The Spiderman / Manspider movie debate debacle.
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
This is not worthy of it's own thread, but considering the amount of "who would win a fight between Aunt May and Galactus" threads I've seen I don't feel too bad.
It struck me today that the rabid dogs that have ripped into the Spider-Man movie claiming to be the one true golden torch bearers of the bible that is Spidey have - time and time again - committed the one cardinal sin that every Spidey fan knows marks the fond fans from the dick-tugging dweebs.
Look at all those posts from the "organic webbing is a sin" brigade. See how many times they spell Spider-Man "Spiderman" without the hyphen.
Stan Lee would kick your collective pimply asses for that one - so please don't expect me to take you seriously* as Spidey fans from now on - you have shown your true colours and they are not red and blue.
* Ok you got me, it's a lie - I never did.
lol...Aunt May vs. Galactus. Let's hear your opinions on that one. What is ONE way May can win? Be creative.
Lord Shadow Z
Oh right, and you are the number one Spiderman (without the hyphen; I'm so sorry, please forgive me
) fan in the world.
At least I don't refer to the character as childlike as you do 'Spidey'
Save your self-righteous speech for someone who gives a damn about what you say.
Screw you. We ain't the ones who coined the nickname. Stan himself did. He has said in many interviews that one thing he likes about most Marvel comics is that he was able to give the characters nicknames. Not like that weak ass Superman.
...Who of course doesn't have a nickname.
Oh wait, he does. It's Supes.
Don't care about his damn nickname. He's still a f#%@!ing pussy.
Lord Shadow Z
Oh yeah right, compared to Spiderman maybe?
Lord Shadow Z
I did present the Spiderman name right did I? Oh no! I didn't. Damn, I keep meaning to include the hyphen and it just slips my mind every time- I must not be a true fan at all
Lord Shadow Z
Er, no thanks......
Lord Shadowz-WHat a jerk
Lord Shadow Z
Sticks and stones
........may brake my bones but words will never hurt me
what are you a child?
Lord Shadow Z
No.... it just makes sense. A word is a word, nothing more.
Wow, it's clearly spiralled out of control. So much for freedom of speech these days.
Weak ass Superman.
mommy mommy a kid on the play ground called me a name
dont worry son just trick yourself into thinking what he says doesnt matter
Jesus...grow up, the lot of you. It's like a kindergarten on this thread.
Indeed, if you dont like it you can leave
Lord Shadow Z
Jesus, Stormy Day displaying(well trying to at least) wit; never thought I'd see the day.
And with your last two posts you are correctly defining the role of the 'child' as your own with needless sarcasm.
Damn that Superman, being so hella crappy all the time.
I just have one thing to say..................
Look how "Spider-Man" is spelled in the title of this thread. Maybe someone was in a rush, lol
Spidey,webhead, bug boy, whatever you prefer to call him is a great hero with or without organic webbing. Holy minor details Batman, lol
Guess I had more than one thing to say. Sorry about the double post.
no offense but...
LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE THREAD YOU MADE YA DICKHEAD
Lord Shadow Z
I mentioned the same flaw but I was a little more subtle about it. Bojangle's comment is more harsh and alot funnier though
only me and MR Parker seem to be able to understand that organics are a sin from hell
That alone should tell you something
lol i think spelling spiderman this way is fine.....no matter how u spell it, its the same guy , right mr.zero?
Well we are some of the only loyal fans that dont tolerate organics and organic alon with there creater should burn in hell
at lest I wont make a compermise unlike you
Does that help you sleep better? Are you going to curl up in a corner holding your Spidey comics while you have a migrain over this movie? What are you trying to prove and who are you trying to prove it to? Sony? You're wasting your time. It's very rare if at all that any comic book hero is translated to the big screen perfectly and Spider-Man is no exception.
You are too worked up over something you can't control
well I think you would feel differnt if it was blade that got drastically changed
Well actually he did go through a drastic change from the old comics but if you're trying to make a point, my #1 hero is Batman. Now talk about drastic! My dark knight looks totally different. From spandex to a rubber suit with nipples. In comparison, I was done way worse than you Spidey fans but i'm not ready to blow up WB headquarters although i'd settle for stoning Joel Schuemacher in a town square
Oh for the love of mike - the thread title is referring to the ongoing debate about manspider/spiderman - where no hyphens are used, so no hyphens in the thread title: It's self referential.
The body of the post is all my own work, so hyphens. It's not hard... but yes I should have put it in quote marks. Oh is my face red.. I may die of shame... what if my mother ever finds out???
