Is Superman super intelligent?

[Beloren]

@Egomaniac Hmm, you make some fair points I hadn't thought that much about. Pardon me, if I share my thoughts and observation of the material, and why I am okay with what we were shown in this context despite your fair points. I'll do so per segment of your responses.

Yeah, he was...but so was his entire crew. The only people Zod had were from the military caste. So if he's super-adaptable...so are they.

But he was the leader, which means he would be the best of these and adapt the fastest or be the first right?

- - - Updated - - -

i mean, not really. It's just a different variety of Made up science. And again, one they abandon as soon as it is no longer convenient. Realistically, Zod should have had to spend much more time on Earth to be an equal to Clark. As I said, Zod's justification for terraforming Earth and destroying humanity is that he doesn't want his people to be sick for years while they adapt. But Zod is never sick... he gets slightly overwhelmed by all the powers at first...but he adapts very quickly.

It does make sense that Zod should have spent much more time on earth to acclimatised, but I'm not entirely convinced yet it's all that ridiculous, but, we don't know the mechanics of it, so the writers have leeway, the following could be any number of explanations

Clarke was a baby, Zod a full grown adult specifically bred,
Clarke was naturally born without genetic programming or optimisation for a role
Clarke has DNA of every krypton in him too - this could also have an effect we don't know.
What about their time in the pharmaceutical tom zone and other experiences we don't know - (granted this last point is irrelevant si ce nothing related is shown, but still)

We don't really know how these work, there are enough unexplained variables to compensate, and justify how the events and action played out.

I do like their variety of made up science the most so far of the super hero universes and iterations - both Marvel and DC. I think they did a good job, or at least the best so far.

Bear in mind I don't have favourite studios or directors or faves between DC and Marvel, I'm one of the masses that just watches movies. In fact I don't like Warner Bros all that much, doesn't stop me from liking some productions.

Zod had been on Earth...but most of the time he was wearing his breather. There were only a few moments where he was completely exposed.

Jor-El explicitly states that the only way for Clark to get stronger was to push his liits. Zod never had to push the limits. When he started fighting Clark he was pretty much his equal.

So you don't think his adaptation was plausible?

But you dont know how long it takes, for a fully grown adult, we dong know how long baby Clarke took, it could have been a few mins, hrs, days, weeks or month.

The will to survive, bred to survive and overcome in adverse conditions, soeed of absorbing the yellow sun's Ray's could have any number of variables based on age and genetics.
Then there is the sheer will to do it, we all know our determination can enhance our bodies adaptive responses

Adrenaline can too, this happens in a fight with Clarke - we don't know.

And none of it negates what Jor-El stated for Clarke who remember is different from Zod in a lot of ways

By the logic you are using...he never should have been able to beat Zod.

Could be that Clarke is superior to Zod on every level, might seem unlikely, true, but Clarke does overcome the unlikely.

Maybe Zod hadn't fully adapted possibly, and if he had, it was still new to him, despite his training and optimisation which gives Clarke a home advantage.

The natural Birth's main intention was to allow Clarke to choose his own destiny, but it could also easily be that Clarke won the genetic lottery too, like some people do, which would make him superior to Zod, and possibly could have been the best Kryptonian ever (someone has got to be), both genetically and experientially.

The ability to let you decide, chance, providence or God can also have enormous implications, which could be greatest thing for some people, terrible for others, in Clarke's case it turned out to be greatest thing, maybe good karma to counter the bad of losing his entire race.

Then growing from infancy, rather than adulthood on a yellow sun world could have adapted him in superior ways, enhancing him much more than he realised, naturally, in ways only someone else who had grown from infancy on earth would have. And that still does not preclude Clarke from having superior gene's and coping better and gaining more from a yellow sun than a fellow Kryptonian in identical circumstances.

We just don't know for sure, so we cant conclude it is ridiculous, there is enough leeway in the information we are given to account for Clarke's seemingly unlikely victory - it could be as simple as he got lucky too.

It is clear from what we saw, that despite Zod's genetic enhancement over normal Kryptons, Clarke is superior.

We may think Zod would have triumphed based on the things we were told about him, but we didn't know how truly special and incredible Clarke is, and the fight scene is suppose to show us that while Zod was the best in krypton at what he did, Clarke was superior.

