Re: Next time we see a Marvel/DC cross-over
Rob Cypher
<jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote:
>On Aug 31, 9:54�am, "Smart Ape is a big Horton fan" <Za...@POTA.com>
>wrote:
>> I hope it involves Spider-Man and Mickey Mouse vs. Batman and Bugs Bunny.
>> --
>> --- Tied for 4th Best RSPW Poster of 2007.
>> --- Co-Winner of 2006's Worst Feud/Flamewar/Thread.
>> --- Winner of 2007's Most Deproved Poster (with everyone else)
>> --- 8th Funniest Poster of 2004, 6th in 2005, 5th in 2006 and 4th in 2007.
>> --- 5th Most Improved Poster of 2004, 6th in 2005, tied for 4th in 2006 and
>> tied for 2nd in 2007.
>> --- Involved in the 2nd and 4th in Best Flamewar/Thread/Feud of 2007
>> --- 3rd Highest Vote-Getter of the 2005 KORSPW (I got screwed in 2006).
>> --- In the Final Four of the 2006 RSPW Rumble
>> --- Ranked 4th on Lvubun's Top 127 RSPW Posters of 2005
>
>Spidey and Batman are pretty evenly matched, but Bugs would just
>frickin' squash The Mouse. -- Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
How are Spider-Man and Batman evenly matched? Spider-Man can lift tons and
can survive if he falls while swinging around skyscrapers unlike Bruce Wayne.
Batman would have to pull a "Dark Knight Returns" on him like he did Superman
in order to win, methinks...except that Peter Parker has no obviously known
weaknesses like Clark Kent.
As far as Bugs vs. Mickey, the rabbit would probably win if it were based on
personality alone. If you based it on sales I think Mickey would win, for the
fact he's been around in a commercially viable form for a lot longer.
Rob Cypher
http://robcypher.livejournal.com
http://www.myspace.com/robcyphercollective
http://www.facebook.com/robcypher
http://www.youtube.com/robcypher
http://www.twitter.com/robcypher
Permabanned from the Dextroverse and Bluelight
grinningdemon
wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:57:12 -0700 (PDT), "jsl...@NOutnet.utoledoSPAM.edu"
><jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 31, 9:54�am, "Smart Ape is a big Horton fan" <Za...@POTA.com>
>>wrote:
>>> I hope it involves Spider-Man and Mickey Mouse vs. Batman and Bugs Bunny.
>>> --
>>> --- Tied for 4th Best RSPW Poster of 2007.
>>> --- Co-Winner of 2006's Worst Feud/Flamewar/Thread.
>>> --- Winner of 2007's Most Deproved Poster (with everyone else)
>>> --- 8th Funniest Poster of 2004, 6th in 2005, 5th in 2006 and 4th in 2007.
>>> --- 5th Most Improved Poster of 2004, 6th in 2005, tied for 4th in 2006 and
>>> tied for 2nd in 2007.
>>> --- Involved in the 2nd and 4th in Best Flamewar/Thread/Feud of 2007
>>> --- 3rd Highest Vote-Getter of the 2005 KORSPW (I got screwed in 2006).
>>> --- In the Final Four of the 2006 RSPW Rumble
>>> --- Ranked 4th on Lvubun's Top 127 RSPW Posters of 2005
>>
>>Spidey and Batman are pretty evenly matched, but Bugs would just
>>frickin' squash The Mouse. -- Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
>
>How are Spider-Man and Batman evenly matched? Spider-Man can lift tons and
>can survive if he falls while swinging around skyscrapers unlike Bruce Wayne.
>Batman would have to pull a "Dark Knight Returns" on him like he did Superman
>in order to win, methinks...except that Peter Parker has no obviously known
>weaknesses like Clark Kent.
He wouldn't have to go nearly that far...Spiderman doesn't come close
to Superman power levels...for all his power, Spidey is not
invulnerable...and Batman is the master strategist with all the
wonderful toys...on a purely physical level Spidey trumps Batman
easily but all together I'd actually give the edge to Batman...if he
can beat Superman repeatedly...hell, his strategies have taken down
the entire JLA...he could handle Spiderman.
>
>As far as Bugs vs. Mickey, the rabbit would probably win if it were based on
>personality alone. If you based it on sales I think Mickey would win, for the
>fact he's been around in a commercially viable form for a lot longer.
Bugs would kick Mickey's ass any day of the week.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:23:44 -0400, Rob Cypher <bal...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>personality alone. If you based it on sales I think Mickey would win, for the
>>fact he's been around in a commercially viable form for a lot longer.
>
>Bugs would kick Mickey's ass any day of the week.
As I recall it, when it was Bugs vs Mickey, Eddie Valiant lost..
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Mhoram
news:lc4p951s54c12kq49...@4ax.com...
It depends: Batman can certainly beat Captain America but Spiderman can beat
Superboy. I'd go with Batman because, as he's written, nobody beats Batman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_vs._Marvel
IIRC, Lobo claimed Xavier paid him to lose to Wolverine. And Storm beating
Wonder Woman is just wrong, although I can't remember the exact plot. And
I'm not really sure about Wolverine and Thor beating Lobo and Captain
Mavel...
Mike B
> He wouldn't have to go nearly that far...Spiderman doesn't come
> close to Superman power levels...for all his power, Spidey is not
> invulnerable...and Batman is the master strategist with all the
> wonderful toys...on a purely physical level Spidey trumps Batman
> easily but all together I'd actually give the edge to Batman...if
> he can beat Superman repeatedly...hell, his strategies have taken
> down the entire JLA...he could handle Spiderman.
Just on general principals (ignoring the previous DC/Marvel events),
Batman probably keeps a list of how to defeat characters from comics.
Just in case they are real in another universe.
> Bugs would kick Mickey's ass any day of the week.
No doubt. I seem to recall at least once, MM and friends going out into
the woods where he dressed up like Elmer Fudd. In the WarnerVerse that
automatically makes him The Enemy, and subject to the worst tricks
Bugs, Duffy, the Roadrunner, Pepe LePew and the rest can come up with.
YKW (ad hoc)
news:ol0p95hesh8pfte48...@4ax.com:
> How are Spider-Man and Batman evenly matched? Spider-Man can lift tons
> and can survive if he falls while swinging around skyscrapers unlike
> Bruce Wayne. Batman would have to pull a "Dark Knight Returns" on him
> like he did Superman in order to win, methinks...except that Peter
> Parker has no obviously known weaknesses like Clark Kent.
Toss a flu or cold virus in his general direction. It'll knock him out for
a week.
--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2006 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
"It's not that I want to punish your success. [...]I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
-- The One, 14 Oct 08
plausible prose man
> How are Spider-Man and Batman evenly matched?
How are any of the more or less normal costumed adventurers evenly
matched against any of the superheroes?
> Spider-Man can lift tons and
> can survive if he falls while swinging around skyscrapers unlike Bruce Wayne.
Spiderman's a little hardened compared to Batman, but he's still
basically shootable, gasable, electrocutable.
> Batman would have to pull a "Dark Knight Returns" on him like he did Superman
> in order to win, methinks...except that Peter Parker has no obviously known
> weaknesses like Clark Kent.
Spoof his spider-sense, gas him. Throw an exploding batarang at his
face. Throw an electrified net over him. Whatever.
plausible prose man
> Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com> wrote innews:ol0p95hesh8pfte48...@4ax.com:
>
> > How are Spider-Man and Batman evenly matched? Spider-Man can lift tons
> > and can survive if he falls while swinging around skyscrapers unlike
> > Bruce Wayne. Batman would have to pull a "Dark Knight Returns" on him
> > like he did Superman in order to win, methinks...except that Peter
> > Parker has no obviously known weaknesses like Clark Kent.