As daywalker says - blade has been changed drastically: Speaking as somone who devoured the Gene Colan Blade character way back in the day I can at least admit it would be MADNESS to have that on screen. A jive talking pimp-dude with an afro out killin' vamps? Blade needed an upgrade to work as a movie, and got a damn good one. Same with Spider-man.
Lord Shadow Z
The character of Spiderman hardly got an upgrade-none of the changes improved him at all.
It didn't make him worse either.
Lord Shadow Z
That comment I heavily disagree with.
well I didnt know that Im not a big blade fan I always thought he looked like that . but think about this. orgainc are a body fluid dose anybody besieds be mind that gross
I thought about it... and no... I don't find it gross or disturbing. Not one bit.
I have this feeling you really have a problem with body fluids. And can organic webs be considered as body fluids ? Don't know. And even so, I still don't mind them.
it tells me were about the only ones that got any logic or common sense here.by the way vengence,were not the only ones,bakerboy september rain and a few others others have voted manspider in the spidermanmanspider thread?.
Id settle for doing that to Tim Burton for making the worst casting choice in comicbook history. pudgy gut, receding hairline, half bald, short runt, michale keaton for tall, muscular, handsome, full set of hair bruce wayne and turning batman into a cowardly killer.as much as burton and schumacher BOTH screwed up the batman movies,sony screwed up the spiderman franchise much worse.
I'll defend Tim because I enjoyed his vision and Michael Keaton did a great job as Batman. He brought the brooding dark knight back to life.
Joel turned Batman and Gotham into nothing but a cheap gimmick
and Spider-Man was nowhere near as bad as that.
i understand wy hardcore fans may like the webshooters instead of organics...added to the char...but this honestly isnt important....... i mean...so what...spiderman fights bonesaw...and organic webbing......and batman's chest becomes 90% rubber...who cares...as long as it doesnt ruin a movie....also I have had no reasons to belive organic webbing ruined spiderman...if anyone has any reasons(MAKE EM GOOD) then please share them and enlighten us
Lord Shadow Z
Organic webbing did ruin Spiderman because the Spiderman character that many people know didn't have organic webbing, he had webshooters. This oversight has also made the character of Peter Parker more uninteresting because there is nothing to him in terms of weaknesses apart from his fragileness when he has a crisis of confidence or when (surprise, surprise, Mary Jane or Aunt May get captured). Because of organic webshooters no attempt was made by Sam Raimi to introduce Peter Parkers scientific background as a major part of his life, he just occasionally gets out his camera and then trouble arises and then he changes into his costume(coughSuperman rip-offcough) and with his unlimited webbing and super strength,agility; he beats the villian quite quickly and no villian of Spidermans was ever beaten in the first attempt so the concept of a major enemy like the Green Goblin being defeated so easy is ludricious.
so what if Keaton did a good acting job? Lawrence Olivia- who is considered the greatest actor in the world would not be right for that role,if the guy doesnt even come close to resembling the role then he should never be cast for it.Schumachers BATMAN FOREVER is by far my favorite because at least BATMAN in that movie was not a cold killer and killed people like a coward like he did in the first two films which goes against everything batman is,and michael keaton as batman is something you would think you would see on saturday night live because it was like watching al bundy walking around bruce wayne manor- a total joke. burton only cast keaton because he was friends with him and felt comfortable working with him,he did not care about getting the best choice possible,plus the villains were the main characters and bats was just a supporting character,at least Kilmer physically fit the role of Bruce Wayne.Tim Burton should NEVER have been allowed to go near a batman franchise.
all the organic webbing did was dumb down his character and took away his greatest scientific invention.with organics,any dumb sap like flash thompson could have gotten bitten by that spider and gained the powers that spiderman has and become spiderman,without the organics,it was clear that it was peters destiny to become spiderman because he had a scientific background and the knowledge to create the webbing that others did not have which makes him unique,he created the webbing to complete his powers which is unique,there is nothing unique about organics.
a few? thats a laugh.I have not seen the 2nd one yet but I have TONS of many important pointless changes I could list that makes this movie a joke.
