PDA

View Full Version : Spiderman v. Batman



CelestialStick
2006-05-25, 05:00 PM
Ok, now that we've definitively resolved that Superman could kill Batman with a mere flick of a finger, who do you think would win in a fight between Spiderman and Batman? ;D

Holy_Knight
2006-05-25, 05:06 PM
Despite the fact that I didn't take part in the other thread, I feel compelled to point out that Batman coudl kill Superman as well. As for Spiderman vs. Batman, it's like most things involvoing Batman: With enough info and planning, Batman wins everytime. If it was just a straightup fight and they'd never encountered each other before, Spiderman's superpowers win it for him.

ed
2006-05-25, 05:08 PM
depends on which book it's in, who publishes it and the writer. *although in a void, i gotta go w/ batman.

whaddaya mean, "why"? *very simple:


don (the mutant) quoth
my mon bats don't shiv.
:>

ed

chibibar
2006-05-25, 05:15 PM
Batman does have quite a bit of standard arsenal.

Spiderman - Super Strength, Reflex, Danger sense/super hearing/sight and web (natural - movie, or mechanical - comic)

BUT Spiderman can get hurt. He is not bulletproof or cut proof so it is possible to hit him (when you manage to)

Batman - usually have the BatCar, boomerange, sleeping gas spray, rope gun (whatever it is called) and half dozen stuff PLUS batman DOES wear bulletproof costume and have good strength and reflex (higher than normal human)

SO......

Swinging from building to building.... both can do it

Long range attack - both can do it

Different type of array of weapons - Batman wins

I think Batman will win.... of course Batman can offer Spiderman a good paying job :) Spiderman might conced :) I still think Spiderman is one of the poorest superheroes :)

Haggis_McCrablice
2006-05-25, 05:42 PM
Now are we talking the classic Spidey with the webshooter and fluid cartridges under his sleeve, or the film version, with fleshy spinnerettes in his wrist? And technically, if he's supposed to be biologically arachnidlike, shouldn't be be shooting those webs out of his butt?

Tough call, although Batman may have an edge due to years of training and a larger arsenal. Spidey can flip and jump and climb up walls without a grappling hook, sure, but essentially he's just a guy squirting glorified boogers everyplace...though he does have that cool red light on his belt. Maybe he can blind Batsie long enough to scuttle off into the shadows? :-[

Krytha
2006-05-25, 06:03 PM
I think Batman will win.... of course Batman can offer Spiderman a good paying job :) Spiderman might conced :) I still think Spiderman is one of the poorest superheroes :)


Hahaha yes, that would be great for Spiderman, but I don't know if you can call that winning...

Callos_DeTerran
2006-05-25, 09:12 PM
Actually as much as I may hate to do this I have to go against Batman. Why? Simple. Batman has a way to defeat every superhero from the DC universe, not the MARVEL! So him coming up against Spiderman is pretty much a blind fight. Props to Spidey also for taking on people more similiar to Batman too (And that Batman hasn't faced anyone like Spidey to my knowledge).

That and both of them prefer hand to hand combat. In that case Spiderman wins. Badly. With the ability to dodge nigh anything and plus the fact he is VERY strong I think he could do it. Granted Bats would put up a good fight but I think Spiderman would win.

Millikin_Erreene
2006-05-25, 11:06 PM
"batman DOES wear bulletproof costume and have good strength and reflex (higher than normal human)"

Two words for you in regards to Spider-man's costume: Unstable Molecules.

Spider-man has the proportionate strength of a spider, a creature that is capable of moving/lifting on average, fifty times its own weight. That would make Spider-man significantly stronger than Batman. His spider-sense would also make it impossible for Batman to get the drop on him, which is a major asset for Batman in enabling him to choose when and where a fight takes place.


Things in Batman's favor:

Equipment (that alone won't help against Spider-man though, as the Punisher can attest)
Superior combat training
Superior experience in having to pull a rabbit out of a hat for many different scenarios

Author/comic book company bias aside, I think this fight would be one of the few legitimate stalemates. Both are intelligent combatants and proficient in maneuvering early to get the superior ground over an opponent instead of waiting to be overpowered.

Beleriphon
2006-05-26, 12:21 AM
In this contest I have to go with Batman, who's only power is capitalism! From that alone Spiderman loses.

As an aside there are some pretty goofy comics where Batman and Spiderman team up. In one they fight Ras al'Ghul.

Beleriphon
2006-05-26, 12:28 AM
In this contest I have to go with Batman, who's only power is capitalism! From that alone Spiderman loses.

As an aside there are some pretty goofy comics where Batman and Spiderman team up. In one they fight Ras al'Ghul.

Tiberian
2006-05-26, 12:38 AM
Spider-Man wins the first fight. Batman won't be able to evade the Spider-Sense. And, with Spidey's new suit (extra limbs and gliding) and new powers (ew, crazy stingers with poison, er, venom) Batman will fall. However, Batman never loses round two. Then he knows the tricks and has prepared for them.

And Spider-Man no longer needs money, he has an awesome apartment courtesy of Tony Stark. He has two jobs (High School Science teacher and Daily Bugle photographer) and a hefty stipend from the Avengers. Not to mention his wife is a well-paid actress/fashion model.

Tack122
2006-05-26, 01:27 AM
offtopic... (I never saw the superman vs. batman one)
but, batman would win agianst superman, because, batman always keeps a small chunk of kryptonite in his belt (superman gave it to him)

CelestialStick
2006-05-26, 02:39 AM
Despite the fact that I didn't take part in the other thread, I feel compelled to point out that Batman coudl kill Superman as well.
Could, if he did everything right and Superman did everything wrong.


As for Spiderman vs. Batman, it's like most things involvoing Batman: With enough info and planning, Batman wins everytime.Nope. Remember that Bane broke the Bat. All the planning and superior intellect and gadgetry didn't prevent Bane from just using superior force to beat the Batman.



If it was just a straightup fight and they'd never encountered each other before, Spiderman's superpowers win it for him.
You don't think the Batbugspray Batman always carried with him might carry the day? ;)

KayJay
2006-05-26, 02:57 AM
lol let's NOT raise the Superman-Batman debate any more, as it's already got it's own thread :)
I think Spiderman would most likely win- Spider sense means that just about any plan that Batman comes up with can be avoided and countered on the spot, and Peter's pretty up there in the cleverness stakes- he did design webshooters as a teenager.

Rex_Hondo
2006-05-26, 04:12 AM
Nope. Remember that Bane broke the Bat. All the planning and superior intellect and gadgetry didn't prevent Bane from just using superior force to beat the Batman.

Did you actually read Knightfall? Bane used superior force, true, but only after sufficiently weakening Batman by freeing all of Arkham Assylum, then sending his personal goons in, only showing himself when Batman was ready to fall over from exhaustion anyway. Every time they've met since that, Bats has given Bane a thorough spanking.

But, to Spiderman...

Spider-sense certainly gives Spidey an edge, but it can be and has been overcome before, through technology, overwhelming power, martial prowess, or combinations thereof. Batman has two of the three, but that still leaves Spidey's other powers. Batman has shown the capacity to stand toe to toe (so to speak) with superpowered beings before, but it would still be a close fight.

The way I see it, how things play out depends largely on the playing field. Regardless, I see Spider-Man narrowly winning the first engagement, with Batman escaping to regroup and attempt to gather intel. Now, if Spidey is in Gotham, Batman has the security of the Batcave and the resources of Oracle and the JLA mainframe to call upon. If, in the first fight, or in a subsequent encounter, he intuits Spidey's spider-sense (a distinct possibility, being the supremely keen observer he is) but not necessarily HOW it works, he finds a way to fake it out, possibly luring web-head into a battleground filled with hidden, non-lethal explosives. Not enough to kill, but enough to send any danger-sense haywire. It'd still be a hard fight, but I give Batman (completely arbitrary) 75% odds of victory for home-field advantage.

Now, if Batman is in New York, the first fight goes the same, but Bats has to go to ground or keep moving, not having his own resources to call upon. In that situation, I see Batman attempting, and very likely succeeding in hacking the Avenger's database and getting hard info on Spidey's abilities, and probably likely sources of materiale if he thinks he has time. Next is the really dangerous part, especially if he sent up a red flag or two during his information gathering. He has to break into the Baxter Building or someplace else with sufficient technology to give him the edge he knows he'll want in another confrontation with the Wall-Crawler. Assuming the FF are on vacation (and why not? This is Spidey vs Bats, not Bats vs the Marvel Universe) he gets in, but likely trips something Reed set up to send up an alarm across town, bringing Spider-Man right to him. Batman is smart, but this is Reed freakin' Richards we're talking about. If Batman can find something useful before Spider-Man gets there, great, but even not, he know's the full range of his abilities and has planned for the worse. However, he hasn't had a chance to prep the battlefield, and Spidey is unhappy that Batman's been mucking around with his friends' stuff. So, on Spidey's home turf, HE gets the arbitrary 75% chance of victory.

I'm not even going to TRY to determine what happens if they both get yanked into the Image universe or something...

KayJay
2006-05-26, 04:34 AM
Spider-sense certainly gives Spidey an edge, but it can be and has been overcome before, through technology, overwhelming power, martial prowess, or combinations thereof. Batman has two of the three, but that still leaves Spidey's other powers. Batman has shown the capacity to stand toe to toe (so to speak) with superpowered beings before, but it would still be a close fight.

I would say that Batman only qualifies for technology- his martial prowess isn't that amazing, as he isn't exactly the best fighter in the DC universe, he's meant to be the best detective.



The way I see it, how things play out depends largely on the playing field. Regardless, I see Spider-Man narrowly winning the first engagement, with Batman escaping to regroup and attempt to gather intel. Now, if Spidey is in Gotham, Batman has the security of the Batcave and the resources of Oracle and the JLA mainframe to call upon.
Does Oracle give info to Bats any more? She's running with the birds of prey mainly, isn't she? The JLA disbanded too, and the moon base was destroyed, wasn't it? If Spiderman somehow lands in the batcave, then the balance does tip in Batman's favour, for obvious reasons of safeguards, but I don't think batman would lure him there.



If, in the first fight, or in a subsequent encounter, he intuits Spidey's spider-sense (a distinct possibility, being the supremely keen observer he is) but not necessarily HOW it works, he finds a way to fake it out, possibly luring web-head into a battleground filled with hidden, non-lethal explosives. Not enough to kill, but enough to send any danger-sense haywire. It'd still be a hard fight, but I give Batman (completely arbitrary) 75% odds of victory for home-field advantage.

Spiderman does grade threats with spider sense- high threats trigger it a LOT more than small ones, which are more a tingling in the back of his mind. I don't think lots of small threats really would overload him at all, given that he commonly uses his spidersense to deal with a lot of threats at once.



Now, if Batman is in New York, the first fight goes the same, but Bats has to go to ground or keep moving, not having his own resources to call upon. In that situation, I see Batman attempting, and very likely succeeding in hacking the Avenger's database and getting hard info on Spidey's abilities, and probably likely sources of materiale if he thinks he has time. Next is the really dangerous part, especially if he sent up a red flag or two during his information gathering. He has to break into the Baxter Building or someplace else with sufficient technology to give him the edge he knows he'll want in another confrontation with the Wall-Crawler. Assuming the FF are on vacation (and why not? This is Spidey vs Bats, not Bats vs the Marvel Universe) he gets in, but likely trips something Reed set up to send up an alarm across town, bringing Spider-Man right to him. Batman is smart, but this is Reed freakin' Richards we're talking about. If Batman can find something useful before Spider-Man gets there, great, but even not, he know's the full range of his abilities and has planned for the worse. However, he hasn't had a chance to prep the battlefield, and Spidey is unhappy that Batman's been mucking around with his friends' stuff. So, on Spidey's home turf, HE gets the arbitrary 75% chance of victory.

I don't think Batman could break into the FF building, or get any info of use, mainly for the reason that Reed is many many many times smarter than him, being able to create cosmic devices from household appliances and the like. I don't think we should be able to bring other heroes into it though, as when it's meant to be Spidey vs Bats, then you keep it that way, you don't say "give Bats access to cosmic level technology and then we'll see".

Rex_Hondo
2006-05-26, 06:57 AM
I would say that Batman only qualifies for technology- his martial prowess isn't that amazing, as he isn't exactly the best fighter in the DC universe, he's meant to be the best detective.



Balderdash. *He's one of the top (human) masters of the fighting arts in the DC universe, matched only by Lady Shiva, Ra's al Gul, and maybe one or two others I can't remember. *That's been established time and time again, besting superhuman enemies and even Predators and Aliens in hand to hand combat. (No reason to believe they can't be considered canon, I don't see any Elseworlds imprint on those books)

Oh, but I forgot, that's only because of plot devices and writer bias...

KayJay
2006-05-26, 08:17 AM
I've never heard Batman be referred to as anywhere near the top in terms of fighting skill.
People like Batgirl are on another level to Batman, and he's pretty much acknowledged that fact, and she's Shiva's equal if not better. I've not seen anything that says that Batman is one of the world's best fighters. I'd rank him in maybe the world's top 30 or so, but when you get higher up there, he's not fought any of the Shiva-level people and won to actually warrant saying he's that near the top. As a baseline, when he fights someone like Cain, he can come through while being hurt, but someone like Cassandra (Batgirl) can throw him about effortlessly like a ragdoll.