>
> Toss a flu or cold virus in his general direction. It'll knock him out for
> a week.
Buy a newspaper, and I think Bruce actually owns one, hire a
columnist to publish a series of "Spiderman is a bum! Who needs 'em?"
editorials, which talk about how Spiderman just goads nuts with a
grudge into endangering co-eds, old women, and supermodels, and in
addition to making the city unsafe, it's clearly interfering with any
semblence of a normal life whoever it is has, so why doesn't he toss
his home-made costume in the trash and walk away? until Spiderman
begins to doubt himself and stops sticking to walls and his
spidersense and spider strength give out, and then throw an exploding
batarang in his face.
Magnus, Robot Fighter
I see Bats underestimating Spidey....in close quarters Spidey can
handle The X-Men.
But yeah...'Bruce with a plan' can beat anyone.
BigBob
wrote:
>
> Bugs would kick Mickey's ass any day of the week.
As the Warner Bros. cartoons would kick everybody's ass :)
Mel Blanc and Chuck Jones... enough said.
Don't forget, the "Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner" cartoons were also
Warner Bros.
Seems to me that the "Pink Panther" (DePatie-Freleng Enterprises
bought by Marvel in 1981), may be a *much* better fit for Disney than
any of the superheroes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Panther_(character)
I never really cared about the Disney characters (primarily the Fab
Five) outside of the theme parks.
For that matter, I wish they *never* were brought into EPCOT Center!
I don't think, as cartoons, they ever stacked-up against the ones I
mentioned, and others, particularly Warner Bros.
Now, Disney and Pixar *feature* animation is different.
So many of the characters -- not all of which were Disney, just used
by Disney (e.g. Sleeping Beauty) -- are great and memorable. And, for
decades, Disney owned feature animation.
Then they didn't :(
Then Roy Disney and Jeff Katzenberg! :)
Alan Menken!
Then they didn't :(
Eisner gutting animation :(
Then Pixar! :)
plausible prose man
I certainly recall a comic where Spiderman treated Wolverine like he
was your average barroom bully, or maybe a little better than that,
with kitchen knives duct taped to his wrists, but I recall many more
where Wolverine glares Spiderman into submission, and one or two where
he more or less single handedly kills more or less the rest of the
Marvel Universe.
> But yeah...'Bruce with a plan' can beat anyone
He certainly seemed to frighten Swamp Thing, even if later he admits
to himself he's a little short on ideas how exactly to beat Swamp
Thing.
grinningdemon
Yes...but those had less to do with Wolverine's powers and skills than
with his overwhelming popularity...there are any number of Marvel
characters who should be able to take him out...particularly those who
can do so at a distance...for examples, see Ultamatum or X-Men
Forever.
Magnus, Robot Fighter
LOL....yeah, then later in the series, SUPERMAN not only handles Swamp
Thing without even disturbing his plans for the afternoon...he talks
Swampie into abandoning his plans for revenge....because, he's
Superman after all.
whoswhoz
wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:57:12 -0700 (PDT), "jsl...@NOutnet.utoledoSPAM.edu"
Bugs is still a commercially viable property. Mickey is just a
trademark.
Peter Parker has no obivously known weaknesses? What, like Arachnite?
He needs to breathe, he's not invulnerable, if you drop him out of the
Batplane he'll probably break, especially if he's out of web fluid.
Parker would have no chance against Batman.
Captain America on the other hand....
plausible prose man
You know, sure, you and I think that, and yet, few if any writers
seem to want to fully explore the implications of what someone who was
as powerful as the Hulk, or even Spiderman..or forget those characters
who can lift tons over their head, you wouldn't want to get into a
fist fight or wrestling match with a bear or a lion or a gorilla.
Rob Cypher
All of this would require a lot of foreplanning on Batman's part, and crossovers
involving Marvel and DC characters almost always have them meeting (and/or
fighting) suddenly, usually under some questionable motive.
And when have you ever seen Batman drop anyone out of his jet? Dude's
philosphy is to try to avoid killing his opponent. I've never seen him get
homicidal (at least when written properly), even with faced with people like
the two-bit hoodlum that killed his parents or the Joker, who killed one of his
sidekicks (Jason "Robin II" Todd) and crippled another one (Barbara
"Batgirl/Oracle" Gordon, daughter of Gotham City police commissoner James
Gordon). And yes, I'm aware that some idiot revived Jason Todd 20 years
later for a storyline, but the point still stands.
Maybe after a little while Batman could adjust via technology, but Spidey
easily wins the first few fights.
If it weren't for the "Dark Knight" alternate earth stories where he beat
Superman to a pulp with kryptonite armor, we probably wouldn't even
be having this discussion. Goddamn Frank Miller...I admit I liked the first
series but the followups were too confused to make good reading.
One last note: Batman's fought Deathstroke the Terminator a few times
in the DC universe and has gotten his ass kicked almost every time. I think
that's more of what people need to pay attention to, especially because it
is within current comic contunity (while the DKR series never was).
I'd be more interested to see Deathstroke vs. Spider-Man, even though I'm
not a big fan of the cyborg assassin.
>Captain America on the other hand....
I assume you mean Captain America vs. Batman. I believe they may have
actually met before in the comics. Let me search a couple databases to
confirm...okay, I found a couple of meetings on one of Cap's wikipedia
entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_versions_of_Captain_America
Elseworlds
Captain America and his sidekick Bucky star in Batman and Captain America, a
title that appeared in the DC Comics Elseworlds series. The story is set in an
alternate World War II, with Captain America and Bucky meeting Batman and Robin
in the course of a mission and working together as a result. The two heroes'
principal arch-villains the Red Skull and The Joker also work together, in a
Nazi plot to steal the American Fat Man atomic bomb, though when the Joker
realizes that the Skull is actually a Nazi he double-crosses him and causes the
atomic bomb to be detonated off-target, killing the two villains. In an epilogue
set approximately twenty years later Dick Grayson, who is now the new Batman,
with retired Bruce Wayne's son Bruce Jr. as Robin, discovers Captain America
frozen in an iceberg in the ocean decades after the war. When thawed out by
Batman and Robin, Captain America, though aggrieved by the death of Bucky in
their final adventure (the same as in the main Marvel storyline), decides to
again fight in the name of justice.
Winner: draw. They work together during this issue.
JLA/Avengers
Captain America is seen as the leader of the Avengers during the JLA/Avengers
story. His mind manipulated by higher forces, he sees the Justice League as
fascist overlords who demand praise and worship in return for heroic actions. He
especially gets angry at Superman, who (likewise affected) sees the Avengers as
heroes who don't do enough and let their world down. During the first
confrontation, Cap and Batman battle but reach a standstill. The two decide to
team up to solve the mystery of their merging universes. They figure out the
plan, but their intervention in the last battle causes the villain Krona to go
mad and cause the two universes to merge. Cap is the only Marvel hero to sense
reality changing and his attack on Superman shatters the fixed reality. The two
teams find the Grandmaster, who shows them the way their realities are supposed
to be. Despite seeing shocking revelations, the two teams decide to face Krona.
Cap leads the teams and gives Superman his shield. During the battle Cap is
confronted by Prometheus, whom he defeats. According to both stated DC Comics
continuity and the All-New Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe, this
adventure is canonical to Marvel's Earth 616 and occurred in fact or in a very
slight variation on DC's New Earth. Thus, this is not an alternate version of
the Captain, although there are repeated instances of temporary alterations in
space time.
Winner: draw, although Cap is the real hero of the series because he manages
to keep the DC and Marvel worlds from permenantly merging.
