@jake_fury said:
Just Batman being Batman. Is there a thread for when he pushed his way out of being buried inside a coffin? :p
No, but that happened in Kill Bill so it's allowed.
Batman
Character » Batman appears in 23648 issues.
Bruce Wayne, who witnessed the murder of his billionaire parents as a child, swore to avenge their deaths. He trained extensively to achieve mental and physical perfection, mastering martial arts, detective skills, and criminal psychology. Costumed as a bat to prey on the fears of criminals, and utilizing a high-tech arsenal, he became the legendary Batman.
Batman Fights for 28 HOURS STRAIGHT in Batman #23
@muyjingo said:
@cameron83 said:
1. Refer to him because he brought up the scan and obviously he has it. So you can argue with him if he wants to.
2.
You said he couldn't do anything that a human body can, implying a human body in the real world. It's pretty well established that in comics, peak humans are beyoond any human that can exist in the real world. Even just street level characters, below olympic level regularly do things no human in the real world can do.
No I didn't. I wasn't referring to real world human limits.
3. I just can't even....anymore....I really....can't even.
I've addressed this like 5 f*cking times. I wasn't referring to "real life humans". So when every other person comes with a "HE CAN DO THINGS THAT A REAL LIFE HUMAN CANNOT!"it's irrelevent and you can see why I would get pissed
1. Why? That doesn't make sense.
- I have nothing to say to novi_homes. novi_homes isn't making a point to me.
- You are making a point to me.
- Your point was that I should look at his scans
- I countered saying I have the entire comic open next to me.
- You replied saying I should take that up with novi_homes.
How does that make sense?
2. I wasn't saying you were referring to real life human limits. I understand you were not. I said that your post seemed to imply that you were talking about real world human limits.
Given that many people had the same interpretation, it is your failure to communicate what you meant in your original post.
3. For what it's worth, you don't need to act so exasperated or frustrated all the time. So you disagree with people? That's fine. They are not stupid because they have different opinions than you, and certainly not because they read your post in an obvious way which happened to be contrary to what you meant.
Perhaps just calm down, think before you reply, proofread, and then these types of things won't happen.
Just my 2c of unsolicited advice.
1. Because I don't have the scans. He does...if you wanted to argue with him,I would think that it would make more sense to do it with someone who can back it up in case you came with disagreements. Which you apparently might.
2. lol um,no. How many different languages do I have to say it in? I've explicitly stated my points and it's as if people just ignored those parts or made the effort to ignore them. It's not my fault if they can't read. If I state it clearly,there is only so much that I can do. It's happened numerous times. Perhaps some people shouldn't jump to conclusions and try to infer something that I didn't mean.
3. Well I DO have quite a temper. But if I state something and people just jump to stupid conclusions consistently,I think I might have reason to get frustrated.
No. It's not that I disagree with people. That's not really why I was pissed. And jumping to conclusions instead of just asking me to elaborate doesn't really make much sense to me.
@cameron83 said:
1. Because I don't have the scans. He does...if you wanted to argue with him,I would think that it would make more sense to do it with someone who can back it up in case you came with disagreements. Which you apparently might.
2. lol um,no. How many different languages do I have to say it in? I've explicitly stated my points and it's as if people just ignored those parts or made the effort to ignore them. It's not my fault if they can't read. If I state it clearly,there is only so much that I can do. It's happened numerous times. Perhaps some people shouldn't jump to conclusions and try to infer something that I didn't mean.
3. Well I DO have quite a temper. But if I state something and people just jump to stupid conclusions consistently,I think I might have reason to get frustrated.
No. It's not that I disagree with people. That's not really why I was pissed. And jumping to conclusions instead of just asking me to elaborate doesn't really make much sense to me.
1. That still makes no sense. I have the comic. Why do I care if someone has scans or not?
Again, it was you who made a point. It has nothing to do with novi_homes.
Instead of arguing about whether or not I should talk to novi_homes, why don't you get back to arguing your point?
