(Original post by Clip)
It depends on whether you are using the official Golden Age Marvel/DC canon or the recent film ones.
If you go old school - I don't think you can say that Bruce Wayne is actually smarter than Peter Parker. The biggest point of contention in both the Sam Raimi and Marc Webb films was that they didn't believe that it would be "plausible" for Peter Parker to have invented the webbing and web shooters himself. Certainly, if you go with the original, Spiderman would be the foremost materials scientist in the world.
The Marvel and DC universes aren't often directly comparable - but in this case, Batman is a high-tech wonder (a normal person with loads of gadgets), but I don't think anyone would say that he would be any match for a comparable Marvel character - say Iron Man. On the other hand, it's well established in the Marvel Universe that Spiderman is on par with, if not superior to Iron Man.
Spiderman, I'm afraid. He's too strong, too fast and at least as seasoned as Batman.
Although I enjoy superhero movies overall, one thing that gets on my nerves is the amount of misinformation about certain characters. It's either they miss out key details or they severely change the details, making up an almost completely different story compared to the canon.
An example is how in one of the x-men movies, they portrayed Magneto as not being able to control plastic. Yet anyone that has a clue about Magneto in comics know that he can just about control anything. He can even control photons for christ's sake.
And take the recent spiderman movie for example. They got the death of uncle ben section totally wrong. Firstly, according to the comics, after peter became spiderman, he was supposed to join some sort of entertainment, like wrestling to earn some money and a bit of fame. And during that period, a robber was getting away from a cop. As the thief was about to pass spiderman, then the cop asked spidey to help stop the thief. But spidey decided to be selfish and not help the cop, so the robber got away. Peter's relationship with Uncle Ben and Aunt May remained good. No arguments or any rubbish like that. They all loved each other. And then, a few days later, Peter comes home in the evening from a day out, only to find the police at his home. They declared the bad news that his uncle is dead. They also tell peter that the murderer is in some warehouse surrounded by the police. Peter obviously upset by the death of his uncle wanted revenge. So he changed into spidey and went off to deal with the murderer at the warehouse. And to his sorrow, he finds out that the murderer in the warehouse was the same thief that he allowed to get away from the cops before. That's how he learns that with great power must come great responsibility.
But how did the movie portray this part of spidey's origin. They portrayed peter to be a bit of a rebellious and difficult person to his uncle and aunt. So his relationship with uncle ben and aunt may wasn't portrayed as a healthy one. They portrayed peter to be some sort of badman who joined a robber in stealing a drink he wanted to buy at a shop and allowed the thief to steal some money from the till. At the same time, Uncle Ben had been searching for peter around town after he and peter had a massive argument. The robber then kills ben as they cross each other paths in the streets. And as peter hears the gunshot, he turns around and comes to the body of the person who was shot, only to find out that it was his uncle. And the worst thing is that he never got his revenge and get the murderer locked up.
Can you see the difference between the original story in the comics and the story portrayed in the movie? This is just an example of how superhero movies can give misinformation about superheroes and their origins. And needless to say, it annoys me very often. Why can't the movies just stick to the origins in the comics? Why must they fiddle with what is a perfectly written origin?
But yeah Spiderman would wipe the floor with Batman unless Batman had a long time to prep (and Spidey didn't) and the fight takes place in Gotham.
Agreed. Or Batman vs Captain America.
A better match up might be Batman vs Daredevil. That one, I think Batman would win.
Not sure what you mean here. If you mean that Spidey is more powerful than Batman, just like the flash and green lantern are, then I agree. But if you mean that Spidey is just as powerful as them and can match up to them, then I disagree. The Flash or Green Lantern would rape Spidey one-on-one. Big time.
Spiderman is as powerful as the "proper" DC supers - like The Flash or Green Lantern.
Last edited by Cable; 17-07-2012 at 13:33.
(Original post by Clip)
Ok, Green Lantern a bit of a stretch - but there is plenty of authority for The Flash. Spiderman has had a lot of success in beating Villain speedsters fairly easily. Speed Demon of the Sinister Syndicate and a Teflon-coated baddie named Slide spring to mind.
But Flash still rapes Spidey. The Flash is much faster than the speedsters that Spidey dealt with. Here's some facts about The Flash.
-He is powered by something called the Speed Force which resides in a different dimension.
-The Speed Force allows him to run many times faster than light.
-He can time travel, can phase and go invisible.
-He can "steal"/absorb speed from anyone, turning them into a living statue.
-Due to relativity, he can run so fast that he develops enough force to deliver an infinite mass punch. That's gotta hurt and it will definitely kill Spidey.
-He can transport his opponent across dimensions into the Speed Force and lock them up there. The opponent wouldn't be able to get out.
-Or he could just use his super-speed to punch Spidey hundreds of times per second (yes, he's that fast) until Spidey dies. And Spidey wouldn't be able to react since Flash is far quicker than Spidey's reaction time.
Basically Spidey gets raped.
Last edited by Cable; 18-07-2012 at 00:07.
Spot on mate. That's why I'm a bigger fan of Marvel than DC. There's something about DC that it's generally bland. Marvel has much more depth to it and you can relate their characters more because of their weaknesses/problems (like us readers) and how they deal with it. Don't get wrong; when well written, I enjoy reading superman, batman and the flash. But Marvel generally has better and deeper characters than DC.
(Original post by Clip)
Yeah - I'll give you that one.
In a sense one could argue that it was "god-like" DC heroes that actually gave birth to the popularity of the Marvel heroes in the first place. In the age of Superman and his cohorts - they were essentially gods - the Marvel heroes ended up being very "human" and it was more interesting that they were vulnerable on several levels. Even Batman never had trouble paying the bills - whereas Spiderman had trouble making ends meet - the X-men were social outcasts - Iron Man was an alcoholic and so on.
Another example is Darkseid from DC and Thanos from Marvel. Darkseid's just your typical evil villian who wants to rule the universe because he's evil. Yet Thanos doesn't want to rule the universe out of pure wickedness. He wants to rule it because he wants to show/prove his love for Mistress Death. That's deep imo. Thanos' character development is far deeper than Darkseid's and that can be said for most Marvel characters.
And Magneto's origin (holocaust, death of his daughter, his wife left him) and his cause (safety for mutants and how his methods contrast with Xavier's) is another example of Marvel's excellent character development.
Last edited by Cable; 18-07-2012 at 01:19.