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

[The Question]

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.

The thing is my talking about the episode is relevant to the contents of that scene. I thought it did hurt the tension potential and interestingness of the character because it went too over the top and silly with little gain. Also it completely changed the dynamic between Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler from the books, where Adler unambiguously outsmarted and got the upper hand on Holmes and he was unable to regain that ground from her. It fundamentally altered their dynamic to make Sherlock look cooler, which is the kind of thing I hate seeing in Batman.

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.

And the Bat-God portrayal is basically that in addition to being Stephen Hawking/Bruce Lee/Nikola Tesla/Sherlock Holmes/James Bond.

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?

Saying "all you need is a little imagination" doesn't solve the problem, it's basically saying "all you need to do to solve the problem is be able to solve the problem."

What would you "imagine" would add some tension to a scene of Batman performing impossible martial arts moves and fluidly taking out a bunch of goons at once?

 

[Marvin]

The thing is my talking about the episode is relevant to the contents of that scene. I thought it did hurt the tension potential and interestingness of the character because it went too over the top and silly with little gain. Also it completely changed the dynamic between Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler from the books, where Adler unambiguously outsmarted and got the upper hand on Holmes and he was unable to regain that ground from her. It fundamentally altered their dynamic to make Sherlock look cooler, which is the kind of thing I hate seeing in Batman.

Looks like it didn't work for you. Did the opposite for me. As far as I can tell, the series is working.

And the Bat-God portrayal is basically that in addition to being Stephen Hawking/Bruce Lee/Nikola Tesla/Sherlock Holmes/James Bond.

Even if that was true(stephen hawking?), it wouldn't make him perfect as all those names are far from gods and fallibility..tension.
However batman doesn't have the conditioning of Steve Rogers.

Saying "all you need is a little imagination" doesn't solve the problem, it's basically saying "all you need to do to solve the problem is be able to solve the problem."

What would you "imagine" would add some tension to a scene of Batman performing impossible martial arts moves and fluidly taking out a bunch of goons at once?

Simple, have him do all that as he does in these various books, but then have him face a villain/threat as he does in these various books.

For example, you have this comic book paradigm: one in which batman does this batarang stuff and expressed analytics.

Spoiler

Goes on to tussle with this super crazy guy with his "peak human skill"

Spoiler

Then a few instances later, this happens

Spoiler

And we find ourselves here:

Spoiler

My point once more, just cause he can do all this cool stuff, doesn't mean his antagonists can't be written in a way that either supersede that or presents tension. I believe this story was about a boy hood friend that grew up to be a sort of anti batman...
Like I said, the answer doesn't have to come by way of tweeking that bat prowess, just a little imagination.

bonus, approach#2

Spoiler

 

[DA_Champion]

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.

I completely agree, and that is why the Iron Man movies bore me. Tony Stark is basically Bat-God. He is a billionaire, scientist, philanthropist, genius, superhero, or whatever. In the limited time between Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 he builds dozens of new iron man suits and an AI for them. He also heals Pepper Potts of extremis apparently. In the second movie he builds a new element in 1 hour thanks to a video from his father. This stuff is pretty dumb. I also didn't like Jor-El in MoS for that very same reason, and Khan Noonien-Singh in STID. I don't like over-competent character, it's basically a backdoor deus ex machina, and it's weaker writing.

Contrast that to the Batman of the Nolan films. He gets injured. He's depressed in the 8 years between TDK and TDKR. He falls asleep at Wayne Enterprises board meetings. He needs Lucius Fox's help to build his equipment... a vastly superior character.

 

[Marvin]

All that stuff you just said about tony stark and what makes him "not work for you"...how do you think the general audience feels about this same characterization as of 2008?
Last I check he's pretty much the golden goose over at marvel.

Tony "built it in a cave, with a box of scraps" and I love it. lol.

 

[DA_Champion]

It worked very well with the general audience. Kids loved it and now Iron Man is an A-list superhero.