CelestialStick
2006-05-26, 10:52 AM
offtopic... (I never saw the superman vs. batman one)
but, batman would win agianst superman, because, batman always keeps a small chunk of kryptonite in his belt (superman gave it to him)
I recommend that if you're interested you go read that thread. It's somewhere on page 1 or perhaps page 2 by now. It's not that hard for Superman to deal with the Kyrtonite. He's done it repeatedly.

Old_el_Paso
2006-05-26, 11:07 AM
Now are we talking the classic Spidey with the webshooter and fluid cartridges under his sleeve, or the film version, with fleshy spinnerettes in his wrist? And technically, if he's supposed to be biologically arachnidlike, shouldn't be be shooting those webs out of his butt?

Tough call, although Batman may have an edge due to years of training and a larger arsenal. Spidey can flip and jump and climb up walls without a grappling hook, sure, but essentially he's just a guy squirting glorified boogers everyplace...though he does have that cool red light on his belt. Maybe he can blind Batsie long enough to scuttle off into the shadows? * :-[Ah, like Manspider. Manspider, Manspider, does whatever a man can...

CelestialStick
2006-05-26, 11:16 AM
Ah, like Manspider. Manspider, Manspider, does whatever a man can...
LOL! That's great!
I was going to say, one way to determine who would win is to compare theme song lyrics. As everyone knows, theme song lyrics are critical for superheroes.

Ok, let's start with Spiderman:
Spiderman, Spiderman,
Does whatever a spider can
Spins a web, any size,
Catches thieves just like flies
Look Out!
Here comes the Spiderman.

Is he strong?
Listen bud,
He's got radioactive blood.
Can he swing from a thread
Take a look overhead
Hey, there
There goes the Spiderman.

In the chill of night
At the scene of a crime
Like a streak of light
He arrives just in time.

Spiderman, Spiderman
Friendly neighborhood Spiderman
Wealth and fame
He's ingnored
Action is his reward.

To him, life is a great big bang up
Whenever there's a hang up
You'll find the Spider man.

Ok, now let's compare those to the Batman lyrics:

Batman!
Nana nana nana nana
Batman!
Nana nana nana nana
Batman! Batman Batman!
Nana nana nana nana nana na...
Batman!

So obviously Spiderman wins hands down. ;D

CelestialStick
2006-05-26, 11:30 AM
Did you actually read Knightfall?

Nope. I'm an old man, not a kid. That means I don't read comic books anymore--I sit on the couch and watch tv. ;)


Bane used superior force, true, but only after sufficiently weakening Batman by freeing all of Arkham Assylum, then sending his personal goons in, only showing himself when Batman was ready to fall over from exhaustion anyway. Every time they've met since that, Bats has given Bane a thorough spanking.

But, to Spiderman...

Spider-sense certainly gives Spidey an edge, but it can be and has been overcome before, through technology, overwhelming power, martial prowess, or combinations thereof. Batman has two of the three, but that still leaves Spidey's other powers. Batman has shown the capacity to stand toe to toe (so to speak) with superpowered beings before, but it would still be a close fight.

The way I see it, how things play out depends largely on the playing field. Regardless, I see Spider-Man narrowly winning the first engagement, with Batman escaping to regroup and attempt to gather intel. Now, if Spidey is in Gotham, Batman has the security of the Batcave and the resources of Oracle and the JLA mainframe to call upon. If, in the first fight, or in a subsequent encounter, he intuits Spidey's spider-sense (a distinct possibility, being the supremely keen observer he is) but not necessarily HOW it works, he finds a way to fake it out, possibly luring web-head into a battleground filled with hidden, non-lethal explosives. Not enough to kill, but enough to send any danger-sense haywire. It'd still be a hard fight, but I give Batman (completely arbitrary) 75% odds of victory for home-field advantage.

Now, if Batman is in New York, the first fight goes the same, but Bats has to go to ground or keep moving, not having his own resources to call upon. In that situation, I see Batman attempting, and very likely succeeding in hacking the Avenger's database and getting hard info on Spidey's abilities, and probably likely sources of materiale if he thinks he has time. Next is the really dangerous part, especially if he sent up a red flag or two during his information gathering. He has to break into the Baxter Building or someplace else with sufficient technology to give him the edge he knows he'll want in another confrontation with the Wall-Crawler. Assuming the FF are on vacation (and why not? This is Spidey vs Bats, not Bats vs the Marvel Universe) he gets in, but likely trips something Reed set up to send up an alarm across town, bringing Spider-Man right to him. Batman is smart, but this is Reed freakin' Richards we're talking about. If Batman can find something useful before Spider-Man gets there, great, but even not, he know's the full range of his abilities and has planned for the worse. However, he hasn't had a chance to prep the battlefield, and Spidey is unhappy that Batman's been mucking around with his friends' stuff. So, on Spidey's home turf, HE gets the arbitrary 75% chance of victory.

I'm not even going to TRY to determine what happens if they both get yanked into the Image universe or something...


What's the Image universe? An alternate comic series?

Isn't Oracle the crippled Barbara Gordon? When does she get healed again so she can become chief of police in Batman Beyond? ;)


I've never heard Batman be referred to as anywhere near the top in terms of fighting skill.
People like Batgirl are on another level to Batman, and he's pretty much acknowledged that fact, and she's Shiva's equal if not better. I've not seen anything that says that Batman is one of the world's best fighters. I'd rank him in maybe the world's top 30 or so, but when you get higher up there, he's not fought any of the Shiva-level people and won to actually warrant saying he's that near the top. As a baseline, when he fights someone like Cain, he can come through while being hurt, but someone like Cassandra (Batgirl) can throw him about effortlessly like a ragdoll.

Who is this Cassandra? I had a girlfriend named Cassandra, but the only thing she could throw around like a ragdoll was cigarettes. ;) So is Cassandra the new Batgirl after Barbara Gordon got crippled? A Batgirl who could throw around the Batman like a ragdoll. Interesting.

So Batman beat an Alien and a Predator in hand-to-hand combat? Wow!

I have to say that when I started this thread I figured that everyone would go for Batman beating Spiderman with no trouble. I mean Spiderman is so much weaker than Superman, yet on the Batman v. Superman thread so many people were sure that Batman "wins everytime." Maybe I should start a Spiderman v. Superman thread! :) I realize that, as someone on the Batman vs. Superman thread said, the relationships aren't necessarily transitive. It's at least possible that Superman could beat Spiderman, Spiderman beat Batman, and Batman beat Superman. It could be, as the person suggested, more like a game of rock, paper, scizzors, where rock beats scizzors, scizzors beats paper, and paper beats rock. Or since there are so many superheroes, it's more like a game of Pokemon, where fighting beats flying, flying beats bug, bug beats grass, grass beats water, water beats fire, fire beats bug and grass, water beats rock and ground, ground beats electric, electric beats water, poison beats bug, psychic beats poison, dark beats pyschic, and a host of others I don't recall anymore. :)

Of course it's always important to remember that Popcorn beats them all because, in the words of the all-important theme song the popcorn can't be beat! ;D

I just want to say, seriously, that I'm impressed by the level of argumentation on this thread. Excellent use of fact and logic! (and humor ;D)

Oh, by the way, who is Lady Shiva? I mean I knew Shiva was an ancient Hindi god, but I'm not familiar with her from the comic books.

KayJay
2006-05-26, 11:44 AM
Batman beyond isn't considered Canon to the DC universe, same as any of the DC TV shows.

Image is another another comic books company/ world. I don't read many of their series, but I do read "Invincible" occasionally... pretty good :)

Oh and Cassandra is Batgirl's name, and her mother and father are Kain (world's best assassin I think is what he's meant to be?) and Shiva (world's best fighter).

CelestialStick
2006-05-26, 11:48 AM
Batman beyond isn't considered Canon to the DC universe, same as any of the DC TV shows.

I know that; thus the joke about her getting healed again. ;) Still, even if it's not canon, it should be at least rifle. ;D


Image is another another comic books company/ world. I don't read many of their series, but I do read "Invincible" occasionally... pretty good :)
Is Invincible the name of another superhero?

KayJay
2006-05-26, 11:53 AM
Well... She is getting feeling in her toes back in the actual DC series, so I wouldn't discount her managing to use her legs again... Plus in a world like DC, someone coming back from being paralysed isn't the most surprising thing ever :)

Invincible would be another superhero, yes.

aaronbourque
2006-05-26, 12:52 PM
Despite the fact that I didn't take part in the other thread, I feel compelled to point out that Batman coudl kill Superman as well. *As for Spiderman vs. Batman, it's like most things involvoing Batman: *With enough info and planning, Batman wins everytime. *If it was just a straightup fight and they'd never encountered each other before, Spiderman's superpowers win it for him.
You forget one simple thing: Spiderman is very unlucky. Superpowers help, but bad luck hurts worse.

Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque

6079smithw
2006-05-26, 12:53 PM
Ok, now that we've definitively resolved that Superman could kill Batman with a mere flick of a finger, who do you think would win in a fight between Spiderman and Batman? ;D

You know, retroactively deciding you won a debate is kind of annoying. (I would say it ended in a stalemate, since no-one convinced anyone.)

Anyway, I'd probably go with Spiderman, assuming this wasn't some sort of retroactive change where the two had always co-existed; as has been pointed out, Batman wouldn't know Spidey or his methods well enough properly to plan. Besides, Spiderman is a lot more adaptable and clever than certain other Batman opponents whom I won't mention right now; he fights opponents who are stronger than he is regularly, so would be capable of dealing with a real challenge.

Although Spiderman loses a lot, and Batman almost never does. So just on win percentage, Bats takes it in a walk. Spiderman would get a cold and his aunt would die (again) and Mary Jane would turn into a demon, etc., etc. Luck is not on that guy's side.

ed
2006-05-26, 01:05 PM
celestial stick: you haven't been reading comics since sometime before the 90s, i see. :> image was created by rob liefeld, a middling artist who formerly worked at marvel, and publishes creator-owned comics. philosophically, i think iimage is a great idea. but as a former comics reader myself, it does make for a whole lot more splash pages than is good for storytelling, IMHO.

i think the bats/spidey question comes down to one thing: what is the essence of the character?

bats: sheer determination and ingenuity.
spidey: murphy kicks him in the junk when he's down.

just on that basis alone, i think bats wins.

ed

Holy_Knight
2006-05-26, 02:01 PM
Could, if he did everything right and Superman did everything wrong.
Aside from the fact that Batman nearly always does do everything right, this has happened before. *Batman has completely incapactitated Superman on multiple occasions. *Like I was saying before, obviously Superman wins if it's just hand to hand combat with no planning. *But with a plan, it's Batman for sure.



Nope. Remember that Bane broke the Bat. All the planning and superior intellect and gadgetry didn't prevent Bane from just using superior force to beat the Batman.



Nope. I'm an old man, not a kid. That means I don't read comic books anymore--I sit on the couch and watch tv. ;) *

Ah, I see. *Rex Hondo is right--to say that Bane vs. Batman was just "Brawn vs. brains/gadgets" is woefully inaccurate. *It's basically a given that in a fight where Batman hadn't been completely broken down and exhausted way past his limits both physically and mentally, he'd mop the floor with Bane. *In any case, if you're a fan of Batman, it's worth it to you to read the whole Knightfall-Knightquest-Knightsend arc, since you'd enjoy it and it's so important in the charcter's history.


I've never heard Batman be referred to as anywhere near the top in terms of fighting skill.
People like Batgirl are on another level to Batman, and he's pretty much acknowledged that fact, and she's Shiva's equal if not better. I've not seen anything that says that Batman is one of the world's best fighters. I'd rank him in maybe the world's top 30 or so, but when you get higher up there, he's not fought any of the Shiva-level people and won to actually warrant saying he's that near the top. As a baseline, when he fights someone like Cain, he can come through while being hurt, but someone like Cassandra (Batgirl) can throw him about effortlessly like a ragdoll.
Again, Rex is right about this one--Batman is supposed to be one of the top fighters in the DC universe. *As for Lady Shiva, remember that when she retrains Bruce in Knightsend, she seems to admit that he had been either her equal or very nearly her equal before, which is why she agrees to help him regain his edge. *As for Batgirl, it's seemed to me that Batman could take her down if he had to, but that it would take almost all of his energy to do so. *I admit that I haven't been able to read many comics lately though, so there may be things which contradict that either way.