Marvel vs DC
Captain America appears in the Marvel/DC crossover Marvel vs DC. He first
appears to be fighting with HYDRA before being summoned to the DC earth. He is
later shown in a brawl with Bane and wins. He is then seen fighting with Batman
in the sewers of Manhattan in battle he ultimately loses. After a pitched
hand-to-hand standoff, they both end up throwing their respective weapons
(shield and batarang) with Batman scoring the only hit, and subsequent, knockout
blow. Afterward they team up with to stop the entities.
This battle was determined by a popular vote of the fan base before the comic
was published.
Winner: Batman, but only because of a fan vote.
Technically Batman leads the series, but the conditions regarding his only win
are so questionable one has to wonder if it should really count.
Personally, I think Cap would win until Batman adjusted his technological gear
to adapt to his opponent. Even then I still see Cap winning, unless Batman can
fake him out into doing something like jumping into a nuclear reactor or some
other farfetched demise.
grinningdemon
wrote:
>All of this would require a lot of foreplanning on Batman's part, and crossovers
>involving Marvel and DC characters almost always have them meeting (and/or
>fighting) suddenly, usually under some questionable motive.
Most of Batman's plans in the books come up as the situation
arises...he doesn't need a lot of foreplanning for most individual
fights specifically because he plans for everything...every
contingency.
>
>And when have you ever seen Batman drop anyone out of his jet? Dude's
>philosphy is to try to avoid killing his opponent. I've never seen him get
>homicidal (at least when written properly), even with faced with people like
>the two-bit hoodlum that killed his parents or the Joker, who killed one of his
>sidekicks (Jason "Robin II" Todd) and crippled another one (Barbara
>"Batgirl/Oracle" Gordon, daughter of Gotham City police commissoner James
>Gordon). And yes, I'm aware that some idiot revived Jason Todd 20 years
>later for a storyline, but the point still stands.
Batman is probably the most anti-killing of any of the major
superheroes...but he didn't start out that way...in the earliest
Batman stories, he was willing to kill and there was at least one
occasion where he strangled a guy by hanging him out of the bat-plane.
>
>Maybe after a little while Batman could adjust via technology, but Spidey
>easily wins the first few fights.
What stories are you reading? Batman doesn't need time to "adjust via
technology"...he's a master strategist and, while he certainly does
make tactical plans in advance, he doesn't need to in most cases.
>
>If it weren't for the "Dark Knight" alternate earth stories where he beat
>Superman to a pulp with kryptonite armor, we probably wouldn't even
>be having this discussion. Goddamn Frank Miller...I admit I liked the first
>series but the followups were too confused to make good reading.
The Dark Knight Returns is far from the only time Batman has beaten
Superman...he has done so repeatedly through superior strategy and
understanding his opponent...if he wanted to, Superman could fry him
from orbit with his heat vision or swoop in and take him out at
super-speed...those are really the only sure ways Supes could beat
Batman...but he won't do that and Batman knows it...and Spiderman
doesn't have either of those options.
>One last note: Batman's fought Deathstroke the Terminator a few times
>in the DC universe and has gotten his ass kicked almost every time. I think
>that's more of what people need to pay attention to, especially because it
>is within current comic contunity (while the DKR series never was).
Two things to think of here...first, Deathstroke has indeed beaten
Batman...but not easily...and not in any way that would be described
as Batman getting his ass kicked...secondly, the nature of Deathstroke
is that he has all of Batman's skills but, whereas Batman's talents
are all natural or from training, Deathstroke has been artificially
enhanced in every one of these areas...he's actually taken down the
entire Justice League before...so, in an objective fight, Spiderman
wouldn't fair any better than Batman.
>Technically Batman leads the series, but the conditions regarding his only win
>are so questionable one has to wonder if it should really count.
As you've hit on, none of these Batman/Cap meetings were objective
fights...all of them (with the exception of DC vs. Marvel) were
stories meant to showcase both characters so neither one of them is
going to be allowed to really outshine the other...DC vs. Marvel was
indeed popularity based but I think they got the outcome more or less
right (even if the the story itself wasn't very good).
>Personally, I think Cap would win until Batman adjusted his technological gear
>to adapt to his opponent. Even then I still see Cap winning, unless Batman can
>fake him out into doing something like jumping into a nuclear reactor or some
>other farfetched demise.
Again, you underestimate Batman...as I said in an earlier post with
regard to Batman vs. Spiderman, in a purely physical battle, Batman
would certainly lose eventually...but, as long as Batman has his
intellect, he would find a way to win...Cap's a highly skilled fighter
with a notable edge from the super soldier serum (although not as
notable as Spiderman's edge)...but he's no tactician...he never has
been...he would put up a hell of a fight but, at the end of the day,
Batman would take him down...from Marvel, probably only someone like
the Hulk or Thor (with incredible power and no obvious weaknesses for
Batman to exploit) could take down Batman...and Reed Richards is
probably the only one who could out-think Batman...although, for all
his intelligence, Reed's never been much of a strategist either so
he'd probably lose.
Rob Cypher
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:26:21 -0400, Rob Cypher <bal...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>All of this would require a lot of foreplanning on Batman's part, and crossovers
>>involving Marvel and DC characters almost always have them meeting (and/or
>>fighting) suddenly, usually under some questionable motive.
>
>Most of Batman's plans in the books come up as the situation
>arises...he doesn't need a lot of foreplanning for most individual
>fights specifically because he plans for everything...every
>contingency.
Including superpowered beings from an alternate dimension? Somehow I suspect
WayneTech wouldn't have that covered, simply due to the prohibitive cost as
well as the odds of something like that happening within mainstream continuity.
>>And when have you ever seen Batman drop anyone out of his jet? Dude's
>>philosphy is to try to avoid killing his opponent. I've never seen him get
>>homicidal (at least when written properly), even with faced with people like
>>the two-bit hoodlum that killed his parents or the Joker, who killed one of his
>>sidekicks (Jason "Robin II" Todd) and crippled another one (Barbara
>>"Batgirl/Oracle" Gordon, daughter of Gotham City police commissoner James
>>Gordon). And yes, I'm aware that some idiot revived Jason Todd 20 years
>>later for a storyline, but the point still stands.
>
>Batman is probably the most anti-killing of any of the major
>superheroes...but he didn't start out that way...in the earliest
>Batman stories, he was willing to kill and there was at least one
>occasion where he strangled a guy by hanging him out of the bat-plane.
Yeah, that was when Bob Kane wrote his character. Most people don't realize
that the Batman character they know and love was mostly developed by other
people, even when Kane was active on the title.
Take a look at this:
http://www.cracked.com/funny-1094-bob-kane/
The article writers had it right when they described Kane's original Batman as
"Drew Carey in thin red tights". Comic historians tend to credit his assistant
Bill Finger for developing the basic Batman attributes, including the basic
template for his costumes.
>>Maybe after a little while Batman could adjust via technology, but Spidey
>>easily wins the first few fights.
>
>What stories are you reading? Batman doesn't need time to "adjust via
>technology"...he's a master strategist and, while he certainly does
>make tactical plans in advance, he doesn't need to in most cases.
He doesn't need to? Then why does he bother making those tactical plans in
the first place? A bit of OCD, perhaps?
>>If it weren't for the "Dark Knight" alternate earth stories where he beat
>>Superman to a pulp with kryptonite armor, we probably wouldn't even
>>be having this discussion. Goddamn Frank Miller...I admit I liked the first
>>series but the followups were too confused to make good reading.
>
>The Dark Knight Returns is far from the only time Batman has beaten
>Superman...he has done so repeatedly through superior strategy and
>understanding his opponent...if he wanted to, Superman could fry him
>from orbit with his heat vision or swoop in and take him out at
>super-speed...those are really the only sure ways Supes could beat
>Batman...but he won't do that and Batman knows it...and Spiderman
>doesn't have either of those options.