In case you forgot, you were claiming that the comic shows him fighting for 28 hours straight. When it doesn't, it says they send another guy every hour.
2. Well, now it seems it is you who ignored what I said. Please, read it again.
I wasn't saying that you were referring to real life humans. I am saying that, whether you realized it or not, your post implied real life humans. This means the obvious interpretation, as evidence by everyone taking what you said this way, is that you were talking about real life humans.
I understand that isn't what you meant, because you have clarified it several times. It doesn't change the fact that in your first post, you implied something you didn't mean to, which is where the confusion comes from.
The sooner you can understand that, the sooner you can stop repeating yourself and insulting people.
3. As I said, it was your failure to communicate in your initial post. You implied something contrary to what you meant, whether you realized you did so or not.
People interpreted your statement in an obvious way, given the context. given how many people didn't get what you were saying, it is your failure to communicate. Instead of taking it out on them, wouldn't it make sense to try and better articulate what you want to say?
Again, just my 2c.
@muyjingo said:
@cameron83 said:
1. Because I don't have the scans. He does...if you wanted to argue with him,I would think that it would make more sense to do it with someone who can back it up in case you came with disagreements. Which you apparently might.
2. lol um,no. How many different languages do I have to say it in? I've explicitly stated my points and it's as if people just ignored those parts or made the effort to ignore them. It's not my fault if they can't read. If I state it clearly,there is only so much that I can do. It's happened numerous times. Perhaps some people shouldn't jump to conclusions and try to infer something that I didn't mean.
3. Well I DO have quite a temper. But if I state something and people just jump to stupid conclusions consistently,I think I might have reason to get frustrated.
No. It's not that I disagree with people. That's not really why I was pissed. And jumping to conclusions instead of just asking me to elaborate doesn't really make much sense to me.
1. That still makes no sense. I have the comic. Why do I care if someone has scans or not?
Again, it was you who made a point. It has nothing to do with novi_homes.
Instead of arguing about whether or not I should talk to novi_homes, why don't you get back to arguing your point?
In case you forgot, you were claiming that the comic shows him fighting for 28 hours straight. When it doesn't, it says they send another guy every hour.
2. Well, now it seems it is you who ignored what I said. Please, read it again.
I wasn't saying that you were referring to real life humans. I am saying that, whether you realized it or not, your post implied real life humans. This means the obvious interpretation, as evidence by everyone taking what you said this way, is that you were talking about real life humans.
I understand that isn't what you meant, because you have clarified it several times. It doesn't change the fact that in your first post, you implied something you didn't mean to, which is where the confusion comes from.
The sooner you can understand that, the sooner you can stop repeating yourself and insulting people.
3. As I said, it was your failure to communicate in your initial post. You implied something contrary to what you meant, whether you realized you did so or not.
People interpreted your statement in an obvious way, given the context. given how many people didn't get what you were saying, it is your failure to communicate. Instead of taking it out on them, wouldn't it make sense to try and better articulate what you want to say?
Again, just my 2c.
1. And novi_holmes backed it up with a scan and also argued the same point. That is the scan that I am using as a reference. He argued the point that he was fighting for 28 hours straight.
So,I was saying that it would be better to probably argue with him being that he is also arguing the point,but he actually has the scans to better argue over reference. I can actually care less if you have every batman comic book appearance,just saying that it may be better to argue with someone that can actually argue their points with reference from the comic.
2. What other way do I say it in,then? As said,I stated multiple times that I am not referring to real life humans...what more can I do than that? What more elaboration do they need? If they read my initial post,then I can understand why they would assume so,but it gets REALLY frustrating when people continuously say the same thing. It actually DOES get frustrating. I understand that,in my initial post,they would assume that I mean real life humans even though I wasn't even referring to real life humans. But instead of every other person assuming,wouldn't it be better to ask for elaboration if they are confused by the mixed signals rather than assume? Or maybe read down since I KNOW I stated otherwise. But whatever.