It also worked great with critics, Iron Man has the second or third highest rotten tomatoes ranking of all CBMs.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I completely agree, and that is why the Iron Man movies bore me. Tony Stark is basically Bat-God. He is a billionaire, scientist, philanthropist, genius, superhero, or whatever. In the limited time between Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 he builds dozens of new iron man suits and an AI for them. He also heals Pepper Potts of extremis apparently. In the second movie he builds a new element in 1 hour thanks to a video from his father. This stuff is pretty dumb. I also didn't like Jor-El in MoS for that very same reason, and Khan Noonien-Singh in STID. I don't like over-competent character, it's basically a backdoor deus ex machina, and it's weaker writing.

Contrast that to the Batman of the Nolan films. He gets injured. He's depressed in the 8 years between TDK and TDKR. He falls asleep at Wayne Enterprises board meetings. He needs Lucius Fox's help to build his equipment... a vastly superior character.

I am a huge fan of Batman from the comics, and think that the Nolan films feature quality writing and nuanced characters.

But I personally feel like RDJ's character is actually more INTERESTING than Bale's is. I feel like there is an element of the mysterious ironically in Iron Man. Someone of hidden doubts and fears hiding beneath layers of snark and self-assurance. I don't really get that with Nolan's Batcharacter, who's thought processes are practically dictated to the screne.

I WILL say this, though. I think the first IM film is the only one that really realizes the vulnerable aspects of the character, while attempts for pathos in the sequels feel more "tacked on."

Of course, your opinion is no less valid than mine is. It's not like I have to scientifically prove my feelings t:

 

[DA_Champion]

With Bale's Batman I got the impression that he was working at the peak of human condition precisely because he needed help from talented people and couldn't do everything. He slept through a Wayne Enterprises board meeting, and that means that being Batman was pushing him beyond his limits. You don't fall asleep in a major meeting like that unless you're severely under-slept.

Tony Stark, to me, came off as a slacker, a lazy genius, who can solve problems whenever he decides to temporarily put his mind to it.

A few years ago I went to see a circus as the sydney opera house. You know what I found impressive? It didn't look effortless. One of the acrobats was shaking during her performance, she looked like she could fall, and I was impressed by that, it means that she was doing something genuinely challenging and not merely something that looked cool.

 

[Marvin]

With Bale's Batman I got the impression that he was working at the peak of human condition precisely because he needed help from talented people and couldn't do everything. He slept through a Wayne Enterprises board meeting, and that means that being Batman was pushing him beyond his limits. You don't fall asleep in a major meeting like that unless you're severely under-slept.

Just cause you are working at tireless conditions doesn't mean you are representing them.

I could tell you a story of a time when I did a few all nighters and didn't sleep only to fall asleep in class. This falling asleep alone isn't indicative of a good representation of peak human imo. Needing talented people is proof of nothing outside of his own failings. Again I could tell you of the time I needed a computer programmer to supplement my graphics work...
There are better ways to convey such things.

 

[DA_Champion]

Just cause you are working at tireless conditions doesn't mean you are representing them.

Absolutely, on the other hand, if you are at peak human conditions and performance you need to be exhausted by the end of it

Therefore, Bruce pushing past his elements is not sufficient to prove he is at peak human condition, but it is necessary.

Needing talented people is proof of nothing outside of his own failings.

If he is in a genuinely challenging situation then he will need a good team and support network to succeed.

*********

Also, your own ability to call upon talented computer programmers to help you at times is part of your abilities. Not everybody who does graphics knows who to get in touch, or can get the help they need even if they do know.

 

[titansupes]

With Bale's Batman I got the impression that he was working at the peak of human condition precisely because he needed help from talented people and couldn't do everything. He slept through a Wayne Enterprises board meeting, and that means that being Batman was pushing him beyond his limits. You don't fall asleep in a major meeting like that unless you're severely under-slept.

He was doing that on purpose as part of his 'vapid playboy' act. If he gets and extra wink or two, that's bonus points.

 

[DA_Champion]

He was doing that on purpose as part of his 'vapid playboy' act. If he gets and extra wink or two, that's bonus points.

No, he was generally beaten down by being Batman.