KayJay
2006-05-26, 03:36 PM
Again, Rex is right about this one--Batman is supposed to be one of the top fighters in the DC universe. As for Lady Shiva, remember that when she retrains Bruce in Knightsend, she seems to admit that he had been either her equal or very nearly her equal before, which is why she agrees to help him regain his edge. As for Batgirl, it's seemed to me that Batman could take her down if he had to, but that it would take almost all of his energy to do so. I admit that I haven't been able to read many comics lately though, so there may be things which contradict that either way.
Firstly, I've never seen Bruce lay a hand on Batgirl at all- the best he's done is to go defensive and block her. Batgirl is BETTER than Shiva, and has beaten her twice, something that Batman thought was inconceivable even once. That shows the relative difference between the two, as I think Batman would know that if he was anywhere near the equal of Shiva, then Batgirl would stand a chance too. Look at how Batgirl moves in comparison to Batman, and you can see the difference in agility. She pretty much just jumps off buildings when she wants to get off them, while Batman just uses a grapple hook. Batgirl's pretty much charting on metahuman levels while I've yet to see Batman operating on similar levels. Hell, someone like Hush, Kain or Jason Todd has given Batman a hard time in hand to hand, so I wouldn't rank him that high in unarmed combat. Take the recent fight with Shiva and Killer Croc, one of Batman's villains. Shiva OWNED him with one hand. Don't see Batman doing anything like that even with both hands.
To say that Batman is the equal of someone Shiva level is just completely wrong on so many levels. Shiva is feared throughout the entire world solely on her fighting prowess, and apparently Batman is that good as well as being the "world's greatest detective"? Then he's a helluva lot more amazing than I've ever credited him to be in all the books I've seen.

ed
2006-05-26, 04:11 PM
kayjay, you're apparently missing what shiva told bats, as stick noted previously.

you're basing your assessments based upon what the artist draws. surely you can see a problem w/ using that as your basis?

ed

CelestialStick
2006-05-26, 04:29 PM
You know, retroactively deciding you won a debate is kind of annoying. (I would say it ended in a stalemate, since no-one convinced anyone.)
ROFLMAO! I was making a joke, and thus the smiley face at the end of the sentence.


Anyway, I'd probably go with Spiderman, assuming this wasn't some sort of retroactive change where the two had always co-existed; as has been pointed out, Batman wouldn't know Spidey or his methods well enough properly to plan. Besides, Spiderman is a lot more adaptable and clever than certain other Batman opponents whom I won't mention right now; he fights opponents who are stronger than he is regularly, so would be capable of dealing with a real challenge.

Although Spiderman loses a lot, and Batman almost never does. So just on win percentage, Bats takes it in a walk. Spiderman would get a cold and his aunt would die (again) and Mary Jane would turn into a demon, etc., etc. Luck is not on that guy's side.



LOL. Spiderman does seem to be the "down on his luck" superhero.

I must say though that I'm surprised after hearing all the Batman is infallible rhetoric on the other threat that people aren't just saying that Batman would automatically beat Spiderman.

I just watched the two Spiderman movies (oh no, they're not canon!) and was really struck by the way that both Green Goblin and Doc Oc beat his Spidey butt. ;D



Well... She is getting feeling in her toes back in the actual DC series, so I wouldn't discount her managing to use her legs again... Plus in a world like DC, someone coming back from being paralysed isn't the most surprising thing ever :)

Invincible would be another superhero, yes.
That's cool about Barbara Gordon. I always liked her, especially the way that the New Batman/Superman Adventures artists drew her. ;)

So who is Batgirl now? This Cassandra? Who is Cassandra?

So what kind of superhero is Invincible? Is he really invincible?

KayJay
2006-05-26, 04:39 PM
It's not what the artist is drawing at all, it's how they're writing them. Artists don't have the creative freedom to draw something that's incorrect given what we know of the characters.

I'm not sure about Knightsend, that's a bit far back for me, and the characters all have changed a lot since then (Shiva for one has gotten much better these days, and is considered one of the best in the world... people WORSHIP her, for crying out loud,) but there have been numerous more recent citings that have implied tat people like Shiva and Batgirl are above him.
Not by much of course, as I'd still rank him as one of the top in the world, but I'd hardly give him the rank of anywhere in the top 4, as he's had trouble physically handling people not that high in the hand to hand rankings, while people like Batgirl and Shiva are consistently shown as easily handling just about any hand to hand challenge.

Batgirl's real name is Cassandra Cain.

Invincible is just a name, he's not invincible, although he's pretty tough.

Ghost_of_Zashrak
2006-05-26, 04:43 PM
I confess I haven't read either in a couple of decades (couple or three?) so this is not intended tobe a technical assessemnt.

However,
ED posted:
i think the bats/spidey question comes down to one thing: what is the essence of the character?
bats: sheer determination and ingenuity.
spidey: murphy kicks him in the junk when he's down.
just on that basis alone, i think bats wins.

I have a slightly different take on this.

Bats: Pain
Spidey: Angst

Having lived with both, I believe Pain is much tougher than Angst any day. ::)

;D

chibibar
2006-05-26, 05:35 PM
I forgot about the "new spiderman"

I still think it will be an even fight. I still consider Batman to be VERY resourceful and will continue to train/research to beat his enemies.

Assuming that Spiderman ever become his enemy :)

If using the Spiderman movie, Spiderman does have extra advantages - Web without using cartridge (thus can't go amuck on him other than confidence) and more "spider" abilities.

Spiderman is still learning about his abilities and his limits. Spiderman will continue to push his limit and sometimes exceed it (like when he stop the train) He is getting very creative with the use of web (more versitile than batman's gear) sooooo.. depending on the fight it is pretty hard to tell.

Batman's new movie + comic + Animation = suggests that Bruce was train all over the world by the best masters of different type of combat. There was even a couple that Batman really really was one of the top human fighters. I would say top 10 or top 20 :) but not top 5 in terms of human combantant :) (hand to hand or weapon to weapons styles)

BUT batman DOES have a tons of arsenals that he usually carry with him one of my fave is sleeping spray.. I'm use in a hand to hand combat.. Batman can spray spiderman and puts him to sleep ;) (like that never happen before)

Of course then we could talk about the Venum Spiderman's suit :)

Spiderman can get pretty unlucky... but Spiderman DOES learn from his mistake.. Peter is no idiot :) he does have genius level intelligent afterall :)

note: (I will only refer to superman on this once) Unlike superman's inherit weakness to kryptonite, Spiderman's weakness would be his inexperience.. but that can change. :)

CelestialStick
2006-05-26, 10:25 PM
Oh and Cassandra is Batgirl's name, and her mother and father are Kain (world's best assassin I think is what he's meant to be?) and Shiva (world's best fighter).
I've never heard of any of them prior to this thread. So how did Cassandra become the Batgirl?

For that matter, how did Barbara Gordon become the Batgirl? In the 1960s campy live-action Batman, the creators introduced the Batgirl in season two or three. She just suddenly appears as Batgirl, with no information on how she got to be Batgirl. The Batman didn't know her identity, although Alfred did.

Barbara Gordon also appeared in the Batman cartoon that followed the success of the 1990s Batman movie, but she was unattractive and not Batgirl. When The New Batman/Superman Adventures took over from the new Batman cartoon, the creators transformed Barbaran Gordon into a good-looking woman--and into the Batgirl. If they had an episode that explained how she got to be the Batgirl, I never saw it.

In the current WB cartoon series, The Batman, Barbara Gordon showed up in the second season as an annoying and bratty teenager who used her dad's police scanner and her gymnastics skill to chase after the Batman and try to become his sidekick. After she saves the Batman by inhabiting his powered armor and saving him from a Joker pumped up by Bane's serum, the Batman gives her some real Bat-gadgets, formally making her his sidekick.

Oh, I see a little bit here online under a history of the Batgirl that says that Cassandra started out as a courier for Barbara Gordon and, as David Cain's daughter, had great martial arts skill that Barbara/Oracle and Batman decided to put to use as Batgirl.

Edit: There was nothing in the Batgirl histories I read to that suggested that Shiva was Cassandra's mother. Has this been revealed more recently?


In this contest I have to go with Batman, who's only power is capitalism! From that alone Spiderman loses.

As an aside there are some pretty goofy comics where Batman and Spiderman team up. In one they fight Ras al'Ghul.

I meant to reply to this earlier. I must agree that there are few Superpowers as great as capitalism! ;D

I must say that it's just plain bizarre for me to hear about Marvel and DC superheroes appearing together. When did DC buy Marvel anyway?



I forgot about the "new spiderman"

I still think it will be an even fight. I still consider Batman to be VERY resourceful and will continue to train/research to beat his enemies.

Assuming that Spiderman ever become his enemy :)

If using the Spiderman movie, Spiderman does have extra advantages - Web without using cartridge (thus can't go amuck on him other than confidence) and more "spider" abilities.

Spiderman is still learning about his abilities and his limits. Spiderman will continue to push his limit and sometimes exceed it (like when he stop the train) He is getting very creative with the use of web (more versitile than batman's gear) sooooo.. depending on the fight it is pretty hard to tell.

I thought the idea of stopping the train by holding the webs was silly. Why didn't he just keep connecting webs to the buildings and then to the train itself?

I like the fact that someone's actually considering the movies in evaluating superheroes. :)


Batman's new movie + comic + Animation = suggests that Bruce was train all over the world by the best masters of different type of combat. There was even a couple that Batman really really was one of the top human fighters. I would say top 10 or top 20 :) but not top 5 in terms of human combantant :) (hand to hand or weapon to weapons styles)

BUT batman DOES have a tons of arsenals that he usually carry with him one of my fave is sleeping spray.. I'm use in a hand to hand combat.. Batman can spray spiderman and puts him to sleep ;) (like that never happen before)

Of course then we could talk about the Venum Spiderman's suit :)

Spiderman can get pretty unlucky... but Spiderman DOES learn from his mistake.. Peter is no idiot :) he does have genius level intelligent afterall :)

note: (I will only refer to superman on this once) Unlike superman's inherit weakness to kryptonite, Spiderman's weakness would be his inexperience.. but that can change. :)


That kyrptonite weakness is so overblown. Krytonite has such a short radius of effect that there are a million ways to neutralize it. In fact Superman does so again and again. And that's even assuming it's all that debilitating for him. On many occasions he actually holds the stuff and it hurts but doesn't incapacitate him. Repeatedly Superman has defeated people in possession of kryptonite.



celestial stick: you haven't been reading comics since sometime before the 90s, i see. :> image was created by rob liefeld, a middling artist who formerly worked at marvel, and publishes creator-owned comics. philosophically, i think iimage is a great idea. but as a former comics reader myself, it does make for a whole lot more splash pages than is good for storytelling, IMHO.

i think the bats/spidey question comes down to one thing: what is the essence of the character?

bats: sheer determination and ingenuity.
spidey: murphy kicks him in the junk when he's down.

just on that basis alone, i think bats wins.

ed
I read comic books when I was a kid in the 1960s. I have seen a few since then, such as one in the 1980s that showed Batman as a gun-toting psychopathic vigilante. There was a big splash with the Death of Superman in the 1990s, and I nearly bought the bound volume, but decided I didn't want to read about my favorite superhero dying.




Aside from the fact that Batman nearly always does do everything right, this has happened before. Batman has completely incapactitated Superman on multiple occasions. Like I was saying before, obviously Superman wins if it's just hand to hand combat with no planning. But with a plan, it's Batman for sure.


Ah, I see. Rex Hondo is right--to say that Bane vs. Batman was just "Brawn vs. brains/gadgets" is woefully inaccurate. It's basically a given that in a fight where Batman hadn't been completely broken down and exhausted way past his limits both physically and mentally, he'd mop the floor with Bane. In any case, if you're a fan of Batman, it's worth it to you to read the whole Knightfall-Knightquest-Knightsend arc, since you'd enjoy it and it's so important in the charcter's history.

Again, Rex is right about this one--Batman is supposed to be one of the top fighters in the DC universe. As for Lady Shiva, remember that when she retrains Bruce in Knightsend, she seems to admit that he had been either her equal or very nearly her equal before, which is why she agrees to help him regain his edge. As for Batgirl, it's seemed to me that Batman could take her down if he had to, but that it would take almost all of his energy to do so. I admit that I haven't been able to read many comics lately though, so there may be things which contradict that either way.

Well here's the thing: I might enjoy Knightfall, etc., but if you and the other "Superman is dumb; Batman always wins" advocates are right, then the current DC comics have totally ruined both Batman and Superman, and I want no part of them. Batman most assuredly did not always win, and does not always win in the old comics, or the movies, or the TV shows, or the cartoon series. He wasn't omniscent the way that you're portraying him. And Superman was never stupid in any way, shape or form; he was always highly intelligent. My guess is that you guys are wrong, full of emotional exaggeration and so forth, but if you're right it will just make me sick.

You guys are perhaps young, and don't realize that these superheroes have a history not only older than you but older than I am, and that the way you portray these superheroes runs contrary to decades of how they were portrayed before. If the JL or JLA or the New Batman/Superman Adventures had portrayed the superheroes as you portray them here on the comic threads, I would quickly have stopped watching those shows. It's simply a betrayal of who the superheroes have been everywhere else except in the stuff you guys seem to read.

Now maybe KayJay will assure me that you've all exaggerated the way that the current DC comic books portray Batman and Superman. I sure hope so. Because a stupid, easily defeated Superman and an omniscient, undefeatable Batman don't appeal to me at all. Indeed they'd not be Superman and Batman at all, but imposters, so far as I'm concerned.

ed
2006-05-27, 01:12 AM
stick, if you weren't reading in the 80s, you should be aware that a massive DC-wide story arc (crisis on infinte earths) hit the reset button across the board for DC titles. a lot of that legacy is no longer entirely quite appropriate, although writers since have tried to pay their homages.

ed

nothingclever
2006-05-27, 01:13 AM
I'd say Batman wins simply because Spiderman is always portrayed as a pansy whenever he's faced with a serious moral dilemma like killing someone. I easily imagine him whether actually winning the fight or not, hesitating at some point and then just getting shot or hit with some trademark batman device. And of course luck is never on his side thus he is destined to lose in the most mundane/cliched way possible.

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 01:16 AM
stick, if you weren't reading in the 80s, you should be aware that a massive DC-wide story arc (crisis on infinte earths) hit the reset button across the board for DC titles. a lot of that legacy is no longer entirely quite appropriate, although writers since have tried to pay their homages.

ed

Thanks, Ed. I actually learned about the Crisis on Infinte Earths on this board, and know that it reset lots of things. I also know that despite what they did in the comic, the other media sources for the DC Superheroes managed to continue to do the older legacy of the superheroes proud. I suspect that's why I've thought that people who say "Batman always wins" and "Superman is stupid and easy to defeat" were just engaging in emotionallistic exaggeration. If they're right, though, I'd consider it a betrayal of decades of superhero literature.

ed
2006-05-27, 01:31 AM
i didn't want to assume anything, but at the same time, it's really hard to walk the line b/n that and patronizing, you know? :>

i think that bats as among the world's best HTH combatants is still faithful to the post-crisis material. indeed, someone mentioned the entire lady shiva storyline earlier. whoever it was that claimed that batgirl would at least give bats a run for his money was basing assessments on a not entirely valid foundation.

IOW: i think some folks' opinions should be taken with [small unit of measure] of salt.

ed

Rex_Hondo
2006-05-27, 01:44 AM
Thanks, Ed. I actually learned about the Crisis on Infinte Earths on this board, and know that it reset lots of things. *I also know that despite what they did in the comic, the other media sources for the DC Superheroes managed to continue to do the older legacy of the superheroes proud. *I suspect that's why I've thought that people who say "Batman always wins" and "Superman is stupid and easy to defeat" were just engaging in emotionallistic exaggeration. If they're right, though, I'd consider it a betrayal of decades of superhero literature.

*sigh* God save me from people offended by anything growing and changing beyond Golden Age. Batman is not omniscient, but neither is he the horrible cheese-filled tripe sixties Batman. Superman is still intelligent and immensely powerful, but he's not the God-awful omniscient punches-holes-in-spacetime Superman either.

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 01:50 AM
*sigh* God save me from people offended by anything growing and changing beyond Golden Age. Batman is not omniscient, but neither is he the horrible cheese-filled tripe sixties Batman. Superman is still intelligent and immensely powerful, but he's not the God-awful omniscient punches-holes-in-spacetime Superman either.


Golden Age was the 1950s--just slightly before my time. I grew up during the Silver Age. The cheesy Batman of the 1960s was just that--cheesy Batman comedy. But there are decades of both pre-cheese and post-cheese before Batman became the guy who "if prepared always wins," if indeed that isn't a mischaraterization of how he is these days. Maybe I should read the post-1986 stuff just to see if Batman's really as omniscent as some of the others suggest and if Superman's really as pathetic. Imagine that--a pathetic Superman. Superman could shift tectonic plates, but now Batman could beat him hands down because, well, he's so stupid. Kinda makes you wonder why anyone ever liked Superman. And of course with Batman Always Wins on the job, there's not really any need for Superman or any of the other superheroes anyway! ;D

P.S. Since you're a big fan of Batman, why don't you go over to the Bat-Gadget thread and tell us which are you favors Bat-Gadget and Batmobile. :)

Rex_Hondo
2006-05-27, 02:29 AM
Sorry if the previous post seemed a tad confrontational. Indy 500 is this weekend and it always makes me a tad... irritable.

Ironically, one of the biggest arguments in favor of Bats IS Superman's intelligence. Just see if this follows here. If Superman is intelligent as those on "his side" are giving him credit for, and he chose to give Batman the ring because he knew he could trust him to take him down if necessary, then that kinda has to make you think, doesn't it?

But, we should get back to Spidey vs Bats before we rile the Mods.

Though, it should be noted that Batman and Spiderman have met a couple of times in crossovers, and it's been fairly even.

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 02:54 AM
Sorry if the previous post seemed a tad confrontational. Indy 500 is this weekend and it always makes me a tad... irritable.
Eh, no problem. The whole "Batman totally beats Superman" thing makes me irriatable myself. And I've noticed on some of the other threads my jokes have been more negative than usual today. I'm all hopped up on sugar and salt today so that's probably got a lot to do with it.

Why does the Indy 500 make you irritable?


Ironically, one of the biggest arguments in favor of Bats IS Superman's intelligence. Just see if this follows here. If Superman is intelligent as those on "his side" are giving him credit for, and he chose to give Batman the ring because he knew he could trust him to take him down if necessary, then that kinda has to make you think, doesn't it?

As someone on the Batman v. Superman thread mentioned, just because Superman gave Batman the kryptonite doesn't mean that Superman thinks that automatically makes Batman win. It's too easy to for Superman to circumvent the krytponite as he's done repeatedly throughout the decades. It's just one more thing that might help Batman defeat Superman if somehow Superman were to get dangerous. The fact that Superman gives it to Batman suggests that he knows Batman needs every possible advantage to beat Superman. And notice that whereas Superman's worried that he himself could get too powerful (demonstrating his inherent goodness) he's got no concern at all that Batman could become too powerful, even though he knows that Batman isn't as moral as he is himself. Batman just isn't powerful enough to represent the kind of world-threatening danger that an out-of-control Superman would be.


But, we should get back to Spidey vs Bats before we rile the Mods.

Though, it should be noted that Batman and Spiderman have met a couple of times in crossovers, and it's been fairly even.
I'm really quite surprised that people give Spiderman such a good chance against Batman. I had no idea DC had done one let alone multiple cross-over comics with the two. Very interesting! Why do they end up fighting each other?

Rex_Hondo
2006-05-27, 03:07 AM
Why does the Indy 500 make you irritable?

I'm really quite surprised that people give Spiderman such a good chance against Batman. I had no idea DC had done one let alone multiple cross-over comics with the two. Very interesting! Why do they end up fighting each other?

Not giving half a crap about auto racing, it's annoying (to say the least) to not be able to escape it in the weeks leading up to it. Also, I live fairly close to the track, and traffic is a pain. Working at a local hospital, I don't get the day off. :P

Over the last decade or two, Marvel and DC have done any number of crossovers between various characters. Batman alone has had crossovers with Spiderman, Daredevil, and Punisher. That's not even counting the whole DC vs Marvel thing and the resulting "Access" minis.

I don't recall precisely how they come to blows, but I'm pretty sure it's the typical way. Superhero from out of town shows up, local guy has only heard the bad press and/or gets defensive over turf. Or, in Batman's case, wants the rookie out of the way so he doesn't get hurt. A superhero pissing match ensues in which there isn't a clear winner, or the fight is interrupted by the actual villain before a winner can be determined. Fans of each can debate over who actually had the upper hand and are assured of paying for the next crossover in the vain hope that a definite victor will be determined.

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 03:17 AM
Not giving half a crap about auto racing, it's annoying (to say the least) to not be able to escape it in the weeks leading up to it. Also, I live fairly close to the track, and traffic is a pain. Working at a local hospital, I don't get the day off. :P

Oh, there's hardly anything that makes me grumpier than traffic. The DC metro area consistently rates as the first or second worst in traffic (with LA vying with it for the top spot) year after year. I was out and about today driving so that might have something to do with why I was in a bad mood too. There are times when I wish I could Hulk out and start tossing the other cars out of the way. Or I wish I had a great Bat-Gadget that could make my car zoom over the other cars. Actually I do drive a big, black, supercharged car, but I call it the Night Hawk, not the Batmobile. Actually a buddy of mine used to call it the Pec Mobile because of my big pecs. :D


Over the last decade or two, Marvel and DC have done any number of crossovers between various characters. Batman alone has had crossovers with Spiderman, Daredevil, and Punisher. That's not even counting the whole DC vs Marvel thing and the resulting "Access" minis.

I don't recall precisely how they come to blows, but I'm pretty sure it's the typical way. Superhero from out of town shows up, local guy has only heard the bad press and/or gets defensive over turf. Or, in Batman's case, wants the rookie out of the way so he doesn't get hurt. A superhero pissing match ensues in which there isn't a clear winner, or the fight is interrupted by the actual villain before a winner can be determined. Fans of each can debate over who actually had the upper hand and are assured of paying for the next crossover in the vain hope that a definite victor will be determined.

That actually sounds pretty cool. I might like to check out some of that stuff, if it's still available anywhere. I wouldn't really know where to start though.

What is "the whole DC v. Marvel thing" and what is the "Access thing?"

KayJay
2006-05-27, 03:34 AM
I've never heard of any of them prior to this thread. So how did Cassandra become the Batgirl?

She was trained from birth by the master assassin David Cain using body language as her native tongue, instead of a verbal one. Because of this, she can tell what someone's doing nearly before they do it themselves because their body betrays their actions. When she killed her first person, she "saw" the life fleeing from him, and realised what she'd actually done, so fled. She eventually landed in Gotham during the No Man's Land crisis, where she ran errands for Oracle. After saving the commissioner's life, she was given the batgirl costume.



Edit: There was nothing in the Batgirl histories I read to that suggested that Shiva was Cassandra's mother. Has this been revealed more recently?
[/quote]
Most recent issue of Batgirl before the series ended, yep, Shiva admitted to it. She hadn't previously wanted Cassandra to know because family changes things.



i didn't want to assume anything, but at the same time, it's really hard to walk the line b/n that and patronizing, you know? :>

i think that bats as among the world's best HTH combatants is still faithful to the post-crisis material. indeed, someone mentioned the entire lady shiva storyline earlier. whoever it was that claimed that batgirl would at least give bats a run for his money was basing assessments on a not entirely valid foundation.

IOW: i think some folks' opinions should be taken with [small unit of measure] of salt.

ed
You're saying that Batgirl can't even give Batman a run for his money? Have you actually READ Batgirl? She's currently considered to be the only person who has beaten Shiva one on one, and Shiva IS portrayed as the benchmark of human fighting perfection. Someone is tough? They're said to be Shiva-level in scale. Not Batman level ::)
All I've seen is one mention from Shiva of how she might have said they were equal at one time (correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this 12 years ago?? Given rewrites and retcons, 12 years is a looong time. In fact, Shiva wouldn't have been considered much more than a deadly assassin at this point in time.) while currently the story is far far different if you've read any of the series that are more focused on the fighting... Birds of Prey, Batgirl and that Richard Dragon one a while back spring to mind, the story is a lot clearer.

I'd also like to add that personally, I don't buy into the "given enough prep time Batman could beat ANYONE" line of thinking, as that's just shoddy character-building if it were at all true, as well as complete and utter assumption, thus making for boring debates when considering one on one, because you're basically saying that if there's anything in the world that can beat hero X then Batman has it as he's rich, therefore he wins. I wouldn't equate that as a Batman win, I'd equate that as a win for reader imagination for coming up with a weakness of the hero (all of them have them) and just going "oh Batman could exploit that" while ignoring Batman's own weakness of being pretty easy to kill by anything that'd kill a human.

Edit: Are we referring to the Knightsend reference where she says "as it stands, you are not worthy of me"? If so, that says nothing to me. To be worthy of her training, you don't need to be her equal at any point. She's training Canary now, and she's most definitely not her equal. I don't think it implies they were equal at all.
Edit again: Oh and let's not forget her next comment in the same book I'm looking at- "you were NEVER worthy of me." "WEre you worthy of my effort, I would kill you". Ouch, burned. Am I referring to the correct issue here?

Rex_Hondo
2006-05-27, 03:40 AM
About 10 years or so ago, DC and Marvel got together to do a big crossover. *A bunch of each universe's superheroes ended up having to fight to determing which universe would survive, and the fans voted on the outcome of the pivotal fights. *Some of them went about as you'd expect, some were actually pretty cool, and some were a bit cheap, with underpowered but more popular characters winning. *(*cough* Wolverine vs Lobo *cough*)

What ended up resulting, though, was a couple of things. *The first was the "Amalgam" universe, a series of one-shot books about characters that are combinations of characters from each universe. *

Wolverine + Batman = Dark Claw
Joker + Sabretooth = Hyena
JLA + X-Men = JLX
Superman + Captain America = Super Soldier
etc... *

Also created was "Access," a superhero of dubious quality, whose main power is to freely travel between the two universes. *He was tasked with breaking the Amalgam universe back into its component universes. *There were a couple of minis, All Access and Unlimited Access, involving other permutations of amalgams needing to be pulled back apart as I recall. *

My budget couldn't handle regular comic purchases by that point, so I kind of lost track...

If you do some looking around on Amazon or someplace like that, you should be able to find quite a bit.

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 03:48 AM
She was trained from birth by the master assassin David Cain using body language as her native tongue, instead of a verbal one. Because of this, she can tell what someone's doing nearly before they do it themselves because their body betrays their actions. When she killed her first person, she "saw" the life fleeing from him, and realised what she'd actually done, so fled. She eventually landed in Gotham during the No Man's Land crisis, where she ran errands for Oracle. After saving the commissioner's life, she was given the batgirl costume.Most recent issue of Batgirl before the series ended, yep, Shiva admitted to it. She hadn't previously wanted Cassandra to know because family changes things.
Ah cool. Thanks.



You're saying that Batgirl can't even give Batman a run for his money? Have you actually READ Batgirl? She's currently considered to be the only person who has beaten Shiva one on one, and Shiva IS portrayed as the benchmark of human fighting perfection. Someone is tough? They're said to be Shiva-level in scale. Not Batman level ::)
All I've seen is one mention from Shiva of how she might have said they were equal at one time (correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this 12 years ago?? Given rewrites and retcons, 12 years is a looong time. In fact, Shiva wouldn't have been considered much more than a deadly assassin at this point in time.) while currently the story is far far different if you've read any of the series that are more focused on the fighting... Birds of Prey, Batgirl and that Richard Dragon one a while back spring to mind, the story is a lot clearer.
I did get the vague impression from the New Batman/Superman Adventures that Batman was supposed to be a super martial-artist, although not necessarily the very best. I recall one episode where an old rival from his martial-arts training days comes back for vengeance, and Batman wins but just barely as I recall, and then in part because he has his bag of tricks while the rival is mostly just a marital artist. I also got the impression that their sensei could have beaten the two of them at the same time. Of course that's from a tv series, so not "canon," but certainly gave me some strong impressions.

Back in my day Batman wasn't a trained martial artist at all. He just punched and kicked. There was an episode where he and Robin faced Green Hornet and Cato. Cato was actually played by Bruce Lee! It was funny to see that episode some years later when I was studying Tae Kwon Do and laugh with a fellow Tae Kwon Do friend at the notion of Robin the weenie fighting Cato. The fight between the two pairs was supposed to be a stalemate. Basically Cato just threw Robin over a table and Robin hid behind the table from Cato while Batman and the Green Hornet squared off until the police arrived or something. As I recall people thought Green Hornet was a villain and the Batman didn't know any better, but of course Hornet and Cato were really goodguys and didn't want to fight. In fact Cato has a great (stupid) line where he says, "It's a good thing they're on our side, even though they don't know it." Ah, those were the days. :D



I'd also like to add that personally, I don't buy into the "given enough prep time Batman could beat ANYONE" line of thinking, as that's just shoddy character-building if it were at all true, as well as complete and utter assumption, thus making for boring debates when considering one on one, because you're basically saying that if there's anything in the world that can beat hero X then Batman has it as he's rich, therefore he wins. I wouldn't equate that as a Batman win, I'd equate that as a win for reader imagination for coming up with a weakness of the hero (all of them have them) and just going "oh Batman could exploit that" while ignoring Batman's own weakness of being pretty easy to kill by anything that'd kill a human.

This is extremely well-said, as usual for you, KayJay.

Rex_Hondo
2006-05-27, 03:59 AM
Look, we get it, you hate Batman, KayJay. *You think Batman automatically loses against anyone and is tremendously easy to kill, despite the fact that he's still very much alive and considered one of the most dangerous people on the planet by people much more powerful than him. *Any time he does something cool and saves the day is just a plot device by biased writers, unlike the rest of the DC heroes who magically appear on the page and are infallible in their representations.

KayJay
2006-05-27, 04:14 AM
Oh don't get me wrong, I love Batman and the crew(I've read the whole Gotham Knights line, as well as Robin, Nightwing, Birds of Prey and Batgirl) it just irks me when misinformation as I see it is being passed. If anything, I read less Superman than Batman, although I do follow that enough too.
Batman's not remotely portrayed as that unstoppable to me, and has been neutralised in the simplest of ways at times. I do strongly disagree to the fact that we've said he's maybe top 4 in the world, when no evidence I've seen points to that fact, and given that someone like Batgirl has been seen dodging bullets already in flight and targeting her, I think that the difference in skill levels is very apparent.

Edit: And the most "dangerous man on earth" line, I'm pretty sure refers to non-metas. And how would someone like Superman know something like that? Severly doubt it's catalogued. Statement like that said to the enemy stinks of trying to scare them and gloat more than anything else. Just like how a trapped prisoner might see a hero aabout to save them and say "he's going to kick your ass." You kind of lose the effect if it's changed slightly anyway.
"He's the most dangerous man on earth. Oh, apart from Lex Luthor. And I guess that guy I met in the mall last week."

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 04:36 AM
Look, we get it, you hate Batman, KayJay. You think Batman automatically loses against anyone and is tremendously easy to kill, despite the fact that he's still very much alive and considered one of the most dangerous people on the planet by people much more powerful than him. Any time he does something cool and saves the day is just a plot device by biased writers, unlike the rest of the DC heroes who magically appear on the page and are infallible in their representations.
Well KayJay speaks for himself above, but I'd like to add that I think he doesn't hate Batman at all from what I've seen, but just objects to the virtual deification of Batman that we've seen some people (not you) do on the boards. Reading KayJay's comments makes me more likely to read the Knight...series since it apparently doesn't make Batman omniscent or invulnerable.

From what I've seen of the Spiderman, I'd have to say that I think Batman is a much more skilled fighter. I don't think that Batman could necessarily win in hand to hand, since Spiderman is probably quite a bit stronger (though possibly not stronger than Batman's most powerful powered armor), but from what I've seen of Spiderman he just kick and punches like the old Batman of the 1960s, and doesn't have any sort of martial arts training. Now keep in mind that what I've seen consists of the old Spiderman cartoon series of the 1960s, the Spiderman movies of the 21st century, and maybe one or two comics in between. I recall an episode of the comics where Spiderman is fighting the Hulk, and basically spending the whole time pretty much just running away, while the Hulk says, "anywhere bugman can go, Hulk can go too" and jumping from the ground to the top of the building where Spidey is hanging out (pun intended).

Of course as with Batman, Spiderman might have gotten more martially sophisticated over the decades too.

Speaking of marital arts, there was an episode of Lois and Clark where some martial arts master with magical bracers was tossing Superman around, basically using Superman's own strength against him in the way that we learned in Aikido. I thought it was silly really, since in order to be able to toss someone around like that you really have to be faster than they are to get out of the way (and help redirect their their thrust) and there's no way that some merely human martial artist should be able to be that fast (though maybe you can attribute the speed to the magical bracers). Before the end, however, the martial arts master who has taught the villain with the bracers teaches Superman how to counter it, and not allow his own strength to be used against him, and he then kicks the villain's butt.

Now, I think a Superman who also learned to be a martial arts master would be that much more incredibly powerful. Why does he learn martial arts but then never use them? Well for the same reason that the kids who invented him then invented kryptonite some years later--to make him not so powerful that nobody canpossibly challenge him. I mean, if Superman wins hands down every single time with no struggle at all, where's the fun in that?

Incidentally, did you know that DC comics banned the krytonite issue for decades and didn't allow kryptonite to enter into the comics books until long after the radio show had introduced it? They were afraid that Americans would reject a diminutionof their favorite superhero. I'm not sure how the radio show got away with introducing kryptonite. Maybe they just went ahead and did it without permission, as radio was live and once they introduced it DC couldn't stop people from hearing about it. The radio show actually handled it so deftly that DC eventually agreed to allow it in the comic too.

Anyway, getting back to Spiderman versus Batman, I guess Batman could just shoot him (and the Batman of the 1980s would have had no qualms about it) since Spiderman isn't bulletproof and for some reason doesn't wear a kevlar or otherwise bullet-resistant costume. I mean back in the 1960s nobody ran around with kevlar (indeed I think it hadn't been invented yet) but in 2006 you'd think Spidey maybe could get himself an upgrade. After all, I gather he's got a paying job and a well-paid wife, so by now he can probably afford it. :D



Oh don't get me wrong, I love Batman and the crew(I've read the whole Gotham Knights line, as well as Robin, Nightwing, Birds of Prey and Batgirl) it just irks me when misinformation as I see it is being passed. If anything, I read less Superman than Batman, although I do follow that enough too.
Batman's not remotely portrayed as that unstoppable to me, and has been neutralised in the simplest of ways at times. I do strongly disagree to the fact that we've said he's maybe top 4 in the world, when no evidence I've seen points to that fact, and given that someone like Batgirl has been seen dodging bullets already in flight and targeting her, I think that the difference in skill levels is very apparent.

Edit: And the most "dangerous man on earth" line, I'm pretty sure refers to non-metas. And how would someone like Superman know something like that? Severly doubt it's catalogued. Statement like that said to the enemy stinks of trying to scare them and gloat more than anything else. Just like how a trapped prisoner might see a hero aabout to save them and say "he's going to kick your ass." You kind of lose the effect if it's changed slightly anyway.
"He's the most dangerous man on earth. Oh, apart from Lex Luthor. And I guess that guy I met in the mall last week."

I don't understand that last part really about the most dangerous man on earth, especially not the reference to the mall.

Speaking of Birds of Prey, what did you think of the tv show of the same name? I watched it because it was a superhero series, even though I'd never heard of Oracle, or Batman's daughter (can't recall her name) or the other one with mental powers. I always wondered where Batman had gone too. I thought the series had a lot of potential, but I thought it was poorly done. The Oracle character seemed good, and I liked the younger psionic one, but the Batman's daughter one seemed very unsympathetic. I also didn't like Harley Quinn as the criminal mastermind, perhaps because I'd seen Harley Quinn as the Joker's goofball sidekick on The New Batman/Superman Adventures first. So what did you all think about it? How much did it vary from "canon?"

KayJay
2006-05-27, 04:42 AM
Current Spiderman in the new suit IS bulletproof actually :) Got shot in the back and was fine.
Batman in the 1980's used guns? Current Batman hates guns since it killed his Parents.


Speak if Birds of Prey, what did you think of the tv show of the same name? I watched it because it was a superhero series, even though I'd never heard of Oracle, or Batman's daughter (can't recall her name) or the other one with mental powers. I always wondered where Batman had gone too. I thought the series had a lot of potential, but I thought it was poorly done. The Oracle character seemed good, and I liked the younger psionic one, but the Batman's daughter one seemed very unsympathetic. I also didn't like Harley Quinn as the criminal mastermind, perhaps because I'd seen Harley Quinn as jokers goofball sidekick on The New Batman/Superman Adventures first. So what did you all think about it? How much did it vary from "canon?"
Regretfully I missed that... it was cancelled pretty soon and I'm not even sure if it was shown in the UK. I hear it wasn't that good though, which was probably why it was cancelled :)

Rex_Hondo
2006-05-27, 04:48 AM
Again, probably more me getting snippy than anything else... I'm a sucker for these vs discussions, even though I occasionally flash back to the Enterprise vs Star Destroyer "debate" that soured me on IRC years ago... *shudder*

But, Batman can hardly be counted out in any matchup out of hand, given the number of times he has come out on top against seemingly impossible, and even cosmic odds. *

Granted, he gets taken out fairly regularly. *That's true, but it's usually in the short-term. *Joker (Just to use an easy example) may best him in an encounter or two, but Batman is much better at the long game and almost always wins in the end.

So, in any vs scenario, Batman's opponent wants to take him down fast and HARD. *Given a chance to recoup and reassess, well, I personally would give him at least even odds on just about any rematch that he's smart enough to not just stay out of. *Let's face it, with cosmic threats and other scenarios where he knows he's clearly overmatched he calls in the big guns and takes the strategist role. *He doesn't go toe to toe with Darkseid. *He acts as a distraction while Big Blue pounds away.

So, to bring it back on track. *Batman vs Spiderman. *(Classic, long-running Spiderman, since I'm not sure what all they've mutated him into in the last few months) *I'd still put it at about even odds overall, but without a decisive winner most of the time, since they're both good at quick getaways when things start to go south.

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 04:56 AM
Current Spiderman in the new suit IS bulletproof actually :) Got shot in the back and was fine.
Batman in the 1980's used guns? Current Batman hates guns since it killed his Parents.

Yes, during the 1980s DC turned Batman into a foaming-at-the-mouth, gun-toting, psychopathic vigilante. It was set in a time when people no longer trusted superheros, and they had all agreed not to be seen in public. Then we see Batman with foam literally coming from his mouth shooting an automatic pistol in each hand at some badguys. Then Superman swoops in, moving too fast to be seen, thus following the letter of the agreement "not to be seen in public." You can't see him but you can "hear" him talking (see his voice bubbles) as he says, "Bruce, come on now, you can't be doing this anymore. We all agreed." Or something to that effect. The only reason we even know it's Superman talking, as I recall, is that Batman identifies his voice.

Basically, I think it was a reaction against the goofball campy Batman of the 1960s series and the Superman-clone personality of the Batman of the Superfriends of the 1970s. DC had made him very, very light on tv, so with the comic in the 1980s they went very, very dark. By the time Batman reappeared in the mass media for the movies of the 1990s, he had lost the psychopathy, but retained many darker elements--a version of the Batman I rather enjoyed, even though I grew up on campy Batman/Superfriends Batman.

I might add that while Chris Reeve really powerfully personified Superman, I never really saw any of the actors who played Batman as really personifying him. Michael Keaton was fine, but I never felt like "he really IS Batman." Val Kilmer always seemed like a vaccuous pretty boy to me, so he certainly didn't seem like Batman. George Clooney, whom I loved as the doc on ER, also just didn't personify Batman.

On the other hand, I thought Jack Nicolson was a perfectly psychotic Joker, and I loved Ahnold as Mr. Freeze. I think Jim Carey was too wacky for Riddler, although he did capture the spirit of Geoerge Gershan's 1960s campy Riddler. I'm not sure I wanted that Riddler in the more serious Batman movies of the 1990s, and frankly, Carey was just getting so much publicity at that time that I was sort of sick of him. I can't attest to what's his name as too-face or Uma Thurmond as Poison Ivy as I'd never developed strong ideas of what they'd been like. Indeed Two Face never made either the campy Batman nor, so far as I ever saw, Superfriends.

KayJay
2006-05-27, 05:01 AM
I don't understand that last part really about the most dangerous man on earth, especially not the reference to the mall.
The "most dangerous man on earth" quote was used by Superman when he was captured by multiple white martians, and Batman was using fire to defeat them, and the martians were confused about how he was doing it, to which Superman said something gloating along the lines of "he's the most dangerous man on earth... looks like your plans are falling apart".
I'm just saying this has a lot more dramatic effect that Superman trying to scare the martian by saying he's the most dangerous man on earth, then listing the exceptions, and a bit of a waste of time. It wouldn't have been nearly as effective as a statement if he'd said "he's one of the 10 most dangerous people on earth" would it?

Rex_Hondo
2006-05-27, 05:03 AM
Stick, If you're wanting to get a good idea of what Batman's about these days, Batman: Year One by Frank Miller is as good a place to start as any. *I believe it's still considered the canonical origin story for the modern age Batman still. *

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 05:09 AM
Regretfully I missed that... it was cancelled pretty soon and I'm not even sure if it was shown in the UK. I hear it wasn't that good though, which was probably why it was cancelled :)

I don't know if it's worth trying to get the episodes on DVD or not. I mean I watched every one, and enjoyed some of it, even as I recognized that it wasn't that well done and kept hoping they would realize it and make it better. Alas they got cancelled before they did. I think there was a bit too much of an anti-male undercurrent to the show; there wasn't a decent male character, hero or villain, in the whole darned thing. The only cool man in the show was Alfred. There was another, younger man who was a love interest for the Batman's (and Catwoman's) daughter, but I don't recall him being very appealing. He seemed more like a prettyboy than a real police detective. I also think that they made the Batman's daughter just too vicious to be appealing. She would kick a man unconsicous for looking at her crosswise, and while I'm sure that appealed to the post-feminist man-hating crowd, it really turned off other viewers, including me, although I tried to put that nonsense aside and did watch the whole run of the show.




The "most dangerous man on earth" quote was used by Superman when he was captured by multiple white martians, and Batman was using fire to defeat them, and the martians were confused about how he was doing it, to which Superman said something gloating along the lines of "he's the most dangerous man on earth... looks like your plans are falling apart".
I'm just saying this has a lot more dramatic effect that Superman trying to scare the martian by saying he's the most dangerous man on earth, then listing the exceptions, and a bit of a waste of time. It wouldn't have been nearly as effective as a statement if he'd said "he's one of the 10 most dangerous people on earth" would it?
Ah, I now recall one of the pro-Batman fellows on the other thread mentioning that Superman had made that comment, but now I see that he mentioned it grossly out of context. "You're in trouble now--he's one of the ten most dangerous men on Earth." LOL!


Again, probably more me getting snippy than anything else... I'm a sucker for these vs discussions, even though I occasionally flash back to the Enterprise vs Star Destroyer "debate" that soured me on IRC years ago... *shudder*
I never saw the debate on the IRC as I never really went there. Did it basically boil down to people who liked Star Trek better saying that the Enteprise won, and people who liked Star Wars better saying that the Star Destroyer won?

To me it seems likely that with warp drive and force shields the Enterprise would likely win. Also I'd have to say that phasers seem profoundly more powerful than the energy weapons that the Star Wars universe used, which seemed to practically bounce off an oppoent's ship, whereas phasers clearly cut right through an unshielded hull. Oh, and then there are transporters, which a Star Trek ship might use to simply materialize nukes inside of a Star Destroyer. :)


But, Batman can hardly be counted out in any matchup out of hand, given the number of times he has come out on top against seemingly impossible, and even cosmic odds.

Granted, he gets taken out fairly regularly. That's true, but it's usually in the short-term. Joker (Just to use an easy example) may best him in an encounter or two, but Batman is much better at the long game and almost always wins in the end.

So, in any vs scenario, Batman's opponent wants to take him down fast and HARD. Given a chance to recoup and reassess, well, I personally would give him at least even odds on just about any rematch that he's smart enough to not just stay out of. Let's face it, with cosmic threats and other scenarios where he knows he's clearly overmatched he calls in the big guns and takes the strategist role. He doesn't go toe to toe with Darkseid. He acts as a distraction while Big Blue pounds away.
Yes, that is the impression that I get too. There was an episode of JLU where someone says that basically without Superman the JL would be in trouble because he does all the metaphorical (as well as actually) heavy lifting.

Also in the old campy Batman he and Robin regularly got captured by the enemies, who invariably had some stupid diabolical plan to slow-roast the Dynamic Duo while the vilains went off to committ some crime. So while the criminals could have killed Batman and Robin repeatedly, they never did, because after the villains left to committ the crime Batman and Robin would find some goofy way out.

More seriously, in the recent Batman cartoon series, like The Batman, Batman often gets his butt kicked in the first round, and the villains often could kill him but don't. There was an episode of The Batman in which Bane kicks his butt not once but twice, and either time could have killed Batman but refrained. Batman always wins in the end, but he would be dead if not for the restrain of the villains. That's more the Batman image that I have in my mind, rather than the "Batman always wins given preparation."



So, to bring it back on track. Batman vs Spiderman. (Classic, long-running Spiderman, since I'm not sure what all they've mutated him into in the last few months) I'd still put it at about even odds overall, but without a decisive winner most of the time, since they're both good at quick getaways when things start to go south.
Yes, maybe it's a closer match than I thought initially.

Rex_Hondo
2006-05-27, 05:22 AM
Put it this way. *I made the mistake of thinking that the guy who started the "debate" in the Star Wars channel actually wanted a debate. *What people wanted instead, as I found out the hard way, was to say "of course the Star Destroyer wins" and bash Star Trek for a while. *Was actually called a troll because I dared to posit an "Enterprise wins" scenario (for many of the reasons you cite) in a Star Wars discussion group. **shudder* Dark times... Dark times indeed...

And, to be fair, The Batman IS about a much younger and less experienced Batman. Personally, when I think of a definitive Batman, I usually turn to the most recent animated one from the animated series of the early 90s up through JLU. If nothing else, it makes a good baseline since most people seem to be at least fairly familiar with it, and it's pretty true to the roots of the character as well as his more recent incarnations.

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 05:43 AM
Stick, If you're wanting to get a good idea of what Batman's about these days, Batman: Year One by Frank Miller is as good a place to start as any. I believe it's still considered the canonical origin story for the modern age Batman still.
Thanks! There's a 1997 paperback version and a 2005 harcover deluxe version for about $5 more, so I put the deluxe version on my Amazon Wish List. I've also added Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.

Hey, while we're at it, is there any good recent Superman stuff to read? Or will I just get sick at the weak, stupid and ineffecutal thing still called "Superman" these days? :D



Put it this way. I made the mistake of thinking that the guy who started the "debate" in the Star Wars channel actually wanted a debate. What people wanted instead, as I found out the hard way, was to say "of course the Star Destroyer wins" and bash Star Trek for a while. Was actually called a troll because I dared to posit an "Enterprise wins" scenario (for many of the reasons you cite) in a Star Wars discussion group. *shudder* Dark times... Dark times indeed...

Heh. Indeed. Nothing like a good non-debate.

I seem to recall that maybe they did have SOME sort of shielding in Star Wars, like the "shield generator" on the ice planet of Hoth, but those things seemed to be big honking things not suitable for ships. Certainly I don't recall anything between the little fighters and the Death Star. Actually it never occurred to me before, but Imperial technology seems reminiscent of Soviet technology--making things bigger to be intimidating, rather than better.

Anyway, it's funny, but I've been a Star Trek fan since Day 1, back in 1966. I can still remember being 5 or 6 and arguing with one of my brothers about whether Star Trek had magic in it because of the magic-like abilities of Charlie Evans in the 1st-season episode Charlie X. (My brother said, "only in the one episode.") Anyway years later, when Star Wars came out I was in high school (a junior) and one of the sophmores I knew came back from seeing Star Wars ranting about how it was even better than Star Trek. Well of course that guaranteed that I would go into Star Wars trying to hate it. I mean, better than Star Trek? That was blasphemy! :D

I remember standing in line for more than an hour one freezing night with my first girlfriend, Linda, waiting to see Star Wars, somewhere around the second or third week it had been out. I did in fact like it, but it clearly wasn't as good as Star Trek, and indeed I thought it was only medicore. It wasn't science fiction at all, but space opera--basically a World War II movie set in space, with crop dusters flying fighter planes.

Americans though loved the movie, coming as it did in 1977. People were tired of Vietnam and Watergate and political scandals and the anti-American cynicism of the news media. If it wasn't ok for Americans to believe in American heroes anymore, at least Star Wars made it ok to believe in some fictional heroes a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

I didn't really come to love the Star Wars storyline until The Empire Strikes Back. It's hard to know why, really. I suppose in part it was because nobody was in my face saying that it was better than Star Trek, and maybe also because Star Trek had finally come back, and the first movie wasn't so great. Also I was a few years older and perhaps more mature, more willing to give Star Wars a chance even though it wasn't really science fiction. It's a great story. Luke learns the ways of the Force finally, and goes to face Darth Vader--only to have his butt handed to him on a platter, and without too much fuss. Han and Leia profess their love for each other, only to see Han get frozen in carbonite and handed over to the bounty hunters. Maybe I'd been too cynical for the first movie--really the Alliance should have gotten its butt kicked and lost Leia's planet (name escapes me at this hour--Aldeberan?), so the victory seemed cheezy. The Empire Strikes back maybe just didn't seem so cheezy, and seemed more believable, and that retroactively granted more credibility to the first movie.


And, to be fair, The Batman IS about a much younger and less experienced Batman. Personally, when I think of a definitive Batman, I usually turn to the most recent animated one from the animated series of the early 90s up through JLU. If nothing else, it makes a good baseline since most people seem to be at least fairly familiar with it, and it's pretty true to the roots of the character as well as his more recent incarnations.
Yes, I have to say that I think of Batman as the JLU version too. I don't know how much that differs from the current "canon" but he's certainly not invincible or omniscent. Sure, he often saves the day by pulling some ace out of his Bat-sleeve, but only because while he's off at the Batcave getting the ace Superman is getting blasted repeatedly by something that would have ripped the Earth in two if it weren't busy blasting Superman. It's a little bit like when I was a little kid and my dad would wrestle with my two (older) brothers and then at the very end I would jump on top of the pile and say, "I win!" ;D

Rex_Hondo
2006-05-27, 05:59 AM
Thanks! There's a 1997 paperback version and a 2005 harcover deluxe version for about $5 more, so I put the deluxe version on my Amazon Wish List. I've also added Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.

Be careful though. *The Dark Knight Returns is considered an Elseworlds title, or at the very least only a potential future, so if you're looking for a fair indicator of what the Bat is about these days, it may not be the best indicator. *Either way, do NOT, if you value your sanity, ever read The Dark Knight Strikes Again. *Miller may be a genious most of the time. *He may have re-defined Batman for a generation. *But, DKSA is one of the biggest pieces of crap I've had the misfortune to read. *It has precisely ONE unbelieveably cool line of dialogue, but beyond that... *???

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 06:21 AM
Be careful though. The Dark Knight Returns is considered an Elseworlds title, or at the very least only a potential future, so if you're looking for a fair indicator of what the Bat is about these days, it may not be the best indicator. Either way, do NOT, if you value your sanity, ever read The Dark Knight Strikes Again. Miller may be a genious most of the time. He may have re-defined Batman for a generation. But, DKSA is one of the biggest pieces of crap I've had the misfortune to read. It has precisely ONE unbelieveably cool line of dialogue, but beyond that... ???
Ah, ok, thanks for the warning. I didn't realize that The Dark Knight Returns isn't current "canon."

Did you see the question about Superman canon I added to my previous post?

Rex_Hondo
2006-05-27, 07:03 AM
Well, I'm not as well versed in current Superman as I am in Batman, but I don't think he's stupid or ineffectual. Not punching holes in time or anything, like I said before, and I think they've dropped the "super intellect" from his profile to make him just a tad less godlike, and more folks seem to have gotten ahold of the tech or power to give him an actual challenge. Pretty much all stuff to keep from giving him an insta-win every month and having people lose interest.

True, some of the stuff they've done has been... questionable (energy Superman) but I wouldn't say they've ruined the character or anything.

Go ahead and pick up the Death of Superman, Funeral for a Friend, and Reign of the Supermen, in that order. They're worth a read.

Well, it's been fun (at least once we all started actually speaking the same language) but day shift is arriving and I think somebody wants this desk...

