BvS An Argument For A Batman Who Is At The Peak Of Human Conditioning.

[Vaibow]

A scene of Bruce reflecting over a metropolis back street, perhaps looking for clues, disguised as buying a hot dog, where he comes across a group of teens working on their parkour skills, he doesn't join in, but instead congratulates them - buys them all one - as he turns the corner and walks away, you see him eye up a wall, dumpster and shelf and he expertly clears it all - a good way to show that Bruce can do these feats which are not just down to fantastical ideas and CGI

 

[shauner111]

He was in amazing condition in those movies, except for the third movies, where the injuries and ageing process added depth to the characterisation. Even if Batman is Bruce Lee, he will still age.

I for one am not interested in Batman who builds all his weapons, who is the effective CEO of Wayne Enterprises, and who is in peak physical condition and never gets injured. That simply doesn't work for a mature and educated audience. It might work for the legions of 12 year olds who love Tony Stark's "genius, billionaire, philanthropist, playboy, fortune 500 CEO, superhero" shtick.

Me too. I mean, I can suspend disbelief and I prefer the new Bats to be very different from Nolan's, but there's a limit for how much my eyes can roll. For Bruce to do all those things? Yeah it's a little bit much. He wouldn't have time to remain in peak physical condition.

I personally think TDK is not even in the Top 10 of the best superhero movies ever made.

I cant even count 10 good ones. That's probably because TDK is not really a CBM, it's a crime film.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

That's probably because TDK is not really a CBM, it's a crime film.

Because a film can ONLY be part of one genre, right? TDK is both a CBM and a crime film.

 

[Shikamaru]

TDK is a comic book movie. The whole "it's not a (proper) CBM" claim is a fallacy invented by those who think that all comic book movies have to be lighthearted, family friendly, and have bad guys in colourful suits.

If it's based on a comic, it's a comic book movie.

 

[DA_Champion]

According to imdb, TDK is the 6th greatest movie of all time.

1. 9.2 The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 1,074,834
2. 9.2 The Godfather (1972) 753,194
3. 9.0 The Godfather: Part II (1974) 490,080
4. 8.9 Pulp Fiction (1994) 832,567
5. 8.9 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) 323,751
6. 8.9 The Dark Knight (2008) 1,047,865
7. 8.9 12 Angry Men (1957) 264,798
8. 8.9 Schindler's List (1993) 547,042
9. 8.8 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) 760,246
10. 8.8 Fight Club (1999) 816,494
11. 8.8 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) 520,950
12. 8.8 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) 786,809
13. 8.7 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) 448,120
14. 8.7 Goodfellas (1990) 466,622
15. 8.7 Inception (2010) 847,553
16. 8.7 Seven Samurai (1954) 162,282
17. 8.7 Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) 586,329
18. 8.7 Forrest Gump (1994) 713,465
19. 8.7 The Matrix (1999) 772,320
20. 8.7 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) 682,565
21. 8.6 City of God (2002) 350,754
22. 8.6 The Silence of the Lambs (1991) 528,927
23. 8.6 Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) 146,117
24. 8.6 Se7en (1995) 627,282
25. 8.6 Casablanca (1942) 279,258

Overrated? Possibly, but an impressive achievement either way.

 

[Lantern Venom]

[/SIZE]
They are out there my friend.

The guy is impressive to be sure. But no matter how strong and fit he is, his small frame would put him at a severe disadvantage in a multi-attacker situation. If someone suprised him by lifting him from behind, he could be thrown against a wall and knocked out. In trapping/grappling range, body weight matters.

I've always thought Batman would start out for a gymnast's build and powerset and work from there...

I think Nolan's Batman got the body aspect right. In Batman Begins, Bruce was at the height of his physical prowess. We saw him doing impressive feats of balance and agility when being trained by Ra's Al Ghul. But Bruce in TDKR had a more straight-forward, no-frills fighting style because the brutality of being Batman had taken it's toll on his joints.

This.

