PDA

View Full Version : Batman and Zombies



Erts
2011-11-02, 09:16 PM
Yes, this may just seem like a title begging to be posted on this forum, but there is a question in here.
No, it is not how Batman would fair in a Zombie Apocalypse, or any kind of versus thread. It is a question about Batman himself.

Would Batman use guns against Zombies?

For the purpose of this discussion- their creation has been conclusively proven by Batman to be involve a complete destruction of the brain, thus, no part of the human is left. How do they move? He does not know. Could be magic.

Also, this question does not involve other DC heroes. This is him, personally.

Mando Knight
2011-11-02, 10:17 PM
The Bat would probably use whatever weapons he has available to destroy zombies. He didn't really have much qualms using concentrated solar energy against Dracula in The Batman vs Dracula, or against mounting munitions on his various Bat-Vehicles.

Would he go all out and use a combat shotgun or Desert Eagle or something? Probably not unless it was handy. He can embed Batarangs in basically anything he throws them at, so he'd probably start with those. Including the explosive ones. If he needed something with automatic fire, then he'd probably swing by wherever the GCPD puts all the confiscated weapons from the hundreds of mooks Batman knocks out every week.

Traab
2011-11-02, 10:23 PM
Or he would just grab his anti zombie bat spray from his utility belt and melt them all. :smallbiggrin: Seriously though, thats a good question. Im liable to think no. Mainly because he has already shown he has no qualms about going into situations where he is at great personal risk to keep his vow. I mean, he dives into rooms full of dozens of gun toting mooks daily. Taking a sword to a zombie horde wouldnt be that far out of the bathtub for him. Neither would the previously mentioned batarangs of various types for ranged attacks. Or he would lure them into traps like making them walk their shambling way off a catwalk and into a gigantic vat of aqua regia or something. (Basically a mix of nitric and hydrochloric acids that can dissolve just about anything.)

Erts
2011-11-02, 10:27 PM
The Bat would probably use whatever weapons he has available to destroy zombies. He didn't really have much qualms using concentrated solar energy against Dracula in The Batman vs Dracula, or against mounting munitions on his various Bat-Vehicles.


Okay, a better question (I know it may seem like I'm bending over backwards for stipulations, but I'm asking about morality not a versus thread.

Early early career- like either during or after Year 1, so he does not have those crazy solutions yet.
Also, fast zombies.
EDIT: These rules are for the purpose of the question, morally speaking.

Soras Teva Gee
2011-11-02, 10:40 PM
Would a flamethrower count as a gun? Its what D*ck and Damian did during Blackest Night I understand. And apparently a looted Mr. Freeze gun too.

Against regular zombies I think that a mixture of exploding batarangs and mowing them down with the Batmobile (seriously zombies mean nothing against vehicles of any power)

Tirian
2011-11-02, 11:25 PM
I've seen Batman fighting supersoldier experiments gone wrong which were just like amped-up zombies, and he was 100% engaged with lethal ordinance once he had time to plan and conclude that there was no way to reverse the process. At that point, like Sora Tovas Gee suggested, it was exploding batarangs and extreme martial arts rather than guns because it's probably more effective than guns would be.

Mando Knight
2011-11-03, 12:29 AM
Early early career- like either during or after Year 1, so he does not have those crazy solutions yet.
Also, fast zombies.

Same thing. In most current versions of The Bat, he practically starts out with the Batarang, and explosive variants wouldn't be too hard to rig up, I don't think. If he thinks he needs to, Batman will figure out a way to get himself a gun. He might avoid lethal weaponry under other circumstances, but Batman is a combat pragmatist. If he recognizes the things are unliving, mindless horrors that must be taken out with lethal force, he'll use lethal force. He might decide to use tools specifically designed to efficiently deliver lethal force, or he might continue to use his improvised means, it just depends on what's at hand when he's fighting.

kamikasei
2011-11-03, 05:42 AM
So far as I'm aware Batman doesn't have a moral objection to guns, he has a phobia and/or complex about them. If convinced that zombies are incurable and "lethal" force is justified, I think he still wouldn't use a gun on them just because he Has Issues with guns, or more specifically with using guns himself.

Coidzor
2011-11-03, 05:48 AM
Well, if we accept that whole batman beyond thing as having been at all possible ever, yes, but only if he were forced into it and couldn't come up with one of his zany batarang-based alternatives.

Thialfi
2011-11-03, 07:48 AM
No, Batman does not use guns under any circumstances. However, he seems to have no qualms with missiles and grenades.

comicshorse
2011-11-03, 07:51 AM
No, Batman does not use guns under any circumstances.

Apart from shooting Darkseid in the head

Friv
2011-11-03, 08:24 AM
So far as I'm aware Batman doesn't have a moral objection to guns, he has a phobia and/or complex about them. If convinced that zombies are incurable and "lethal" force is justified, I think he still wouldn't use a gun on them just because he Has Issues with guns, or more specifically with using guns himself.

