Poll: BvS - Batman can never win!

[Malpraxis]

I'd love a film where we see the journey of Batman trying to prepare for the fight, coming up with a plan, trying to decipher the clues behind Clark's DNA, and at the fight he gets vaporised with a simple nonchalant punch from Supes. Maybe while a sad trombone plays on the background.

This Superman isn't the good boyscout. He wrecked that rude guy's truck. He destroyed half of Metropolis in a fight. He snapped that dude's neck. He took down a satellite for looking at him. Do you think he's gonna take crap from a human in a silly costume?. Hell no.

 

[LetalisK]

Hm. A guy with super powers that makes fan fiction writers roll their eyes vs Plot Armor Man. In the hands of Hollywood? We all lose on this one.

 

[SweetShark]

That...sound like a part in the manga "Bleach" I think.
A Red-Hair dude give a small cut to a other dude who used for a weapons petals. Because of this, the petal dude had respect for him.
Well, sh*t, even I want to see something like that in Batman versus Superman, that sound very cliche.

 

[chikusho]

In cases like this, there's only one thing you need to remember...
The Batman always wins.

 

[hermes]

The only way Batman could have a chance to win against Superman is if he isn't trying, and the decision is called out by judges. The moment Superman even tries to fight back Batman, the fight is over...

 

[Lightknight]

Batman is basically going to wear a super-suit just like Lex Luthor is known to do.

But without kryptonite or magic weapons (they've made superman weak against magic, but aint no chance that Batman is going to use it)? Not all that likely.

It all depends on what gadgets Batman prepares.

It also relies on Superman not honestly wanting to kill Batman by boiling his eyes or flying him into space.

 

[Silvanus]

Can somebody please clear up an issue in my understanding please?

I don't read many comics, it's mainly movies and old cartoons where I get my info. But a lot of people are saying superman is so strong and fast he simply can't lose as Batmans only powers are being above a normal human in skill, brains and money.

Isn't Lex Luthor just a human with above average brains, skills and money? That crap has been dragged out for god knows how long, albeit with liberal use of kryptonite.

It may just be because the sites I go to don't argue comics much, but why does Lex get a pass and the bat is instantly deemed fodder by a lot of people?

You're right. I'm a pretty big comic reader, and I don't think it's a stretch for Batman to beat Superman. It would be in a direct head-to-head fight, relying only on their strength, but of course that isn't how it's going to go-- if that were the case, Killer Croc would beat Bats every time, and Darkseid would stomp Superman. The battles are rarely just butting heads.

Superman has lost against mere humans before. Lex Luthor's given him tremendous difficulty, and Ra's al Ghul has incapacitated him before too.

 

[hermes]

Can somebody please clear up an issue in my understanding please?

I don't read many comics, it's mainly movies and old cartoons where I get my info. But a lot of people are saying superman is so strong and fast he simply can't lose as Batmans only powers are being above a normal human in skill, brains and money.

Isn't Lex Luthor just a human with above average brains, skills and money? That crap has been dragged out for god knows how long, albeit with liberal use of kryptonite.

It may just be because the sites I go to don't argue comics much, but why does Lex get a pass and the bat is instantly deemed fodder by a lot of people?

Because Lex acts as if he is above the law, which gives him the advantage. If he has to create a distraction for Superman, he won't even flinch while he sets a bus full of nuns to blowup. He also knows Superman enough to know he is bound by human laws, so that "lack of evidence" or "excessive force" are ways that he can use to circumvent Superman.

When people talk about Batman's skills to face other villains, they mostly refer to his fighting skills, which are impressive, but a lot less useful when his opponent is a flying brick wall that could punch him into the next country before he even notices he has his bat-laces loose...

 

[Shiftygiant]

Okay, I know you don't want to talk about the Comic, but for what it's worth, here are the factors that allowed Batman to 'win':

1. Nuclear Weapons. Superman, days before their confrontation, had been Nuked. This took such a tole on his Body that he was reduced to a walking Skeleton until he stole the energy of a field of Sunflowers to recover. The subsequent Fallout led to a Nuclear Winter, which meant Superman wasn't able to be fully charged.