One final note though. On consideration, I think trying to determine "who would win" is a losing proposition, generally degenerating into armed camps. The question SHOULD be, under which circumstances does X win, and under which circumstances does Y win? It usually isn't an either/or proposition.

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 12:35 PM
Well, I'm not as well versed in current Superman as I am in Batman, but I don't think he's stupid or ineffectual. Not punching holes in time or anything, like I said before, and I think they've dropped the "super intellect" from his profile to make him just a tad less godlike, and more folks seem to have gotten ahold of the tech or power to give him an actual challenge. Pretty much all stuff to keep from giving him an insta-win every month and having people lose interest.

True, some of the stuff they've done has been... questionable (energy Superman) but I wouldn't say they've ruined the character or anything.

Go ahead and pick up the Death of Superman, Funeral for a Friend, and Reign of the Supermen, in that order. They're worth a read.

Well, it's been fun (at least once we all started actually speaking the same language) but day shift is arriving and I think somebody wants this desk...

One final note though. On consideration, I think trying to determine "who would win" is a losing proposition, generally degenerating into armed camps. The question SHOULD be, under which circumstances does X win, and under which circumstances does Y win? It usually isn't an either/or proposition.
I found The Death of Superman as one book, but the other two seem to be only multiple comic books.

Do I really want to see my favorite Superhero die?

I'm sure you're right about phrasing the question as a matter of when rather than one or the other.

Holy_Knight
2006-05-27, 02:24 PM
Well here's the thing: I might enjoy Knightfall, etc., but if you and the other "Superman is dumb; Batman always wins" advocates are right, then the current DC comics have totally ruined both Batman and Superman, and I want no part of them.
Stick, you're really misrepresenting my position here. I certainly never said that Superman was dumb, nor that Batman always wins. What I said was that Superman wins in a straight fight, but that Batman will always win if he has enough information and time to execute a plan. (Sure, actually "always" is an overstatement, but almost always probably is not.) I'll admit that Batman is my favorite comic book character, but this isn't some kind of fanboyism--I'm saying Batman would win if he had time to execute his plan because that has happened. Recently the entire JLA was incapacitated by contingency plans that Batman developed in case they went rogue and he had to take them down. I'm basing what I've been saying on what Batman has actually done in the comic books, and it has nothing to do with deifying him or maligning Superman.


Edit: Are we referring to the Knightsend reference where she says "as it stands, you are not worthy of me"? If so, that says nothing to me. To be worthy of her training, you don't need to be her equal at any point. She's training Canary now, and she's most definitely not her equal. I don't think it implies they were equal at all.
Edit again: Oh and let's not forget her next comment in the same book I'm looking at- "you were NEVER worthy of me." "WEre you worthy of my effort, I would kill you". Ouch, burned. Am I referring to the correct issue here?
I think so, but here is how the conversation goes:

Shiva: You are not worthy of me.
Bruce: Not now, not yet. But once I was. Remember the pier? Bring me back.
Shiva: You were never worthy of me. You refuse to kill.

Her reason for saying he isn't worthy of her is that he refuses to kill, not that his fighting abilities were subpar. She seems to accept that his abilities used to be close to her own.

As for Batgirl, there have been some times where it seemed Batman was better than she was. In No Man's Land, he beat her during the "suicide drill" to prove to her that he could stop Cain, for instance. I haven't gotten to read many comics lately, so there may be more recent things to suggest she's a better fighter than he is, but there are some cases at least where he seems her better.



Back in my day Batman wasn't a trained martial artist at all. He just punched and kicked. There was an episode where he and Robin faced Green Hornet and Cato. Cato was actually played by Bruce Lee! It was funny to see that episode some years later when I was studying Tae Kwon Do and laugh with a fellow Tae Kwon Do friend at the notion of Robin the weenie fighting Cato. The fight between the two pairs was supposed to be a stalemate. Basically Cato just threw Robin over a table and Robin hid behind the table from Cato while Batman and the Green Hornet squared off until the police arrived or something. As I recall people thought Green Hornet was a villain and the Batman didn't know any better, but of course Hornet and Cato were really goodguys and didn't want to fight. In fact Cato has a great (stupid) line where he says, "It's a good thing they're on our side, even though they don't know it." Ah, those were the days. :D

Dude... okay, this has to be said. Bringing up the old campy 60s Batman TV show in a comics debate is at best irrelevant, and generally just wrong. The Animated Series is (I would say) perfectly legitimate, because despite not being canon, it's generally agreed to be a very good portrayal of the characters. But the Adam West version? Just... no. ::)


Speaking of marital arts, there was an episode of Lois and Clark where some martial arts master with magical bracers was tossing Superman around, basically using Superman's own strength against him in the way that we learned in Aikido. I thought it was silly really, since in order to be able to toss someone around like that you really have to be faster than they are to get out of the way (and help redirect their their thrust) and there's no way that some merely human martial artist should be able to be that fast (though maybe you can attribute the speed to the magical bracers). Before the end, however, the martial arts master who has taught the villain with the bracers teaches Superman how to counter it, and not allow his own strength to be used against him, and he then kicks the villain's butt.

Ugh! Yeah, that was a really stupid episode. Let me add that one to the time travel ones and any where "Tempus" was the main villain to the list of ones that sucked. I really liked that show in general, though.



Yes, during the 1980s DC turned Batman into a foaming-at-the-mouth, gun-toting, psychopathic vigilante. It was set in a time when people no longer trusted superheros, and they had all agreed not to be seen in public. Then we see Batman with foam literally coming from his mouth shooting an automatic pistol in each hand at some badguys. Then Superman swoops in, moving too fast to be seen, thus following the letter of the agreement "not to be seen in public." You can't see him but you can "hear" him talking (see his voice bubbles) as he says, "Bruce, come on now, you can't be doing this anymore. We all agreed." Or something to that effect. The only reason we even know it's Superman talking, as I recall, is that Batman identifies his voice.
As far as I can tell, the only thing you could be referring to here is "The Dark Knight Returns", and Batman was most definitely NOT a gun-toting psychopath in it. In fact, given how long hatred of guns has been a part of the character, I think that unless you can point to where this happened, you must just be confused about this and Batman was never portrayed that way.




Be careful though. The Dark Knight Returns is considered an Elseworlds title, or at the very least only a potential future, so if you're looking for a fair indicator of what the Bat is about these days, it may not be the best indicator. Either way, do NOT, if you value your sanity, ever read The Dark Knight Strikes Again. Miller may be a genious most of the time. He may have re-defined Batman for a generation. But, DKSA is one of the biggest pieces of crap I've had the misfortune to read. It has precisely ONE unbelieveably cool line of dialogue, but beyond that... ???
A-FREAKING-MEN to that, brother. "The Dark Knight Returns" is excellent, and rated by many as one of the best comic stories ever. "The Dark Knight Strikes Again", on the other hand, was basically: "Frank Miller has an exaggerated reactionary political agenda to push, and made a crappy Batman story to do it in."

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 02:35 PM
Stick, you're really misrepresenting my position here. I certainly never said that Superman was dumb, nor that Batman always wins. What I said was that Superman wins in a straight fight, but that Batman will always win if he has enough information and time to execute a plan. (Sure, actually "always" is an overstatement, but almost always probably is not.) I'll admit that Batman is my favorite comic book character, but this isn't some kind of fanboyism--I'm saying Batman would win if he had time to execute his plan because that has happened. Recently the entire JLA was incapacitated by contingency plans that Batman developed in case they went rogue and he had to take them down. I'm basing what I've been saying on what Batman has actually done in the comic books, and it has nothing to do with deifying him or maligning Superman.

I think so, but here is how the conversation goes:

Shiva: You are not worthy of me.
Bruce: Not now, not yet. But once I was. Remember the pier? Bring me back.
Shiva: You were never worthy of me. You refuse to kill.

Her reason for saying he isn't worthy of her is that he refuses to kill, not that his fighting abilities were subpar. She seems to accept that his abilities used to be close to her own.

As for Batgirl, there have been some times where it seemed Batman was better than she was. In No Man's Land, he beat her during the "suicide drill" to prove to her that he could stop Cain, for instance. I haven't gotten to read many comics lately, so there may be more recent things to suggest she's a better fighter than he is, but there are some cases at least where he seems her better.

Dude... okay, this has to be said. Bringing up the old campy 60s Batman TV show in a comics debate is at best irrelevant, and generally just wrong. The Animated Series is (I would say) perfectly legitimate, because despite not being canon, it's generally agreed to be a very good portrayal of the characters. But the Adam West version? Just... no. ::)

Ugh! Yeah, that was a really stupid episode. Let me add that one to the time travel ones and any where "Tempus" was the main villain to the list of ones that sucked. I really liked that show in general, though.

As far as I can tell, the only thing you could be referring to here is "The Dark Knight Returns", and Batman was most definitely NOT a gun-toting psychopath in it. In fact, given how long hatred of guns has been a part of the character, I think that unless you can point to where this happened, you must just be confused about this and Batman was never portrayed that way.

A-FREAKING-MEN to that, brother. "The Dark Knight Returns" is excellent, and rated by many as one of the best comic stories ever. "The Dark Knight Strikes Again", on the other hand, was basically: "Frank Miller has an exaggerated reactionary political agenda to push, and made a crappy Batman story to do it in."



Hmm. If it's a reactionary political agenda I might like it. :D

If Batman can take down the entire Justice League by himself, then you don't have to deify him--the author has already done that for you.

Like it or not, the campy Batman of the 1960s represented Batman to far more people than the post-1986 comic books ever will.

There's no question that a friend of mine showed me the comic with Batman using guns and foaming at the mouth. The fact that you're not familiar with it doesn't mean it never existed, and saying so is the first really poor thing I've seen you say. I've described the comic in some detail, so unless you're calling me a liar, back off--you're simply wrong on that one.

I will say that it's an improvement to see you go from "if prepared, Batman always wins" to "if prepared, Batman nearly always wins." At least you recognize that he's not omniscent.

Holy_Knight
2006-05-27, 02:46 PM
If Batman can take down the entire Justice League by himself, then *you don't have to deify him--the author has already done that for you.
Well, it's not quite that simple--it was a series of very complex plans designed to exploit all of their weaknesses. It certainly wasn't anything quick or easy to do, so I'm not sure it qualifies as deifying him.



Like it or not, the campy Batman of the 1960s represented Batman to far more people than the post-1986 comic books ever will.
I'll grant that many people associate Batman with that, but I don't think it's fair to say that it does so for the majority of people. If nothing else, that wouldn't be the case for fans of Batman who typically read the comics, as opposed to people who may have just seen the show when it was on. Don't get me wrong, I actually find that show fun to watch, it's just not representative of Batman as he was portrayed through most of the character's history, and certainly not originally or any time recently.



There's no question that a friend of mine showed me the comic with Batman using guns and foaming at the mouth. *The fact that you're not familiar with it doesn't make it so, and saying so is the first really poor thing I've seen you say. I've described the comic in some detail, so unless you're calling me a liar, back off--you're simply wrong on that one.
Ah--I may have worded my post poorly, because I certainly wasn't calling you a liar. I apologize for any offense you took to that, as it was in no way intended. Some of what you described sounded similar to part of "The Dark Knight Returns", which is why I thought you might have been confusing the two. I really would like it if you could say what the title of the comic in question was, so I could see it, and I wasn't meaning to insinuate anything negative about you in asking that. My guess is that it's some kind of Elseworlds story, as I can't imagine that it was presented as part of actual continuity, in any case. That's all that I meant with that, sorry for the confusion and the perceived hostility.

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 03:03 PM
Well, it's not quite that simple--it was a series of very complex plans designed to exploit all of their weaknesses. It certainly wasn't anything quick or easy to do, so I'm not sure it qualifies as deifying him.

Well perhaps if I read it I'd see it differently, but it did come across that way intially, especially in light of some of the "Batman always wins" comments on the board recently.


I'll grant that many people associate Batman with that, but I don't think it's fair to say that it does so for the majority of people. If nothing else, that wouldn't be the case for fans of Batman who typically read the comics, as opposed to people who may have just seen the show when it was on. Don't get me wrong, I actually find that show fun to watch, it's just not representative of Batman as he was portrayed through most of the character's history, and certainly not originally or any time recently.

You'll notice that I didn't say "the majority."I just said "far more than read the comic," with which I suspect you'll agree. I can understand though why you'd object, and I know that you were being playful anyway. I normally would have responded in kind, but I'm kind of tired and cranky and I'd already read your later comment discussed below.

I do think that with the release of the Batman movies in the 1990s more people have gotten a view of a darker Batman, although not one that seems to match the current comic books very well.

There was a really cool episode of The New Batman/Superman Adventures which I think had the title "Tales of the Dark Knight." In the episode some kids are walking home and see the Batman swing by, whereupon they start telling different versions of what the Batman is "really" like. One kid tells a story told to him about his uncle, which involves Batman and Robin, drawn like the old 1960s Batman and Robin, using language right out of the 1960s Batman, like "Old Chum" and "holy tuba, Batman" or some such. Basically it's a satire of the old 1960s show and it was hysterically funny, right down to the silly way the villain tried to use musical instruments to kill the Dynamic Duo. At the end Batman and Robin win, and just as in the opening credits of the 1960s Batman, shake hands. That had me laughing hysterically.