Was he also faking the injuries?
Was he also faking the depression between TDK and TDKR?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Goyer, Nolan, Nolan, really wanted to communicate that Batman was unsustainable to Bruce. They even had the dialogue explicitly tell us this, via Alfred.

ETA: If I did make a change, I'd split Lucius Fox into two separate characters, one to help managing Wayne Enterprises, one to help with engineering... but that might have been impossible to pull off within a movie, where the number of characters needs to be limited.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Just cause you are working at tireless conditions doesn't mean you are representing them.

I could tell you a story of a time when I did a few all nighters and didn't sleep only to fall asleep in class. This falling asleep alone isn't indicative of a good representation of peak human imo. Needing talented people is proof of nothing outside of his own failings. Again I could tell you of the time I needed a computer programmer to supplement my graphics work...
There are better ways to convey such things.

Wayne falling asleep during the board meeting can also be perceived as a ruse -- one of the character's many attempts to convince the people of Gotham that he is nothing more than an inconsequential buffoon.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

With Bale's Batman I got the impression that he was working at the peak of human condition precisely because he needed help from talented people and couldn't do everything. He slept through a Wayne Enterprises board meeting, and that means that being Batman was pushing him beyond his limits. You don't fall asleep in a major meeting like that unless you're severely under-slept.

Tony Stark, to me, came off as a slacker, a lazy genius, who can solve problems whenever he decides to temporarily put his mind to it.

A few years ago I went to see a circus as the sydney opera house. You know what I found impressive? It didn't look effortless. One of the acrobats was shaking during her performance, she looked like she could fall, and I was impressed by that, it means that she was doing something genuinely challenging and not merely something that looked cool.

I guess the challenge should be some type of middle ground. Not a Batman that needs an employee to help with pretty much all his gear, but not one with "perfect" intellect. Having him be "street smart" but flawed in his views in human nature would be a nice compromise

 

[Marvin]

When he needed lucius for each new design fix(cap/body armor, then body armor change...), I was curious.
Then when he needed fox to do that anti fear toxin stuff, and then to do it some more and more...they had my attention.

When he crawled to lucius on his knees and proclaimed he needed that man to get him 'back in the game', I was through.
Maybe if I wasn't reading batman comics during my young life I would have understood it but it's just no for me. I can see how it's for others though.

 

[The Question]

When he needed lucius for each new design fix(cap/body armor, then body armor change...), I was curious.
Then when he needed fox to do that anti fear toxin stuff, and then to do it some more and more...they had my attention.

When he crawled to lucius on his knees and proclaimed he needed that man to get him 'back in the game', I was through.
Maybe if I wasn't reading batman comics during my young life I would have understood it but it's just no for me. I can see how it's for others though.

You don't find something beautiful in the notion of a great man openly admitting that he can't win his battles alone?

I'm reminded of this:

[YT]ZAcemT7F29E[/YT]

 

[DA_Champion]

The problem is that Lucius was more of a big brother to Batman than an assistant. I like that Bruce needed help, but I admit that I think Lucius was too much of a badass.

 

[titansupes]

No, he was generally beaten down by being Batman.

Was he also faking the injuries?
Was he also faking the depression between TDK and TDKR?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Goyer, Nolan, Nolan, really wanted to communicate that Batman was unsustainable to Bruce. They even had the dialogue explicitly tell us this, via Alfred.

ETA: If I did make a change, I'd split Lucius Fox into two separate characters, one to help managing Wayne Enterprises, one to help with engineering... but that might have been impossible to pull off within a movie, where the number of characters needs to be limited.

No, it was absolutely part of his public Bruce Wayne persona. It's plainly obvious in the movie. They even show him all bright eyed and ready after the meeting... Waiting for Lucius now that everyone's gone, so he can get to the important stuff... If he was actually asleep then, as I said, that's a bonus for him. Kill two birds with one stone kind of deal. But first and foremost, that was about public Bruce. If he couldn't have done it in that meeting, he just wouldn't have.

Nolan/Bale always carefully delineated the three sides to him (Batman/Bruce/public Bruce). Notice how our first three scenes with Bale introduce us to those three sides economically? The garage fight with Batman, the Batbunker scene with real Bruce, and then the boardroom scene with public Bruce.