I want to see some variation in how he incapacitates people, broken ribs, hands, dislocated shoulders, knees etc. Or via one of his many gadgets that will be I believe we can assume a little more Superman world friendly.

Depending on the villain(s), Batman might have to rely mostly on intellect and gadgetry this time around. No matter how strong and fast he might be, he can't trade blows with the likes of Metallo, Mongul, or Gorilla Grodd.

 

[slumcat]

According to imdb, TDK is the 6th greatest movie of all time.

1. 9.2 The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 1,074,834
2. 9.2 The Godfather (1972) 753,194
3. 9.0 The Godfather: Part II (1974) 490,080
4. 8.9 Pulp Fiction (1994) 832,567
5. 8.9 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) 323,751
6. 8.9 The Dark Knight (2008) 1,047,865
7. 8.9 12 Angry Men (1957) 264,798
8. 8.9 Schindler's List (1993) 547,042
9. 8.8 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) 760,246
10. 8.8 Fight Club (1999) 816,494
11. 8.8 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) 520,950
12. 8.8 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) 786,809
13. 8.7 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) 448,120
14. 8.7 Goodfellas (1990) 466,622
15. 8.7 Inception (2010) 847,553
16. 8.7 Seven Samurai (1954) 162,282
17. 8.7 Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) 586,329
18. 8.7 Forrest Gump (1994) 713,465
19. 8.7 The Matrix (1999) 772,320
20. 8.7 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) 682,565
21. 8.6 City of God (2002) 350,754
22. 8.6 The Silence of the Lambs (1991) 528,927
23. 8.6 Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) 146,117
24. 8.6 Se7en (1995) 627,282
25. 8.6 Casablanca (1942) 279,258

Overrated? Possibly, but an impressive achievement either way.

Jeez that list is balls.

Only 4 of those titles belong in a Top 25 of all time.

IMDB top 250 is like fanboy wiz spread over a gutter.

 

[DA_Champion]

Jeez that list is balls.

Only 4 of those titles belong in a Top 25 of all time.

IMDB top 250 is like fanboy wiz spread over a gutter.

It's a subjective, as is your statement that not all five of Godfather, Godfather II, Shawshank Redemption, Schindler's List, A New Hope, and probably other belong in the top-25.

PS I personally find the three LOTR movies to be the most objectionable presence.

 

[slumcat]

I would say only the first 2 would the reasonable inclusions with good cases to be made about the last 2 in a Top 300 or something. Shawshank though is an absolutely preposterous inclusion, I would literally not consider it fit for the Top 1000.

 

[DA_Champion]

I would say only the first 2 would the reasonable inclusions with good cases to be made about the last 2 in a Top 300 or something. Shawshank though is an absolutely preposterous inclusion, I would literally not consider it fit for the Top 1000.

What would your list look like?

 

[slumcat]

Rough Top 10-15 (unranked)

Sunrise
L'Avventura
Le Plaisir
Le Ronde
2001: A Space Odyssey
Ikiru
Gertude
The Quiet Man
La Strada
Werckmeister harmonies
Nashville
A Man Escaped
Pierrot Le Fou
Ordet
Pather Panchali
Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles
Modern Times

 

[DA_Champion]

Rough Top 10-15 (unranked)

Sunrise
L'Avventura
Le Plaisir
Le Ronde
2001: A Space Odyssey
Ikiru
Gertude
The Quiet Man
La Strada
Werckmeister harmonies
Nashville
A Man Escaped
Pierrot Le Fou
Ordet
Pather Panchali
Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles
Modern Times

I applaud your inclusion of several foreign movies.

My top movies unranked, I freely admit that I have not watched enough movies, I separate American from foreign movies:

American History X, The Terminator, Alien, Star Wars, The Dark Knight, X Men: First Class, Inception, The Lion King, The Fighter, Rush, Gravity, Godfather I & II

Infernal Affairs, La Haine, L'Auberge Espagnole, C.R.A.Z.Y, City of Life and Death, Godzilla, Spirited Away, Nausicaa and the Valley of the Wind, Pan's Labyrinth

C.R.A.Z.Y., Terminator, and Infernal Affairs might be my favourite overall.

