO. In the CGC era that we live in today, many books remain encapsulated. When looking at a slabbed Action #1 or Tec #27, it's easy to overlook the fact that the majority of those books are comprised of non-Superman and non-Batman content. Fewer stories, fewer pages = less history in respects to a page by page measure.

 

While I do feel that the supporting stories of both books are a bit underrated, they still do not hold a candle to their superhero counterparts. If they did, pre-hero issues of Detective, More Fun and Adventure would sell at rates comparable to their superhero counterparts. Those of us who love the history of the medium can appreciate them, but we're not likely to see billion dollar film franchises based off of them either.

 

Batman #1 doesn't just have bulk-content -- it introduced, arguably, the two most famous villains in all of DC Comics -- in addition to being the first issue of the solo series dedicated to DC's more popular hero.

 

Joker, yes, but Catwoman is definitely not more famous than Lex Luthor.

 

I beg to differ.

 

Though it was a flop, Catwoman had her own feature film.

 

It's debatable, for sure, but I do not feel that Luthor is more famous than Catwoman.

 

Agreed. Luthor is anecdotal, at best, to the non comic collecting public. If known at all. Catwoman is broadly known (no pun intended) by the general public.

 

I don't agree. Lex is known by my generation's non-comics readers from the Chris Reeve Superman movies, and to a younger generation from ten seasons of Smallville. He's far from anecdotal.

 

Miss Tessmacher!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Everyone should have their very own Miss Tessmacher. That woman has a heart of gold.

 

Valerie Perrine...

[sfcityduck]

Larryw7,

 

You are talking about one of three actresses who played a role in a tv show that aired 47 years ago. It's trivia to folks today. The same folks who know Julie Newmar's name also know the much more popular and celebrated Gene Hackman played Lex Luthor more recently. It's geek subculture knowledge, not popular culture knowledge. Sort of, I'll see your Julie Newmar and raise you Eartha Kitt and Lee Meriweather.

 

Catwoman was nowhere near a top role for Pfeiffer, it was almost a bit part. It won't be the top of Hathaway's resume either (although for Halle Berry, who has many forgettable roles, maybe its a higher point). But, that's all beside the point, the issue is the character not the actress who plays it.

 

And, in terms of pop culture, Lex Luthor has huge pop culture recognition. Not just being the overwhelming most important villain for Superman in Comics, but also as a central figure in the Superman movie and Smallville tv show, and Superfriends, and newer Superman cartoons, etc.

 

You can't think Superman without thinking Lex Luthor. Almost everyone knows who he is: The brainy yin to Superman's strongman yang. Batman and Joker have that same relationship. Catwoman is just another rogue in the gallery.

Edited February 13, 2014 by sfcityduck

[Larryw7]

Larryw7,

 

You are talking about one of three actresses who played a role in a tv show that aired 47 years ago. It's trivia to folks today. The same folks who know Julie Newmar's name also know the much more popular and celebrated Gene Hackman played Lex Luthor more recently. It's geek subculture knowledge, not popular culture knowledge. Sort of, I'll see your Julie Newmar and raise you Eartha Kitt and Lee Meriweather.

 

Catwoman was nowhere near a top role for Pfeiffer, it was almost a bit part. It won't be the top of Hathaway's resume either (although for Halle Berry, who has many forgettable roles, maybe its a higher point). But, that's all beside the point, the issue is the character not the actress who plays it.

 

And, in terms of pop culture, Lex Luthor has huge pop culture recognition. Not just being the overwhelming most important villain for Superman in Comics, but also as a central figure in the Superman movie and Smallville tv show, and Superfriends, and newer Superman cartoons, etc.

 

You can't think Superman without thinking Lex Luthor. Almost everyone knows who he is: The brainy yin to Superman's strongman yang. Batman and Joker have that same relationship. Catwoman is just another rogue in the gallery.