I forgive you
Keaton didn't look like Bruce but despite what you say he looked great as Batman and played the role well (the best infact). As for the killing? s*&t happens
Batman Forever??? talk about a cheap gimmick geared towards kids. I really can't believe you liked that one. I liked it to an extent but I wouldn't place it at the top. Can't say I cared for the christmas tree ornament on wheels that they tried to pass off as the batmobile either. The people of Gotham would see Wayne Manor light up as soon as that thing came out of the cave
Val was a good looking Batman but too bad he was just trying to be like Mike and he didn't do it very well. He made a great looking Bruce and he looked good in the batsuit. But why did he look good in the batsuit? Because he was so skinny and the suit created the look for him so there goes your muscular guy theory.
I can't believe you place that overinflated light show of a movie at the top and you have more of a problem with Spider-Man. It's like logic has left the building
well in his glands they should be in a fluid state till air comes in contact I just find ropes coming out of somebody wrist a bit nasty. And what do you mean by "I have this feeling you really have a problem with body fluids" I just find it a bit to man-spider ish
sorry to tell you this dude but YES BATMAN was a coward in the first tow films.Putting that bomb in the pants of the penguin then throwing him over the wall and then going into the jokers hideout and not even in the batmobile at the time and dropping the bomb in front of them like he did? sorry buts as cowardly as you can get deal with it.BATS should have been wanted for murder at the end.horrible screen writing. The only reason KEATON looked good in the bat suit was they had to make a suit that made him look muscular because he was so out of shape and pudgy.It was confusing as hell seeing him look big and muscular with the bat suit on and when he took it off,somehow he went top being oudgy and out of shape,what a joke.at least with kilmer,when he had his batsuit on,I could believe he was muscular because he had an athletic build.skinny? what batman movie were you watching? when he has his shirt off you could tell he had a muscalr and strong build,thats why keaton never took his shirt off because he was insecure about people seeing how out of shape he was. logic has left the building for you to call this movie spiderman because thats like him having 8 arms and you still calling him spiderman,no difference.
logic has sure left your building as well. the only thing you said that holds any locic is yeah I agree with you that the batmobile from the first two batman films was better than the one in BATMAN FOREVER but thats just a minor detail about that movie I can over look unlike the major mistakes made in the fisrt two batflicks.
stormeister meet my ignore list.I am done addressing you because that is extremely chilidish of you to quote something I did not say,the act of a child.
*Yawn.* Personally, I prefer Spider-Man with organic webbing. No more, "OH MY GOD, MY WEB CARTRIDGE IS EMPTY! WHAT EVER WILL I DO?! Of course, it's unbelievably simple--I'll reload it and save myself!"
Anyway, giving Spider-Man organic webbing allowed for the producers to introduce the spider-sense and probably saved a bunch of time explaining the web-shooters' development.
Swords_point (no, I'm not going to even try to figure out the button combination for the "simolean" sign), your grammar is atrocious. And how do you think REAL spiders spin webs? IT COMES OUT THEIR SPINNERETS...like a rope, in fact.
i seriously cannot see how you cant drop the issue about the organic thing. This made the movie go smoother. It would have taken half the movie to explain the lagistics of the web cartridges. I would have liked to seen it done, but if that small minor fact about spidermans character had to be sacrificed to focus more on the essence of spidey and parker so be it. overall the mvoies were right out of the comic. If stan lee can accept it, and even consider the movies to be greater than his vision, why cant you?
What if they made Spider-Man literally turn into a Man-Spider? Rowr!
Well it seems very possible. especially since they hinted at his lack of controll of his powers in the second when he lost his powers. I wouldnt mind seeing a gaint manspider eat a few people and tear apart some children. Could you imagine the faces of little kids in the theater as they see there hero turn into a giant beast and murder and eat innocent people on a murderous rampage, i mean i would defiantly pay to see that.
Right. I think his "lack of controll of his powers" was due to the fact that...um, his DNA went back to normal under the stress he was facing?
Actually, it was probably a whole psychiatric situation in which his subconscious wanted to give up being Spider-Man so he believed his powers were gone or something.
Oh please. Batman is not a coward any way you try to cut it. You could look at it a few ways here, either they were trying to save screen time with those quick killings,maybe they were trying to show some other cool weapons he has or maybe they were just trying to take you back to those good ole big bad bat with the tommy gun days. Batman could have easily kicked all those guys a$$e$ with no problem. He wouldn't have became the Batman in the first place if he was a coward smart guy
I'm not defending Keaton's build in any way. I just know that he looked good as Batman and he played the part the best out of the 3. Who really cares about Bruce anyway??? When it comes down to it,he's just a mask until the Bat comes out.