Agreed.

Now, if he were in a situation where people were going to die from being eaten by zombies, there was a gun at hand, and he had no other way to save them, he would probably use the gun and overcome his phobias for a moment (much as he did with Darkseid). But he still wouldn't make a habit of it, or carry the gun with him.

Fri
2011-11-03, 08:39 AM
Still, zombies of any kind aren't actually any threat for batman. Can human teeth and nails, even fortified by zombiefication, pierce through batman's armor? I think no. Wear a mask to cover his only bare skin and to prevent suffocation from zombie pile, and he's set.

Explosive > gun anyway, and as noticed by a lot of people here, he doesn't have any qualms on explosives.

Tirian
2011-11-03, 09:25 AM
So far as I'm aware Batman doesn't have a moral objection to guns, he has a phobia and/or complex about them.

Pretty much. Different writers will portray him in different ways, but two enduring post-Crisis moments was Batman outlawing guns amongst his disciples in The Dark Knight Returns calling them "a coward's weapon", and in Year Two when he came to the conclusion that he needed to use the gun that killed his parents to take down The Reaper (and nearly used it against Joe Chill, the man who actually killed his parents).

Dr.Epic
2011-11-03, 10:30 AM
I think Batman's proven he's more efficient without guns than he'd be with them. That, and guns carry the stigma that they were the weapons that killed his parents.

Also, someone should put the words "Pride and Prejudice and" at the start of the thread's title.:smallwink:

Coidzor
2011-11-03, 08:55 PM
I think Batman's proven he's more efficient without guns than he'd be with them. That, and guns carry the stigma that they were the weapons that killed his parents.

Also, someone should put the words "Pride and Prejudice and" at the start of the thread's title.:smallwink:

Time traveling batman hobnobbing with nobs? I don't think he does that post-crisis.

Friv
2011-11-04, 08:03 AM
Time traveling batman hobnobbing with nobs? I don't think he does that post-crisis.

Anyway, Pride and Prejudice & Zombies is done. If Batman were going to do it, he'd need another book.

Maybe...

Wayne Eyre?
:smallcool:

Killer Angel
2011-11-04, 08:35 AM
Explosive > gun anyway, .

Not against zombies. The main affects (blastwave, etc) are wasted and at best you'll end with damaged zombies still crawling.
(see World War Z for details - battle of Yonkers)

Edit: a brief summary of the initial phase of the battle:
When zombies first began to trickle down the freeway, the opening salvos were fired - MLRS rocket barrages which destroyed a significant percentage of the first wave but ultimately made few kills zombies with limbs and torsos blown off could still advance so long as they had an intact brain and some means to drag themselves forward. As the undead became more tightly packed, the MLRS lost effectiveness, with the thick swarms of zombies reducing the possibility of a head wound significantly. The second barrage came from M109 Paladin artillery stationed on a hill to the rear of the infantry. They fired fragmentation shells which had even less of an effect than the MLRS barrages. The artillery strikes depended on the "balloon effect," which by proximity to an explosion would cause the liquid in the victim's body to burst. This did not occur, however, because of the zombie's coagulated blood. Therefore, SNT (Sudden Nerve Trauma), did not happen either.

Mando Knight
2011-11-04, 11:10 AM
Not against zombies. The main affects (blastwave, etc) are wasted and at best you'll end with damaged zombies still crawling.
(see World War Z for details - battle of Yonkers)

Edit: a brief summary of the initial phase of the battle:
When zombies first began to trickle down the freeway, the opening salvos were fired - MLRS rocket barrages which destroyed a significant percentage of the first wave but ultimately made few kills zombies with limbs and torsos blown off could still advance so long as they had an intact brain and some means to drag themselves forward. As the undead became more tightly packed, the MLRS lost effectiveness, with the thick swarms of zombies reducing the possibility of a head wound significantly. The second barrage came from M109 Paladin artillery stationed on a hill to the rear of the infantry. They fired fragmentation shells which had even less of an effect than the MLRS barrages. The artillery strikes depended on the "balloon effect," which by proximity to an explosion would cause the liquid in the victim's body to burst. This did not occur, however, because of the zombie's coagulated blood. Therefore, SNT (Sudden Nerve Trauma), did not happen either.
1) Much as he's used as a reference, Max Brooks makes several mistakes with his zombies, primarily with regards to the effects of weapons on tissues and the mechanics of anatomy. He dislikes automatic weapons and explosives, even though their effects on the body would cripple the zombies, and he gives the Zs self-contradictory capabilities (they don't get any stronger since the tissues don't grow, but they don't tear themselves apart when they try to use damaged muscle tissue). I could write a critique of everything he gets wrong in the Zombie Survival Guide, but my copy is like 100 miles away from my current location.
2) Batman's explosives are usually mounted on something (like batarangs, or even his fist, as in Arkham Asylum) to allow for precise positioning. He won't be shooting feet to get kills, he's the goddamn Batman, able to snipe guns out of crooks' hands with the 'rangs. He can turn those zombie heads into exploded paste.