@cameron83 said:
1. And novi_holmes backed it up with a scan and also argued the same point. That is the scan that I am using as a reference. He argued the point that he was fighting for 28 hours straight.
So,I was saying that it would be better to probably argue with him being that he is also arguing the point,but he actually has the scans to better argue over reference. I can actually care less if you have every batman comic book appearance,just saying that it may be better to argue with someone that can actually argue their points with reference from the comic.
2. What other way do I say it in,then? As said,I stated multiple times that I am not referring to real life humans...what more can I do than that? What more elaboration do they need? If they read my initial post,then I can understand why they would assume so,but it gets REALLY frustrating when people continuously say the same thing. It actually DOES get frustrating. I understand that,in my initial post,they would assume that I mean real life humans even though I wasn't even referring to real life humans. But instead of every other person assuming,wouldn't it be better to ask for elaboration if they are confused by the mixed signals rather than assume? Or maybe read down since I KNOW I stated otherwise. But whatever.
1. Except that doesn't make sense. I understand that it was novi_holmes who had the scan, but it was you making the point.
You seemed to have dropped your point, deferring to novi_holmes, simply because he has the scan. That doesn't make sense to me.
You both have access to the same scan. It doesn't matter that he uploaded it.
If you want to drop the point, then that's fine. Honestly, another use who uploaded the scan is completely irrelevant.
2. Well yeah, I can understand your frustration, if you have clarified several times and people still think you are referring to real life humans.
In that case though, it might make sense to slightly alter your phrasing when you make subsequent arguments.
Make it clear the first time, and you won't have to clarify or correct people in subsequent posts.
For example, instead of saying something like "a human body has limits, surely Batman being human shares those limits", you could say something like "even in comic books the human body has limits, surely Batman being human shares those limits".
It doesn't really matter if you think that should be necessary or not. It just matters if you want to be clearer and avoid having to clarify in subsequent posts.
I cant believe a thread was made just to discuss this. I was surprised but Batman always does crap like this it's not that serious. My problem is Batman and a lot of other street levelers being labeled as peak humans how can they all be peak humans.
@muyjingo said:
@cameron83 said:
1. And novi_holmes backed it up with a scan and also argued the same point. That is the scan that I am using as a reference. He argued the point that he was fighting for 28 hours straight.
So,I was saying that it would be better to probably argue with him being that he is also arguing the point,but he actually has the scans to better argue over reference. I can actually care less if you have every batman comic book appearance,just saying that it may be better to argue with someone that can actually argue their points with reference from the comic.
2. What other way do I say it in,then? As said,I stated multiple times that I am not referring to real life humans...what more can I do than that? What more elaboration do they need? If they read my initial post,then I can understand why they would assume so,but it gets REALLY frustrating when people continuously say the same thing. It actually DOES get frustrating. I understand that,in my initial post,they would assume that I mean real life humans even though I wasn't even referring to real life humans. But instead of every other person assuming,wouldn't it be better to ask for elaboration if they are confused by the mixed signals rather than assume? Or maybe read down since I KNOW I stated otherwise. But whatever.
1. Except that doesn't make sense. I understand that it was novi_holmes who had the scan, but it was you making the point.
You seemed to have dropped your point, deferring to novi_holmes, simply because he has the scan. That doesn't make sense to me.
You both have access to the same scan. It doesn't matter that he uploaded it.
If you want to drop the point, then that's fine. Honestly, another use who uploaded the scan is completely irrelevant.
2. Well yeah, I can understand your frustration, if you have clarified several times and people still think you are referring to real life humans.
In that case though, it might make sense to slightly alter your phrasing when you make subsequent arguments.
Make it clear the first time, and you won't have to clarify or correct people in subsequent posts.
For example, instead of saying something like "a human body has limits, surely Batman being human shares those limits", you could say something like "even in comic books the human body has limits, surely Batman being human shares those limits".
It doesn't really matter if you think that should be necessary or not. It just matters if you want to be clearer and avoid having to clarify in subsequent posts.
1. Except that I am assuming that he probably has the comic since he has access to the entire scan (assumption),maybe the entire comic (assumption),and I don't (fact).