Kilmer, yeah, you're blind if you don't know he's skinny
The REAL Bruce Wayne should look like an amateur body builder and Kilmer isn't even in the right zip code of looking like that so get your eyes checked
And check your ManSpider logic while you're at it. So millions of fans are wrong because you don't agree with it? How arrogant is that
Tear apart some children... murder and eat innocent people...
You can't pay me enough to go watch that... movie. And not because I couldn't stand it. Only because the idea is unbelievably stupid.
I have to admit that part was hilarious and I did like his webs cutting out on him.
I'M BACK!!!!!!!!!!...............................................................................................................................................my back
Sorry but I can't see Spidey ripping kids to shreads in this franchise but I could see him kicking some villains' butts. Like Harry thinking he's hot sh*t as the Hobgoblin showing up to take his revenge then Peter does a hulk and beats him senseless (also not holding back because he's a monster)
thanks for shooting down your own arguments for me.
you just said that BATMAN would not have become BATMAN in the first place if he was a coward,"THATS" why this movie betrayed his character and the comics because your too blind to see how horribly written this film is and that that was indeed a cowardly act of his and that it was also a cowardly act to put that bomb in the penguins goons pants.
Just like with sonys manspider franchise,you blindly defend their stupid mistakes and are forever the apologist for their stupid mistakes and shortcomings. trying to show cool weapons? uh that could easily have been accomplished with him shooting down the door like the batmobile did,but that was completely pointless and unforgiveable dropping the bomb in front of them in such cowardly fashion.Your too close minded obviously though to see that was a cowardly act of his sense his life was never in danger so I can see you cannot be reasoned with on that.Batman could EASLIY have dropped one of his knockout gas containers in front of them and left them for the police,no need to act like a coward and kill them in such cowardly fashion.Maybe KIlmer doesnt have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenneger but at least people could believe it when he put on the suit and looked muscular because he at least had an athlectic build,something Keaton did not.Kilmer never got to do much as Batman and he was never really given a chance because he had a bad script to work woth with such corny lines as ITS THE CAR RIGHT,CHICKS DIG THE CAR? but the times that he had serious lines as BATMAN such as when he was giving the riddler the riddle,he did a good jod with and did a great job as Bruce Wayne which is where he got to show his acting skills the most.So of the 3,Kilmer was the best batman yet.The next BATMAN, batman fans will at least be able to take serious because CHRISTIAN BALE unlike keaton physically fits the role.PUNKY HERMY is in total agreement with me that Keaton was a horrible choice for the role because of how physically wrong he was for the part of Bruce Wayne.People like me,punky hermy,bakerboy and many others I have spoken to over the years would not be so pissed about the first two batman films like we are if keaton wasnt such a horrible choice for the role because of how physically wrong he was for the part.So many batman fans like the others I have mentioned besides myself hated the first two films because Keaton was such a horrible choice for the role because he didnt even come close to fiting the role of bruce wayne.geez how hard is that to understand? sheesh.
You are clearly living in denial if you cant admit that was a cowardly act of his to drop the bomb in front of the jokers goons.so you are blind on that account just like you are in the fact that there has not been a spiderman movie made and you are too blind to see that the character you saw was manspider.Your blind like so many other millions who have read the comics in the fact that you like many here cant distinguish spiderman from manspider so I can see reasoning with you on that is hopeless as well. yes the sad fact is the majority of society is ignorant,thats something I have always known for years.there are a few people out there with logic and common sense like BAKERBOY,SEPTEMBER RAIN,XEM AND DARK VENGENCE that understand what I am talking about,but the majority of society is ignorant,thats a plain fact.
The only reason I keep this up is because you humor me so. What was the purpose of naming all of your buddies on here and putting their names in bold print? Are they DC and Marvel comics authorities?? No, they're just fans like you and I. Punky is cool and she is obcessed over the animated series...........nothing wrong with that. Do you need that much "back up" for this "Debate Debacle"? I come alone and I promise I won't drop a bat bomb on you in a cowardly fashion (heavy sarcasm)
Batman fears noone and he's not a coward. Batman has options. A coward would kill because he has no other option. Batman deals with so many lowly thugs (with ease) that he can afford to blow up a few and he has nothing to prove. He could have stepped out of his car and beat them all senseless if he wanted. Personally I liked it because it showed his human side as we are all flawed. So is the Punisher a coward? BTW, my statements help your arguments in no way. You say the Bat's actions were unforgiveable yet box office figures seem to disagree. If all of these films are sooo wrong then you should go to Hollywood since you're sooo right. I mean if they're all wrong and make millions, just think how much you could make for being right (heavy sarcasm again).