Yeah, but Spider-Man does have "spider sense"; I think that would nullify
a lot of Batman's strategies, which involve ambushing/surprising the enemy
in some way. Plus Batman always had kryptonite to fight Supes, whereas
there is no such easy power nullifer for Spider-Man.
>>One last note: Batman's fought Deathstroke the Terminator a few times
>>in the DC universe and has gotten his ass kicked almost every time. I think
>>that's more of what people need to pay attention to, especially because it
>>is within current comic contunity (while the DKR series never was).
>
>Two things to think of here...first, Deathstroke has indeed beaten
>Batman...but not easily...and not in any way that would be described
>as Batman getting his ass kicked...secondly, the nature of Deathstroke
>is that he has all of Batman's skills but, whereas Batman's talents
>are all natural or from training, Deathstroke has been artificially
>enhanced in every one of these areas...he's actually taken down the
>entire Justice League before...so, in an objective fight, Spiderman
>wouldn't fair any better than Batman.
I think it'd be a lot closer than you think re: Deathstroke vs. Spider-Man:
Neither fighter would be familiar with the other so there's no "cheap shot"
Deathstroke could make on Spider-Man, at least during the first battle.
A rematch, however, would probably give 'stroke the edge due to his
cybernetically enhanced tactician skills and experience from the first fight.
>>Technically Batman leads the series, but the conditions regarding his only win
>>are so questionable one has to wonder if it should really count.
>
>As you've hit on, none of these Batman/Cap meetings were objective
>fights...all of them (with the exception of DC vs. Marvel) were
>stories meant to showcase both characters so neither one of them is
>going to be allowed to really outshine the other...DC vs. Marvel was
>indeed popularity based but I think they got the outcome more or less
>right (even if the the story itself wasn't very good).
Why would they even fight in the first place? I could only see it happening
between the two if one or both were brainwashed or misinformed; their motives
and goals are too closely aligned for them to just start throwing blows upon
sight.
>>Personally, I think Cap would win until Batman adjusted his technological gear
>>to adapt to his opponent. Even then I still see Cap winning, unless Batman can
>>fake him out into doing something like jumping into a nuclear reactor or some
>>other farfetched demise.
>
>Again, you underestimate Batman...as I said in an earlier post with
>regard to Batman vs. Spiderman, in a purely physical battle, Batman
>would certainly lose eventually...but, as long as Batman has his
>intellect, he would find a way to win...Cap's a highly skilled fighter
>with a notable edge from the super soldier serum (although not as
>notable as Spiderman's edge)...but he's no tactician...he never has
>been...he would put up a hell of a fight but, at the end of the day,
>Batman would take him down...from Marvel, probably only someone like
>the Hulk or Thor (with incredible power and no obvious weaknesses for
>Batman to exploit) could take down Batman...and Reed Richards is
>probably the only one who could out-think Batman...although, for all
>his intelligence, Reed's never been much of a strategist either so
>he'd probably lose.
So Batman can beat up the entire Marvel Universe except for their
most powerful beings/gods? News to me!
ps can't wait to hear how Batman defeats Galactus.
grinningdemon
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:54:34 -0500, grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:26:21 -0400, Rob Cypher <bal...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>All of this would require a lot of foreplanning on Batman's part, and crossovers
>>>involving Marvel and DC characters almost always have them meeting (and/or
>>>fighting) suddenly, usually under some questionable motive.
>>
>>Most of Batman's plans in the books come up as the situation
>>arises...he doesn't need a lot of foreplanning for most individual
>>fights specifically because he plans for everything...every
>>contingency.
>
>Including superpowered beings from an alternate dimension? Somehow I suspect
>WayneTech wouldn't have that covered, simply due to the prohibitive cost as
>well as the odds of something like that happening within mainstream continuity.
He doesn't win every fight with gadgets, you know? And, think about
it, Spiderman's powers really aren't that far outside the skillsets of
villains that Batman faces all the time...he swings around on webs
instead of cables and/or bat-lines but, beyond that, super strength
and the spider sense are the only things that really stand out...he's
fought many opponents with super strength and even characters with
precognition...there really isn't anything about Spiderman that would
put him outside of Batman's experience...furthermore, most of these
company crossover stories ignore the alternate dimension issue and
simply pretend that they all exist in the same world.
>>What stories are you reading? Batman doesn't need time to "adjust via
>>technology"...he's a master strategist and, while he certainly does
>>make tactical plans in advance, he doesn't need to in most cases.
>
>He doesn't need to? Then why does he bother making those tactical plans in
>the first place? A bit of OCD, perhaps?
His work is his obssession...everything he does is about making Batman
better and furthering his crusade...it's another advantage he has over
more heroes in this sense.
That said, he is more than capable of thinking on his feet and
adapting to the given situation.
>>>If it weren't for the "Dark Knight" alternate earth stories where he beat
>>>Superman to a pulp with kryptonite armor, we probably wouldn't even
>>>be having this discussion. Goddamn Frank Miller...I admit I liked the first
>>>series but the followups were too confused to make good reading.
>>
>>The Dark Knight Returns is far from the only time Batman has beaten
>>Superman...he has done so repeatedly through superior strategy and
>>understanding his opponent...if he wanted to, Superman could fry him
>>from orbit with his heat vision or swoop in and take him out at
>>super-speed...those are really the only sure ways Supes could beat
>>Batman...but he won't do that and Batman knows it...and Spiderman
>>doesn't have either of those options.
>
>Yeah, but Spider-Man does have "spider sense"; I think that would nullify
>a lot of Batman's strategies, which involve ambushing/surprising the enemy
>in some way. Plus Batman always had kryptonite to fight Supes, whereas
>there is no such easy power nullifer for Spider-Man.
The spider sense has always been a very poorly defined plot
device...it works perfect one second and is conveniently absent the
next...it's not something Spidey can really rely on...furthermore, it
warns of danger but not necessarily the specific danger...meaning it's
a great way to avoid an ambush but generally not particularly useful
in the middle of a fight.
And Batman has not ALWAYS used Kryptonite to beat Superman...it really
just depends on the situation and his ultimate goal...there have been
a lot of "fights" between them where Batman was simply trying to get
around him to do something else and he would often accomplish this
through distraction and what not...and other times when Superman has
been controlled by an outside force and Batman merely had to overcome
that outside control.
>>>One last note: Batman's fought Deathstroke the Terminator a few times
>>>in the DC universe and has gotten his ass kicked almost every time. I think
>>>that's more of what people need to pay attention to, especially because it
>>>is within current comic contunity (while the DKR series never was).
>>
>>Two things to think of here...first, Deathstroke has indeed beaten
>>Batman...but not easily...and not in any way that would be described
>>as Batman getting his ass kicked...secondly, the nature of Deathstroke
>>is that he has all of Batman's skills but, whereas Batman's talents
>>are all natural or from training, Deathstroke has been artificially
>>enhanced in every one of these areas...he's actually taken down the
>>entire Justice League before...so, in an objective fight, Spiderman
>>wouldn't fair any better than Batman.
>
>I think it'd be a lot closer than you think re: Deathstroke vs. Spider-Man:
>Neither fighter would be familiar with the other so there's no "cheap shot"
>Deathstroke could make on Spider-Man, at least during the first battle.
>A rematch, however, would probably give 'stroke the edge due to his
>cybernetically enhanced tactician skills and experience from the first fight.
Deathstroke is actually a lot like Midnighter from the Authority...he
wins because he instantly plays through all the possible scenarios in
his head at the beginning of each fight...it's essentially a form of
precognition that is actually much better defined and more practically
useful than Spidey's spider sense...he doesn't need to be familar with
his opponent.
>>>Technically Batman leads the series, but the conditions regarding his only win
>>>are so questionable one has to wonder if it should really count.