Killer Angel
2011-11-04, 11:27 AM
1) Much as he's used as a reference, Max Brooks makes several mistakes with his zombies, primarily with regards to the effects of weapons on tissues and the mechanics of anatomy.
(snip)
Given that we're talking 'bout zombies and we don't have many RL references... :smalltongue:
But staying on weapons' effects, I could say that the current NATO standard rifle ammo (the 5.56 mm cal) showed lots of problems (failure to yaw and fragment, associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier causing only minimal damage).
This appears to be caused when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the chest of a thin, malnourished individual.
Which, IMO, can easily be applied to a zombie's tissues.


2) Batman's explosives are usually mounted on something (like batarangs, or even his fist, as in Arkham Asylum) to allow for precise positioning.

True. As any tool, even explosive works better when used in the proper way

Tyndmyr
2011-11-04, 11:47 AM
Not against zombies. The main affects (blastwave, etc) are wasted and at best you'll end with damaged zombies still crawling.
(see World War Z for details - battle of Yonkers)

Edit: a brief summary of the initial phase of the battle:
When zombies first began to trickle down the freeway, the opening salvos were fired - MLRS rocket barrages which destroyed a significant percentage of the first wave but ultimately made few kills zombies with limbs and torsos blown off could still advance so long as they had an intact brain and some means to drag themselves forward. As the undead became more tightly packed, the MLRS lost effectiveness, with the thick swarms of zombies reducing the possibility of a head wound significantly. The second barrage came from M109 Paladin artillery stationed on a hill to the rear of the infantry. They fired fragmentation shells which had even less of an effect than the MLRS barrages. The artillery strikes depended on the "balloon effect," which by proximity to an explosion would cause the liquid in the victim's body to burst. This did not occur, however, because of the zombie's coagulated blood. Therefore, SNT (Sudden Nerve Trauma), did not happen either.

All of this basically was the most unrealistic part of the book, in which an "old cold war general" was apparently too hidebound to change from his battle tactics of using an insufficient amount of weapons of random newer types. So, he clearly doesn't understand something there.

Also, it was a "photo op" in which the soldiers were not, say, covering the buildings, but instead, were being hidden away in foxholes. This is wildly inconsistent.

Also, frag shells do NOT depend on the balloon effect. They...fragment, sending shrapnel everywhere. Any zombie that can be killed by a bullet is going to be pretty shredded by an artillery strike.

Tightly packing the targets would additionally make rockets more effective, not less. More targets in the kill zone.

Max Brooks has little to no idea what he's talking about, and this battle should never be taken seriously EVEN if we're talking about hypothetical living dead scenarios.


Given that we're talking 'bout zombies and we don't have many RL references... :smalltongue:
But staying on weapons' effects, I could say that the current NATO standard rifle ammo (the 5.56 mm cal) showed lots of problems (failure to yaw and fragment, associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier causing only minimal damage).
This appears to be caused when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the chest of a thin, malnourished individual.
Which, IMO, can easily be applied to a zombie's tissues.

Those aren't flaws in this situation. Also, it's not supposed to fragment. It's a solid round. It's supposed to tumble, and it does that on impact quite well.* This is quite common in military rounds, such as the 5.7mm. So, if it goes through fleshy bits with minimal damage...against zombies, you don't care. At all. The point is, it goes THROUGH. So, even if you jacked up the shot against target #1, you might get lucky and hit target #2.

Against traditional zombies, hitting the head is a win, and anywhere else is mostly a waste of ammo. Lighter, precise rounds are the PERFECT tool for this job.

*Note: Have used M-16 significantly, currently own and operate an AR-15.

Anteros
2011-11-04, 11:49 AM
Given that we're talking 'bout zombies and we don't have many RL references... :smalltongue:
But staying on weapons' effects, I could say that the current NATO standard rifle ammo (the 5.56 mm cal) showed lots of problems (failure to yaw and fragment, associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier causing only minimal damage).
This appears to be caused when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the chest of a thin, malnourished individual.
Which, IMO, can easily be applied to a zombie's tissues.



True. As any tool, even explosive works better when used in the proper way

Getting an explosion even close to a human being is going to scramble their brain (along with the rest of them) beyond all repair. The idea of zombies crawling out of explosions because "you didn't get them in the head" is so laughable that I will now never buy that book. So thanks I guess.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-04, 12:00 PM
Yeah, it's a pretty verisimilitude breaking moment. I mean, military vs millions of zombies? I had high hopes. But giving them all the newest tech and just having it not be effective was a poor decision. Inventing logistical problems or the like as reasons for lack of ammo would be better. Having it be more than a single battle would be helpful as well.