That was the point. I have no idea what you're trying to say with the "faking injuries/depression" thing. He was injured. He was being beaten down by Batman... But that's a completely separate component of the movie that had nothing to do with that scene (and the depression wasn't even in this movie).

And I loved that Bruce had Lucius.

 

[D.P.]

 

[Jekecy]

A few years ago I went to see a circus as the sydney opera house. You know what I found impressive? It didn't look effortless. One of the acrobats was shaking during her performance, she looked like she could fall, and I was impressed by that, it means that she was doing something genuinely challenging and not merely something that looked cool.

While I understand the meaning behind your appreciation, I can't help but feel it's misguided. To put your scenario in another perspective, is it not unimpressive for a professional to show their uneasiness in what should be an important performance?

I'm reminded of this one time where an actress profusely thanked an interviewer for commending their performance in a film as effortless. The reason she was so elated was *because* how opposite it was for her; it was one of the hardest roles she ever had to do. Due to her abilities and precise control, it never translated to the viewer. To me, that is true display of talents.

I'll agree there's a degree of aversion to absolute perfection. You're right, it's not interesting at all. But we've gone down this road of "flawed and dependent everyman" with the Nolan trilogy. Personally I'm not a fan, but I can see where it attracts people. There's still a gaping hole in the presentation of the comic Bruce/Batman; that of extreme discipline and conditioning. It's a major hallmark of the character strangely abandoned in live-action. I'd like to see it explored because it brings something fresh and is long overdue.

 

[The Question]

I'm reminded of this one time where an actress profusely thanked an interviewer for commending their performance in a film as effortless. The reason she was so elated was *because* how opposite it was for her; it was one of the hardest roles she ever had to do. Due to her abilities and precise control, it never translated to the viewer. To me, that is true display of talents.

I would argue that there is a significant difference between a skill set that's based entirely on fooling people into thinking that you're not even trying, and fighting and solving crimes which don't really require that.

Also I would argue that what you're describing here is, in fact, a lot more like what myself and DA_Champion would like to see from Batman than what you're advocating. Yes, it seems like what Batman does requires no effort on his part, but this is in fact a carefully cultivated illusion. His feats require meticulous planning and overcoming enormous hardships and he rarely enters into a situation with any kind of certainty of his success, regardless of wether he's battling an international terror kingpin like Ra's Al Ghul or "merely" attempting to sneak up on a man with a gun. Either scenario could easily result in his death.

 

[titansupes]

^ I like it.

 

[DA_Champion]

While I understand the meaning behind your appreciation, I can't help but feel it's misguided. To put your scenario in another perspective, is it not unimpressive for a professional to show their uneasiness in what should be an important performance?

I'm reminded of this one time where an actress profusely thanked an interviewer for commending their performance in a film as effortless. The reason she was so elated was *because* how opposite it was for her; it was one of the hardest roles she ever had to do. Due to her abilities and precise control, it never translated to the viewer. To me, that is true display of talents.

I'll agree there's a degree of aversion to absolute perfection. You're right, it's not interesting at all. But we've gone down this road of "flawed and dependent everyman" with the Nolan trilogy. Personally I'm not a fan, but I can see where it attracts people. There's still a gaping hole in the presentation of the comic Bruce/Batman; that of extreme discipline and conditioning. It's a major hallmark of the character strangely abandoned in live-action. I'd like to see it explored because it brings something fresh and is long overdue.

The Batman in the Nolan films is not a "flawed everyman". He does a significant number of impressive things:

- He nails the playboy look, 99.99% of the human population could not pull that off;
- He was Ras Al Ghul's best student;
- He knew how to rig the train station in BB in spite of fighting Ras, and he was able to get off at just the right time;
- In TDK, he figured out the plan with the marked bills (foiled by the joker), and in fact it only took him 1 year (time between BB and TDK) to nearly wipe out the mob;
- Within one day he absconded with the royal ballet, jumped off a boat, went to Hong Kong, beat up some security guards, then hooked to an airplane and got out of Hong Kong;
- He had the good judgment and self-control to think he should step aside to let Harvey Dent be the hero;
- He avoided hitting the joker with the bat-motorcycle without killing himself or paralizing himself;
- He had the self-control to not kill the joker atop that tower;

Everything he did with hooks, fighting, driving, etc took tremendous physical talent and practice.