 

The Batman show continues to have a hold on popular culture to this day. Even now, many mainstream articles about comic books have "Pow! Zap!" or "Holy whatever" in the title. The show may be 47 years old, but it's been in syndication and on cable TV for years. It was one of the top three pop culture events of the 1960's(the other two being the Beatles and Bond). All of the villains who were recurring characters on the TV show have made an indelible impression on pop culture. Catwoman, in any guise or characterization, is certainly more recognizable than Lex Luthor. People outside of fandom just remember that Gene Hackman was part of the Superman movies, and the Luthor he portrayed-with wigs, droll dialogue, and outrageous suits-more resembled a sixties Batman villain than any comic book portrayal of the character(again, the influence of the TV series).

Pfeiffer's turn as Catwoman was critically acclaimed when the film was released and was considered an iconic portrayal of the character. Every review of the film singled out her performance as the best thing in the film, and her emotional ties with Bruce Wayne/Batman was the heart of that movie. Pfeiffer received a nomination in 1992 for Martin Scorsese's The Age of Innocence, but many trade papers of the time said that the real reason she received the nomination for that film was because of her portrayal as Catwoman; the more serious, Oscar worthy picture gave the Academy the cover to nominate the actress who gave the most memorable female performance in 1992. And The Dark Knight Rises is one of the top 10 highest grossing films of all time domestically.

Finally, from the perspective of the hobby, take a look on eBay and on comics dealers sites. A GA or SA Catwoman cover on an issue of Batman or 'Tec is a huge selling point. But who really collects Superman covers with Lex Luthor on them?

 

Catwoman is more than just another member of the rogues gallery. Thanks to the characters continued popularity in the popular culture(because of the TV show, merchandising, and two very successful films from the last 25 years),she's the second most important villain in the Batman canon, next to the Joker.

[Wayne-Tec]

I for one, loved Michael Rosenbaum's portrayal of Lex in Smallville.

 

Though I haven't watched every episode in the series, it is my understanding that Lex's character ceased being a regular part of the cast and as time when on, the series lost its momentum. I'm certain there are others better qualified to comment in that regard.

 

Lex Luthor is far from an afterthought and Hackman's portrayal of the character is certainly an added bonus. Don't forget though, that he also portrayed Lex in Superman IV and that isn't a movie many Superman fans want to remember.

 

Catwoman, as has been mentioned, is FAR more than just "another" member of Batman's rogue's gallery. Character's of that caliber rarely, if ever, receive the treatment of their own feature film. For anyone who has played the critically acclaimed, commercially successful Arkham City, you know that Catwoman played a major role as a playable character.

 

While Wonder Woman may be the more iconic character, Catwoman is the is the top female character in all of DC Comics, IMO.

[Jaydogrules]

I love the debate but no, cat woman is not in the same league as luthor. He is superman's arch nemesis, just as the Joker is batman's arch nemesis. In fact i believe luthor is the first arch nemesis created in the golden age of super hero comics, who is still around today, and is widely considered to be in the top 3 all time comic book villains. Catwoman is just another batman villain and might be in the top ten somewhere. An early villain, yes. A popular one, yes. But she is not in the joker's league and she is not in luthor's league when it comes to villains, by any stretch. And guys, are we forgetting that luthor has crossed over multiple times and battled batman as well? Hell he's the big villain coming up in the batman superman movie. Though don't get me started on the casting of the role....

 

-J.

[Timely]

It seems like we are talking about two different things... the popularity of Catwoman vs. Luthor in mainstream in one hand and historical importance in the other.

 

Outside of comicdom, Catwoman is by far more well known. Just think about how many Catwoman costumes you see on Halloween vs Lex Luthor.... or how many cosplay Catwoman & Luthors you see. Hand down Catwoman wins by a landslide.

 

On the side of historical significance, Lex Luthor wins by a mile, being Superman's arch foe.

 

Each side of the debate has its own merit.

[Wayne-Tec]

It seems like we are talking about two different things... the popularity of Catwoman vs. Luthor in mainstream in one hand and historical importance in the other.

 

Outside of comicdom, Catwoman is by far more well known. Just think about how many Catwoman costumes you see on Halloween vs Lex Luthor.... or how many cosplay Catwoman & Luthors you see. Hand down Catwoman wins by a landslide.

 

On the side of historical significance, Lex Luthor wins by a mile, being Superman's arch foe.

 

Each side of the debate has its own merit.

 

I agree to some degree.