Oh, I love that after his rag-tag untrained people get their hands on FREAKING SHOVELS and bolt action rifles, they're suddenly scoring headshots every few seconds for 18+ hour firefights. Yeah, *thats* realistic.

Killer Angel
2011-11-04, 12:08 PM
All of this basically was the most unrealistic part of the book, in which an "old cold war general" was apparently too hidebound to change from his battle tactics of using an insufficient amount of weapons of random newer types. So, he clearly doesn't understand something there.
(snip)
Max Brooks has little to no idea what he's talking about, and this battle should never be taken seriously EVEN if we're talking about hypothetical living dead scenarios.


The book has, indeed, a lot of weak and very debatable points, from a mere military PoV, but still it's an enjoyable reading.
Even if I don't doubt you can find some obtuse general that, in a single battle, commits gross mistakes. After all, in RL we have plenty of examples.
So, I can buy the tactic of Yonkers... only I don't buy that that fight alone can imply a total debacle on a continental scale...


Those aren't flaws in this situation. Also, it's not supposed to fragment. It's a solid round. It's supposed to tumble, and it does that on impact quite well.* This is quite common in military rounds, such as the 5.7mm. (snip)

I've just said it in advance, 'coz in other thread regarding zombies, I saw too many debating that you need only to hit the zombie: if it's not the head, the fragments will tear a limb or a leg, and you'll have an immobile target.

Mando Knight
2011-11-04, 12:17 PM
Given that we're talking 'bout zombies and we don't have many RL references... :smalltongue:
We have human anatomy and physics. You alter a couple of the conditions within the body, and you have your zombie.

But staying on weapons' effects, I could say that the current NATO standard rifle ammo (the 5.56 mm cal) showed lots of problems (failure to yaw and fragment, associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier causing only minimal damage).
Well, now, the 5.56 NATO is seeing an upgrade in US military forces with the development of the M855A1 round, which offers improved performance (and is lead-free) over the existing M855 round...

Tyndmyr
2011-11-04, 12:18 PM
The book has, indeed, a lot of weak and very debatable points, from a mere military PoV, but still it's an enjoyable reading.
Even if I don't doubt you can find some obtuse general that, in a single battle, commits gross mistakes. After all, in RL we have plenty of examples.
So, I can buy the tactic of Yonkers... only I don't buy that that fight alone can imply a total debacle on a continental scale...

Dude, it's pretty bad. I have a tough time buying it as a single battle. There's stupidity, but it's usually in predictable formats, like fighting the last battle. A cold war general who's hidebound is the sort of guy who believes in bringing overwhelming firepower to kill the giant horde. Using nukes if necessary. That's doctrine from then...and it works pretty well against zombies. If you want a logical flaw, use someone used to fighting a different sort of battle.

And yeah, the idea that this level of stupidity was nationwide is pretty hard to swallow. After a bit, you sort of question the vastly decreasing lethality of zombies over the length of the book, and the vastly increasing intelligence of the humans.

Walking Dead(the comics) is VASTLY better.


I've just said it in advance, 'coz in other thread regarding zombies, I saw too many debating that you need only to hit the zombie: if it's not the head, the fragments will tear a limb or a leg, and you'll have an immobile target.

That's fair..but honestly, a bullet tumbling through your body still tears up some stuff, even if it doesn't fragment. Most sources have zombies at some level of mobility until they lose basically all limbs, though, so it's not traditionally a very effective way.

Killer Angel
2011-11-04, 12:27 PM
Well, now, the 5.56 NATO is seeing an upgrade in US military forces with the development of the M855A1 round, which offers improved performance (and is lead-free) over the existing M855 round...

I'm glad someone resolved the thing...


Dude, it's pretty bad. I have a tough time buying it as a single battle.

Probably, the last time in RL we saw such a degree of perseverance, applying the evidently wrong tactic (in numerous battles), was in WWI.
(edit: in single battle level, also in WW2)


Walking Dead(the comics) is VASTLY better.

Good to know. :smallsmile:

Zigg'rrauglurr
2011-11-04, 12:32 PM
Does this apply (http://www.zomicz.com/bd/comic.php/606)?
http://www.zomicz.com/bd/image/batman_confidential_44.jpg

Tyndmyr
2011-11-04, 12:33 PM
Honestly, I think the infection vector is the weak point in most zombie movies. If it's literally only one patient zero, and it only gets passed on by biting...well, your transmission rate is just slow. And people who randomly bite other people tend to be imprisoned/hospitalized. Sure, you can get a spread out of that, but it's way, way slower than it needs to be to take everyone by surprise and get the swarm effect.

Alternate methods, like an airborne virus(say, RE style), or the Walking Dead style(not listed to avoid spoilers), are MUCH more plausible for a rapid spread.

Actually, I'd say the one of the book purported "bad decisions" of the battle of Younkers, wearing mopp 4, is actually quite logical in actions to take. Paranoid? possibly. But it's best to be sure.

Mando Knight
2011-11-04, 12:39 PM
The main affects (blastwave, etc) are wasted
Oh, and, ah, the main effects of the explosion are what's going to be most effective. Explosives wreck stuff up. Heat, pressure waves, any shrapnel... those things tear holes in armor, I don't think a meatbag zombie could really take a hit.

Alternate methods, like an airborne virus(say, RE style), or the Walking Dead style(not listed to avoid spoilers), are MUCH more plausible for a rapid spread.
I think L4D zombies spread by airborne pathogen...
And the persistence of those immune to the zombification. They're carriers. You cause the disasters that always occur when you get picked up in the Left 4 Dead games.

Mixt
2011-11-04, 12:56 PM
Waterborne zombie virus.

Anyone who drinks the tap water is infected.

And then half of the city's population turns within the span of a few hours.
And then most of the other half of the population is either bitten or killed in the initial panic, leaving only a small number of people alive.

Now imagine this happening to several cities at almost the same time, either due to freak coincidence or terrorists...

There you go, several million zombies within the span of a few days.

And when the time comes to respond...nope, the government has to fill in these forms, the politicians must spend hours screaming at and insulting each other, then you have the politicians deny the zombies existence, and other stuff that delays a response, giving the zombies more time to spread.

And then there's the inevitable doomsday cults dedicated to helping the zombies kill everyone, crazy bastards.

And the occasional random idiot who destroys the fortifications meant to keep the zombies out...

KingofMadCows
2011-11-04, 12:59 PM
The real question is would Batman use a gun to kill his zombie parents?

Anteros
2011-11-04, 02:40 PM
Waterborne zombie virus.

Anyone who drinks the tap water is infected.

And then half of the city's population turns within the span of a few hours.
And then most of the other half of the population is either bitten or killed in the initial panic, leaving only a small number of people alive.

Now imagine this happening to several cities at almost the same time, either due to freak coincidence or terrorists...

There you go, several million zombies within the span of a few days.

And when the time comes to respond...nope, the government has to fill in these forms, the politicians must spend hours screaming at and insulting each other, then you have the politicians deny the zombies existence, and other stuff that delays a response, giving the zombies more time to spread.

And then there's the inevitable doomsday cults dedicated to helping the zombies kill everyone, crazy bastards.

And the occasional random idiot who destroys the fortifications meant to keep the zombies out...

I dunno. Most people I know won't drink tap water if they can avoid it. I guess it works though if the virus can survive being boiled. Most people do use water when they cook.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-04, 02:48 PM
The real question is would Batman use a gun to kill his zombie parents?

Yes. Then he would bring a world of hurt to whoever created the virus, ordered its creation, etc.

Killer Angel
2011-11-04, 04:33 PM
Oh, and, ah, the main effects of the explosion are what's going to be most effective. Explosives wreck stuff up. Heat, pressure waves, any shrapnel... those things tear holes in armor, I don't think a meatbag zombie could really take a hit.


OK, I must clarify something... I mixed too much things, 'specially with references to NATo ammo, and so on. in the end, it wasn't my intention when I firstly thought of WWZ, so it was entirely my fault.

I know that RL explosives will shred to pieces a walking corpse, even if many collateral effects (Sudden Nerve Trauma) don't apply to zombies.
The fact is: this isn't a thread of RL military Vs zombies. It's Batman Vs Zombies. It's a fictional character, doing fictional things (almost superhuman fictional thing), that must fight fictional enemies.
I cited a fictional book on said fictional enemies, in which zombies are basically immune to conventional army's explosives, due to factors not necessarly true, but, if we take for good that Batman shot Darkseid, then couldn't we take also for good that zombies simply laugh moan when hit by a grenade?
It's kinda like when we discuss WH40K: there are books where SM are killed by savages armed with bows. It doesn't matter it's ridiculous thinking to an arrow piercing an armor made to resist direct shots from tanks (if WH40K were true): it's in a published book, so it enters in the equation.

Tiki Snakes
2011-11-04, 04:35 PM
The battle of yonkers wasn't the only facepalm critical hit. Later chapters included one about a heroic sausage-dog, (If I didn't imagine that in some kind of fever-dream) and an Otaku shut-in being blinded and becoming a badass samurai. in that order. The highlight, almost as bad as Yonkers, was the bit where he basically described the 'correct' military way of dealing with a zombie whorde.

Which is to say, napoleonic war style military gun tactics, several lines of men shooting at the zombies, arranged in a square formation of gun-lines, with some plucky sidekicks in the middle of the square to reload guns for you. Then you stand in one place and hope you run out of zombies before you run out of bullets.
I hope and I wish I was misremembering this, I really do.