Jor'El was able to go toe to toe with Zod for a while, his son seems to have been able to supersede him.

Doesn't make the writing bad, because such is possible, and it could be the intention of the writers to demonstrated Clarke as the greatest of the Kryptonians, for any or many number of reasons, though they don't specify.

They don't have to define everything in their movie, it's not a book or ma UAL, and while more explanations can settle arguments, sometimes specific details aren't that necessary, with ,movie time constraints forcing you to be selective in what you show or say.

I think enough is in the background story to account for Clarke's victory, and I think to make it feel dangerous and challenging it was necessary to make it appear Zod was powerful enough to win.

We don't know if Clarke can win, and the writers haven't revealed that he is defined as superior, I don't think Clarke knows, they instead use the narrative and the fight scene together to show us rather than spoil it with definite answers.

It is called suspense.

I didn't see what's so bad about the set up, it had enough plausibility given the earlier material.

[Ivanstone]

Sounds like something that would be ripping off Iron Man



That's a weak argument. The Spider-Mobile was never intended to be an actual addition to Spider-Man'sarsenal. It was always intended to be a joke.



But he's not a great fighter by any stretch of the imagination. He has powers that help him cheat.



I like how your logic is that Spider-Man is a copy of Batman because Batman can find ways to copy what Spider-Man does naturally.



By that logic Batman and Superman are as "identical" as Spider-Man and Batman. Your arguments are awful.



The acknowledgement is that both companies "ripoff" each other.



Wow, you just crippled your own argument. Good job. Lotsa heroes are geniuses. Lotsa heroes use gadgets. Lotsa heroes are "great fighters". Etc.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, he was...but so was his entire crew. The only people Zod had were from the military caste. So if he's super-adaptable...so are they.

The rich genius with gadgets is why I think Iron Man borrows somewhat from Batman.

Batman also has a lot of silly gadgets. My favourite is Female Villain Repellent Spray.

Stop confusing results and means. Spider-man doesn't cheat. He just has an ability.

You have that backwards. Spider-man has super powers instead of Batman's gadgets. What powers he doesn't have, he made up with gadgets. That he invented with his genius brain. Generally its safe to assume if Batman can do something, you can assume that Spider-man can do it as well by either superpowers or gadgetry.

You have a very bad understanding of the difference between results and means. Spider-man and Batman have similar results but some different means. Superman and Batman have mostly different results so comparing their means isn't relevant.

Success matters. Marvel's had more success from ripping off the Distinguished Competition.

See above about results and means. Reed Richards doesn't even use the same tech or methods as Mr. Terrific (either), Batman, Superman, Iron Man and Spider-man.

[Egomaniac]

@Egomaniac

But he was the leader, which means he would be the best of these and adapt the fastest or be the first right?

So maybe it takes them hours, days or even weeks to fully acclimatize. That's still a pretty minor ask in comparison to committing genocide.
- - - Updated - - -

It does make sense that Zod should have spent much more time on earth to acclimatised, but I'm not entirely convinced yet it's all that ridiculous, but, we don't know the mechanics of it, so the writers have leeway, the following could be any number of explanations

That gives them too much leeway in my opinion

Clarke was a baby, Zod a full grown adult specifically bred,
Clarke was naturally born without genetic programming or optimisation for a role
Clarke has DNA of every krypton in him too - this could also have an effect we don't know.
What about their time in the pharmaceutical tom zone and other experiences we don't know - (granted this last point is irrelevant si ce nothing related is shown, but still)

It was Zod that was telling Superman that he didn't want his people to spend years being sick. All of them fully grown adults.

Although, now that I am thinking about it. It is possible he meant the Kryptonians in the Codex as well.

Also, the weirdest thing to me is why Zod needed to use Earth in the first place. He had a World Engine. Seems to me he could have gone to any other planet in our system, terraformed it to Kryptonian Specs, and just left the insignificant humans alone. Killing every single living being on the planet seems to just be evil for evils sake...and pretty short sighted as well. Sure, he's got the Codex with Kryptonian DNA... but what are they gonna eat?

So you don't think his adaptation was plausible?

But you dont know how long it takes, for a fully grown adult, we dong know how long baby Clarke took, it could have been a few mins, hrs, days, weeks or month.

Once again, it was Zod himself that said it would take years to adapt.

Could be that Clarke is superior to Zod on every level, might seem unlikely, true, but Clarke does overcome the unlikely.

If he were then there wouldn't have been a fight at all.

Maybe Zod hadn't fully adapted possibly, and if he had, it was still new to him, despite his training and optimisation which gives Clarke a home advantage.

He adapted enough to got to toe with someone that had been on the planet for over three decades.

The natural Birth's main intention was to allow Clarke to choose his own destiny, but it could also easily be that Clarke won the genetic lottery too, like some people do, which would make him superior to Zod, and possibly could have been the best Kryptonian ever (someone has got to be), both genetically and experientially.

Then Zod would not have been able to adapt as fast as he did

It is clear from what we saw, that despite Zod's genetic enhancement over normal Kryptons, Clarke is superior.

We may think Zod would have triumphed based on the things we were told about him, but we didn't know how truly special and incredible Clarke is, and the fight scene is suppose to show us that while Zod was the best in krypton at what he did, Clarke was superior.

My entire point is that Clark should have been superior. He had already fully adapted to Earth...and he had been using the powers for much longer.

Doesn't make the writing bad, because such is possible, and it could be the intention of the writers to demonstrated Clarke as the greatest of the Kryptonians, for any or many number of reasons, though they don't specify.

Inconsistencies in writing is bad.

They don't have to define everything in their movie, it's not a book or ma UAL, and while more explanations can settle arguments, sometimes specific details aren't that necessary, with ,movie time constraints forcing you to be selective in what you show or say.

They don't have to define everything...but when they do define something...they should stick to it.

I think enough is in the background story to account for Clarke's victory, and I think to make it feel dangerous and challenging it was necessary to make it appear Zod was powerful enough to win.

ther is enough backstory to account for Clarks victory. There isn't enough backstory to account for how quickly Zod (or any of the other Kryptonians) became equal to Clark.

We don't know if Clarke can win, and the writers haven't revealed that he is defined as superior, I don't think Clarke knows, they instead use the narrative and the fight scene together to show us rather than spoil it with definite answers.

Clark should have completely dominated Zod. Again, he was more familiar with the powers, had been pushing the limits of said powers longer, and was already fully adapted to Earth.

I didn't see what's so bad about the set up, it had enough plausibility given the earlier material.

There was no earlier Material. Man of Steel was the beginning of the DCEU.

I will just finish by saying that Man of Steel did not work for me personally. If you enjoyed it...that's cool. I don't want you to think I'm attacking you personally because we do not agree on a movie.

[Super Kami Dende]

I'd say "canonically" Superman becomes exponentially smarter as he progresses through his Adult years, due to things like obtaining the knowledge of Krypton via Jor'el, meeting an expansive amount of different races and People. literally working around the highest technological shit on Earth, and shit made via Cyborg.

[Egomaniac]

The rich genius with gadgets is why I think Iron Man borrows somewhat from Batman.

Than the same would apply to Mr. Terrific and Mr. Fantastic.

Stop confusing results and means. Spider-man doesn't cheat. He just has an ability.

Being able to react to your opponent's next move before they can make it is cheating.

You have that backwards. Spider-man has super powers instead of Batman's gadgets. What powers he doesn't have, he made up with gadgets. That he invented with his genius brain. Generally its safe to assume if Batman can do something, you can assume that Spider-man can do it as well by either superpowers or gadgetry.

That's not true. Bruce Wayne has millions of dollars to throw at things. Peter Parker has lunch money. And if they have to go by completely different means to reach the same results...they really aren't that similar at all. You are arguing against yourself.

You have a very bad understanding of the difference between results and means. Spider-man and Batman have similar results but some different means. Superman and Batman have mostly different results so comparing their means isn't relevant.

The means are an integral part of the character. The means is what makes Batman and Spider-Man different characters. The more you talk about how different their means are...the more you prove that Spider-Man is not a ripoff of Batman. So, again, thanks for smashing your own argument to bits

Success matters. Marvel's had more success from ripping off the Distinguished Competition.

Even if that were true... that doesn't mean they do it more. It would just mean they do it better.

See above about results and means. Reed Richards doesn't even use the same tech or methods as Mr. Terrific (either), Batman, Superman, Iron Man and Spider-man.

Iron Man doesn't use the same tech or methods as Batman either.
Spider-Man doesn't have the resources to use the tech that Bruce Wayne has access to.

[Stormwolf64]

inconsistent character traits are the absolute worst. Make it consistent or stop writing.

[Beloren]

So maybe it takes them hours, days or even weeks to fully acclimatize. That's still a pretty minor ask in comparison to committing genocide.
- - - Updated - - -





That gives them too much leeway in my opinion



It was Zod that was telling Superman that he didn't want his people to spend years being sick. All of them fully grown adults.

Although, now that I am thinking about it. It is possible he meant the Kryptonians in the Codex as well.

Also, the weirdest thing to me is why Zod needed to use Earth in the first place. He had a World Engine. Seems to me he could have gone to any other planet in our system, terraformed it to Kryptonian Specs, and just left the insignificant humans alone. Killing every single living being on the planet seems to just be evil for evils sake...and pretty short sighted as well. Sure, he's got the Codex with Kryptonian DNA... but what are they gonna eat?

II think it's the god like ability of the yellow sun perhaps? Doesn't Zod try to turn the earth's sun red in another superman continuity? or was that Lex trying to nerf superman?

- - - Updated - - -

inconsistent character traits are the absolute worst. Make it consistent or stop writing.

It's probably because they write so many versions, and reboot so many times.. I never really feel comfortable with that.

- - - Updated - - -

Clark should have completely dominated Zod. Again, he was more familiar with the powers, had been pushing the limits of said powers longer, and was already fully adapted to Earth.

Maybe, maybe not, he did beat him though, the manner in which he did could mean Clarke's isn't as optimised for fighting and making the best use of his abilities - when youthink about it, Zd was his first real challenge, and he hasn't exactly been training or using those abilities in a combat situation, hell, had Clarke even ever fought before this?

There was no earlier Material. Man of Steel was the beginning of the DCEU.

I liked the new start, but then a movie alone is not enough to define all the parameters and settings other series like the comic ones or animated/ live action ones have, able to reveal and define in future episodes things that this one hasn/t

Until then, I have bene in the habit of borrowing from other incarnations, I don't make it a hard and fast rule, I just use the other versions to fill in gaps until this one defines them, I mean it is based off of the older Supermans and a general idea most people have. Just have to wait to see what specifics it alters, and how it defines things in its own continuity. In the meantimes it keeps us guessing, which helps make it a little more interesting I think.

I will just finish by saying that Man of Steel did not work for me personally. If you enjoyed it...that's cool. I don't want you to think I'm attacking you personally because we do not agree on a movie.

It's cool, never got the impression you were attacking me, and appreciated your insight and knowledge. It's good to hear other opinions, I wouldn't have thought this much about it if not for this discussion. I'm enjoying it, hope you are too.

[Ivanstone]

Than the same would apply to Mr. Terrific and Mr. Fantastic.



Being able to react to your opponent's next move before they can make it is cheating.



That's not true. Bruce Wayne has millions of dollars to throw at things. Peter Parker has lunch money. And if they have to go by completely different means to reach the same results...they really aren't that similar at all. You are arguing against yourself.



The means are an integral part of the character. The means is what makes Batman and Spider-Man different characters. The more you talk about how different their means are...the more you prove that Spider-Man is not a ripoff of Batman. So, again, thanks for smashing your own argument to bits



Even if that were true... that doesn't mean they do it more. It would just mean they do it better.



Iron Man doesn't use the same tech or methods as Batman either.
Spider-Man doesn't have the resources to use the tech that Bruce Wayne has access to.

Batman is very influential.

It still makes him a great fighter. Hell its the only thing that makes him a great fighter.

Peter Parker made a fantastic invention with brain meats and lunch money. He's just a little bit more efficient. Some of their means aren't even that divergent and the results are the same. In my opinion Spider-mans wealthier than Batman but he just hasn't monetized it yet.

The means are important but we're discussing what constitutes a rip-off and if your results are very similar then your means aren't as relevent. Hyperion is a very clear rip off of Superman even though their means aren't identical.

I'm not convinced they do it as much but their lack of success when they do it masks that. I'll take Marvel's money over your half-assed comparisons.

It just shows that some things are much further part. Batman and Spider-man aren't that far apart. Their certainly much closer than Reed Richards and Terry Sloane.

[Stormwolf64]

II think it's the god like ability of the yellow sun perhaps? Doesn't Zod try to turn the earth's sun red in another superman continuity? or was that Lex trying to nerf superman?

- - - Updated - - -



It's probably because they write so many versions, and reboot so many times.. I never really feel comfortable with that.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe, maybe not, he did beat him though, the manner in which he did could mean Clarke's isn't as optimised for fighting and making the best use of his abilities - when youthink about it, Zd was his first real challenge, and he hasn't exactly been training or using those abilities in a combat situation, hell, had Clarke even ever fought before this?


I liked the new start, but then a movie alone is not enough to define all the parameters and settings other series like the comic ones or animated/ live action ones have, able to reveal and define in future episodes things that this one hasn/t

Until then, I have bene in the habit of borrowing from other incarnations, I don't make it a hard and fast rule, I just use the other versions to fill in gaps until this one defines them, I mean it is based off of the older Supermans and a general idea most people have. Just have to wait to see what specifics it alters, and how it defines things in its own continuity. In the meantimes it keeps us guessing, which helps make it a little more interesting I think.



It's cool, never got the impression you were attacking me, and appreciated your insight and knowledge. It's good to hear other opinions, I wouldn't have thought this much about it if not for this discussion. I'm enjoying it, hope you are too.

Well, for a reboot i expect them to fall in line with what the character is known for, but i don't truly mind too much if they somewhat deviate on lesser things. What i mean is within a single series. Like super smart in one chapter, and suddenly he can't figure out the simplest things in another. Maybe he appears generally weak somewhere compared to something he's done earlier? things like that.
Im just projecting mostly my annoyance from reading manga now since it's very common thing there to have the main character be just as strong as he needs to be at that exact moment. I'm just assuming the writer isn't very intelligent tbh.

[Egomaniac]

II think it's the god like ability of the yellow sun perhaps?

Sure, but there are other planets and moons in our solar system. Why did it specifically have to be Earth?

Maybe, maybe not, he did beat him though, the manner in which he did could mean Clarke's isn't as optimised for fighting and making the best use of his abilities - when youthink about it, Zd was his first real challenge, and he hasn't exactly been training or using those abilities in a combat situation, hell, had Clarke even ever fought before this?

nothing that would have been any kind of challenge. But he had been doing stuff for 33 years.

I liked the new start, but then a movie alone is not enough to define all the parameters and settings other series like the comic ones or animated/ live action ones have, able to reveal and define in future episodes things that this one hasn/t

Until then, I have bene in the habit of borrowing from other incarnations, I don't make it a hard and fast rule, I just use the other versions to fill in gaps until this one defines them, I mean it is based off of the older Supermans and a general idea most people have. Just have to wait to see what specifics it alters, and how it defines things in its own continuity. In the meantimes it keeps us guessing, which helps make it a little more interesting I think.

If that's something you want to do...there is nothing stopping you...but the other versions are not canon to this one.

It's cool, never got the impression you were attacking me, and appreciated your insight and knowledge. It's good to hear other opinions, I wouldn't have thought this much about it if not for this discussion. I'm enjoying it, hope you are too.

I just wanted to be clear. Some people can't have discussions like this without taking things personally. I enjoy the debate...because it gives me a different perspective to look at t e movie from. It doesn't change how i feel about the movie...but it lets me see why other people feel differently.

- - - Updated - - -

Batman is very influential.

Sure...So is Spider-Man, So is Superman. So is Captain America.

It still makes him a great fighter. Hell its the only thing that makes him a great fighter.

it makes him an adequate fighter. Wolverine is a great fighter.

Peter Parker made a fantastic invention with brain meats and lunch money. He's just a little bit more efficient. Some of their means aren't even that divergent and the results are the same. In my opinion Spider-mans wealthier than Batman but he just hasn't monetized it yet.

If he hasn't monetized it...he isn't wealthier. That's what wealth is.

The means are important but we're discussing what constitutes a rip-off and if your results are very similar then your means aren't as relevent. Hyperion is a very clear rip off of Superman even though their means aren't identical.

Means are always relevant. If every hero did the same things the same way...comics would get awfully boring.

Hyperion is meant more as a pastiche really. The Squadron Supreme were created as the premier super hero team on an alternate earth. The basic idea was to say "this is the Justice League" without actually being able to show the actual Justice League.

I'm not convinced they do it as much but their lack of success when they do it masks that. I'll take Marvel's money over your half-assed comparisons.

You can't really say that my comparisons are "half-assed" when you say Spider-Man is a Batman rip off because he has a car. LOL

It just shows that some things are much further part. Batman and Spider-man aren't that far apart. Their certainly much closer than Reed Richards and Terry Sloane.

Not being far apart does not mean that one is a copy of the other. You're just being ridiculous by continuing to press this fallacy.

Batman and Spider-Man have superficial similarities...the same way you can find superficial similarities in all superheroes.

[Shadowferal]

Sure, but there are other planets and moons in our solar system. Why did it specifically have to be Earth?

Because it was populated. Jor-El wanted Kal to be a bridge between Earthling and kryptonian.
...not a bad question.
But for the humanizing element, it makes for a interesting thought.

[Ivanstone]

Batman and Spider-Man have superficial similarities...the same way you can find superficial similarities in all superheroes.

Talk about surrendering the argument. Batman and Spider-man have a lot of similarities. That's why one's a rip off of the other. Wolverine and Batman are both great fighters with animal-based names but they're pretty far apart otherwise. That's not to say comparisons can't be made:
"Dave Cockrum liked Kane's accidental alteration (he thought the original was too similar to Batman's mask) and incorporated it into his own artwork for the actual story."

I brought up Hyperion for a reason. There's about 8 different versions of him and every last one of them is a rip-off of Superman and Marvel wasn't even being subtle about it. You're inability to acknowledge that is baffling.

[Egomaniac]

Because it was populated. Jor-El wanted Kal to be a bridge between Earthling and kryptonian.
...not a bad question.
But for the humanizing element, it makes for a interesting thought.

Not Jor-El.

Zod.

Why did Zod need it to be Earth if he was just going to terraform over it anyway? Why could he not just take the Codex and go to Mars or Venus or something?

[Egomaniac]

Talk about surrendering the argument. Batman and Spider-man have a lot of similarities. That's why one's a rip off of the other. Wolverine and Batman are both great fighters with animal-based names but they're pretty far apart otherwise. That's not to say comparisons can't be made:
"Dave Cockrum liked Kane's accidental alteration (he thought the original was too similar to Batman's mask) and incorporated it into his own artwork for the actual story."[]

They have a lot of similarities...because they are both super-heroes. Most Super-Heroes share a lot of similarities. Similarities does not make one a rip off of the other.

This is getting dull so I'm just going to sum things up:

Me:

Batman is a Highly trained, peak human with seemingly infinite wealth that started his Superhero career in his mid 20's after travelling the world gaining PHD levels of education in almost every scientific discipline and mastering every fighting style on the planet. He is Laconic and intimidating in battle. He likes to dress up young boys in Brightly coloured costumes and put them in danger. He uses a variety of gadgets including, but not limited to, Batarangs, smoke bombs, grappling hooks, gas masks, vison enhancers, voice distorters, and a variety of vehicles.

Spider-Man is an untrained, Superhuman that is so poor he's currently sharing an apartment with a reforming Supervillain that drives him up the wall. He got his powers at the age of 15 after being given powers due to a scientific accident during a school field trip. He first intended to utilize his powers selfishly...but when his uncle was murdered by a criminal he refused to attempt to stop...he finally understood the lesson his dear Uncle Ben had been trying to teach him his whole life "With great Power comes Great Responsibility. In combat he quips constantly because it is very distracting for his foes. While he does occasionally dabble in other gadgets...he primarily relies on his webslingers for both transport as well as offensive and defensive capability.

You:

But they both have dead parents, fight crime, and Spider-Man has a car ( A car that has only appeared in a handful of issues in the nearly 50 years since it was introduced...but a car).

I brought up Hyperion for a reason. There's about 8 different versions of him and every last one of them is a rip-off of Superman and Marvel wasn't even being subtle about it. You're inability to acknowledge that is baffling.

I Brought up Hyperion as a copy of Superman looooong before you did.

Silver Surfer is hardly a copy of Superman.

Hyperion? Sure.
The Sentry? Without a doubt.

Page 1, post #20 if you want to check it out for yourself. I was just explaining what the intentions were for copying Superman...not denying that he is a copy. Still baffled?

[Ivanstone]

But they both have dead parents, fight crime, and Spider-Man has a car ( A car that has only appeared in a handful of issues in the nearly 50 years since it was introduced...but a car).

Obvious roots in pulp novels? Both
Tragic Back Story Involving Parental Death? Both
Animal Based Theme Name? Both
Great Fighter? Both
Strong? Both
Fast? Both
Genius? Both
Swinglines from building to building? Both
Climbs Walls? Both
Variety of Self-Themed Gadgetry? Both
Weird Rogues Gallery? Both
Obese Crime Bosses? Both

There's more but this is interrupting my WoW playing.

PS You backpedaled on Hyperion because the argument didn't suit you. A character can be a rip-off without being a clone. The former can be an innovative transformation (like Spider-man), the latter gets you sued (see Fawcett).

[Egomaniac]

Obvious roots in pulp novels? Both
Tragic Back Story Involving Parental Death? Both
Animal Based Theme Name? Both
Great Fighter? Both
Strong? Both
Fast? Both
Genius? Both
Swinglines from building to building? Both
Climbs Walls? Both
Variety of Self-Themed Gadgetry? "Variety"
Weird Rogues Gallery? Both
Obese Crime Bosses? Both

Once again, you've merely established that both are Superheroes. You have not established that Spider-man is a "Ripoff".

And the generalizations are just absurd. Just extremely common and superficial nonsense.

Both Strong? Batman has Peak Human strength. On his best day he can bench maybe half a ton. On Peter's Worst day he can do 20 times that. You might as well say Hulk and Spider-Man are the same because "Both Strong"

Both fast? Spider-Man would dance circles around Batman. Batman is only fast when compared to regular people. Spidey is several degrees past "regular people". Again, you might as well say that Spider-Man and The Flash are "Both Fast".

Great Fighter? Batman is a great fighter than Spider-Man. Spider-Man is a brawler that gets buy because of superior stats and Spider-Sense...not skill.

Variety of gadgets? Spider-Man has webs. Batman has millions of dollars in vehicles and equipment. Batman's Lair is a cave filled with high tech computers, scanners, vehicles, etc under his mansion. Spider-Man's lair is a 3 bedroom apartment he shares with Boomerang.

Weird Rogues Gallery? Yeah. So does every other hero. Not proving anything here. Supervillains are weird.

Climb Walls? Spider-Man Climbing walls:



Batman climbing walls:



You:



Animal based name: Spider-Man picked his name because he has Spider powers. Batman picked his name because Bats are scary. Also, I mean there's a hyphen in Spider-Man but not in Batman....so that clearly makes them totes different. Hawkman though...there's no hyphen there...he's totally ripping off Batman!

Obese Crime bosses: Kingpin has been more of Daredevil's deal for most of the last 50 years. Spider-Man doesn't really go after organized crime. I mean, if he sees Fisks Men robbing a bank or something...he'll stop them... but he doesn't get into the whole detective thing very much. Just one more difference between him and the Caped Crusader.

PS You backpedaled on Hyperion because the argument didn't suit you. A character can be a rip-off without being a clone. The former can be an innovative transformation (like Spider-man), the latter gets you sued (see Fawcett).

I never backpedaled on Hyperion. I brought Hyperion up because he is a copy of Superman. I always said he was a copy of Superman. I'm still saying he's a copy of Superman. Providing context is not back pedaling.

Yeah, we're done here. If there is an argument for Spider-Man being a copy of Batman...you aren't the guy that's going to make it.

[Ivanstone]

Yeah, we're done here. If there is an argument for Spider-Man being a copy of Batman...you aren't the guy that's going to make it.

No, you’re the guy who’s not going to believe it. You keep trying to pick apart each point without realizing the sheer number of points hat are very similar. It’s not like I picked a couple of random points and claimed they’re the same.