>>
>>As you've hit on, none of these Batman/Cap meetings were objective
>>fights...all of them (with the exception of DC vs. Marvel) were
>>stories meant to showcase both characters so neither one of them is
>>going to be allowed to really outshine the other...DC vs. Marvel was
>>indeed popularity based but I think they got the outcome more or less
>>right (even if the the story itself wasn't very good).
>
>Why would they even fight in the first place? I could only see it happening
>between the two if one or both were brainwashed or misinformed; their motives
>and goals are too closely aligned for them to just start throwing blows upon
>sight.
They'd fight for the same reason almost all super heroes fight at
first meeting...a misunderstanding...or maybe it's just tradition.
>
>>>Personally, I think Cap would win until Batman adjusted his technological gear
>>>to adapt to his opponent. Even then I still see Cap winning, unless Batman can
>>>fake him out into doing something like jumping into a nuclear reactor or some
>>>other farfetched demise.
>>
>>Again, you underestimate Batman...as I said in an earlier post with
>>regard to Batman vs. Spiderman, in a purely physical battle, Batman
>>would certainly lose eventually...but, as long as Batman has his
>>intellect, he would find a way to win...Cap's a highly skilled fighter
>>with a notable edge from the super soldier serum (although not as
>>notable as Spiderman's edge)...but he's no tactician...he never has
>>been...he would put up a hell of a fight but, at the end of the day,
>>Batman would take him down...from Marvel, probably only someone like
>>the Hulk or Thor (with incredible power and no obvious weaknesses for
>>Batman to exploit) could take down Batman...and Reed Richards is
>>probably the only one who could out-think Batman...although, for all
>>his intelligence, Reed's never been much of a strategist either so
>>he'd probably lose.
>
>So Batman can beat up the entire Marvel Universe except for their
>most powerful beings/gods? News to me!
Hey, there was a storyline a few years back where Wolverine basically
did just that and I find it infinitely more believable that Batman
could do so than Wolverine (who pretty much would have died in every
fight he's ever had if not for his healing factor).
And Superman could take most of the most powerful beings/gods.
>ps can't wait to hear how Batman defeats Galactus.
Is really any less believable than Reed Richards doing so? That said,
Galactus would most certainly fall into that category with the most
powerful beings/gods and, even if Bats couldn't take him by himself,
he could most certainly devise a strategy utilizing the JLA (or the
Avengers, FF, etc.) to do so...that's pretty much all he ever does in
JLA stories.
What it comes down to is the inherent differences between the DC and
Marvel Universes...this was touched on somewhat in JLA/Avengers...the
DCU is just bigger and more fantastic in almost every way...the heroes
are generally more powerful and/or capable and the threats are
generally bigger...whereas the Marvel Universe is a little more of a
down to earth take on super heroes...it's more like superheroes
inserted into the real world...as a result, the bigger names of the DC
Heroes could take on most of Marvel...I'd wager the magnificient seven
JLA line-up could probably pretty much conquer the Marvel Universe if
they wanted...or at least earth.
And I say all this having traditionally been a much bigger Marvel fan
than DC.
American Raven
"grinningdemon" <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8blu95dm5supkhqt4...@4ax.com...
But would Rorschach, Night Owl II or Comedian (younger, not the 67 year old
man thrown out of a high-rise window) have a chance against either Spidey or
Bats? :)
Rob Cypher
wrote:
<...>
>>>ps can't wait to hear how Batman defeats Galactus.
>>
>> Is really any less believable than Reed Richards doing so? That said,
>> Galactus would most certainly fall into that category with the most
>> powerful beings/gods and, even if Bats couldn't take him by himself,
>> he could most certainly devise a strategy utilizing the JLA (or the
>> Avengers, FF, etc.) to do so...that's pretty much all he ever does in
>> JLA stories.
>>
>> What it comes down to is the inherent differences between the DC and
>> Marvel Universes...this was touched on somewhat in JLA/Avengers...the
>> DCU is just bigger and more fantastic in almost every way...the heroes
>> are generally more powerful and/or capable and the threats are
>> generally bigger...whereas the Marvel Universe is a little more of a
>> down to earth take on super heroes...it's more like superheroes
>> inserted into the real world...as a result, the bigger names of the DC
>> Heroes could take on most of Marvel...I'd wager the magnificient seven
>> JLA line-up could probably pretty much conquer the Marvel Universe if
>> they wanted...or at least earth.
>>
>
>But would Rorschach, Night Owl II or Comedian (younger, not the 67 year old
>man thrown out of a high-rise window) have a chance against either Spidey or
>Bats? :)
Night Owl II might have one against Batman; their MOs are similar (costumed
detective with gadgets). Rorschach might be able to escape fighting Batman
a few times but eventually would get his ass kicked; he's closer to being one
of Batman's criminal foes than a typical hero. Comedian would get his ass
handed to him simply due to his cockiness.
None of those guys have a chance against Spider-Man, by the way; they have
zero experience with superpowered opponents outside of Dr. Manhattan
(who was too godlike for them to even consider battling).
Scott Eiler
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:26:21 -0400, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com>
> ... from Marvel, probably only someone like
> the Hulk or Thor (with incredible power and no obvious weaknesses for
> Batman to exploit) could take down Batman...
Captain America has beaten Thor (he made Thor drop the hammer for
sixty seconds). Batman has beaten the Hulk (with stun gas).
I think maybe we need the Sentry.
grinningdemon
wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 01:08:13 -0600, "American Raven" <americ...@comcast.net>
Night Owl wouldn't have a shot either...he's modeled on Blue Beetle,
not Batman...and, as much as I love Blue Beetle/Ted Kord, he could
NEVER take Batman.
grinningdemon
Ugh! No one needs the Sentry...besides, given how fragile his mental
condition is, Batman would have no trouble manipulating him into
uselessness...though Sentry usually does that all on his own.
William George Ferguson
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>If it weren't for the "Dark Knight" alternate earth stories where he beat
>>Superman to a pulp with kryptonite armor, we probably wouldn't even
>>be having this discussion. Goddamn Frank Miller...I admit I liked the first
>>series but the followups were too confused to make good reading.
This paragraph actually covers the key element in Batman defeating
Superman. Batman knows that Superman will hold back and pull his punches,
while he doesn't have to. When Superman wasn't holding back that much
(when he was being controlled by Maxwell Lord),he beat Batman to a bloody
pulp.
Well, that and author fiat ('he's Batman and therefore he'll win even when
it makes no sense')
Ugghh, writing this pulls me back into the stupidity that was the outcome
of the Maxwell Lord storyline. Wonder Woman has never made a vow not to
kill bad guys. Prior to snapping Lord's neck, she had beheaded people on
live national television. (some nice writer, after this mess was sorted,
even got to let her point that out in her comic)
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
Samuelle22
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:54:34 -0500, grinningdemon
>
WHY DO YOU KEEP CROSSPOSTING ALL KINDS OF SHIT TO ADH ROB FUCKING
CYPHER???? What makes you think that you are so fucking special? It's
really very simple. People have different interests. If I want to read
about batman I will go to the relevant usenet group.
If everyone did what you do, and crossposted their slightest thought
to every group they have an interest in, then usenet would become
totally random useless crap. is that your aim? to disempower the
individual? Or are you just sooo fucking Special?
grinningdemon
Actually, she had beheaded a MONSTER on tv (Medusa, as I recall)...and
the problem with her killing Lord wasn't just that she killed him but
that Brother Eye doctored the footage to make it look even worse and
the public didn't know the bit about him controlling Superman and
heading a vast conspiracy to kill all superhumans.
Rob Cypher
wrote:
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am empowering the individual by presenting multiple facets of culture and
science. You will assimilate this information or you will be yet another
obsolete human being wasting valuable pharmaceutical resources.
