- annoyinginge
- |
- Fabled Member
http://i.imgur.com/fsISj.png
Posted by: The Fat Man 3000
Posted by: annoyinginge
Posted by: The Fat Man 3000
Posted by: teh Chaz
I can't see superman ever properly working in a film since he's just too powerful for there to be any real sense of peril.
I mean Kryptonite had to be made up by the writers later on because they realised that he had literally no weakness.
I can't see the dark knight working properly in a film since he's just alot stronger than teh joker for there to be any real sense of peril.
Oh wait...
If that was supposed to be analogy, it was bad and you should feel bad. Your logic is horrible.
The problem with Superman is, he's too good. He has super strength and super speed and bullets bounce off him and he has x-ray vision and can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes. That sounds like a joke description of a spoof superhero, but no, it's all true. He's invincible. The writers had to make up a magical material as his weakness, for crying out loud.
Batman, on the other hand, is the opposite. He's not invincible. He doesn't even have any superpowers. He almost lost a fight against the Joker and two dogs. The fact that he's so clearly human, while Superman is flat-out ridiculous, is why moviegoers tend to flock to the former's film far more than the latter's.
My point was just because Superman is strong, doesn't mean there can't be a psychological threat, like Lex Luthor, or even a physical threat like Darkseid.
I was just pointing out that your analogy was bad. I agree that there are ways Superman can be threatened. But between the two, Batman is clearly the one you'd worry for more.