Your list is more mature.

 

[slumcat]

Great to see a fellow fan of City of Life and Death. I really like that film.

 

[B]

Depending on the villain(s), Batman might have to rely mostly on intellect and gadgetry this time around. No matter how strong and fast he might be, he can't trade blows with the likes of Metallo, Mongul, or Gorilla Grodd.

I agree, however I don't want the Batman character to feel de-valued alongside Superman. I want him to be still capable of being a threat even to his physical superiors because of his cunning & wit.

 

[D.P.]

I agree, however I don't want the Batman character to feel de-valued alongside Superman. I want him to be still capable of being a threat even to his physical superiors because of his cunning & wit.

Bottom line, Superman has referred to Batman as the most dangerous man on the planet. Let's see him live up to that.

 

[The Question]

Bottom line, Superman has referred to Batman as the most dangerous man on the planet. Let's see him live up to that.

That can mean a lot of different things, though.


I, personally, have no desire to see a superhumanly compitent Batman, "throwing multiple Batarangs with deadly accuracy mid-fight while fluidly dispatching goons" as you said in an earlier post. For starters, that kind of thing completely deflates tension. I'm much more interested in a hero who gets the crap beat out of him or has to think his way around a problem than a hero who's ridiculously good at everything and can do no wrong, because then there are actual stakes and there's actual tension. And secondly, I just don't see any inherent value in that depiction of Batman, at least not in the context of a presumably dramatic film. All that is is indulgent spectacle. It's neat to look at I guess, but it's the thematic nutritional equivalent of a starburst. Very sweet with a very strong flavor, but it's basically empty calories, and at least in my case I get sick of it pretty quickly.

Batman should be competent, obviously, and a little bit of competency porn is actually a very healthy and valuable thing. It instills the notion that intelligence and skill and hard work are things we should aspire to. But at the end of the day I don't like the protagonists of stories to be perfect or flawless, I like to see them get cut up and bruised and really work for their happy ending. In that regard, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are actually one of my favorite depictions of Batman's prowess. He's exceptionally skilled, but failure is still a genuine threat for him, which makes the story exciting.

 

[Marvin]

That can mean a lot of different things, though.


I, personally, have no desire to see a superhumanly compitent Batman, "throwing multiple Batarangs with deadly accuracy mid-fight while fluidly dispatching goons" as you said in an earlier post. For starters, that kind of thing completely deflates tension.

This is indicative of a limited imagination. Respectfully. I've heard of a few of my friends think the same and I disagree every time. Such a thing would imply that there isn't a sherlock story written with any tension.

You can still have that without diminishing the hero's prowess, it would simply require increasing the villains powers(contextually).

Spoiler

Spoilers for Death in the Family

Spoiler

And to address this next point as literally as I can.

I'm much more interested in a hero who gets the crap beat out of him or has to think his way around a problem

Spoiler

That's all fun extreme jla stuff, but the point is clear imo.

The issue is that people like nolan have approached similar ideas(see tdkr), only bane simply beats up a drunken brawler and than in the rematch, things go differently.

 

[The Question]

This is indicative of a limited imagination. Respectfully. I've heard of a few of my friends think the same and I disagree every time. Such a thing would imply that there isn't a sherlock story written with any tension.

Sherlock Holmes isn't a near perfect paragon of human potential, though. He is possessed of a genius analytical mind, studies chemistry and botany for fun, and is an athletic and talented amateur fighter, all true. But he's also impulsive, reclusive, a drug addict, possesses an underdeveloped sense of self preservation, is completely lacking in anything resembling social skills, shows signs of both crippling bi-polar disorder and Aspergers syndrome, and is such a single minded obsessive weirdo that he actually forgot that the Earth revolves around the sun because it doesn't have to do with solving crimes or doing drugs.