Sorry but Kilmer is just scrawny compared to what Batman's true build should be. I mean if you're sculpting a costume onto a stick figure, of course you're going to have a better chance of making him look right.
Kilmer= Keaton wannabe............NEXT!!! BTW, i'm rooting for Bale all the way.
Sorry again but you're the blind one and you know what? you'll never be happy with any of these films whether they were accurate or not. Your best bet would be to keep using your movie ticket money for comic books. Apologist? me? no, you're just ungrateful and that's pretty sad
So what you're saying is that Batman could have easily dealt with them, nonlethally, but instead chose to kill dozens of low-level thugs to ... what? Save time? Frankly, I think that casts him in a poorer light than if he couldn't deal with them nonlethally. At least then he'd have an excuse of sorts.
Actually, he does have something to prove: that he isn't a murderer. Unfortunately, he never manages to prove that in any of the movies, except maybe the last one.
How did the discussion of organic webshooters lead to Batman? Wait, don't answer that...
Seeing him kill a few thugs didn't change my opinion of him at all. To me that was a small insignificant part of the movie similar to organic webbing. It's just a movie "based on" the character and i'm sure the comics will stay true to the essense of Batman.
All 4 movies had their little issues but the first 2 were still the best.
It's kind of my fault. People were b**ching about such a small change like organic webbing and I mentioned how my favorite character (Batman) was running around in a rubber suit with nipples and Spidey fans should be grateful that's all they did to Spider-Man.
Well that and you know after awhile, threads lose their direction with repetition.
I know; it was a joke. You probably couldn't understand it nor did you think it was funny because I cannot inflect my tone.
About the man spider movies, only the untrue spider man fans, the man spider fans and the people brainwashed by sony could see what a betrayal are those stupid man spider movies, beasides very bad movies , with terrible scripts and awful filmaking. Im with mr Parker here totally.
About the batman movies, daywalker, really maybe we arent dc or marvel experts, but you are all but not a true batman fan, because if you have said that Keaton was a great batman, you dont know anything about batman. Who on hell could you say that bruce wayne isnt importan in the batman stories? Saying that you have prooved that you know anything abou the character. Bruce wayne is equal with batman in the batman stories. We couldnt imagine the batman stories without bruce and alfred relationship, bruce rememering his parents and their muder, his motivations, his past, etc, etc. Bruce wayne is everything in batman, not just a mask for batman. For that reason , i want to see Bruce Wayne accuratly portrayed in the movies, not just a middle aged guy , almost bald, short, pudgy, out of sharpe and trying to look dumb and coping Chris Reeve's Clark Kents. Beasides to be a supporting character for the villains. That was all in the Burton Movies.
Ok, I barely understood what you were trying to say due to all of the type-os but i'll try to reply anyway.
First of all, i'm not choosing sides and don't really care who's with or against me on this. It's just that "Mr Parker" decided to put all of your names in bold print like you were all Marvel/DC authorities. The fact is none of us are. We're just fans with varying opinions.
There are many different portrayals of Bruce Wayne and I prefer the one Keaton played because he had more charisma than the others. Kilmer was a Keaton wannabe and Clooney just acted like himself. I am more of a batfan than you know and some other mediocre fan cannot take that away from me. If you know anything about Batman, you'd know that Bruce is only a mask and Batman is the true identity. They just recently started trying to give the Wayne character more depth just to add to the stories. Yeah, yeah, what happened to Bruce is key in the creation of Batman but nothing more. Truthfully Alfred is more interesting than Bruce because Alfred has watched Bruce become the Batman so you get the story from him not Bruce.
Just another fan trying to tell another fan that he's not a real fan. You guys need to get off of your soap boxes
Geeze, let me see, so there's only roughly 8-10 true Spider-Man fans out there? Riiiight
Here's to Michael Keaton,organic webbing and the self proclaimed Spider-Man experts cheers
There is a simple answer to all this pointless debating:
If you think he's "Man-Spider", don't see the movies and continue to piss and moan.
If you think he's "Spider-Man", go see the movies and be happy with organic webshooters.
That's a problem I have, too.