Correct. I DID make the point,but he seems to share the same point.
2. Sure thing
@cameron83 said:
1. Except that I am assuming that he probably has the comic since he has access to the entire scan (assumption),maybe the entire comic (assumption),and I don't (fact).
Correct. I DID make the point,but he seems to share the same point.
That doesn't matter though. I already said I had the comic. You've seen the scans. If you have seen enough to have an opinion, then you have enough to argue your point. A 3rd party has nothing to do with anything.
What happened was:
- You disagreed with me, and said why. You then said to check with another user.
- I defended my stance, but instead of responding...you said to check with another user.
That what doesn't make sense. If you make a point, you should back it up or concede. Not defer it to a 3rd party without a good reason, and without their knowledge.
@tardslayerer said:
1. This was Batman while he was still in training, there is no evidence that he's that much better than his opponent.
2. No, more likely when he took an opponent down the opponent was back up in the fight in a matter of minutes. By this logic Bruce would of KO'd someone, then that person would of came back at the start of the next hour
3. No evidence of this, the text states 28 hours STRAIGHT which implies 28 hours of constant physical activity, not 10 minutes of activity followed by 50 minutes of rest
4. So is Bruce, you make it sound like Bruce went through the entire gauntlet without getting hit once, nonsense, this is again Bruce Wayne while he was still in training and not the Batman from the present day.
5. Once again, NOT BATMAN, BRUCE WAYNE IN TRAINING. What you are implying is that this is a peak Batman fighting a group of thugs when this is younger Bruce Wayne fighting other Warriors who are skilled and conditioned enough in their own right.
6. If this was the case, Batman spending only minutes fighting, having a majority of each hour to rest.
Here are the facts, the dialogue states 28 hours STRAIGHT, not 28 hours in general. At the end Bruce was huffing and panting, about to keel over from exhaustion, if Bruce had so much time to rest, he wouldn't have been about to keel over from exhaustion. Dialogue and context support 28 hours of non stop combat, end of story.
@cameron83 said:
@zeishenberg said:
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised, recently Batman one shotted a giant robot, had an entire fight with Wrath in the span of 5 seconds and now this. His stamina, strength and speed are in the low superhuman range even though he's classified as a peak human. Nothing surprising.
lol he's not Superhuman. Not even lol
He's being written as a superhuman, deal with it
@cameron83 said:
@wolverine08 said:
@cameron83 said:
@entropy_aegis said:
@evilvegeta74: What you personally choose not to believe is not my concern,Batman beat up fodder for 28 hours,no different than Daredevil owning hundreds of Yakuza.
It's pretty clear that majority of those complaining have not even read the comic in question and more worried about the possibility of the said feat being used in the battle forums.News flash FEATS WILL NEVER STOP.
Not saying that he didn't,but did he REALLY fight hundreds of Yakuza members?
100 to be exact.
wow.
Either it's probably silly or I just severely underestimate DareDevil. But in my defense I know little about the character
No, people just comment on Daredevil without reading his comics. Daredevil was losing the fight against the Yakuza until the FBI came and saved him, Daredevil at the most took out 20 before he was getting overwhelmed.
@cameron83 said:
Aren't Hyperion and Superman two completely different characters?
I mean,I find that possible for Hyperion. I mean,we don't even know much about him....
But still,I am rambling now,I see your point,so thanks....
We know plenty about Hyperion, he's a character who's been around for several decades. He's fought characters like the Hulk and Gladiator on even ground. Him holding back 2 planets is no more believable than Superman benching the world for 5 days straight.
@evilvegeta74 said:
Dc writers strike again!
You're trying too hard, if you want to troll do it right
ZZZZZ!