 

Catwoman is certainly more popular in the mainstream. But I'm not 100% sure that Luthor is more historically significant. The Luthor of the GA has little in common with the Luthor we know today. Catwoman (known as "The Cat" in Batman #1) still shares similarities with her first incarnation: a strong woman, clever, with her own agenda, capable of rivaling Batman. She is one of, if not the, strongest female character in all of comics.

 

Superman and Luthor share the fact that they're both iconic.

 

But outside of comicdom, they're not necissarily exceptionally popular. Luthor benefits from the big fish in a small pond scenario that is Superman's rather weak collection of rogues (at least in comparison to Batman). There have been good portrayals, and many forgettable ones.

 

Lex has not been the star of any feature films.

 

Lex has not experienced success in other forms of media, such as gaming, the way Catwoman did in Arkham City. If you're not into modern gaming, that example won't mean much, but within my demographic (mid 20's), it's a big deal.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Wayne-Tec

[Jaydogrules]

It seems like we are talking about two different things... the popularity of Catwoman vs. Luthor in mainstream in one hand and historical importance in the other.

 

Outside of comicdom, Catwoman is by far more well known. Just think about how many Catwoman costumes you see on Halloween vs Lex Luthor.... or how many cosplay Catwoman & Luthors you see. Hand down Catwoman wins by a landslide.

 

On the side of historical significance, Lex Luthor wins by a mile, being Superman's arch foe.

 

Each side of the debate has its own merit.

 

True enough. But I see a lot of Black Cat cosplay models too and I wouldn't put her in the same league as Catwoman. Luthor is a male character so obviously we're never going to see that with him . He is also not a costumed villain. I do think that, thanks to "Smallville" and even the putrid "Superman Returns" most gen Y's know who Luthor is as well, and certainly those Boomers and X'ers who came up with the first four Superman movies do. But I do agree, if it came down to a strict popularity contest, the hot, curvy girl that wears the tight latex outfit will always win, hands down over the smart, bald megalomanical guy. No matter how rich he is . (thumbs u

 

-J.

[Wayne-Tec]

What has long disappointed me about Superman is the caliber of his rogues gallery. Luthor is the most famous and since he was Superman's first notable foe sans the Ultra-Humanite, he also has almost 75 years of history with DC's poster boy. But one of the many things that has allowed Batman to dwarf Superman in popularity many times over is his deep rogues gallery. The same can be said of Spider-Man.

 

On paper, the matchup between Lex's brain and Superman's brawn is interesting. Many great writers and artists have tackled both characters, so it shouldn't shock anyone that we've seen a number of good portrayals over the years. With that being said, I still feel that Superman lacks Batman's Joker. He's fought the brains of Luthor and the brawn of Darkseid, Doomsday, etc. but I still don't feel that DC has ever created a character truly worthy of stepping toe to toe with Superman. It's not difficult to brainstorm a character "strong" enough, and it's not difficult to simply create a character "smart" enough. This is not to say that Luthor, Darkseid, Brainiac, Zod and others aren't good characters. They are, and they're ahead of many lesser-tiered villains. But in comparison to many of Batman's foes, not the least of which being the Joker and Catwoman in particular, I don't find Superman's rogues to be on the same level collectively. Ask anyone outside of comicdom to quickly name five Batman villains -- and I bet most people could do it with little trouble. Ask people to name five Superman villains, and they struggle.

 

Lex shares Superman's iconic nature and (to a lesser degree) recognizability. But he absolutely benefits from the fact that Superman doesn't have a remarkably deep, popular collection of foes. By sheer default of being Superman's number one nemesis, many want to put him on the Joker's level when (although subjective), he isn't.

[Jaydogrules]

What has long disappointed me about Superman is the caliber of his rogues gallery. Luthor is the most famous and since he was Superman's first notable foe sans the Ultra-Humanite, he also has almost 75 years of history with DC's poster boy. But one of the many things that has allowed Batman to dwarf Superman in popularity many times over is his deep rogues gallery. The same can be said of Spider-Man.

