Except for the countless times he has been beaten, nearly to death. Oh and he doesn't wear lycra. It's a Nomex-reinforced, fireproof fabric with 15 micro-layers. And that's just in the comics. I heard they made some films as well...
How many times must he be beaten 'nearly to death' before he actually gets killed? Does the man have supernaturally good luck?
Gothamite said:
What's so unrealistic about an athletic millionaire playboy with dark secrets, in America no less? They're everywhere!
Nothing as such...
Gothamie said:
Bottom line is, the environment Batman exists in may seem quite surreal at times, but the fact of the matter is that he is the most realistic, grounded character in superhero comics.
I just can't agree with that. Of the comics currently or recently published, I could pick out a handful more grounded. Mitchell Hundred, Mark Milton, Sophia Bangs, Mark Grayson, Matt Murdock, Abe Sapien. Not grounded because of the believability of their power set or origins, but because they're written with a mature emotional depth and are entirely believable in their actions and emotions.
This is partly because for the most part, they've been written by one writer with a singular vision, so when you look at the whole of their 'lives' you see true evolution and emotional maturation. A serial character, like Batman, whose continuity is enormous, has been written by an enormous breadth of writers, each with slightly different takes on the characters. Characters written like this do not evolve naturally, they hop around all over the place irrationally, as writers come and go. Look at Spiderman; he's written in 4 different books each month, and he has a different voice in each one.
Gothamie said:
So you're saying that a story about a guy with a 'radar sense', who wears bright red tights (I might be mistaken, but I don't think it was ever implied that Daredevil's costume is anything other than lycra) is more realistic than a story about a guy with no superpowers?
Actually, yeah. The fact that he's got powers (that are actually reasonably believable, after all, don't bats have 'radar sense'?) accounts for all the close shaves he has. And the colour or material of the costume is not the point, the emphasis was on the detective part. Batman, for all his skill, is just human, yet he displays a near supernatural level of agility and toughness, and has survived far longer than he should have. I feel the same about the Punisher; despite all the skill, they're both still human, and considering the odds they face, in a REALISTIC world, they would have been killed or otherwise permanently incapacitated after a few months.
I suppose it boils down to taste. I don't mind a kinda silly character as long as he's portrayed in a believable sense. For me, Daredevils origin and powers may be a bit hokey, but under Bendis, and later Brubakers pens he's been written with true depth and in an appropriately 'mature and realistic' manner. Of the (admittedly few) Batman comics I've read, I found it extremely difficult to swallow just how much this man can do.
I can't relate to characters with a ridiculously contrived continuity as they're different month in month out. Many of them have just become icons, as the companies that own them are too hesitant to change them in any real, 'realistic' way for fear of alienating their audience. Characters that appear in self contained, creator owned series are usually the opposite for me.
But again, I suppose it's a matter of taste and personal definitions. For me, 'realism' is such an overused word in the comics medium. It's often believed by the 13 year old fanboys that realism must be boobs and swearing. For me, realism, and believability is more important on an emotional level. The absurdity of the situations or origins is not the point, it's whether you can believe and relate to their actions and emotions.
I suppose I really shouldn't be trying to argue this with someone called Gothamite eh?
