The ridiculing of Ratner's "Superman would kill Batman" line is unwarranted..........

I'm a longtime lurker, comment here and there and with all this Superman business that's been coming out the past few weeks, I wanted to say something about the whole "Superman would kill Batman" comment by Ratner. I'm not a fan of Ratner being on this project AT ALL, however I don't feel his comment is as ludicrous as some of you are trying to make it.

Now I know a lot of you may be big Batman fans (I am as well) and I realize that Batman's greatest strength comes from his brain and blah blah blah but let's be real here. Forget about "Darknight Returns" and forget about DC's insistance on having Batman get out of anything, regardless of how it may not be entirely sensible. I feel DC overdoes the Batman mythos to compensate for his lack of super powers and they wouldn't HAVE to if they had a mission to LOGICALLY have Batman get out of situations instead of the tendency to have him do it "just cause he's Batman" at times.

Superman can move at near light speed. Even if Batman found a way to counter all of Superman's other powers, Superman would just knock him out before Batman could even THINK of a counter. Fight's over. Even if Bats was wearing a Kryptonite suit of armor, Superman could hit him hard enough to kill him (theoretically of course) and be far enough away so that the Kryptonite wouldn't even have a CHANCE to affect him. We're talking a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second here. Hardly long enough for the type of exposure that would hurt him. Above anything else, it's Supes' ability to move at near light speed that is his biggest power. If that were taken away, it MAY be a different story. If DC decided to REALLY utilize that power of Superman's, he would almost never even be CHALLENGED but they downplay it most of the time for drama's sake. I understand that but it doesn't mean he doesn't POSSESS it.

And I'm not saying this because I have some kind of devout loyalty to Superman, but because it's LOGICAL. I like Spider-Man much more than Thor or the Silver Surfer, but both of those characters would clean his clock. Liking a character doesn't mean overriding logic in order to have him prevail in any situation.

I'm not trying to get too "nerded out", I just happened to read a lot of people saying that it just shows Ratner is a moron and I feel that it shows he has an opinion on who would prevail, that's it. And I think (whether you agree or not), it's pretty REASONABLE conclusion. Certainly not one that justifies all the rancor thrown his way because of it, IMO.

You can't tell from that line how much research he's done into the Batman character, only that he has a strong opinion on who would prevail.

Hell, I do and I've been reading both for TWENTY YEARS.

Look, if we're all gonna get high and mighty about discussing this kind of thing then none of you should go to any superhero flicks. I mean, who's to decide what the line is between enjoying superheros and reaching "nerdome"

I like to bang chicks, go to parties, down some beer and all that "cool" stuff but I also loves me some superhero mythos. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

Actually, my opinion on who would win isn't even the MAIN reason for my post.

The point is that Ratner making that comment ALONE doesn't justify him being called a moron for it. It just shows that he has a strong opinion on who would win. Who the hell is flexing "nerd might"? There's always the option of ignoring or not posting in topics you don't like (which is my preferred method of operation) as opposed to making yourself feel superior by flexing your "cool might" (lol).

By the way, would all the people who would be working on a Superman vs. Batman flick be "flexing their nerd might" too? They would have to work out these kinds of issues as well. And would you support a film created by people that were "flexing their nerd might", a thing you seem to dislike?

Ahhh, so getting paid is the difference between "flexing nerd might" and being a regular guy (whatever that is). Getting paid and discussing it makes it OK, NOT getting paid and discussing it makes you a nerd.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

See Devin that's the thing I don't understand. I don't understand why he couldn't STILL be a knowledgeable comic person and just happen to feel that Superman would prevail relatively easily. I just don't see how that ONE comment shows that.

Now if he had gone on about how Superman had come from planet Gotham and pledged to stalk the night from his Supercave or something then I'd agree.

Fair enough. Perhaps giving my opinion on what I felt about the battle took away from my main point, which is that Ratner is entitled to have an opinion, even a strong one, on the subject. And that the only thing ANYONE has read on his views is that one line. I just fail to see how that's enough to condemn him.

And by the way, Ratner is faaaaaaar down on any list of people I would consider ideal for handling this film, I just thought he got unfarily lambasted for that line.

Mikah,

1. Whether it's "in his nature or not" if he posesses the ability to do it, how can you dismiss it? Under certain circumstances if he HAD to use it, he would. He doesn't even have to KILL Bats. Say Bats had been brainwashed and he had access to a device that could destroy a major city, you think Supes would hesitate to end the fight as soon as possible? Nah.

2. Whether he posesses the pre-Crisis speed or not, by your own admission he still moves only a little slower than the Flash. Still fast enough to hit Bats like a hundred times in a split second.

3. See number one. If Supes HAD to take Bats out as soon as possible to save lives, he WOULD. He could easily just tap him and render him unconscious.

Perhaps you feel that all of my answers are incorrect. The point is, I've read comics for years and years and feel I'm pretty knowledgeable concerning them and I STILL think that Superman would prevail.

Like I said, as a fair person, and one that doesn't let any anti-Ratner biases enter their position on that that line. I don't think it's fair to condemn him for that ONE line. He has an opinion. It's one thing to say you feel his opinion is dead wrong (as if there IS a "right" opinion on this subject), it's another to automatically dismiss his knowledge of the source material on ONE line. There's just not enough information on his views to do so.

It's knee-jerk to me.

As far as I'm concerned, a lot of that is DC's insistance on making sure everyone knows that Batman is "just as important as our super powered heros". Hell, in a DC/Marvel crossover they had Bats take out CARNAGE FIGHTING. Carnage who is stronger and faster than Spidey. Had Bats dodging him like it was easy and knocked him out. If he had used his BRAINS to beat him that would be one thing but beating Carnage with BRAWN? OK. So continuity is shot to hell.

And if Bats was in a dire situation and the only weapon available was a gun, do you REALLY think he would go "Damn, I don't use guns though". C'mon now.

I'm a big Batman fan but MY OPINION (Like I've said over and over again no matter how "sure" any of us are that they are correct all it can be is OPINION) based on my knowledge of BOTH characters is that Superman would win.

I just don't see condemning Ratner for ONE LINE without having any other information on his views to go off. Even if you wanted to say you think it's ridiculous that he feels Superman would win, IT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH TO DISMISS HIS OVERALL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATERIAL. I'm positive a lot of it comes from not liking Ratner as a director and piling on.

Couple of things:

No need to belittle whether I read comics, Mikah I KNOW the whole history with Batman. But I find it hard to believe that he would refuse to use a gun on a criminal who was say, about to level a city if there was no other way. I'm sure you don't believe it either.

And with all of you acting as if it would be so easy for Batman to take out Supes, hell why even HAVE the movie? Seems like it wouldn't even be a challenge to Bats.

I guess I just feel that most of you are letting your love for the badassness of the Batman character blind you to the "logic" of what would happen if they fought. As I've said, it's all opinions but you can pretty much counter anything with "Well Batman would have thought of that well in advance and be prepared for it". Where does it stop? If you're going to look at it that way, Batman can beat any being ever created in the comic world. But it seems like a cop out to me.