READ IT NOW. READ IT ALL NOW.
William George Ferguson
That explains the public reaction, and I didn't oject to that too much, it
was actually similar to when ULTIMATUM and Flag-Killer set Captain America
up to be perceived as a killer.
My real objection was in Superman and Batman's reaction. As for Medusa,
she was just as much a living, sentient, sapient person as Maxwell Lord,
she just didn't look quite as 'human' as he did. By that standard, Bats
should have no problem killing half his rogues gallery (do Clayface or the
Penguin look all that much more 'human' than Medusa?).
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
plausible prose man
wrote:
"Of what use is a non-human?" is a pretty common trope, and...I'm not
familiar with this iteration of Medusa, but in general it would seem
certain characters are more dispelled or discorporated than killed,
per se, so if anyone wants to act like beheading Medusa or blowing up
Amazo or burying Solomon Grundy under a mountain or encasing shaggyman
in a block of ice and throwing him into LEO or something or turning
Neon Noodle into a blinking "Eat at Joe's" sign is less than homocide,
I won't cry "foul!"
> By that standard, Bats
> should have no problem killing half his rogues gallery (do Clayface or the
> Penguin look all that much more 'human' than Medusa?).
It would seem Clayface is a more resurrectable character than
Penguin, who's mainly an ugly person. If the outcome of a battle with
Clayface is he's mixed with concrete and turns into a statue, or he's
baked hard in a kiln and then shattered, well, nothing you can't fix
by putting him back together and soaking him in his pool for awhile,
I'd say.
>
Deacon
> Bugs is still a commercially viable property. Mickey is just a
> trademark.
Are you kidding or just horribly out of touch? Millions of kids watch
Mickey daily.
Deac
Jason Todd
And more importantly, I'm sure Mickey's merch sales are at least twice
that of Bugs.
Disney stores = still around
Warner Stores = RIP
And don't get me wrong -- the WB characters will *always* be cooler
than Disney's or Hanna Barbera's or anyone else by a mile, *BUT*
Disney is the merchandising king.
Jason "Eh, what's up doc?" Todd
Anim8rFSK
Is this version of Wonder Woman human herself? Enchanted lumps of clay
may not be subject to the same rules when it comes to killing,
especially when killing, for instance, Clayface.
--
Uncle Jack: "Will, you're invisible!"
Will: "Invisible? I can't be! I can touch myself!"
--actual dialog from third season LAND OF THE LOST
Scott Eiler
> Is this version of Wonder Woman human herself? Enchanted lumps of clay
> may not be subject to the same rules when it comes to killing,
> especially when killing, for instance, Clayface.
Godly clay body notwithstanding, Wonder Woman has a human soul. But
her Higher Powers are something of a bloodthirsty lot, and won't mind
a bit if their warrior princess actually acts like a warrior.
grinningdemon
<wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Batman and Superman are more against killing than just about any other
heroes in comics...they would never accept it under any circumstances
(especially Batman)...and Maxwell Lord was technically defenseless
when WW killed him...all of Batman's enemies at least started out as
human and, for the most part, they are treated as people with mental
illnesses...Medusa was a mythological monster bent on
destruction...she had never been human and had absolutely zero
conscience...moreover, she was already dead and had been magically
resurrected specifically to kill Diana and those she cared
about...that said, Batman and Superman probably wouldn't have been
comfortable with this either but they were not involved in the
story...though it did contribute to the later perception of WW after
killing Lord.
Personally, I think that run on Wonder Woman (Rucka's, that is) was
vastly superior to anything that's come since...Gail Simone made the
book somewhat better but she's still suffering under the trappings
inherited from the previous writer (the idiotic secret identity,
Nemesis as a love interest, etc.)...it needs to go.
Anim8rFSK
grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
Ahem. Byrne retcon Superman happily murders people. Is that still in
continuity?
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Well, firstly, Byrne retcon Superman reluctantly killed three people, and
then spent a very tiresome year beating himself up about it.
But no, as of Superman #666, certain otherdimensional entities recall it
happening, but neither he nor Lois do.
--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Aaron *Brother Head* Moss
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-110B6...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
: In article <83j2a51s54c12kq49...@4ax.com>,
You must have misread the story or read something different.
I've never seen Superman "happily" murder people.
As far as continuity.... unless it happened this week in the book, I doubt
it.
Until they have need for it... then it's back in for as long as they need
it.
--
Rev. Aaron *Brother Head* Moss
http://brotherhead.com
Merry Christmas to all!
YKW (ad hoc)
@news.dc1.easynews.com:
> Ahem. Byrne retcon Superman happily murders people. Is that still in
> continuity?
Not so happily, really. Anyone who develops MPD to deal with the guilt of
killing, even in the most clearly defensible situation, ain't "happy" about
killing.
--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2006 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
"It's not that I want to punish your success. [...]I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
-- The One, 14 Oct 08
Anim8rFSK
"YKW (ad hoc)" <FluffyM...@foxnews.com> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in news:ANIM8Rfsk-110B6C.11050304092009
> @news.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> > Ahem. Byrne retcon Superman happily murders people. Is that still in
> > continuity?
>
> Not so happily, really. Anyone who develops MPD to deal with the guilt of
> killing, even in the most clearly defensible situation, ain't "happy" about
> killing.
I couldn't think of a better word.
He had NO reason to murder the Zod 3. They were powerless, trapped in a
tiny chamber on a planet with no biosphere, in an empty universe. They
were gonna be dead in maybe 20 minutes anyway. And he murdered them in
cold blood, for no reason whatsoever. If he doesn't want to take a
chance on them getting away, he can just wait it out with them.
The only excuse I would have bought was that it was a mercy killing,
rather than let them suffocate. But he didn't go for that.
His excuse about them all being Kryptonians is blown out the window by
the fact that he can stand there and hold Kryptonite that doesn't affect
him.
He killed them because he wanted to kill them, period.
And because Byrne is a hack.
grinningdemon
wrote:
>In article <Xns9C7C801FE65C...@69.16.185.247>,
> "YKW (ad hoc)" <FluffyM...@foxnews.com> wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in news:ANIM8Rfsk-110B6C.11050304092009
>> @news.dc1.easynews.com:
>>
>> > Ahem. Byrne retcon Superman happily murders people. Is that still in
>> > continuity?
>>
>> Not so happily, really. Anyone who develops MPD to deal with the guilt of
>> killing, even in the most clearly defensible situation, ain't "happy" about
>> killing.
>
>I couldn't think of a better word.
>
>He had NO reason to murder the Zod 3. They were powerless, trapped in a
>tiny chamber on a planet with no biosphere, in an empty universe. They
>were gonna be dead in maybe 20 minutes anyway. And he murdered them in
>cold blood, for no reason whatsoever. If he doesn't want to take a
>chance on them getting away, he can just wait it out with them.
>
>The only excuse I would have bought was that it was a mercy killing,
>rather than let them suffocate. But he didn't go for that.
>
>His excuse about them all being Kryptonians is blown out the window by
>the fact that he can stand there and hold Kryptonite that doesn't affect
>him.
>
>He killed them because he wanted to kill them, period.
>
>And because Byrne is a hack.
At any rate, it's no longer in continuity.
rincewind
> Now, Disney and Pixar *feature* animation is different.
> So many of the characters -- not all of which were Disney, just used
> by Disney (e.g. Sleeping Beauty) -- are great and memorable. And, for
> decades, Disney owned feature animation.
I don't know about any of the "shorts" characters (Mickey, Minnie,
Donald, Daisy, Goofy et al) but feature characters have shown up in
Epcot. We saw Beast and Aurora on opposite sides of a pathway in Paris
and Jasmine was in Morocco.
rincewind
> >Peter Parker has no obivously known weaknesses? What, like Arachnite?