On top of all of that, Sherlock Holmes' detective skills aren't perfect. In the books, he doesn't have always correct and nearly psychic observations about everything around him. Much more plausibly, he does get stumped and is forced to pursue multiple avenues of investigation before coming to the truth a lot of the time. And he freely admits that his whole thing of looking at people and figuring out all sorts of obscure details about them from their clothes and hair and junk like that is really just a parlor trick he uses to get clients and isn't a particularly useful skill for actually solving crimes.

Holmes, at least the Holmes of the books, is actually a perfect example of how I prefer to see Batman portrayed. Clearly exceptionally skilled, but he's still burdened by human weakness and imperfection, and there isn't a guarantee that he'll always win. And he has to make up for his shortcomings by relying on people who are strong in the areas where he is weak. In Holmes case that being the charismatic, cautious, people savvy, empathetic doctor and badass gunslinger that is John Watson.

And to address this next point as literally as I can.

Spoiler

That's all fun extreme jla stuff, but the point is clear imo.

That's exactly the kind of Batman I'm talking about, though. Morrison, I think, went a little more hyper-compitent than I find particularly interesting, but I really like that whole thing with Batman and Prometheus.

The issue is that people like nolan have approached similar ideas(see tdkr), only bane simply beats up a drunken brawler and than in the rematch, things go differently.

This sentence is a bit unclear to me.

 

[The Question]

But, like, I have a question for you: So, clearly you're skeptical of the notion that a Batman with slightly more plausible physical limitations is the ideal. That's fine, and certainly it is to a significant extent a matter of preference. But my question is, what is wrong that portrayal? Other than spectacle, what is being gained when portraying Batman as a superhuman paragon of all human potential, and what is lost in not doing that?

 

[Marvin]

Sherlock Holmes isn't a near perfect paragon of human potential, though. He is possessed of a genius analytical mind, studies chemistry and botany for fun, and is an athletic and talented amateur fighter, all true. But he's also impulsive, reclusive, a drug addict, possesses an underdeveloped sense of self preservation, is completely lacking in anything resembling social skills, shows signs of both crippling bi-polar disorder and Aspergers syndrome, and is such a single minded obsessive weirdo that he actually forgot that the Earth revolves around the sun because it doesn't have to do with solving crimes or doing drugs.

Not speaking on any one specific incarnation cause he seemingly has various abilities as we jump media(cumberbatch has a hard drive in his head?), the point is they're presented a man with crime solving super powers and they do all sorts of things to circumvent that, without taking away the powers. Whether that be his disposition or mental state(both are not beyond batman) or simply facing off a moriarty type.

On top of all of that, Sherlock Holmes' detective skills aren't perfect. In the books, he doesn't have always correct and nearly psychic observations about everything around him. Much more plausibly, he does get stumped and is forced to pursue multiple avenues of investigation before coming to the truth a lot of the time. And he freely admits that his whole thing of looking at people and figuring out all sorts of obscure details about them from their clothes and hair and junk like that is really just a parlor trick he uses to get clients and isn't a particularly useful skill for actually solving crimes.

At what point has anyone said batman needs to be perfect. Surely you can look at what has been presented in these recent bat films and see the room for elevation. Even in the source material the man isnt' "perfect."
If he was, pengu' and the rest would be a days work at most, every time.

That's exactly the kind of Batman I'm talking about, though. Morrison, I think, went a little more hyper-compitent than I find particularly interesting, but I really like that whole thing with Batman and Prometheus.

That's the bat's I'd be happy with, but even in that Prometheus respectfully presents what it is batman is to the audience...just short of amazing and requiring of a super amazing villain. If batman beat up Prometheus the first time, I can see how things could be getting uninteresting, but the fact that prometheus was armed with all that he was armed with is just right.

This sentence is a bit unclear to me.

Compared to what prometheus just encountered, and realistically it mostly comes down to direction.
I meant that bane beats up a loser in tdkr.
And I'd rather the world sees something new. I'd even be happy with a Roarsach tbh.