 

On paper, the matchup between Lex's brain and Superman's brawn is interesting. Many great writers and artists have tackled both characters, so it shouldn't shock anyone that we've seen a number of good portrayals over the years. With that being said, I still feel that Superman lacks Batman's Joker. He's fought the brains of Luthor and the brawn of Darkseid, Doomsday, etc. but I still don't feel that DC has ever created a character truly worthy of stepping toe to toe with Superman. It's not difficult to brainstorm a character "strong" enough, and it's not difficult to simply create a character "smart" enough. This is not to say that Luthor, Darkseid, Brainiac, Zod and others aren't good characters. They are, and they're ahead of many lesser-tiered villains. But in comparison to many of Batman's foes, not the least of which being the Joker and Catwoman in particular, I don't find Superman's rogues to be on the same level collectively. Ask anyone outside of comicdom to quickly name five Batman villains -- and I bet most people could do it with little trouble. Ask people to name five Superman villains, and they struggle.

 

Lex shares Superman's iconic nature and (to a lesser degree) recognizability. But he absolutely benefits from the fact that Superman doesn't have a remarkably deep, popular collection of foes. By sheer default of being Superman's number one nemesis, many want to put him on the Joker's level when (although subjective), he isn't.

 

I don't know if people would put Luthor on the Joker's "level". I think what people are saying is that Luthor is to Superman as the Joker is to Batman. Luthor does pre-date the Joker as the first "arch nemesis" of the GA, that alone vaults him ahead of Catwoman in terms of "historical significance", but the Joker really took off in popularity thanks to Miller's re-imagining in the Dark Knight Returns, then the inspired casting of Jack Nicholson in Burton's first "Batman", and then all over again with Nolan's take on the character.

 

-J.

[sfcityduck]

My point is about pop culture not popularity. Lex Luthor is an inconic part of our culture. He gets about twice as many Google hits as Catwoman. Why? Because Lex Luthor embodies an idea -- the nerdy brainy foil to the popular strong athletic guy. If, in a sitcom, a character says: "Well, you're a regular Lex Luthor," we all understand the message conveyed. Catwoman has no similar pop culture significance. Not only has she appeared in far fewer comics, tv show episodes, cartoons, etc., she is far less a referent point in pop culture.

 

While pop awareness of her character may occasionally peak, and I don't doubt that she's considered a cooler sexier character more likely to inspire Halloween costumes, her overall penetration of the pop psych is far far less. She's just another super villain that just doesn't stand for anything else than as a plot device.

[Larryw7]

My point is about pop culture not popularity. Lex Luthor is an inconic part of our culture. He gets about twice as many Google hits as Catwoman. Why? Because Lex Luthor embodies an idea -- the nerdy brainy foil to the popular strong athletic guy. If, in a sitcom, a character says: "Well, you're a regular Lex Luthor," we all understand the message conveyed. Catwoman has no similar pop culture significance. Not only has she appeared in far fewer comics, tv show episodes, cartoons, etc., she is far less a referent point in pop culture.

 

While pop awareness of her character may occasionally peak, and I don't doubt that she's considered a cooler sexier character more likely to inspire Halloween costumes, her overall penetration of the pop psych is far far less. She's just another super villain that just doesn't stand for anything else than as a plot device.

 

I would think that there are more Google hits on Catwoman just for the eye candy alone.

 

We have to agree to disagree. I don't think Luthor is very popular with the general public at all(or even with comic fans. Every time Luthor is announced as the villain for the next Superman movie, collective groans of "Luthor AGAIN?" are heard all over the interwebs). Catwoman is one of the most recognizable comic book characters to the general public, while Luthor is so one dimensional(at least in his GA and SA appearances) that the movies had to have Hackman and Spacey camp it up for the character to make any kind of impression. Don't get me wrong, I thought Hackman was great. He has some of the best lines from any comic book movie. But he was barely playing the character that was being featured in the comic books at the time. And as far as crossovers in the comics are concerned, Catwoman faced off with Superman in two issues of Lois Lane in the sixties, and with Wonder Woman during the Bronze Age.

[Jaydogrules]

My point is about pop culture not popularity. Lex Luthor is an inconic part of our culture. He gets about twice as many Google hits as Catwoman. Why? Because Lex Luthor embodies an idea -- the nerdy brainy foil to the popular strong athletic guy. If, in a sitcom, a character says: "Well, you're a regular Lex Luthor," we all understand the message conveyed. Catwoman has no similar pop culture significance. Not only has she appeared in far fewer comics, tv show episodes, cartoons, etc., she is far less a referent point in pop culture.