@tardslayerer said:
3. No evidence of this, the text states 28 hours STRAIGHT which implies 28 hours of constant physical activity, not 10 minutes of activity followed by 50 minutes of rest
6. If this was the case, Batman spending only minutes fighting, having a majority of each hour to rest.
Here are the facts, the dialogue states 28 hours STRAIGHT, not 28 hours in general. At the end Bruce was huffing and panting, about to keel over from exhaustion, if Bruce had so much time to rest, he wouldn't have been about to keel over from exhaustion. Dialogue and context support 28 hours of non stop combat, end of story.
It really doesn't. No one is saying he had 50 minutes rest each hour, simply that he was not literally fighting every second of those 28 hours.
The illustrations support this, as they show him not in combat at points.
We don't know how long it took him to disable or KO his opponents. But it is not inconceivable that he did so, and then had some time to rest until the next hour when new combatants were sent in.
While this is Bruce in training, he is 24 and has likely completed a significant amount of training already, so he is still likely a very formidable opponent at this point.
@alexander505: Sorry I realized that I wasn't clear. I actually meant comic authors but I also understand it isn't easy making even a peak human character stand out in a universe dominated by metahumans hence I think is the reason behind Batman's sometimes exaggerated feats like this particular one for example.
@muyjingo said:
@cameron83 said:
1. Except that I am assuming that he probably has the comic since he has access to the entire scan (assumption),maybe the entire comic (assumption),and I don't (fact).
Correct. I DID make the point,but he seems to share the same point.
That doesn't matter though. I already said I had the comic. You've seen the scans. If you have seen enough to have an opinion, then you have enough to argue your point. A 3rd party has nothing to do with anything.
What happened was:
- You disagreed with me, and said why. You then said to check with another user.
- I defended my stance, but instead of responding...you said to check with another user.
That what doesn't make sense. If you make a point, you should back it up or concede. Not defer it to a 3rd party without a good reason, and without their knowledge.
1.In order for me to defend my position,I need the entire scan or the entire (scene of the) comic,especially for more context. One little box of one scan of one page isn't really enough. I was actually using that very limited information as my reference. Since I assumed that he had the comic,since he had that scan,he would be better qualified being that he apparently shares the position (assumption,not verified) and would obviously be better qualified. I don't think I should waste my money just on one scene of a comic just to debate with someone IF that comic scene has more context.
I think I also said IF he wants to. It's not like I put a gun up to his head,I just suggested that he would be better in defending the notion. He,by no means of course,has to reply to you or me.
As for the reason,I don't think I can truly elaborate any more unless I make a diagram in my paint program.
2. What is this argument about exactly? This entire argument feels like it's about Novi_holmes,rather than what was said?
It's almost like it's enough to derail the entire thread!
Do you know what can be done next? Perhaps PM me,instead of this irrelevant argument (almost) derailing this entire thread.
@cameron83 said:
1.In order for me to defend my position,I need the entire scan or the entire (scene of the) comic,especially for more context. One little box of one scan of one page isn't really enough. I was actually using that very limited information as my reference. Since I assumed that he had the comic,since he had that scan,he would be better qualified being that he apparently shares the position (assumption,not verified) and would obviously be better qualified. I don't think I should waste my money just on one scene of a comic just to debate with someone IF that comic scene has more context.
I think I also said IF he wants to. It's not like I put a gun up to his head,I just suggested that he would be better in defending the notion. He,by no means of course,has to reply to you or me.
As for the reason,I don't think I can truly elaborate any more unless I make a diagram in my paint program.
2. What is this argument about exactly? This entire argument feels like it's about Novi_holmes,rather than what was said?
It's almost like it's enough to derail the entire thread!
Do you know what can be done next? Perhaps PM me,instead of this irrelevant argument (almost) derailing this entire thread.
It's pretty simple. You shouldn't make an argument if you aren't willing to back it up, and you certainly shouldn't make it if you just plan on telling me to go and argue it with someone else.
Your reasoning or justification doesn't really matter. If you tell me I'm wrong, then I'm ready to discuss it with you. Directing me to someone else who hasn't engaged me is pretty lame.
If the scans you have seen are not sufficient, then don't make an argument based of them.
That's the point. If you don't get that, or disagree, then fine. No sense in discussing it further.