But, like, I have a question for you: So, clearly you're skeptical of the notion that a Batman with slightly more plausible physical limitations is the ideal. That's fine, and certainly it is to a significant extent a matter of preference. But my question is, what is wrong that portrayal? Other than spectacle, what is being gained when portraying Batman as a superhuman paragon of all human potential, and what is lost in not doing that?

Simply put, the audience has less respect for the situation.
When 'uber' batman is out smarted I am presented with an event when 'idiot' batman is outsmarted I am presented with an basic drama. Both good but I prefer what I prefer. I find the elevation trickles down the well. This does wonders for characters like Shiva for example.

My friend asked me once, how cool would it be if you had a bane(from the first half of tdkr) sit in an interrogation room with joker from tdk. I simply said, alot more interesting than having batman scream at a joker. To be batman is the least interesting fellow in these films a matter of fact I feel is very different in the source material.

 

[The Question]

Not speaking on any one specific incarnation cause he seemingly has various abilities as we jump media(cumberbatch has a hard drive in his head?), the point is they're presented a man with crime solving super powers and they do all sorts of things to circumvent that, without taking away the powers. Whether that be his disposition or mental state(both are not beyond batman) or simply facing off a moriarty type.

In some Sherlock Holmes stories his skills are presented as basically being super powers. But in the original books and short stories, which are the ones I prefer, they weren't.

At what point has anyone said batman needs to be perfect.

Well, the thread is titled "An Argument For A Batman Who Is At The Peak Of Human Conditioning." So, like, the beginning of this whole conversation.

Surely you can look at what has been presented in these recent bat films and see the room for elevation.

I guess so. But what I don't see is a need for elevation.

That's the bat's I'd be happy with, but even in that Prometheus respectfully presents what it is batman is to the audience...just short of amazing and requiring of a super amazing villain. If batman beat up Prometheus the first time, I can see how things could be getting uninteresting, but the fact that prometheus was armed with all that he was armed with is just right.

What makes it "just right?"

I meant that bane beats up a loser in tdkr.

I really don't see any evidence to support that statement.

 

[The Question]

Simply put, the audience has less respect for the situation.
When 'uber' batman is out smarted I am presented with an event when 'idiot' batman is outsmarted I am presented with an basic drama. Both good but I prefer what I prefer. I find the elevation trickles down the well. This does wonders for characters like Shiva for example.

"Uber" and "Idiot" is a false dilemma. It's implying that the only two options are to write Batman as being impossibly skilled or to write Batman as being an idiot, when in fact there's a whole gradient scale of middle ground to choose from.

As for the audience having less respect for the situation, that's pretty debatable for a few reasons. First, a lot of people seemed to respect The Dark Knight just fine. But more importantly than that, the huge flaw with the notion that it's more epic when the nearly superhuman Batman is outsmarted is that you still face the problem of deflated tension and stakes during all of the stuff that leads up to Batman being outsmarted. If you have him being outsmarted and overpowered or at least coming close to that throughout the story, then you're really not demonstrating a superhumanly skilled Batman. And if you establish him as superhumanly skilled and then have the villain gain the upper hand at a pivotal moment, then the problem is that all of the actiony stuff before that moment comes without any possibility of failure on the part of the hero. And yes, of course most audience members understand intellectually that the hero of a movie, especially a summer blockbuster based on a superhero comic, is unlikely to be defeated before the second or third act, but the goal of effective and compelling storytelling to to make the viewer feel like he might even with that prior knowledge of genre conventions.

My friend asked me once, how cool would it be if you had a bane(from the first half of tdkr) sit in an interrogation room with joker from tdk. I simply said, alot more interesting than having batman scream at a joker. To be batman is the least interesting fellow in these films a matter of fact I feel is very different in the source material.

It seems to me that wether or not a character is interesting has more to do with the amount of focus and development the story gives that character and not their bias. I mean, people for the most part didn't like The Joker in that movie because he was good at stuff, they liked him because he was a weird and interesting character and Heath Ledger gave a very engaging performance.