2. During the fight, Green Arrow shot Superman with an arrow made of Kryptonite. Whilst it did not kill him as he caught it before it struck, Superman was still weakened by the arrow.

3. Batman was in a powered suit of armor. On a one to one basis, Superman would have and could have crushed Batman into a thin paste. Batman knew this fact and used a suit of power armor during the fight, which leads too...

4. Batman knew Superman wouldn't kill him. They're old friends, at several points in the comic sitting down to talk before the fight. During the fight, Supes pleads with Batman to stop, even whilst being pummled. The one or two hits Superman doesn't hold back on, even in his weak state, still send Batman flying. It's also worth noting that Superman, even depowered, is still physically strong, such as the time he broke Lex Luthor's jaw after the other had stripped him of his super strength.

5. Finally, Batman does not win, they draw. Whilst arguable that had Batman not had a heart attack at this point he would have defeated Superman, they still drew, the fight ending with the battered Superman cradling Batman's near dead body.

So yeah, Batman doesn't have a chance. If he just strapped on that armor and fought Superman toe to toe, literally nothing is stopping Superman from throwing him into the sun or tearing him out that armor. Also, we are shown that Superman will kill (When it's most necessary) and doesn't care for collateral. In short, Batman is fuuucked.

 

[Silvanus]

So yeah, Batman doesn't have a chance. If he just strapped on that armor and fought Superman toe to toe, literally nothing is stopping Superman from throwing him into the sun or tearing him out that armor. Also, we are shown that Superman will kill (When it's most necessary) and doesn't care for collateral. In short, Batman is fuuucked.

Why assume there won't be mitigating circumstances in the film? Batman's whole method is planning and creating mitigating circumstances that favour him and allow him to overcome greater odds. That's just as valid an approach as bashing at something with your fists.

You wouldn't say the Riddler couldn't defeat Batman just because he can't best him at fisticuffs. That's not his approach.

Superman is so powerful, if he was in a Avengers movie ... The Avengers would be out of business. Nothing can really hurt him, touch him, or deal significant damage.

Yet, a host of opponents have managed to do pretty significant damage-- Ra's al Ghul, Parasite, Metallo, Captain Marvel, to name a few. Poison Ivy's taken control of him, too. There are ways to outdo him. Nobody said this was going to be a no-planning cage match.

 

[Shiftygiant]

So yeah, Batman doesn't have a chance. If he just strapped on that armor and fought Superman toe to toe, literally nothing is stopping Superman from throwing him into the sun or tearing him out that armor. Also, we are shown that Superman will kill (When it's most necessary) and doesn't care for collateral. In short, Batman is fuuucked.

Why assume there won't be mitigating circumstances in the film? Batman's whole method is planning and creating mitigating circumstances that favour him and allow him to overcome greater odds. That's just as valid an approach as bashing at something with your fists.

You wouldn't say the Riddler couldn't defeat Batman just because he can't best him at fisticuffs. That's not his approach.

I see your point an I consider that. In this universe it would make sense that Batman would be behind the shadows planned everything to bring Superman down, be it studying his weaknesses or deducing his identity. I guess my only response is that, even with meticulous planning, Superman is still something of a sledgehammer- wouldn't the best outcome be for Batman to ally himself with him then become his enemy?

 

[OldNewNewOld]

As long as Superman isn't literally retarded, Batman can't win. Just throw a freaking rock at Batman and there it is.
But seeing how it's a popularity contest and how people cream their pants for Batman despite it being a rather mediocre character... the Bat will win.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

This is what I would like to see most - A Superman movie that properly explores what it means to be Superman.

Most of the Superman films have Christ imagery up the ass, and that is completely wrong.

Superman isn't supposed to be Jesus, Superman is supposed to be Moses!

:- Superman is trying to lead humanity into the Promised Land, a place where they have learned compassion, selflessness and love for one another and can live in peace.

Jesus on the other hand did all the work to save people from their sins - Taking the sacrifice, the temptations, and the hardships himself to create a fullproof method of salvation. - That is what Superman cannot do. He must let humanity struggle on and find peace on their own terms, becoming a better race through their own development.