As for Virus releasing, it strikes me as a Joker kind of thing to do. If he had the virus created, then the zombies all grin like madmen and/or laugh madly all the time, in addition to the usual.

Surely there must have been a one-off or elseworlds by now featuring Joker-Zombies? I'd be very suprised if there hasn't been.

Personally for a Batman and zombies plot, I'd prefer the Night of the Living Dead approach, with the cause being entirely unknown, with lots of room for all manner of scientific and/or mystical reasons. It would have the benefit of leaving Batman not only dealing with the Zombies, but inevitably having to track down the various likely suspects to find out who did it and how. It almost writes itself.

kamikasei
2011-11-04, 04:58 PM
The real question is would Batman use a gun to kill his zombie parents?
I would say that the real question is whether Jason Todd's costume's display case would get destroyed in the process, but it's not like that really is a question.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-04, 05:40 PM
Anyway, Pride and Prejudice & Zombies is done. If Batman were going to do it, he'd need another book.

Maybe...

Wayne Eyre?
:smallcool:

Pride and Prejudice and Batman and Zombies

Traab
2011-11-04, 06:40 PM
There are two ways id see batman facing down a huge horde of zombies, fast ones at least.

Option 1, he would do what I said earlier, and lure them into a trap, like a gigantic vat of acid, or a catwalk over a huge open blast furnace, something like that. Then drop them all in.

Option 2 is the more destructive. This is against an army of the undead. He has the contacts to get a huge amount of land mines. I see him salting a large area with them, then luring the zombies through the devils garden. No, it wont kill many, if any, of the zombies, but it WILL cripple them. A one legged zombie is way less of a threat, and can be picked off at leisure.

Night of the living dead style zombies? Stick and move, stick and move. He would waltz through an entire swarm of them chopping away and easily avoiding the slow moving buggers. No fancy plan really, just keep on decapitating them and withdrawing to rest. He could probably obliterate a couple thousand a day just by doing that. Really, night of the living dead style zombies are pathetic. Their only danger is not paying attention and being surrounded by a vast horde. You know, like sitting in a farmhouse and watching as hundreds of zombies gather around outside?

H Birchgrove
2011-11-04, 07:28 PM
He could always use the "Bat-tank", but with live ammo this time.

Story Time
2011-11-05, 08:29 AM
Would Batman use guns against Zombies?

The short answer? "No."

Anti-Zombie Bat-Spray really is the most...creative answer. It probably merits exploration on Batman's part.

But...behind the bat is a human being called Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne, who lost his parents to a murderer when he was eight. Bruce Wayne, who visits the death site and grave site of Thomas and Martha Wayne religiously. Bruce Wayne, who quietly and humbly believes that compassion against a receptive villain is the best way to reform that villain.

Batman believes in respecting the dead, and their remains. This was touched on in an issue of the comic book. It likely applies to zombie form.

I don't doubt that Batman would bash the stuffing out of a few targets to preserve his own life and the lives of other living citizens. He'd probably find some medicine or technology to reduce the spread of the ailment. But whole-sale slaughter of Human Remains? I can't see it.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-05, 10:37 AM
Anti-Zombie Bat-Spray really is the most...creative answer.

Some days you just can't get rid of a zombie horde.:smallwink:

Traab
2011-11-05, 10:39 AM
The short answer? "No."

Anti-Zombie Bat-Spray really is the most...creative answer. It probably merits exploration on Batman's part.

But...behind the bat is a human being called Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne, who lost his parents to a murderer when he was eight. Bruce Wayne, who visits the death site and grave site of Thomas and Martha Wayne religiously. Bruce Wayne, who quietly and humbly believes that compassion against a receptive villain is the best way to reform that villain.

Batman believes in respecting the dead, and their remains. This was touched on in an issue of the comic book. It likely applies to zombie form.

I don't doubt that Batman would bash the stuffing out of a few targets to preserve his own life and the lives of other living citizens. He'd probably find some medicine or technology to reduce the spread of the ailment. But whole-sale slaughter of Human Remains? I can't see it.

The problem with that idea is, it leaves the still living innocent vulnerable to the zombies. I think he would pick the greater good, and put the undead down as efficiently as possible.

Coidzor
2011-11-05, 11:03 AM
Batman believes in respecting the dead, and their remains. This was touched on in an issue of the comic book. It likely applies to zombie form.

After they've been desecrated and made into weapons with which to kill the living and make them into more weapons?

You really think he'd value not destroying zombies over keeping them from killing more people? :smallconfused:

Mewtarthio
2011-11-05, 11:38 AM
Batman believes in respecting the dead, and their remains. This was touched on in an issue of the comic book. It likely applies to zombie form.

You really can't desecrate a corpse any worse if it's already a zombie (unless you get creative). Heck, blowing a zombie's head off is the most respectful thing you can do at that point.