> >He needs to breathe, he's not invulnerable, if you drop him out of the
> >Batplane he'll probably break, especially if he's out of web fluid.
> >Parker would have no chance against Batman.
>
> All of this would require a lot of foreplanning on Batman's part, and crossovers
> involving Marvel and DC characters almost always have them meeting (and/or
> fighting) suddenly, usually under some questionable motive.
"Foreplanning" for Batman usually takes about five minutes. He adapts
quickly. He has to, he faces The Joker and Two-Face among others.
Spiderman might get in a few licks, but Batman wins.
rincewind
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:26:21 -0400, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com>
>
> >All of this would require a lot of foreplanning on Batman's part, and crossovers
> >involving Marvel and DC characters almost always have them meeting (and/or
> >fighting) suddenly, usually under some questionable motive.
>
> arises...he doesn't need a lot of foreplanning for most individual
> fights specifically because he plans for everything...every
> contingency.
>
>
>
> >philosphy is to try to avoid killing his opponent. I've never seen him get
> >homicidal (at least when written properly), even with faced with people like
> >the two-bit hoodlum that killed his parents or the Joker, who killed one of his
> >sidekicks (Jason "Robin II" Todd) and crippled another one (Barbara
> >"Batgirl/Oracle" Gordon, daughter of Gotham City police commissoner James
> >Gordon). And yes, I'm aware that some idiot revived Jason Todd 20 years
> >later for a storyline, but the point still stands.
>
> Batman is probably the most anti-killing of any of the major
> superheroes...but he didn't start out that way...in the earliest
> Batman stories, he was willing to kill and there was at least one
> occasion where he strangled a guy by hanging him out of the bat-plane.
It was a giant mindless monster. That was also the story where he had
a machine gun on the Batplane as well. But that style didn't last long.
rincewind
> But would Rorschach, Night Owl II or Comedian (younger, not the 67 year old
> man thrown out of a high-rise window) have a chance against either Spidey or
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow. Rorschach/Batman. I don't want to be in the city when THAT
happens!
grinningdemon
I know all that...the characters evolve over the years and Batman has
evolved to be all about the non-lethal force...under pretty much any
circumstances.
rincewind
> Disney stores = still around
> Warner Stores = RIP
A moment of silence for the Warner Stores. (bows head) I remember
going to the one on Fifth Ave. in NYC. One floor had a "cartoon style"
television with a HUGE overstuffed cartoon style chair and WB cartoons
running on the TV. Me and my kid sat in that chair for about a half an
hour watching cartoons! I wish I had a chair like that... or somewhere
it would fit in the house.
That same day (we'd been more than once) we were leaving via the
escalators. As we hit a floor, they had coming attractions playing on
a big plasma screen TV. Just as we hit the floor, all the lights went
out and "bat-signals" starting shining around the room and the
telelvision played a coming attraction for something Batman (It was a
long time ago. I don't remember what was playing).
I miss the Warner Stores.
The Man From Stone Mountain Georgia
Spiderman is probably quick enough to disable Batman with his speed
STRATEGY
grinningdemon
Spiderman is fast certainly but he's not exactly the Flash.
Unknown
"rincewind" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e920d5f9-8919-42b5...@y42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I've heard that there are still Warner stores in Europe but yeah, I miss
them as well. (Victim of the AOL merger.)
I had been to Warner stores in Oak Brook, IL., Indianapolis, St. Louis,
Orlando, but my favorite was probably the one at Fisherman's Wharf in San
Francisco. It had a statue where the Looney Tune characters were fishing.
It was very cool.
Anim8rFSK
grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
So what of Byrne is left? Ma Kent being alive?
Anim8rFSK
<e920d5f9-8919-42b5...@y42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
rincewind <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
They were wonderful. Huge, clean, lots of great places for kids to
play, a staggering array of very high quality merchandise. Mom still
has half a dozen of their shirts that she wears on a weekly basis.
grinningdemon
wrote:
Seems like it, doesn't it? Most everything he did is gone but it
wasn't all retconned...Lex, for instance, was still the evil
businessman turned crime lord...he's just been outed as the mad
scientist now...even the idea of Clark Kent being the main persona is
fading out with DC's obssession with the Silver Age...which is
unfortunate because I thought that was by far the best part of Byrne's
reboot.
plausible prose man
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:21:22 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <ppl3a51l69uamt8prpb7nop8252rqqf...@4ax.com>,
> > grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:40:54 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >In article <Xns9C7C801FE65C1a9y8a0b1r9i6...@69.16.185.247>,
> >> > "YKW (ad hoc)" <FluffyMcNut...@foxnews.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote in
He was never not a scientist, he was just also a businessman, just
like Bill Gates is a programmer and Walt Disney was a cartoonist.
> even the idea of Clark Kent being the main persona is
> fading out with DC's obssession with the Silver Age...which is
> unfortunate because I thought that was by far the best part of Byrne's
> reboot.
Yeah.
grinningdemon
I realize that...it's just that his post-crisis role has always been
as more of the businessman/crime boss and now he's back to his silver
age status as an openly mad scientist...no more pretense.
Anim8rFSK
grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
I didn't, because it made him more like everybody else. Humans, who
wear the costume as the disguise. I liked that Superman wore Clark Kent
as the disguise.
grinningdemon
wrote:
I prefer it with Batman being like that rather than Superman...I just
think it makes so much more sense for him to think of himself as Clark
Kent first given that he was raised human...it's an important
distinction from other Kryptonians (especially now that there are so
many)...one they have been trying to emphasize lately in the Superman
books but it doesn't come across as well because they have been
shifting back toward the Silver Age status quo for a while now...and I
think having him as an alien who thinks of himself as human makes him
stand out even more.
We have other alien heroes where those alien aspects should be played
up because, in most of those cases, they came to earth as
adults...Superman shouldn't be that way though...both because he has
lived his entire life among humans and because he is the first and
foremost among the superheroes.
Tim Turnip
Hopefully you won't be too shocked when I tell you that Bruce Wayne
was also raised human. I respect your viewpoint and understand its
underpinnings, but to me it's somewhat backwards. The public "Bruce
Wayne" is a role, of course, but I've always seen him as really being
Bruce deep down, a Bruce who is pretending to be Batman who is
pretending to be "Bruce"; and indeed, he would have to be this way
since he is only human.
Whereas, Superman is an alien with an entirely non-human physiological
and neurological makeup. He may have been raised as a Kansan, but
he's different to me than, say, a Bangladeshi man raised in Kansas;
unlike that man, Superman's differences with other Kansans are going
to extend far beyond the merely cultural. The correct approach, in my
view, is to portray him as a product of both worlds, and that's the
defining aspect of the character to which I'm glad they've been
returning. Byrne's version was basically just a midwestern American
man who happened to have alien-derived superpowers, and I agree with
Anim8r that this makes him too similar to too many other characters.
Also while we're on the topic, you keep harping on DC's "obsession
with the Silver Age", but my counter to this is, it's not that DC is
capriciously trying to reset the wayback machine to an arbitrary
period in the past; it's that they are attempting to distill the
fundamental traits that truly define their characters, redefine them
with those traits emphasized, and build on that going forward. It
happens that the Silver Age is when most of DC's characters, Superman
especially, were given that initial level of definition, when their
characterizations and mythologies were truly being developed. Green
Lantern: Rebirth is a textbook example of the modern attempt to
redefine, but it seems to me that virtually all contemporary superhero
writers are instinctively using that as their template from the
get-go.
Anim8rFSK
Tim Turnip <timt...@notarealaddress.com> wrote:
What he said!
grinningdemon
<timt...@notarealaddress.com> wrote:
>Hopefully you won't be too shocked when I tell you that Bruce Wayne
>was also raised human.