 

While pop awareness of her character may occasionally peak, and I don't doubt that she's considered a cooler sexier character more likely to inspire Halloween costumes, her overall penetration of the pop psych is far far less. She's just another super villain that just doesn't stand for anything else than as a plot device.

 

I would think that there are more Google hits on Catwoman just for the eye candy alone.

 

We have to agree to disagree. I don't think Luthor is very popular with the general public at all(or even with comic fans. Every time Luthor is announced as the villain for the next Superman movie, collective groans of "Luthor AGAIN?" are heard all over the interwebs). Catwoman is one of the most recognizable comic book characters to the general public, while Luthor is so one dimensional(at least in his GA and SA appearances) that the movies had to have Hackman and Spacey camp it up for the character to make any kind of impression. Don't get me wrong, I thought Hackman was great. He has some of the best lines from any comic book movie. But he was barely playing the character that was being featured in the comic books at the time. And as far as crossovers in the comics are concerned, Catwoman faced off with Superman in two issues of Lois Lane in the sixties, and with Wonder Woman during the Bronze Age.

 

I personally like the "Smallville" portrayal of Luthor, and Rosenbaum did not camp it up at all and made quite an impression. And I would argue that the best screen portrayal of Catwoman to date was by Pfeiffer, who most certainly camped it up right along with Danny devito in the Burton Batman sequel. Hathaway was utterly forgettable in her portrayal and the Halle Berry movie was an abomination.

 

Luthor's character has certainly evolved over the decades right along with the rest of our other favorite characters. It's what has allowed him to become iconic and timeless, and yes because superman does not have nearly as many foes as batman, he will eventually almost always show up in the movies, if as nothing else, the string puller, the master manipulator behind the action. If you think super man's rogue gallery is weak with luthor, my goodness what would it be without him?

 

-J.

[Wayne-Tec]

My point is about pop culture not popularity. Lex Luthor is an inconic part of our culture. He gets about twice as many Google hits as Catwoman. Why? Because Lex Luthor embodies an idea -- the nerdy brainy foil to the popular strong athletic guy. If, in a sitcom, a character says: "Well, you're a regular Lex Luthor," we all understand the message conveyed. Catwoman has no similar pop culture significance. Not only has she appeared in far fewer comics, tv show episodes, cartoons, etc., she is far less a referent point in pop culture.

 

While pop awareness of her character may occasionally peak, and I don't doubt that she's considered a cooler sexier character more likely to inspire Halloween costumes, her overall penetration of the pop psych is far far less. She's just another super villain that just doesn't stand for anything else than as a plot device.

 

I would think that there are more Google hits on Catwoman just for the eye candy alone.

 

We have to agree to disagree. I don't think Luthor is very popular with the general public at all(or even with comic fans. Every time Luthor is announced as the villain for the next Superman movie, collective groans of "Luthor AGAIN?" are heard all over the interwebs). Catwoman is one of the most recognizable comic book characters to the general public, while Luthor is so one dimensional(at least in his GA and SA appearances) that the movies had to have Hackman and Spacey camp it up for the character to make any kind of impression. Don't get me wrong, I thought Hackman was great. He has some of the best lines from any comic book movie. But he was barely playing the character that was being featured in the comic books at the time. And as far as crossovers in the comics are concerned, Catwoman faced off with Superman in two issues of Lois Lane in the sixties, and with Wonder Woman during the Bronze Age.

 

I personally like the "Smallville" portrayal of Luthor, and Rosenbaum did not camp it up at all and made quite an impression. And I would argue that the best screen portrayal of Catwoman to date was by Pfeiffer, who most certainly camped it up right along with Danny devito in the Burton Batman sequel. Hathaway was utterly forgettable in her portrayal and the Halle Berry movie was an abomination.

 

Luthor's character has certainly evolved over the decades right along with the rest of our other favorite characters. It's what has allowed him to become iconic and timeless, and yes because superman does not have nearly as many foes as batman, he will eventually almost always show up in the movies, if as nothing else, the string puller, the master manipulator behind the action. If you think super man's rogue gallery is weak with luthor, my goodness what would it be without him?

