Batman or James Bond - Who is more iconic? (1 Viewer)

[Blu]

Batman would beat Bond in a fight?
Well even though Batman is a super hero he has no super powers and relies on gadgets as Bond does.

I'd say it is a wash at best physically.

Mentally, well they are both way above average detectives. I'd say that is a wash as well.

Longevity, Batman has been around much longer and that, to me, is the only way that they differ.

They are both very iconic in their own ways, each has a broad niche that they have adequately filled.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I agree.

 

[Henry Gale]

Batman

Batman has been an icon my whole life, Bond is the subject of a few wonderful books that I started reading in 1960.

Can you signal 007 with a spotlight on the clouds? No.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Ya' know ... Initially I was just going to say Batman, simply due to the fact that he has the costume and has been around a little longer.

But after thinking about it, it's pretty much a wash:

* Both are "Super Heroes" but neither has Super Powers.

* Both really have dual identities; it's just that Bond wears his mask "on the inside". He always introduces himself as "Bond ... James Bond" even though he's assuming the identity of an art dealer or a biologist or any number of the identities that fit the case he's currently working on.

* Bond is "Licensed to Kill" while Batman is a vigilante who doesn't need permission to kill.

* Both depend on extraordinary gadgets (and cool modes of transportation) plus their powers of deduction in order to "survive and conquer" over the villain of the hour.

* Both even have an occasional sidekick: Batman has Robin, while James Bond depends on CIA operative Felix Leiter.

* Batman was first introduced in the pages of a comic in 1939. James Bond was first introduced in the pages of a novel in 1952.

I give up!

 

[troy evans]

Okay try this, when's the last time anyone here walked into a store and saw James Bond comics, coloring books, action figures, party favors and birthday related supplies, animated shows dvds, book bags, notebooks, etc. tee shirts, under wear( saw a pair at Wal-Mart the other night with the bat symbol all over them), Etc. Etc. You don't. That is why I feel Batman is far more iconic than James Bond. The retail market proves it. If James Bond had equal or more appeal, there would be James Bond shit everywhere and there's not. You will see things when a movie hits but that's it. While the Batman stuff is always around.

 

[troy evans]

I'll give ya that. Some damn fine women, to be sure.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Just to nitpick: Batman doesn't kill.

 

[Edwin-S]

All that stuff is just a function of marketing. Also, the list you provided shows that Batman, as character, is being primarily marketed as children's fare. James Bond, on the other hand, is a character that is aimed at an adult audience. It stands to reason that there would not be a mass of licensed items with "James Bond" stamped all over.

Also, I do not believe that mass market appeal or popularity is any measurement of a characters level of iconic status. To me, the only thing that determines iconic status is the level of linkage between a character and a given subject in the minds of the general public. In other words, who immediately, with little required thought, comes to mind when a given subject is raised.

For example, let's ask people to name a famous scientist. If 7 of 10 people identify Albert Einstein over Stephen Hawking then, in the mind of the general population, Einstein is more iconic of the scientific profession than Hawking is. Yet, Einstein's face and name is not plastered over all kinds of merchandise. He has no widespread mass market appeal, however, his name and likeness is synonymous with the scientific profession.

The same goes for Batman and James Bond. Whose name comes immediately to mind when specific questions are asked? That determines iconic status. Not whether your name or symbol is on a pair of underpants or on a coloring book.

 

[Jacinto]

But Edwin, it's not just about who is the most famous that makes someone the most iconic. If I asked people to name one famous movie director, I'm guessing Steven Spielberg would be mentioned more times than anyone else. But there's no way in hell I would buy that he's the most iconic director just because he's currently synonymous with directing films. To me, there is only one director who has risen above "famous" to "iconic", and that is Alfred Hitchcock. It's not just about fame or quality of work, icon status must include instant visual recognition. When a few strokes of a pen can create a profile that people associate with you (like Hitch), you are an icon. And like it or not, much of that status is created through marketing, whether or not that includes the use of toys or undergarments.

 

[troy evans]

It is when you're talking about two characters that are geared for mass market appeal. Bonds presence has been through novels and movies and he has made an undeniable mark in the minds of people all around the world. However, Batman has more popularity than Bond. Largely, because of his marketability. Now, you may believe popularity and iconic status are not the same thing and that's your right. When I look at a character that has been on the mass market for more than 45-50 years, with his image on all kinds of stuff, even in his slow periods, to me that's recognition. Someone must feel he generates more interest than Bond or it wouldn't be the case. I feel that makes him an icon more so than Bond.

 

[TravisR]

Bond is the most iconic spy but that's not the question being asked. Bond is the most iconic spy in history but that doesn't automatically make him more iconic than Batman just because Superman is more iconic than Batman.

 

[Edwin-S]

Well, I've explained twice why I think Bond is more iconic. Any other argument I put forward would just become circular. I think an indelible link between character and subject matter is more important than mass popularity and merchandise. A lot of you think otherwise. To continue to argue would just result in a Blu-ray/HD DVD seesaw.

I was thrown for a loop a bit when the matter of Hitchcock's silhouette was raised, but I look at his case the same way I would if the 007 or Batman symbol was the only measure of icon. Using only symbology, all three are equally iconic.

007 is automatically associated with James Bond
Bat symbol is automatically associated with Batman
Hitchcock silhouette is self explanatory.

BTW, name a super sleuth.

 

[Greg_S_H]

C. Auguste Dupin.

The bottom line is that both Batman and Bond are icons, so it's nothing to go HD Format Wars on. There are valid reasons to argue for either.

If Holmes is the iconic super sleuth, who is the iconic private dick? Marlowe? Spade? Hammer? That's a little more difficult.

 

[Bob Graz]

From Wikipedia: Cultural impact

Batman has become a pop culture icon, recognized around the world. The character's presence has extended beyond his comic book origins; events such as the release of the 1989 Batman film and its accompanying merchandising "brought the Batman to the forefront of public consciousness."[49] In an article commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the character, The Guardian wrote, "Batman is a figure blurred by the endless reinvention that is modern mass culture. He is at once an icon and a commodity: the perfect cultural artefact for the 21st century."[104] In addition, media outlets have often used the character in trivial and comprehensive surveys- Forbes Magazine estimated Bruce Wayne to be the 7th-richest fictional character with his $6.8 billion fortune[105] while BusinessWeek listed the character as one of the ten most intelligent superheroes appearing in American comics.[106]

 

[Blu]

John Holmes?

 

[george kaplan]

I'd vote for Bond easily. It'd be more of a battle if it were Bond vs. Superman, but Batman? Bond, James Bond.

 

[Bryan X]

I don't buy that argument.

1) Name a brand of toilet paper.

2) Name a fictional Super Hero.

Most people would probably say "Charmin" and "Superman".

Therefore Charmin toilet paper is more iconic than Batman.