I'm guessing that there's not one person alive past or present who could pull this off, hardly an everyman.

 

[Jekecy]

I would argue that there is a significant difference between a skill set that's based entirely on fooling people into thinking that you're not even trying, and fighting and solving crimes which don't really require that.

It's not necessary about fooling. The general idea is Bruce shouldn't look strained with (most of) these remarkable feats. The range of difficulty should be obvious by the inherent nature of those acts. Otherwise you give off the impression of inexperience and lack of control. Two things I definitely do not want associated with Bruce.

Also I would argue that what you're describing here is, in fact, a lot more like what myself and DA_Champion would like to see from Batman than what you're advocating. Yes, it seems like what Batman does requires no effort on his part, but this is in fact a carefully cultivated illusion. His feats require meticulous planning and overcoming enormous hardships and he rarely enters into a situation with any kind of certainty of his success, regardless of wether he's battling an international terror kingpin like Ra's Al Ghul or "merely" attempting to sneak up on a man with a gun. Either scenario could easily result in his death.

If there was any sort of active suppression, I would lend that to his naturally introvertive behavior rather than a constructed image for others. I like to imagine he is constantly in a state of emotional and physical flux, but he has perfected his discipline so much so that it's all trapped within a stoic shell. It would take a very special sort of actor to convey this subtlety.

The Batman in the Nolan films is not a "flawed everyman". He does a significant number of impressive things:

- He nails the playboy look, 99.99% of the human population could not pull that off;
- He was Ras Al Ghul's best student;
- He knew how to rig the train station in BB in spite of fighting Ras, and he was able to get off at just the right time;
- In TDK, he figured out the plan with the marked bills (foiled by the joker), and in fact it only took him 1 year (time between BB and TDK) to nearly wipe out the mob;
- Within one day he absconded with the royal ballet, jumped off a boat, went to Hong Kong, beat up some security guards, then hooked to an airplane and got out of Hong Kong;
- He had the good judgment and self-control to think he should step aside to let Harvey Dent be the hero;
- He avoided hitting the joker with the bat-motorcycle without killing himself or paralizing himself;
- He had the self-control to not kill the joker atop that tower;

- Playboys have generally been about wealth and ability rather than looks. In any case this doesn't have to do with characterization, which is what I was pointing more towards
- Most action protagonists tend to be the ones who are a bit more special, so I give no exclusivity points with those particular circumstances
- I've always cringed at the Joker-motorcycle scene as I believe it's the first time in film history Batman knocks himself out. I guess you can count survival as a victory, but he did embarrass (Joker didn't even blink) and incapacitate himself in one fell swoop. I always imagined Gordon facepalming himself as he witnessed the failed heroics
- I wish he would've exercised caution on possible mortalities with other people (poor garbage truck man)

Everything he did with hooks, fighting, driving, etc took tremendous physical talent and practice.

I'm guessing that there's not one person alive past or present who could pull this off, hardly an everyman.

I don't want to argue over taste here as that would be futile. It's cool you found this iteration to be impressive. For the most part I considered it unremarkable. But I am comparing it to the comics, so it is a bit of an unfair fight all things considering. I could go on for pages with the amateur mistakes I found with Bale's Bruce, but that era is done with no chance of a future so it's pointless. Anyway I'm not here to prove anything.

Moving forward I still find plenty of room to improve Bruce's sense of capability. There's a fine line between the physical representation of Deus Ex Machina and the overtly flawed action hero. Tip the scales too far onto one side, and it can get ludicrous quite easily. But hit that right spot, and you get something equivalent to that of Downey or Cumberbatch's Sherlock; an impressive human specimen who is riddled with personality imperfections. That is my ideal Bruce Wayne.