Devonix
2011-11-05, 12:18 PM
I really would like to know how this Batman being completely anti gun thing started. Its makes no sense to the character. Batman doesn't use Guns because Guns kill and Batman doesn't kill unless absolutely nessesary.

There is no Non Lethal Gun and as such he doesn't use them. Thats the Only reason he doesn't use one.

Batman is in fact a trained expert marskman with many types of firearms. He just doesn't use them in combat. Since Zombies are dead he wouldn't be killing them and as such would have no difficulty using firearms on them.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-06, 07:08 PM
It started as early as in 1940. The editor Whitney Ellsworth thought that Batman should never kill and shouldn't use guns unless when absolotely necessarily, due to the controversy of the Professor Strange story in Batman # 1 in which Batman killed monsters that had used to be innocent people (Batman did mention reluctance to having to do this) and the fact that lots of kids read comic books. (Or were thought to read them, as far as I'm told there has never been made a proper market research on the demographics of US comic book readers.)

Another reason was to make Batman less similar to the pulp hero The Shadow, a character Batman already borrowed heavily from (including the plot in the first Batman story "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate" and the Bat-Gyro).

Anteros
2011-11-06, 08:08 PM
Didn't they have a plot like this in one of the animated series? Batman got infected with some kind of virus that made him think everyone else was a zombie. He responded by setting explosives all over town and was about to set them off, but realized in time that he was the one infected and turned himself in.

Edit: Nevermind. I just realized in that episode that the "explosives" I was remembering were actually devices to spread a fake antidote. I guess that isn't as helpful as I was thinking since Batman believing in the existence of an antidote would change his behavior towards the infected dramatically.

Devonix
2011-11-06, 10:35 PM
It started as early as in 1940. The editor Whitney Ellsworth thought that Batman should never kill and shouldn't use guns unless when absolotely necessarily, due to the controversy of the Professor Strange story in Batman # 1 in which Batman killed monsters that had used to be innocent people (Batman did mention reluctance to having to do this) and the fact that lots of kids read comic books. (Or were thought to read them, as far as I'm told there has never been made a proper market research on the demographics of US comic book readers.)

Another reason was to make Batman less similar to the pulp hero The Shadow, a character Batman already borrowed heavily from (including the plot in the first Batman story "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate" and the Bat-Gyro).

I'm not talking about him disliking the use. He's never "liked" using them he just has when the need arose. I'm talking about the idea that he's afraid of even touching one. The strange notion that people think he's so anti gun that he'd never dream of touching one. Even though all of his vehicles have machine guns mounted on them.

Mutant Sheep
2011-11-06, 10:45 PM
Didn't they have a plot like this in one of the animated series? Batman got infected with some kind of virus that made him think everyone else was a zombie. He responded by setting explosives all over town and was about to set them off, but realized in time that he was the one infected and turned himself in.

Edit: Nevermind. I just realized in that episode that the "explosives" I was remembering were actually devices to spread a fake antidote. I guess that isn't as helpful as I was thinking since Batman believing in the existence of an antidote would change his behavior towards the infected dramatically.

And the fake antidote was actually more of the virus. And it was Hugo Strange (fat edition) who did it!
That was definitely one of the best The Batman episodes. The Bat-embargo was GOOD for the show, amazingly. (it stopped the show from using any non-Batman characters. There are some later episodes where they were allowed to use Martian Manhunter, Superman, etc. They are not very good. :smallfrown: Lucius Fox was nice though.)
I don't know why he is so opposed to the act of holding a gun, but crazy people DO NOT MAKE SENSE IN COMIC BOOKS. Its why the Riddler needs to give clues no matter what. Its why Poison Ivy is the one of the few Batman villains who actually has a superpower. Its why Bane is so dangerous. Its why... *rambles on with increasingly unrelated analogies*

Devonix
2011-11-06, 11:21 PM
And the fake antidote was actually more of the virus. And it was Hugo Strange (fat edition) who did it!
That was definitely one of the best The Batman episodes. The Bat-embargo was GOOD for the show, amazingly. (it stopped the show from using any non-Batman characters. There are some later episodes where they were allowed to use Martian Manhunter, Superman, etc. They are not very good. :smallfrown: Lucius Fox was nice though.)
I don't know why he is so opposed to the act of holding a gun, but crazy people DO NOT MAKE SENSE IN COMIC BOOKS. Its why the Riddler needs to give clues no matter what. Its why Poison Ivy is the one of the few Batman villains who actually has a superpower. Its why Bane is so dangerous. Its why... *rambles on with increasingly unrelated analogies*

But what I'm saying is that he "isn't" opposed to using guns for any reason other than he doesn't deal in lethal force. he's got no problem holding one.

Soras Teva Gee
2011-11-07, 01:07 AM
Which is to say, napoleonic war style military gun tactics, several lines of men shooting at the zombies, arranged in a square formation of gun-lines, with some plucky sidekicks in the middle of the square to reload guns for you. Then you stand in one place and hope you run out of zombies before you run out of bullets.

