Are superhero TV shows are better than superhero movies? I say yes, because they don't have to follow the same rules:
1. You can take 45 minutes to show the hero's origin story, and instead of, "Enough already, we want to see the movie!" That's your pilot episode. You're allowed to do that.
2. You don't have to pack all of the action into 2 hours. You can have the hero -- and the villain -- talking plans over with the people they work with, and instead of sounding like some foreign film from the 1960s that doesn't even make sense when you add subtitles, it's "The West Wing meets the Super Friends," and it works.
3. You can have 5 different villains over the course of a season, develop their characters as well, and bring them back.
4. If you throw in a guest superhero, it works -- especially if it turns out to be the main hero's girlfriend.
5. It doesn't get ridiculous if the hero has a new girlfriend every season, the way it would if he had a new one every movie. This was one of the problems with the Burton-Schumacher era of Batman films, 1989 to 1997.
6. There's no pressure to fill 15 minutes of the first hour and the last half hour of the movie with punches and explosions. You can pace yourself. You can have 3 or 4 episodes in a row with no major battles, and it works.
7. An episode, even a season finale or a season premiere, doesn't have to be the ultimate battle. Indeed, it can't be. Science fiction writer David Gerrold made the point that, in a standalone movie, this has to be the most important moment of the hero's life. Or else, why would we pay to see the movie?
But if it's a series -- Gerrold used both Sherlock Holmes and James Bond as examples -- then none of these adventures has to be the biggest battle of them all, because you want to keep the fans coming back for the hero. If it's a TV show, save the ultimate battle for the series finale.