Of course you're arguing semantics, but the sillier thing is that you're arguing that you're 100% definitely right and that's just not factually accurate. It's especially silly for you argue that Batman as a superhero is "lore that is true to the character." Comic book history (and the words of creators Bob Kane, Jerry Robinson and others) place Batman's origins as a character squarely in the pulp/crime fiction genre. When he was created he had way more in common with the other characters I mentioned above (Zorro, Lone Ranger, Doc Savage, The Shadow) than he did with Superman or The Crimson Avenger (the first colorfully costumed hero). And I ask again: Do you consider Zorro to be a superhero? Doc Savage? If not, why are you so adamant about Batman? He has been through many incarnations (maybe more than any other fictional character actually), but he has only qualified as a "superhero" in some of them, regardless of his lack of powers. Batman was created in 1939. He didn't start hanging out with Superman until the 50's. And the JLA didn't exist until the 60's. I agree he is usually characterized as a "superhero" and rightly so, given his place in superhero comic history. But to suggest that that is the only answer and that it's not open for debate as you have is to be extremely ignorant of his history. And in the Nolan/Bale universe it makes a lot more sense to say he's NOT a superhero than that he is one. Either way, what makes no sense at all is to say it's a settled matter as you have done over and over. You're out of your element here, bud. Batman's not just a moniker for me; he's an obsession. You should quit while you're behind. You can't even spell Linus right.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kdhhQhqi_AE" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
Am am by no means a comic book guy (in fact I have never read one), but Batman is only a "superhero" in the sense that he fights crime.... thats about it. He has no "super" characteristic, he is the ultimate vigilante. Isn't that the appeal of Batman is that he is not a SUPER hero? That is always why I liked him most as a kid.
But you're not seeking the truth in front of your eyes. He has --man appended to his name. See you if can find a pattern in the following. Superman Aquaman Hawkman Batman vs Doc Savage Some other old reference Sweaty McCracken Doc Batman It's obvious that Batman is a superhero.
And "Jones" was never Batman's last name. See....you're making s**t up, too. :grin: "Lynus" was a dumb college thing where the upperclassmen gave nicknames to the freshman, so you'd have to ask them why they spelled it this way. Re: semantics: what I didn't want to argue about was whether Batman was officially "super" or not based solely on whether or not he had super powers. I'm aware of your affinity for the character, and I didn't think you'd go down that road, but I wanted to clarify that for anyone else. The "lore" I was referring to was that it was silly for rhino (or anyone else) to ignore the "action" part of Batman, as it is as much a part of his character as being the world's greatest detective or a millionaire/billionaire. We're not discussing Colombo or Richie Rich, but the multi-faceted ******* Batman. Who originally carried a gun, btw. Super-powered or not, he has earned his place in the pantheon of superheroes. I base this on his abilities (super-powered or not), what he brings to the fight, what side he is on, and (probably) most importantly: the company he keeps and the level of respect for both him and his abilities that is had by hero and villain alike. Additionally, while Batman (and most superheroes) existed initially in their own respective worlds/universes, the sheer number of crossovers and interactions is accepted as comic book canon, is it not? So, if Batman exists in the same world/universe with the likes of Superman, GL, Wonder Woman, etc., and interacts and works with them and is a respected person and leader amongst them despite his lack of powers, what then? If the rest of these fictional heroes consider him as a peer and equal, then I must make the same conclusion, regardless of where he originally started. The only commonality I see between Batman and the non-super-but-still-crime-fighting-heroes crowd of Zorro or the Lone Ranger is simply that none of them have actual powers. So yes, I do consider them heroes, but heroes of an older, cowboys-and-indians era, whereas Batman, Superman, WW, et al are 20th-century/modern day. I'm not as "out of my element" as you seem to think. Edit: Crap. I should have just written this:
whatever. If you're getting some from wonder woman, while keeping a love/hate relationship with cat woman, then you are a super hero!
Don't bothered with some of these idiots. It's obvious that Nolan is a terrible action director but a great character and story telling director. But obviously Bay is a better action director even though he suck tremendously as a story teller. All I'm saying is that for Nolan film to be all around great is to get a f!cking action director to help him out. I love Nolan's movies but I wished the actions were just as good to make his movie more entertaining or seal the epicness with better choreograph actions.