@muyjingo said:
@cameron83 said:
1.In order for me to defend my position,I need the entire scan or the entire (scene of the) comic,especially for more context. One little box of one scan of one page isn't really enough. I was actually using that very limited information as my reference. Since I assumed that he had the comic,since he had that scan,he would be better qualified being that he apparently shares the position (assumption,not verified) and would obviously be better qualified. I don't think I should waste my money just on one scene of a comic just to debate with someone IF that comic scene has more context.
I think I also said IF he wants to. It's not like I put a gun up to his head,I just suggested that he would be better in defending the notion. He,by no means of course,has to reply to you or me.
As for the reason,I don't think I can truly elaborate any more unless I make a diagram in my paint program.
2. What is this argument about exactly? This entire argument feels like it's about Novi_holmes,rather than what was said?
It's almost like it's enough to derail the entire thread!
Do you know what can be done next? Perhaps PM me,instead of this irrelevant argument (almost) derailing this entire thread.
It's pretty simple. You shouldn't make an argument if you aren't willing to back it up, and you certainly shouldn't make it if you just plan on telling me to go and argue it with someone else.
If the scans you have seen are not sufficient, then don't make an argument based of them.
That's the point. If you don't get that, or disagree, then fine. No sense in discussing it further.
I still don't think you understood my point,instead of just assuming.But whatever,think what you will....For the sake of this thread,either PM or just don't even bother. I mean,seriously...this goes for like an entire page and is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Yes. And it could have been easily avoided.
So, back on topic, why do people think he was constantly fighting, every second of the 28 hours, when the panels clearly contradict that?
This scan seems to be describing how long it took for Bruce to defeat the opponent in 2 rounds, with a round seeming to be an hour. Which means there was at least an hour combined where he was not fighting.
He clearly isn't fighting in these panels, he's talking.
Case closed?
Yes, I think we're done here.
@bigtewell said:
its weird when i read this i was like thats impossible but when daredevil took on and defeated 100 of the yakuzai was just like that was amazing!!!!!!
Because the Marvel is always cool, the DC...sucks.
Haha! Okay so the fact that he fights for 28 hours straight is "too far fetched".
But it's not crazy to think that he can kill darkseid, stand up with Superman, survive explosions, dodge bullets, and, to me one of the craziest of all, travel back from the past?
Okay.. Seems Legit (:
Also he lives in a world with characters that can fly.. I don't think it's that far fetched..
Whether he actually fought for 28 hours straight or not, it doesn't particularly surprise me either way since he's the Goddamn Batman.
@tyco6300 said:
Haha! Okay so the fact that he fights for 28 hours straight is "too far fetched".
But it's not crazy to think that he can kill darkseid, stand up with Superman, survive explosions, dodge bullets, and, to me one of the craziest of all, travel back from the past?
Okay.. Seems Legit (:
Also he lives in a world with characters that can fly.. I don't think it's that far fetched..
Exactly. That's the way I feel. People don't give a crap that Batman can do multiple repetitions of 1,000 pound bench presses (basically a gorilla on steroids feat), but they get all caught up on how long he fights. Nobody's ever written a book on what a peak "comic" human can do versus what a peak "normal" human can do. Rationalizing a comic book character isn't realistic in general. Do most of you realize that if Batman were really jumping and swinging on his ropes the way he does, Spider-Man style, that he would tear his arms from his sockets and end up as roadkill if anybody were to attempt it real life, comic book hero or not? And he does that every issue, and not a single person complains. Snyder or whoever came up with that number probably just pulled it out of his ass to make him look badass and not really think about the logistics of it. Writers come up with numbers all the time. Remember Cataclysm and No Man's Land? Depending on which writer was doing the arc, the numbers of people that were killed changed from issue to issue, from a few thousand to a few million. If it makes you feel any better, just pretend that he fought for 2.8 hours straight, not 28 hours, that somebody just forgot a decimal point. Jeez. Doesn't take away from the story that much if you ask me.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment