Dropping into this thread for the first time in a few weeks...
Lois and Clark felt like a real breath of fresh air at the time, but I tried rewatching it recently and my god, it's cheesy as hell. And not especially well-written either, with the most obvious and simplistic plots you can imagine.
It depends on the season. L&C had three separate writing staffs, one for season 1, another for season 2, and the final one for seasons 3-4. So it was essentially three different shows. The first season did the best work with the characters and the romantic-comedy/drama elements, but downplayed the superheroics more than I preferred. The second season found a better balance of action and romance, though occasionally to the detriment of the latter (and they dumped the really cool Jimmy Olsen of season 1 in favor of the blandest Jimmy in history). But the showrunners for season 3-4 didn't seem to have any respect for the premise and turned it into a campy joke, and it just got dumber and dumber.
^Technically true, but just as The Incredible Hulk was basically "the adventures of Bruce (or 'David') Banner who occasionally turns into the Hulk (but not all that often)" so was Lois & Clark essentially "let's do a romantic comedy where the guy turns into a super-hero...once in a while". No one's tuning in to see "The Adentures Of Clark Kent".
Again, that's true mainly of season 1. In fact, the original intent was to have Superman never show up at all, just get mentioned as something that was part of the world, but the network insisted on having him -- and after season 1, they insisted on having more of him.
And really, most live-action Superman TV productions have focused more on Clark than Superman, both for budgetary reasons and on the assumption that most viewers would be more comfortable with a lead character in normal clothes. Heck, even the radio show, which had no such budgetary restrictions, tended to feature Clark more heavily than Superman, often even having him do things in his Clark persona that would have worked better or been easier to explain away if he'd done them as Superman.
That's what Batman needed. Superman just needed brute force to bring him down.
I don't buy that. Superman is so effective because he has both unmatched power and the intelligence to use it well. A villain who can't match him on both fronts has no chance.
Again to the radio series: The first radio villain Superman met that was able to match him for power was the Atom Man, an ex-Nazi who was sort of a proto-Metallo, with liquid kryptonite injected into his veins and metal gloves he could use to direct its atomic radiation into a devastating ray. He was able to blast Superman into a coma, but not entirely finish him off. He needed help from a more intelligent villain to realize the one way Superman could be killed: Keep him paralyzed by proximity to kryptonite until he starved to death. But the Atom Man ruined it because he was too hotheaded and impatient to sit around in a bunker next to Superman for weeks, and turned on his ally after a few days. So brute force failed where cool intellect would have succeeded.
True, but you still have to start somewhere. And having crossovers of any kind between characters like Superman and Batman must have been pretty mindblowing back then. And was surely what got the ball rolling with concepts like the JLA and Avengers.
Batman and Robin were also frequent guests on the Superman radio series, making that the first superhero crossover in the mass media (that I know of -- certainly the first DC crossover). Although the radio versions of the Dynamic Duo were pretty inept and usually just got themselves into trouble so that Superman would have to rescue them.