Its obvious that Nolan is God incarnate and Michael Bay is a ****ing hack. Anyone who disagrees is a simpleton, or has some sort of misguided distrust of a director who makes big bank with his awesomeness.
Bay might be a hack and a **** ass director but at least he knows how to entertain you with some of his actions. There are only a few good director that can both tell a good story with good action and one of that is James Cameron. Only wish Batman was this cool and badass... <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7NHwsrYlDHE" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
I love Michael Bay's films as pure entertainment, popcorn fun. He CAN make action scenes. But I'd put up the chase sequence in the middle/end of Dark Knight and the Hotel zero-gravity fight in Inception against anything Bay's done. The thing about Nolan is that he doesn't really believe in cgi...he doesn't give a s*** about 3D... he's all for putting something on film that is authentic. And it shows.
When I look into your eyes I see a scared little puppet, too worried about what his friends will think if he accepts Christ(opher) as his Lord and Conquerer. Well I will tell you that you are not unlike the Apostle Paul. He once was known as Saul the Sledgehammer, and he called Memento "pretentious art-house hackery" and said Inception was "intellectual masturbation". Then one day on the road to Damascus, Christian Bale b****-slapped him into next Friday and called him unprofessional. From that moment forward he was known as Paul the Apostle, and nobody seemed to care that he still hated Jews and thought women were kind of useless. The point is, you're a ****ing parasite until you recognize an OG.
Re: the first paragraph above, same goes for Commissioner Gordon. Is he a superhero? Re: the second, everything you describe there is indeed "comic book canon." It is also absolutely NOT Nolan Batman canon. Nolan has explicitly stated that his Batman lives in a world with no superpowers and no supernatural elements of any sort. Re: B-Bob, who was being funny as usual, there was only one character with "man" at the end of his name when "The Bat-Man" was created and that was Superman. The Bat-Man's creators described the evolution of the idea as an attempt to cross Zorro with Dracula. The term "superhero" hadn't even been invented then and the two guys with "man" at the ends of their names didn't meet each other in comics for about a decade. But of course this is a dumb argument. Dumb enough in fact that it verges on the old T-Mac as point forward arguments. And, as difficult as this may be for anyone here to believe, I've grown tired of arguing. I'm not even interested in arguing about things that actually matter anymore. It has come to feel like a waste of time and an absurd one at that. That's why I had myself removed from D&D. Occasionally I log out so I can read what goes on there and I can't even believe I ever took part in it. It's like going to a bar now, almost 9 months sober, and thinking Jesus Christ, I used to be like that. Lynus says Batman is 100% definitely a superhero, no matter what. The fact is that he has been a smiling goofball doing "The Batusi" and he has been a humorless avenger. He has been reinvented more often than any character, fictional or real, that I can think of. In modern comic books he is absolutely a "superhero," regardless of powers (though he is not "a meta," which is the vogue term for characters with powers); in the Nolan Bat-universe he is absolutely not one. In fact, that is the entire point of the Nolan Batman movies. But I really don't care so I'm gonna let Linus have his blankie.
Say what you want about Bay, but he knows how to shoot and direct women. Nolan... not so much. <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TmNEG8IFd_Y" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
This, however, is totally r****ded. I am a director for a living. The idea that directors know how to direct one gender but not the other is a stupid, inaccurate cliche. But I won't argue it with you beyond that. (Dumbass.) :grin: :grin:
Re #1: No, Gordon is not, and never has been, a superhero. Re #2: Yeah, I'm aware of all that, which is why I wasn't making a determination of "super"-hero based solely on "super"-powers. Re #3: Yeah, I know all that. Re The rest: Bats is a complicated character. You could write a book describing the changes and subtle nuances of Batman, who is far and away one of the most interesting characters ever conceived. Maybe I missed something, but I didn't think we were "arguing" - arguing.
"Debating," trying to persuade another to join in one's point of view, arguing, whatever. It gives me a headache anymore.