Then then other kids make fun of the kid who told the first story, and say things like "I'm sure Batman doesn't call Robin 'old chum'" and so forth. Next a girl tells a story of Batman, only Robin is a girl in her story. I gather from the credits that this was supposed to be a satire of the 1980s Batman, and he was pretty psychopathical, but without any guns. I actually didn't enjoy that one very much, perhaps because I wasn't as familiar with what they were satirizing. Anyway though it was a great episode.


Ah--I may have worded my post poorly, because I certainly wasn't calling you a liar. I apologize for any offense you took to that, as it was in no way intended. Some of what you described sounded similar to part of "The Dark Knight Returns", which is why I thought you might have been confusing the two. I really would like it if you could say what the title of the comic in question was, so I could see it, and I wasn't meaning to insinuate anything negative about you in asking that. My guess is that it's some kind of Elseworlds story, as I can't imagine that it was presented as part of actual continuity, in any case. That's all that I meant with that, sorry for the confusion and the perceived hostility.
Ok, thanks, no offense taken. Like I said, I'm tired and cranky at the moment. :)

I'm afraid that I can't give you the answer you'd like. I saw the comic some 20-25 years ago, and I don't think I even looked at the cover. There's just no way that I can give you a title. I've described all I can remember: the froth, the twin guns, and the invisible Superman. :) The D&D buddy who showed it to me was making a point about how Batman was no longer the nice guy of the 1960s and 1970s but a homicidal maniac. I think that comic predates The Dark Knight Returns. I checked on Amazon for the publication date of The Dark Night Returns, and they list it as 1997, but it's a 10th anniversary edition, so perhaps that puts the original publication in 1987. I'm pretty sure that's a couple of years after Bob showed me the gun-toting, mouth-foaming Batman.

Holy_Knight
2006-05-27, 03:53 PM
There was a really cool episode of The New Batman/Superman Adventures which I think had the title "Tales of the Dark Knight." In the episode some kids are walking home and see the Batman swing by, whereupon they start telling different versions of what the Batman is "really" like. One kid tells a story told to him about his uncle, which involves Batman and Robin, drawn like the old 1960s Batman and Robin, using language right out of the 1960s Batman, like "Old Chum" and "holy tuba, Batman" or some such. Basically it's a satire of the old 1960s show and it was hysterically funny, right down to the silly way the villain tried to use musical instruments to kill the Dynamic Duo. At the end Batman and Robin win, and just as in the opening credits of the 1960s Batman, shake hands. That had me laughing hysterically.

Then then other kids make fun of the kid who told the first story, and say things like "I'm sure Batman doesn't call Robin 'old chum'" and so forth. *Next a girl tells a story of Batman, only Robin is a girl in her story. I gather from the credits that this was supposed to be a satire of the 1980s Batman, and he was pretty psychopathical, but without any guns. I actually didn't enjoy that one very much, perhaps because I wasn't as familiar with what they were satirizing. *Anyway though it was a great episode.
I agree, that was a very cool episode! :) And you guessed right, actually--the girl there is the Robin in The Dark Knight Returns, and that vignette was an adaptation of a few scenes from it. One other thing you might have noticed--later there's a kid with a feather boa named "Joel" who starts talking about Batman, and they all make fun of him--which is clearly a (much deserved) dig at Joel Schumacher, who produced the god-awful "Batman and Robin" movie. Just thinking about that movie makes me mad... in a rare concession though, I will grant that there was one good scene in it, and one funny line. Otherwise I hate it though.



Ok, thanks, no offense taken. *Like I said, I'm tired and cranky at the moment. :)
Cool. It's hard to convey tone on a messageboard, and there are always times when I'm afraid (or ought to be) that what I've written may unintentionally come across as condescending or otherwise hostile, and I guess this was just one of those times. I'm glad we got it cleared up. :)



I'm afraid that I can't give you the answer you'd like. I saw the comic some 20-25 years ago, and I don't think I even looked at the cover. There's just no way that I can give you a title. I've described all I can remember: the froth, the twin guns, and the invisible Superman. *:) *The D&D buddy who showed it to me was making a point about how Batman was no longer the nice guy of the 1960s and 1970s but a homicidal maniac. I think that comic predates The Dark Knight Returns. I checked on Amazon for the publication date of The Dark Night Returns, and they list it as 1997, but it's a 10th anniversary edition, so perhaps that puts the original publication in 1987. *I'm pretty sure that's a couple of years after Bob showed me the gun-toting, mouth-foaming Batman.
That's okay. Maybe I'll come across it sometime. And yeah, looking at my Dark Knight Returns, it lists the original publication date as 1986, so I'll try to look for things that predate that.

CelestialStick
2006-05-27, 05:04 PM
I agree, that was a very cool episode! :) And you guessed right, actually--the girl there is the Robin in The Dark Knight Returns, and that vignette was an adaptation of a few scenes from it. One other thing you might have noticed--later there's a kid with a feather boa named "Joel" who starts talking about Batman, and they all make fun of him--which is clearly a (much deserved) dig at Joel Schumacher, who produced the god-awful "Batman and Robin" movie. Just thinking about that movie makes me mad... in a rare concession though, I will grant that there was one good scene in it, and one funny line. Otherwise I hate it though.

Is that the Batman movie that introduced Batgirl as the niece of Alfred? What was the one good scene, and what was the one funny line? I think I've seen that movie twice.

I do recall the kid with the feather boa but had no idea that he represented the producer of Batman and Robin.


Cool. It's hard to convey tone on a messageboard, and there are always times when I'm afraid (or ought to be) that what I've written may unintentionally come across as condescending or otherwise hostile, and I guess this was just one of those times. I'm glad we got it cleared up. :)

Me too. :)


That's okay. Maybe I'll come across it sometime. And yeah, looking at my Dark Knight Returns, it lists the original publication date as 1986, so I'll try to look for things that predate that.
I hope so!

KayJay
2006-05-27, 05:18 PM
I think so, but here is how the conversation goes:

Shiva: You are not worthy of me.
Bruce: Not now, not yet. But once I was. Remember the pier? Bring me back.
Shiva: You were never worthy of me. You refuse to kill.

Are you paraphrasing? Because that's not the one I'm looking at. Here's how my one goes:
Bruce:Shiva...
Shiva:You... but not in your true guise...
Bruce:It is no longer mine... It has been usurped.. Altered...
Shiva: Perverted.
Shiva:And now you want it back.
Bruce: I want to redeem it.
Shiva: But you are not ready.
Bruce: Train me, Shiva- test me.
Shiva:Why should I?
Bruce: For the same reason you do anything... It might prove... interesting.
Shiva: As you stand you are not worthy of me.
Bruce: Not now, not yet... But once I was. Bring me back.

Like I say, I don't particularly view that as meaning that he was her equal at all, just worthy of her attention, or her training. She's had apprentices before such as Canary, who she she considers "worthy" of her teachings, despite her not being at Shiva's level. In fact, I'd be more suspicious if Shiva decided to train Bruce when he was actually at her level... In cases like that, she'd either kill him for being a threat, or demand a fight to improve her own abilities and see what she could learn. She did neither, which isn't something you ever see from her when she encounters a fighter with something to offer her.

Holy_Knight
2006-05-27, 05:27 PM
Are you paraphrasing? Because that's not the one I'm looking at. Here's how my one goes:
Bruce:Shiva...
Shiva:You... but not in your true guise...
Bruce:It is no longer mine... It has been usurped.. Altered...
Shiva: Perverted.
Shiva:And now you want it back.
Bruce: I want to redeem it.
Shiva: But you are not ready.
Bruce: Train me, Shiva- test me.
Shiva:Why should I?
Bruce: For the same reason you do anything... It might prove... interesting.
Shiva: As you stand you are not worthy of me.
Bruce: Not now, not yet... But once I was. Bring me back.

Like I say, I don't particularly view that as meaning that he was her equal at all, just worthy of her attention, or her training. She's had apprentices before such as Canary, who she she considers "worthy" of her teachings, despite her not being at Shiva's level. In fact, I'd be more suspicious if Shiva decided to train Bruce when he was actually at her level... In cases like that, she'd either kill him for being a threat, or demand a fight to improve her own abilities and see what she could learn. She did neither, which isn't something you ever see from her when she encounters a fighter with something to offer her.
Hmm, that's interesting. I wasn't paraphrasing, but I was taking the conversation from the "Knightfall" novel, rather than an actual comic book, and in that version they specifically added the line "Remember the pier?" Which is part of why I took it to be suggesting that "worthy" meant close to the same ability, as Batman was referencing a previous fight between the two of them. Either way, I agree that it's inconclusive, and you may well be right that he was not as close to her level as I assumed. At the same time, I do still think it's a possibility that he was, also.

As far as her not wanting to train someone who is at her own level, that might be true, but remember that at the time of that conversation, he definitely wasn't at her level, and so she didn't have to worry about him being a threat or testing herself against him at that time.

By the way, what issue does that actually appear in? I'd like to pick it up, if I can.

KayJay
2006-05-27, 06:17 PM
The issue I took the quote from was Batman 509.



As for Batgirl, there have been some times where it seemed Batman was better than she was. In No Man's Land, he beat her during the "suicide drill" to prove to her that he could stop Cain, for instance. I haven't gotten to read many comics lately, so there may be more recent things to suggest she's a better fighter than he is, but there are some cases at least where he seems her better.
This example is misleading for several reasons. First off, it wasn't actually a fight, more like a conversation in terms that Batgirl would understand. To me, it didn't seem like Batgirl was particularly trying to beat him to prove he couldn't handle Cain, more like emulating Cain precisely to find out if he could, thus the mirroring of moves. Not to mention Batgirl's deathwish from killing that guy manifesting- look at her face, she's baring her throat and pretty much offering herself to Batman despite having experienced the move from both ends. This also links in with why it isn't a real fight more than a conversation- notice how Batman goes for a killing blow (throat rip), that's something he's never do if the fight was a real one.
If you want real fights between the two that aren't scripted as much as this one was, you'll have to look a bit further on. I recall seeing the issue where Batgirl got her skills back and was avoiding Batman's moves with bored ease, and also another with her managing to hit Batman and cause him to cough blood seemingly without him even realising.

Holy_Knight
2006-05-28, 12:58 AM
Is that the Batman movie that introduced Batgirl as the niece of Alfred? What was the one good scene, and what was the one funny line? I think I've seen that movie twice.

Yep, that's the one. The one scene I think is good is when Mr. Freeze is in prison, and he has made a small ice sculpture which represents his wife. He just sits there looking at it for a minute, and it actually works very well.

The one funny line was when Bruce and **** were arguing about Poison Ivy. **** is saying something to the effect of how Poison Ivy is attracted to him and Bruce is jealous, to which Bruce goes:

"She's trying to kill you, ****." He really emphasizes ****'s name, to essentially say that he was acting like one.

Other than that though, total suckage, and the eight year long death of the movie franchise...


The issue I took the quote from was Batman 509.

Cool, thank you.



Not to mention Batgirl's deathwish from killing that guy manifesting- look at her face, she's baring her throat and pretty much offering herself to Batman despite having experienced the move from both ends.
I interpret that panel differently. To me it appears that her expression is one of surprise, and I took it that she didn't expect Batman to be able to pull that off against her. Sicne he did, it proved that he also had what it takes to stop Cain.



This also links in with why it isn't a real fight more than a conversation- notice how Batman goes for a killing blow (throat rip), that's something he's never do if the fight was a real one.
Well, that's not quite accurate. It's true that he wouldn't actually rip someone's throat out, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have his hand in position to do so as a means of controlling the person. So while the full execution of the technique might be ruled out in a real fight, that much of it would not. Just as Batman would have no problem putting someone in certain submission holds, even if fully applying them would kill the opponent.



If you want real fights between the two that aren't scripted as much as this one was, you'll have to look a bit further on. I recall seeing the issue where Batgirl got her skills back and was avoiding Batman's moves with bored ease, and also another with her managing to hit Batman and cause him to cough blood seemingly without him even realising.

I'll need to see that fight before I can really comment on it. I will say though that Batman typically holds back qute a bit, so it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case in that situation as well.

CelestialStick
2006-05-28, 08:27 AM
Yep, that's the one. The one scene I think is good is when Mr. Freeze is in prison, and he has made a small ice sculpture which represents his wife. He just sits there looking at it for a minute, and it actually works very well.

The one funny line was when Bruce and **** were arguing about Poison Ivy. **** is saying something to the effect of how Poison Ivy is attracted to him and Bruce is jealous, to which Bruce goes:

"She's trying to kill you, ****." He really emphasizes ****'s name, to essentially say that he was acting like one.

Other than that though, total suckage, and the eight year long death of the movie franchise...

You know, I actually enjoyed that movie. I thought that Ahnold as Mr. Freeze stole the show. He was so perfect as Mr. Freeze, and he got all the good lines, like "take two of these, and call me in the morning." For whatever reason, I also got a kick out of Batgirl saying, "I kicked her botanical butt." Even now it's making me laugh out loud. I mean, it's such a totally silly thing to say. :D