 

-J.

 

Catwoman is far from a plot device. She's an iconic, instantly identifiable, indespensible part of the Batman lore. She is as important to Batman as any other villain sans the Joker. She had her own feature film, and has been a supporting character in others played by top-tier Hollywood actresses.

 

I've referenced this several times, but her inclusion as a playable, important character in Arkham City is a major success on a new, modern front.

 

While I still stand by my criticisms of the Luthor character, I am pleasently surprised and enthused by the passionate responses in support of his character. This is a good example of these messages boards at their very best. We all have our own day to day things to do in life, but the fans in us keep driving us back here to debate about it.

 

Good stuff.

[Larryw7]

If you think super man's rogue gallery is weak with luthor, my goodness what would it be without him?

-J.

 

Well, there's always the Prankster and Terra Man.

 

My favorite Superman villains are Brainiac and Bizarro. I would love to see a feature film with one of those two characters appearing.

[sfcityduck]

 

Catwoman is far from a plot device. She's an iconic, instantly identifiable, indespensible part of the Batman lore. She is as important to Batman as any other villain sans the Joker.

 

She may be important to Batman lore, but she's not more important to Batman lore than Lex Luthor (or even Lois Lane) is to Superman lore. But, really, that's beside the point. My focus is on her import to popular culture. We all know what Lex Luthor stands for. He's short hand for an archetype. What on earth does Catwoman stand for? She's just yet another spin on the bad girl (possibly with a heart of gold) that the hero might be able to redeem. It's a very common plot device. And she doesn't define it in the public's mind.

[Wayne-Tec]

 

Catwoman is far from a plot device. She's an iconic, instantly identifiable, indespensible part of the Batman lore. She is as important to Batman as any other villain sans the Joker.

 

She may be important to Batman lore, but she's not more important to Batman lore than Lex Luthor (or even Lois Lane) is to Superman lore. But, really, that's beside the point. My focus is on her import to popular culture. We all know what Lex Luthor stands for. He's short hand for an archetype. What on earth does Catwoman stand for? She's just yet another spin on the bad girl (possibly with a heart of gold) that the hero might be able to redeem. It's a very common plot device. And she doesn't define it in the public's mind.

 

Some of Luthor's characteristics were already present in other characters prior -- for instance, Sivana was a mad scientist before Luthor was in the 1940's and the Kingpin was an affluent, organizer of crime in the 1960's before Luthor went corporate.

 

But to label Catwoman as nothing more than a bad girl with a possible heart of gold is no better than labeling Luthor was an affluent, corrupt businessman who exists as a plot device as a mental foil for Superman's brawn.

 

There is a lot more to both characters.

[nearmint]

 

Catwoman is far from a plot device. She's an iconic, instantly identifiable, indespensible part of the Batman lore. She is as important to Batman as any other villain sans the Joker.

 

She may be important to Batman lore, but she's not more important to Batman lore than Lex Luthor (or even Lois Lane) is to Superman lore. But, really, that's beside the point. My focus is on her import to popular culture. We all know what Lex Luthor stands for. He's short hand for an archetype. What on earth does Catwoman stand for? She's just yet another spin on the bad girl (possibly with a heart of gold) that the hero might be able to redeem. It's a very common plot device. And she doesn't define it in the public's mind.

 

Some of Luthor's characteristics were already present in other characters prior -- for instance, Sivana was a mad scientist before Luthor was in the 1940's and the Kingpin was an affluent, organizer of crime in the 1960's before Luthor went corporate.

 

But to label Catwoman as nothing more than a bad girl with a possible heart of gold is no better than labeling Luthor was an affluent, corrupt businessman who exists as a plot device as a mental foil for Superman's brawn.

 

There is a lot more to both characters.

 

I wouldn't label Luthor that way. Lex sees Superman as an alien, and a danger to planet Earth. Like most of the best villains, he thinks he's the good guy, trying to rid Earth of a dangerous alien presence. I find that complex and interesting.

 

Catwoman's popularity stems from her eye candy status, not because she's particularly complex.