Like Moses Superman can show them the way, but they have to walk it.
Unlike Jesus Superman cannot create their salvation for them. They must achieve it themselves, or else it's a dystopia, not a paradise.

He is actually a really complex character. He cannot get too involved or he will make humanity reliant on him, yet he sees the suffering on earth and knows he has the power to help. So where is the balance?
(I suppose there are similarities to the Star Trek Prime Directive)

Batman can give it his all to protect Gotham and Earth, and doesn't have to worry about this, but Superman, while he can let loose on the occasional horrors that throw down on Earth (Zod, Darkseid, Doomsday) must otherwise hold himself back, and not meddle too deeply in the affairs of men, because he knows that one day he won't be there to protect humanity, and then they will either destroy themselves (If he was too heavy handed) or thrive without him (If they have learned to live harmoniously)

Superman's got some really interesting themes and philosophy going on. It's a shame it's usually brushed aside to focus on "Watch me punch this thing reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally hard!"

I think you're one of the only people whose views on Superman are on the same plane as my own. The ultimate flying brick part of Superman makes him boring. What makes the character interesting is that he's actually Clark Kent.

Being Superman isn't a calling or a desire for Clark, it's a duty. He was taught to do for others with what he has. He just happened to be given Godhood.

If he can fix things with speech, he'd never lift a finger. That is the most important thing about superman.

Batman could very much easily open up factories in Gotham. Put good together good financial packages for his workers making... Hell, doesn't even matter. If there are places for these people to get jobs, you'd have a lot less criminals. And for the insane? They will always be there. Properly fund the police force with your billions, instead of making a para-military corporation that only answers to your ideals. Open up new facilities instead of relying on Arkham that Bruce knows first-hand is corrupt and actually just a holding cell for a bit. His gallery just uses Arkham as a temporary vacation to renew and plot again. Bruce actually has the power to fix that by making a new facility that could be governed by Barbara Gordon for all we care. He has people who can trust to run it.

It's not about Justice for Bruce as it is for Clark. For Bruce, it's about vengeance and working out his demons on anyone's face that conflicts with his now psychopathic views. It doesn't make Bruce any more interesting that he's flawed. Everyone's flawed. We're all flawed. We connect with Bruce more because we all get petty feelings of vengeance.

It makes Bruce common place.

The strength of character that is in Clark: to have the unquestioned ability to rule and to have things go completely his way, but to step down and ask how could he serve the will of the people... That kind of person is unheard of now. What does it take to live in this society but be that way?

Such a thing has now officially done a 180 from the Antiheroes of the 80's and 90's to now, where selfish characters who just happen to do what's morally right was considered refreshing back then... to someone is just good because they believe in good is now refreshing.

But to side step my appreciation of the character of Clark Kent for a moment

Why assume there won't be mitigating circumstances in the film? Batman's whole method is planning and creating mitigating circumstances that favour him and allow him to overcome greater odds. That's just as valid an approach as bashing at something with your fists.

You wouldn't say the Riddler couldn't defeat Batman just because he can't best him at fisticuffs. That's not his approach.

Why assume that this will be the batman you're thinking of?

We already know for a fact that it would be the Superman from the movie, not the Superman from the Comics. And we know those two are barely alike. So why does everyone and sit and know that Bruce will be at his prime as the comics? Some stories have Batman being one of the absolute geniuses of the world to being just a really good detective. Why do we get to cherry pick all of the things and stories we love about Batman and assume that's the batman we are going to get in this movie?

 

[Silvanus]

Why assume that this will be the batman you're thinking of?

We already know for a fact that it would be the Superman from the movie, not the Superman from the Comics. And we know those two are barely alike. So why does everyone and sit and know that Bruce will be at his prime as the comics? Some stories have Batman being one of the absolute geniuses of the world to being just a really good detective. Why do we get to cherry pick all of the things and stories we love about Batman and assume that's the batman we are going to get in this movie?