PS Batman doesn’t need a rope to climb. He doesn’t even need the Batsuit to do it although it helps. How do you not know these things?

[Egomaniac]

No, you’re the guy who’s not going to believe it. You keep trying to pick apart each point without realizing the sheer number of points hat are very similar. It’s not like I picked a couple of random points and claimed they’re the same.

When your points are

"Both Strong"
"Both Fast"
Etc.

It doesn't take a lot of effort to pick them a part.

Comparing Batman's physical stats to Spider-Man's would be like comparing Your own physical Stats to Batmans. Or, againm like comapring Spider-Man's Strength to the Hulk or his Speed to the Flash.

Is Batman strong enough to pitch Jeep?



No?

Well, Maybe they're not "both Strong" after all.

PS Batman doesn’t need a rope to climb. He doesn’t even need the Batsuit to do it although it helps. How do you not know these things?

Once again:



Can Batman do that without a Batsuit?

I guess they both can't "Climb walls" either.

I mean, your arguments would be hilarious if they weren't so sad.

Comparing Batman And Spider-Man's physical stats as though they were even remotely similar. How do you not know these things?

[Ivanstone]

Comparing Batman And Spider-Man's physical stats as though they were even remotely similar. How do you not know these things?

They’re not that far apart and they’re much closer when Batman’s wearing certain versions of his Batsuit. Hell if the situation was reversed (Batman has superpowers, Spidey has technology and training) would it really change anything?

Aquamans a ripoff of Namor but by your logic they’re totally different because Aquaman can’t fly.

Black Cats a rip off of Catwoman but by your logic they’re totally different because Black Cat has super powers. And why does BatSpider-Man have Cat themed Frenemy Stalker Love Interests?!?!

Fuck you posted a whole list of ripoffs but everyone last one of those have modest alterations from their source material.

[Egomaniac]

They’re not that far apart and they’re much closer when Batman’s wearing certain versions of his Batsuit. Hell if the situation was reversed (Batman has superpowers, Spidey has technology and training) would it really change anything?

They are incredibly far apart. The Distance between them is farther than the distance between Batman and a regular schlub. And certain versions of his Batsuit that didn't even exist when Spider-Man was created. If DC writers are making batman suits that copy Spider-Man's powers...they're the ones doing the "ripping off"

Aquamans a ripoff of Namor but by your logic they’re totally different because Aquaman can’t fly.

Aquaman and Namor have the exact same backstory and a very similar power set and weakness. It's more than a passing similarity... which is all you can establish about Spider-Man and Batman.

Black Cats a rip off of Catwoman but by your logic they’re totally different because Black Cat has super powers. And why does BatSpider-Man have Cat themed Frenemy Stalker Love Interests?!?!

Black cat is a ripoff because she is almost the exact same character with a different hair colour.

She's a catburglar with a literal cat theme that was setup to be both a romantic interest and a foil to the main character. It's as blatant a ripoff of Catwoman as Aquaman is of Namor. Which goes back to my point about how both companies rip each other off

Fuck you posted a whole list of ripoffs but everyone last one of those have modest alterations from their source material.

Yeah, but Spider-Man and Batman have more than just modest differences. That's the whole point.

They are two completely different characters.

Different physical attributes
Different personalities
Different origins
Different methods
Different skillsets
Different backgrounds
Different goals
Different Powers (in the sense that Spider-Man has them and Batman doesn't)
Different relationship with the Police

I spelled it out pretty clearly for you earlier. Detailing just some of the ways in which they are completely different characters

Most of the similarities you point out you have kept so vague that you could randomly pull two Superheroes out of a hat and you would find about as much correlation as you find with Batman and Spider-Man

Do you wanna go through a list of Superheroes with one or more dead parental figure? It's a long fucking list

How about "Strong" and "Fast". Well if we're using those terms as loosely as you apply them in regards to Spider-Man and Batman...it's basically still the same list as above.

Uses Gadgets? List isn't getting any shorter. Even Superman has gadgets.

Good fighter? Again, keeping that term as vague as you are...the list is still not shrinking in any meaningful capacity.


You don't have a good argument for Spider-Man being a copy of Batman. You have an argument that both Spider-Man and Batman are Superheroes.