 

[Marvin]

"Uber" and "Idiot" is a false dilemma. It's implying that the only two options are to write Batman as being impossibly skilled or to write Batman as being an idiot, when in fact there's a whole gradient scale of middle ground to choose from.

Sorry if you got that sense from my hyperbolic adjectives. What I meant is further along the spectrum in to something with far more resemblance to the modern comic books. See prometheus story. Even bruce timm doesn't produce an god batman but he def got hip to the idea when you compare his original series with where it all ended up.

As for the audience having less respect for the situation, that's pretty debatable for a few reasons. First, a lot of people seemed to respect The Dark Knight just fine.

And this is where I said it was a matter of opinion. The modern sherlock is a "mad genius" of analytics and he has a "hit" drama with little complaint of it not working and being too powerful.
At which point the best argument for 'uber' bats is that it's something new/ fresh and different.

Something as "uber" but as simple as this
[YT]rlYKxJKrW9k[/YT]
Seemingly beyond bale's wayne. Would this at all hurt the story and devoid it of tension? From where I'm sitting it looks like it would add 'something'

But more importantly than that, the huge flaw with the notion that it's more epic when the nearly superhuman Batman is outsmarted is that you still face the problem of deflated tension and stakes during all of the stuff that leads up to Batman being outsmarted. If you have him being outsmarted and overpowered or at least coming close to that throughout the story, then you're really not demonstrating a superhumanly skilled Batman.

That's simply not true. And why I broached the sherlock paradigm in the first place. No one is talking in absolutes. The thread being titled "peak human condition" isn't some synonym for god. Cap who is more or less than peak human x2 isn't a god. It means what it means.
Even a genius fighter can be be put up against the ropes.

It seems to me that wether or not a character is interesting has more to do with the amount of focus and development the story gives that character and not their bias. I mean, people for the most part didn't like The Joker in that movie because he was good at stuff, they liked him because he was a weird and interesting character and Heath Ledger gave a very engaging performance.

I was speaking for myself, for batman has been given equal measure of development in these films as in the books and 'to me' and in tdk specifically, he lost interest. I look at the difference an I see see a glaring one.

 

[The Question]

Something as "uber" but as simple as this
[YT]rlYKxJKrW9k[/YT]
Seemingly beyond bale's wayne. Would this at all hurt the story and devoid it of tension? From where I'm sitting it looks like it would add 'something'

Yeah, I thought the ending of that episode was really silly and not very good.

That's simply not true. And why I broached the sherlock paradigm in the first place. No one is talking in absolutes. The thread being titled "peak human condition" isn't some synonym for god. Cap who is more or less than peak human x2 isn't a god. It means what it means.
Even a genius fighter can be be put up against the ropes.

1: Captain America is nowhere near as competent as Batman as the Bat-God is generally portrayed.

2: A batman who is "throwing multiple Batarangs with deadly accuracy mid-fight while fluidly dispatching goons" can't be put up against the ropes consistently through the film. He certainly can't be put up against the ropes in the middle of that kind of sequence because the very premise of such a sequence precludes such a thing.

 

[Marvin]

Yeah, I thought the ending of that episode was really silly and not very good.

I wasn't talking about the episode but rather the contents of that scene. Nothing god like but further along the spectrum of deductive reasoning and observational skills that does little to hurt the tension potential or interestingness of character.

1: Captain America is nowhere near as competent as Batman as the Bat-God is generally portrayed.

He's in way better 'condition'(with healing factor) and he pretty much has Xena like skill with his shield toss. I only point this out in relation to the idea that batman is too much for batarang accuracy and peak human conditioning.

2: A batman who is "throwing multiple Batarangs with deadly accuracy mid-fight while fluidly dispatching goons" can't be put up against the ropes consistently through the film. He certainly can't be put up against the ropes in the middle of that kind of sequence because the very premise of such a sequence precludes such a thing.

And yes all you would need to put that batman against the ropes is alittle imagination. Even in that sequence.
I suppose this is the crux of our discussion?