Is there too much Batman?

Think of five super-heroes. Obviously, one among them is going to be the Batman himself. Right now, thanks to the success of Christopher Nolan's trilogy, Batman is popular in culture. He's everywhere, even in Lego form. Most of the Batman interpretations now, too, are based off of Bale's Batman of having a throat issue. One could say he's possibly even surpassed Superman in popularity (as Superman is somewhat infamous due to his latest outing in Man of Steel...plus he was just, like, possessed-ish by Doomsday...).

If you're a fan of DC comics, there's something that you've noticed just like I have, too. Sifting through comics, you kind of notice a trend. You'll see Batman. Then Batman & Robin. Then Batman/ Superman. Then Batman Eternal. Not to mention Batman: The Dark Knight, Batman '66, and his current business with Justice League. Then coming up you'll be seeing Gotham and Arkham Manor. That's nine, NINE, comic books. Want me to also bring up Grayson, Red Hood and the Outlaws, Batwing, Batgirl, Batwoman? That's an extra FIVE comic books. These characters are busy, aren't they? Bruce Wayne has yet to be featured in the Futures End event, but when he does...it'll be pretty cool actually, I'm not gonna lie.

Part of the problem people run into when trying to get into comics is trying to find a good spot to jump onto. Often with a long continuity people wonder if jumping in will confuse them or not. With Batman, though, that could be perceived as a problem, but to be honest, I think there's a bigger problem:

The guy's everywhere.

In each of these comic books, Batman--the same guy, too--is in several different places. Eternal has him in Gotham, Justice League has him all over the world, /Superman has him with the Man of Steel, and &Robin sees him going to a whole other freaking world!

To me, that's a bit of an annoyance. Having the same exact character spread out in the same continuity in various comics is easily a way to confuse a reader. What's even worse is when something in one book effects another. Like, how does that even happen? I get it with Eternal, how "Forever Evil" changed the man because Eternal spun out of the never-ending event. But apparently there is going to be a major shake-up in Eternal, which begs the question:

How are the Batmans in the other comic books really affected? Where are they at the time of the other books? Comic books, now, aren't episodic, they follow arcs. So if Batman is on Apokolips in &Robin and Gotham in Eternal, how is he going to be affected by those events in Apokolips? Unless he comes back to Earth or something by then, I don't know. Still, the continuity will not make any sense.

It's things like these that cause a reboot in the first place. You'll have way too much Batman and the time of events is going to get so confused that they need to come to a head in one big event that sort of sets things straight. Maybe not a reboot but a cancellation of certain books, maybe a merger. Ending Eternal would settle things with what is the book to follow regarding serious continuity, as that is the weekly one. The /Superman and &Robin feel a lot less consistent in how they affect the story, so maybe spacing those out could help.

I think the best case would be if there were just three main Batman books: Batman, Batman & Robin, and Justice League. You'd have the solo book, the book with Damian, and the book with the league. Boom, easy. Continuity could remain consistent and new readers would easily know that going to just Batman could get them up to speed with essentially everything.

But enough about comics. Batman is everywhere in the media, which isn't a bad thing. Bat-Kid is awesome and I'm glad Batman could inspire that. However, when Batman gets a movie reboot merely four years after The Dark Knight Rises, that too gets a little silly. It almost makes it seem like DC is relying on Batman when there are several other characters they could use. While they are digging into their roster with Shazam and Aquama, making Batman a centerpiece of the Man of Steel sequel seems nothing less than forced. Almost like: "Ah, shoot we split the fanbase with MoS...uh...okay, Batman!"

Luckily we will be getting an iteration of Batman we haven't seen live yet, but, I mean, soon it's going to get silly. Not Adam West silly but seeing the Caped Crusader will become mundane. The grit and the realism of the character will wear out the point where kids will stop liking Batman. Or I'm completely wrong and the exposure to Batman will only help the character.

Too much Batman isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it could be if it comes at the expense of other characters. Right now, would you rather see DC put all their effort into a new Batman movie even after just seeing one or would you rather see something like a Flash, Wonder Woman, or even a retry at Green Lantern (in 2016, not this year)? Yes, I know we're getting Wonder Woman, and actually, I'd be more interested in one like that. Making a Batman in live-action could mean an origin story, which at this point is more repetitive than a Spider-Man origin movie.

I'm as big a Batman fan as the next, but I just feel like I'm getting too much of the Caped Crusader. It's gotten to the point where I don't want to see Batman on Arrow, I want to see Nightwing or Red Hood. It would just be the same thing we saw in the Nolan movies. Until we can get over the gritty Nolan-esque things of the DC cinematic universe, which I fear even the TDKR inspired Batman will suffer from, I don't think Batman will be any different, outside of the comics. Maybe I'm just being overly critical of this, but, you have to realize that there is a lot of Batman and not too much of many other characters (save for Superman or Wonder Woman in DC).