No...really?
I respect your viewpoint and understand its
>underpinnings, but to me it's somewhat backwards. The public "Bruce
>Wayne" is a role, of course, but I've always seen him as really being
>Bruce deep down, a Bruce who is pretending to be Batman who is
>pretending to be "Bruce"; and indeed, he would have to be this way
>since he is only human.
Bruce Wayne's life essentially ended when his parents
died...regardless of appearance...regardless of the presence or
absence of super powers...Batman is the true persona and Bruce is the
false identity (much as you would like Superman to be)...at a very
young age, something happened that changed Bruce and made him the
Batman...it's not that he just grew up and then decided to put on a
batsuit...Superman was never anything but Clark Kent until he grew up
and decided to become Superman...he was raised as a midwestern farmboy
and that was the only life he knew.
>
>Whereas, Superman is an alien with an entirely non-human physiological
>and neurological makeup. He may have been raised as a Kansan, but
>he's different to me than, say, a Bangladeshi man raised in Kansas;
>unlike that man, Superman's differences with other Kansans are going
>to extend far beyond the merely cultural.
Well, I guess it all comes down to nature vs. nurture...I tend to
think that if a Bangladeshi (or Kryptonian) man were raised in Kansas
with little or no knowledge and access to his native culture, the only
real difference between him and those around him would be his
appearance (or, in Superman's case, his powers)...in fact, in
Superman's case, the differences are not apparent to those around him
(save those trusted few who know his secret) so he wouldn't even grow
up with any stygma from being different.
The correct approach, in my
>view, is to portray him as a product of both worlds, and that's the
>defining aspect of the character to which I'm glad they've been
>returning.
I agree that he should be portrayed as a product of both worlds...and
I agree that this is the defining aspect of the character...we just
have different interpretations of what it means for him to be a
product of both worlds.
Byrne's version was basically just a midwestern American
>man who happened to have alien-derived superpowers, and I agree with
>Anim8r that this makes him too similar to too many other characters.
Byrne's version is an alien who has been raised as a midwestern
American...not as an alien...for all intents and purposes, given
Superman's origin, that is the version that makes the most sense.
>
>Also while we're on the topic, you keep harping on DC's "obsession
>with the Silver Age", but my counter to this is, it's not that DC is
>capriciously trying to reset the wayback machine to an arbitrary
>period in the past;
I know they aren't literally trying to reset everything to the Silver
Age but they have been re-introducing A LOT of Silver Age concepts to
the DCU...some of which have been long absent...and sometimes with
good reason.
it's that they are attempting to distill the
>fundamental traits that truly define their characters, redefine them
>with those traits emphasized, and build on that going forward.
So why does it so often seem like going backwards?
It
>happens that the Silver Age is when most of DC's characters, Superman
>especially, were given that initial level of definition, when their
>characterizations and mythologies were truly being developed.
Yes...but all the characters who have lasted for any length of time
have been REDEFINED for the times...which is exactly what Byrne did
with Superman...I'm not saying his approach was perfect by any
means...but, let's face it, a lot of Silver Age (and earlier) concepts
were pretty hokey...the books were geared for little kids (and, it
seems to me, stupid ones at that)...I would argue a lot of that was
abandoned with good reason...but, regardless, no attempt was made to
redefine character...they just gradually started inserting things here
and there until the Byrne version was totally eroded away.
Green
>Lantern: Rebirth is a textbook example of the modern attempt to
>redefine, but it seems to me that virtually all contemporary superhero
>writers are instinctively using that as their template from the
>get-go.
Perhaps so...but that isn't what has happened with Superman...since
OYL hit, these things just started creeping back in to the Superman
mythos with no rhyme or reason given...they didn't try to re-define
the character...they tried to fall back on an OLD definition...I don't
care for that and I certainly don't call it moving forward.
GL Rebirth essentially summed up the GL mythos, characterization, and
history, put a new spin on it, and moved forward (for better or
worse)...there certainly were older elements re-introduced (most
notably Hal) but it didn't just ignore all that had happened and pick
up where the Silver Age left off.
You can think of the Silver Age and Modern Age (Byrne) Supermans as
two distinct characters not unlike Hal Jordan and Kyle Rayner...what
they have done with Superman lately is a little like Geoff Johns
coming on to GL and suddenly pretending Kyle everything associated
with him never existed..like everything that brought Green Lantern
(the larger mythos) to that point never happened...it's essentially a
soft reboot...and it's terrible storytelling in my view.
rincewind
um Is this the same Spider-man who keeps getting snatched out of the
air by Doc Ock's tentacles or the Kingpin?
Spider-man has spider-strength and agility. I don't see a lot about
speed.
Black Terror
On 31-Aug-2009, "Mhoram" <S...@WGW.NET> wrote:
> It depends: Batman can certainly beat Captain America but Spiderman can
> beat
> Superboy. I'd go with Batman because, as he's written, nobody beats
> Batman.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_vs._Marvel
>
> IIRC, Lobo claimed Xavier paid him to lose to Wolverine. And Storm
> beating
> Wonder Woman is just wrong, although I can't remember the exact plot. And
>
> I'm not really sure about Wolverine and Thor beating Lobo and Captain
> Mavel...
From what I understood, there won't be anymore Marvel/DC cross-overs! I
don't know what happened at the offices, but I am sure that it could change
in the future!
I would like to see these companies crossover with Dynamite Entertainment,
try to imagine:
Lone Ranger/Jonah Hex
Lone Ranger/Kid Colt
Green Hornet/Green Arrow
Green Hornet/Batman
Green Hornet/Moon Knight
Death Defying Devil/Daredevil
Might Samson/Daredevil
Black Terror/Punisher
Red Sonja/The Warlord
Black Terror & Tim/Captain America & Bucky
William George Ferguson
The Phantom/Black Panther (the Ghost Who Walks against the Urban Legend)
Buckaroo Banzai/Batman
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
grinningdemon
<Black_...@dynamite.org> wrote:
Dynamite needs to work out a deal with Dark Horse so we can see some
new Conan/Red Sonja...and, of Dynamite's western characters, I'm far
more interested in Zorro than Lone Ranger.
Anim8rFSK
grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
Z!
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a way to go-go"
Duggy
wrote:
> Dynamite needs to work out a deal with Dark Horse so we can see some
> new Conan/Red Sonja...
Not this Red Sonja & this Conan.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
What does that mean exactly? Dynamite's Red Sonja hasn't been all
that great but Dark Horse's Conan has been awesome...I really wish
Dark Horse had the rights to both characters but, even as it stands,
the occasional crossover could work as a side project.
Duggy
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:48:51 -0800 (PST),Duggy
>
> >On Jan 15, 10:40 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Dynamite needs to work out a deal with Dark Horse so we can see some
> >> new Conan/Red Sonja...
> >Not this Red Sonja & this Conan.
> What does that mean exactly? Dynamite's Red Sonja hasn't been all
> that great but Dark Horse's Conan has been awesome...
For "not great" read "a steaming pile of turd"
So, no, I'm not interested in something awesome being associated with
something "not great".
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
It isn't THAT bad...and, presumably, Dark Horse would have a hand in
any crossover...and, if it's like the other crossover minis Dynamite
has done with Red Sonja (Spiderman, Claw, etc.), it won't be tied into
what's going on in the regular series at all...so I'd like to see it
happen at least once...but I really do wish Dark Horse had the rights
to both characters.
Karolina Dean
>
> - Show quoted text -
Elmer Fudd kill Donald Duck
OM
<jadel...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>Elmer Fudd kill Donald Duck
...Tasmanian Devil vs. Mickey Mouse, Foghorn Leghorn vs. Goofy,
Yosemite Sam vs. Scrooge McDuck. The nausea abounds.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[