Oh man I haven't heard this bit before, you really shouldn't hold back on how bad that is. Its evident not only is Max Brooks ignorant of anything approaching tactics, he's apparently never bothered to even hold and fire any gun with a magazine. Or he'd realize that giving your gun to someone to take a fresh one would be slower and more awkward then ejecting the empty and slamming a fresh magazine in yourself. And result in worse accuracy from breaking focus.

If this was ever effective with modern weapons armies would use it.


As for Virus releasing, it strikes me as a Joker kind of thing to do. If he had the virus created, then the zombies all grin like madmen and/or laugh madly all the time, in addition to the usual.

Surely there must have been a one-off or elseworlds by now featuring Joker-Zombies? I'd be very suprised if there hasn't been.

Never happened with the Joker. Grant Morrison has done something similar with his Pyg character (but not the Joker) and his new take on super drugs... the addiction you catch. I don't recall what of the conclusion Bruce was there for though. Combine this idea with Joker Gas and you have a madly grinning mindless army.


Personally for a Batman and zombies plot, I'd prefer the Night of the Living Dead approach, with the cause being entirely unknown, with lots of room for all manner of scientific and/or mystical reasons. It would have the benefit of leaving Batman not only dealing with the Zombies, but inevitably having to track down the various likely suspects to find out who did it and how. It almost writes itself.

That the ONLY plausible explanation for zombies actually, and realizing something mystical is going on Bats would probably call up... I think Zatanna is his go to first choice for mystical assistance, though B:TAS would use Etrigan.

Traab
2011-11-07, 08:59 AM
That the ONLY plausible explanation for zombies actually, and realizing something mystical is going on Bats would probably call up... I think Zatanna is his go to first choice for mystical assistance, though B:TAS would use Etrigan.

Damn straight he would go for zatanna first over etrigan. I mean, just LOOK AT THEM! I know which one id go towards first.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-07, 01:10 PM
I'm not talking about him disliking the use. He's never "liked" using them he just has when the need arose. I'm talking about the idea that he's afraid of even touching one. The strange notion that people think he's so anti gun that he'd never dream of touching one. Even though all of his vehicles have machine guns mounted on them.

Well, I can't help you there. At least we can't blame Frank Miller for it, since Batman used a revolver in The Dark Knight Returns.

Anteros
2011-11-07, 09:49 PM
And the fake antidote was actually more of the virus. And it was Hugo Strange (fat edition) who did it!
That was definitely one of the best The Batman episodes. The Bat-embargo was GOOD for the show, amazingly. (it stopped the show from using any non-Batman characters. There are some later episodes where they were allowed to use Martian Manhunter, Superman, etc. They are not very good. :smallfrown: Lucius Fox was nice though.)

I actually liked the last season. Especially the episode where the League gets its' powers stolen and Bats reveals his contingency plans against all of them. It showed his progression from a vigilante into full blown global superhero.

That said, I think the series ended where it should have.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-08, 10:06 AM
Waterborne zombie virus.

Anyone who drinks the tap water is infected.

It was used in Moon Knight issues 7-8 (the old run by Doug Moench and Bill Sienkiewicz), sort of. People got raving mad by the polluted water but not zombies (they didn't start to fall apart or eat brains). Since Moon Knight is often seen as a Batman expy, it may be worth a look (you can probably get the story in B/W in Essential Moon Knight).

Story Time
2011-11-10, 12:11 AM
Perhaps I did not...expound my statement clearly enough. I will elucidate:

"After saving self, comrades, and innocents, the Batman would likely find some...mildly respectful solution to the Zombie Problem posed in the opening post. Zombies are made because villains de-value human life and are willing to desecrate human remains. The Batman is not a villain."

Devonix
2011-11-10, 06:09 AM
Perhaps I did not...expound my statement clearly enough. I will elucidate:

"After saving self, comrades, and innocents, the Batman would likely find some...mildly respectful solution to the Zombie Problem posed in the opening post. Zombies are made because villains de-value human life and are willing to desecrate human remains. The Batman is not a villain."

Um Actually that is only the absolute rarest of ways zombies are made. Zombies in stories usually just happen they aren't made.

Logalmier
2011-11-11, 04:49 PM
Didn't they have a plot like this in one of the animated series? Batman got infected with some kind of virus that made him think everyone else was a zombie. He responded by setting explosives all over town and was about to set them off, but realized in time that he was the one infected and turned himself in.

Edit: Nevermind. I just realized in that episode that the "explosives" I was remembering were actually devices to spread a fake antidote. I guess that isn't as helpful as I was thinking since Batman believing in the existence of an antidote would change his behavior towards the infected dramatically.


Think you might be thinking of The Batman.

Relevant episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bOtJ4cOBcE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bOtJ4cOBcE)