F*CKIN A!! I'll toast to that. cheers
oK, daywalker. My first laguaje isnt english , because of that my english isnt very good, but ill tray to explain better. What i said is you are everything but no a batman fan or a spider man fan. Because saying that bruce is only a mask for batman is just ridiculous and lame. In 65 years of batman story, Bruce Wayne has been always a key part in the story, and the real guy is Bruce Wayne, not batman. The mask is batman. The guy birth and grown and become older as bruce wayne, he is the real person , bruce wayne, batman is only a secret identity to punish the criminals. Is Bruce acting like a airhead playboy in the parties? surely, but batman is the reflextion of the real bruce wayne. Batman is the mask, but wayne is the person. What you see on batman, is what bruce is in reality. If you claim to be a real batman fan, you should know that. But saying your stuff and liking keaton as bruce wayne and the burton movies doesnt say too much of you as a batman fan. I didnt like Keaton, Kilmer or Clooney as batman or bruce wayne. Keaton was only an small guy trying to be batman, the oppositte to batman or bruce wayne, a terrible fighter and a total joke as bruce wayne. His only merit was his voice change in the two characters. Kilmer isnt an roman god, but he looked more as batman than keaton, althought i think that his performance was too weak as the two characters. Clooney was only playing himself . But please, what Keaton's charisma is you talking about? have you seen the same movies than me? because in those movies directed by tim burton, batman was only a supporting character to the villains. Nicholson erased keaton in all his scenes with him, as well Michelle Pfeiffer( what i think that was the best thing in the batman movies) in batman returns. There werent any development in the batman or in the bruce wayne character, absolutely nothing, because all the things were about the joker, the penguin and catwoman. Even Max Srheck was more developed than batman or Wayne. And keaton acting was only a bad copy of Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent in the superman movies. And that is charisma? please, you must be joking.
And about the man spider movies, any true spider man fan could see what a betrayal to the characters that Stan Lee created are. But the man spider fans will keep kissing the ass of sony because there are a guy with a spider man costume on screen. So sad.
Ok guys, we get the point.
At times I have agreed with you, bakerboy and Mr Parker, you have put forward some great opinions and ideas, but please don't insult people anymore OK?
There's room for debate without arrogance and looking down your noses at people. Calling people "not true Batman/Spider-Man fans" is really unfair.
its not unfair at all,its the truth and thats hardly an insult Even stan lee himself said he hated the idea of organics being in the movie.according to that logic Im suppose to be insulted when someone tells me I am not a true steelers football fan just because i did not support them when kordell stewart was their quarterback.yeah right,thats just their opinion,thats hardly an insult.same here,telling someone they are not a true spiderman or batman fan for accepting those atrocities is hardly an insult,its the truth IMO.
Yes, it's the truth, in your opinion. Opinions can be very dangerous. You can make some friends by debating opinions. You can make enemies by forcing people to accept them.
Look at religion. Never has such a great opinion caused so many wars. Everyone believes there is truth to their opinions, that's why they defend them in such a die-hard manner. If people, educated, smart and independant people can form opinions different to your own, then are they not worth listening to?
All I'm asking is, be a bit more tolerant.
Or we could destroy, risking the lives of countless civilians again again and again until we're both dead, is that what you want?
*realises he just used a quote from Mr Parkers most hated movie and runs for cover*
Mr Parker, it's sad when it's easier to read bakerboy's posts than your own. You know, because his .
At least he makes an attempt at PROPER punctuation.
at least you could make an attempt at a diet, lumpy.
My God, you don't even know what I look like. Now I'm going to go develop an eating disorder.
*Throws up all over his keyboard.*
Sorry about the jab I gave you on reading your post but I was really having trouble with it. I apologize for that.
But if you look here, it says: During the day, Bruce Wayne is CEO of Wayne Enterprises and maintains the public image of a millionaire playboy. In fact, Bruce goes to great lengths convincing others that the self-centered socialite is his true self.. Bruce Wayne is the disguise, Batman is the true personality
This is just something I found real quick from the Worlds Finest website (An excellent site) http://wf.toonzone.net/WF/batman/bios/heroes/batman/ But if you need more proof, i do have an official DC bio of Batman in a magazine that i'd be more than happy to scan and post
Bruce gave birth to Batman and Batman is the dominant personality. Bruce is a hollow shell, a disguise. Batman hates how he has to act as Bruce(grin and bare it) but as the Bat, he is free to respond to injustice how he really wants to.
Do the research next time before you resort to name calling.
Oh don't worry, statements from highly over opinionated fans wouldn't begin to bother me
They just think they know it all
dis is very sssssssstuuuuuuupiiid!!!!!!!!!!! wat da f#!k is rong with u people!!!
Its so stupid,yet you decided to resurrect this old dead thread.
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Copyright 1999-2019 KillerMovies.