 

[The Batman]

Reading the last few pages, and for once, I actually agree with Marvin.

The more impressive Batman actually is, the better it'll be when the villain gains an upper hand.

Not only that, but if you want the overly "human" Batman, we have the Nolan films. Time for something different.

I felt like Tony Stark was more "Batman-esque" in IM3 than in any recent movie version of Batman.

 

[The Question]

Even if that was true(stephen hawking?), it wouldn't make him perfect as all those names are far from gods and fallibility..tension.

Individually, yes. It's when one person has the combined skills of all of them that's kind of god like.

However batman doesn't have the conditioning of Steve Rogers.

He's not supposed to, but when he's written as the original poster and you suggest he should be, in practice he does.

Simple, have him do all that as he does in these various books, but then have him face a villain/threat as he does in these various books.

For example, you have this comic book paradigm: one in which batman does this batarang stuff and expressed analytics.

Spoiler

Goes on to tussle with this super crazy guy with his "peak human skill"

Spoiler

Then a few instances later, this happens

Spoiler

And we find ourselves here:

Spoiler

My point once more, just cause he can do all this cool stuff, doesn't mean his antagonists can't be written in a way that either supersede that or presents tension. I believe this story was about a boy hood friend that grew up to be a sort of anti batman...
Like I said, the answer doesn't have to come by way of tweeking that bat prowess, just a little imagination.

My issue with that is, in the sequence you posted, the henchmen basically pose no threat to Batman. You keep saying that the answer is to beef up the bad guys to compensate for Batman being effectively superhuman, and that works for the main threats like The Joker or Ra's, but that still means he's going to be dispatching with faceless goons with ease. It still means that, when he's taking out an armed guard from behind, there's no sense that there's any risk of failure. That's what I'm talking about. I said that the problem with your approach is that, until we come up against the person who outsmarts or overpowers the superhumanly competent Batman, there isn't any tension. And that's what I meant by that. It's not that I don't want Batman to be exceptionally skilled, by his very nature he has to be, but I want him to have more plausible limitations because, to me anyway, that's where the tension and the emotional investment comes in. Batman effortlessly dispatching with ten armed guards by engaging in mid air acrobatics and throwing batarangs with perfect accuracy is boring to me. Batman defeating ten armed guards at once using stealth, hit and run tactics, making use of whatever is the environment, basing everything off of a plan to take out this group he spent weeks working on that he now has to rewrite on the fly because of new variables the fight is presenting, with close calls and and cuts and bruises all throughout the sequence, and all with this hyper frantic tension with the sense that if he makes even one mistake these men will kill him, that to me is exciting.

Less Pierce Brosnan James Bond, more Daniel Craig James Bond, that's what I'm talking about.

bonus, approach#2

Spoiler

I don't see what you're trying to convey to me with this image.

It's not necessary about fooling. The general idea is Bruce shouldn't look strained with (most of) these remarkable feats. The range of difficulty should be obvious by the inherent nature of those acts. Otherwise you give off the impression of inexperience and lack of control. Two things I definitely do not want associated with Bruce.

I disagree completely. If he looks strained attempting a particularly difficult task, you give the impression that yes, the task is indeed quite difficult and there's a chance he won't succeed. Which is what tension in a movie is all about. The problem with simply relying on the inherent nature of an act to imply how difficult it is and then having the hero pull it off effortlessly is that it feels artificial and it removes any sense that the hero might fail, which deflates the tension. And, in general, it's a lot more exciting to see someone struggle to achieve something and come down to the wire and then win at the very end than to perform effortlessly the whole way through. There's a reason you never see sports movies where the team the story follows score big early on and beat the other team 25-3. Bottom of the ninth, bases are loaded, both scores tied is where the adrenalin starts to kick in.

If there was any sort of active suppression, I would lend that to his naturally introvertive behavior rather than a constructed image for others. I like to imagine he is constantly in a state of emotional and physical flux, but he has perfected his discipline so much so that it's all trapped within a stoic shell. It would take a very special sort of actor to convey this subtlety.

Okay? That's kind of getting off topic, though.