I'm not really assuming anything about Batfleck, except that he'll be broody and driven. I only intended to question what most others seemed to be assuming-- that this would be a shoe-in for Superman. I only used the comics to show that there's precedent for Batman taking on far greater odds. It's kind of his whole shtick.

I see your point an I consider that. In this universe it would make sense that Batman would be behind the shadows planned everything to bring Superman down, be it studying his weaknesses or deducing his identity. I guess my only response is that, even with meticulous planning, Superman is still something of a sledgehammer- wouldn't the best outcome be for Batman to ally himself with him then become his enemy?

That could be true; maybe he'll ally himself with Luthor, before Luthor shows his true colours.

The two of them worked together in Lex Luthor: Man of Steel, but that's pretty obscure for inspiration.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Batman can beat anyone, with time to prepare. Not to mention, he's got a plan to take down everyone in the Justice League in case he has to.
He's probably got enough money to be able to afford the kryptonite too.

 

[Lightknight]

Batman can beat anyone, with time to prepare. Not to mention, he's got a plan to take down everyone in the Justice League in case he has to.
He's probably got enough money to be able to afford the kryptonite too.

Not to mention that there actually has been a comic where he did, in fact, get kryptonite studded gloves and beat superman to death (similar to how superman be him to "death" in the dark knight rises).

But yes, this is generally the crux for batman. If he has time to plan, he wins. If he doesn't, he's just going to perform as the fastest thinking and most athletic human alive.

I actually consider Batman to have the superpower of strategy to the point where he outwits actual super intelligent beings which should imply that he's on their level.

 

[happyninja42]

Batman can beat anyone, with time to prepare. Not to mention, he's got a plan to take down everyone in the Justice League in case he has to.
He's probably got enough money to be able to afford the kryptonite too.

Not to mention that there actually has been a comic where he did, in fact, get kryptonite studded gloves and beat superman to death (similar to how superman be him to "death" in the dark knight rises).

But yes, this is generally the crux for batman. If he has time to plan, he wins. If he doesn't, he's just going to perform as the fastest thinking and most athletic human alive.

I actually consider Batman to have the superpower of strategy to the point where he outwits actual super intelligent beings which should imply that he's on their level.

I dunno, I've always seen it as "Hey, so everyone loves Batman, and it's really great for profits to have him in these crossovers...buuuut....he's fighting people that can literally body slam a planet and crack it like an egg. Um...he's a rich playboy with a suit...how is he going to actually hold his own with these people? It doesn't make any sense. Oh! I know, we'll just always use the "Ahah! I knew you'd do that, so I planned a plan around your plan of my plan of your plans! Because brain power! I'm Batman!" When really, it's usually not all that feasible to think he can possibly have that many contingency plans accounted for, and have equipment for every single one of those lying around when it happens to be needed. I mean unless he utility belt is a freaking belt of infinite holding, I really just can't buy that he can hold his own with a lot of the crap he fights.

Besides, the Kryptonians in Man of Steel had power armor plus super strength, and they couldn't stand up to Kal-el, why would that be enough for Batman?


In the end though, I think this is probably one of the oldest, and most Dead Horse debates in geekdom ever. The true answer is "Whoever the plot needs to win, to further the story, is who is going to win. And to hell with practicality." Just like "How fast is warp speed?" Answer: As fast as the story requires it to be.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I'm not really assuming anything about Batfleck, except that he'll be broody and driven. I only intended to question what most others seemed to be assuming-- that this would be a shoe-in for Superman. I only used the comics to show that there's precedent for Batman taking on far greater odds. It's kind of his whole shtick.

Yeah, but Superman's whole shtick was never to take a life and always put the lives of innocents first, always finding a way to save the day.

These movies tend not to stick to what we know.

 

[Silvanus]

Yeah, but Superman's whole shtick was never to take a life and always put the lives of innocents first, always finding a way to save the day.

These movies tend not to stick to what we know.

He took a life when really, really pushed to it (by a silly contrived scenario).

If the movie were to show Batman simply trying to defeat Superman by beating him up, it would be a terrible film. It's not going to happen that way.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Isn't Supes' arch-nemesis plain old Lex Luthor? Surely Batman can put up a fight for at least one movie?