Bane vs Spock

The pillar was hollow, in its center there was probably an industrial steel beam. Concrete is a brittle material with many shatter points. It's hard enough to break an ordinary man's arm (but Bane was probably wearing kevlar around his skin), but brittle. To shatter concrete with a haymaker is bound to shatter a normal man's hand and arm.

P.S. Before my senior year I hit an old mirror with a haymaker the exact same way, like over 200 stitches and dissolvable stitches to sew the extensor tendons in my all my fingers back together. Well therapy and flexibility, and some hypotonia (ragdoll syndrome) allowed me to get full use back quickly.

Originally posted by Galan007
You're claiming the material was brittle, despite having nothing....concrete 😖hifty:....to support your claim.

So no, the burden of proof is not on me... Nor is it on you.

We already have some proof that it wasn't concrete simply by the fact that it doesn't look and behave like concrete. May not be full-proof evidence but it's still better than what you have. So if you still want to insist that it was made of concrete, then the burden of proof now lies on you. For most of us, we're just calling it as we see it, that it doesn't look like it was made of concrete.

For what it's worth, I do think it was concrete on the outside... just not solid concrete through and through. With a different material for backing.

Then again, I saw that we all agree that Spock wins this anyway, so not sure why we need to continue debating.

it was neither brittle material nor solid concrete.

the force it would take to put a 2-3 impact hole into steel reinforced concrete would easily put a fist size hole through bruce wayne's face.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Ok, I was wrong about who you thought wins. I also found where you admitted that it could have been plaster...so I guess there is no need to continue.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Same. Why show it otherwise? Occam's razor, etc.

Originally posted by FrothByte
We already have some proof that it wasn't concrete simply by the fact that it doesn't look and behave like concrete. May not be full-proof evidence but it's still better than what you have. So if you still want to insist that it was made of concrete, then the burden of proof now lies on you. For most of us, we're just calling it as we see it, that it doesn't look like it was made of concrete.

For what it's worth, I do think it was concrete on the outside... just not solid concrete through and through. With a different material for backing.

Then again, I saw that we all agree that Spock wins this anyway, so not sure why we need to continue debating.

What you *sort of* have is 'proof' that the pillar was coated in a very thin layer of brittle material(the stuff you see sluffing away from the rest of the pillar in the film.) What you certainly do not have is proof regarding what the pillar was made of underneath that very thin layer of brittle material. As I said earlier: Bane's fist clearly went much deeper into the pillar then the thickness of that layer.

So no. I do not have to 'prove' anything, because nothing can be 'proven', because there is no definitive 'proof' to be had one way or the other. Same coin: you cannot 'prove' anything for the very same reasons-- remember, this discussion is based exclusively on how we personally feel Nolan intended to convey that scene. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by Galan007
You're hugely overrating the 'proof' you *think* you have.

What you *sort of* have is 'proof' that the pillar was coated in a very thin layer of brittle material(the stuff you see sluffing away from the rest of the pillar in the film.) What you certainly do not have is proof regarding what the pillar was made of underneath that very thin layer of brittle material. As I said earlier: Bane's fist clearly went much deeper into the pillar then the thickness of that layer.

So no. I do not have to 'prove' anything, because nothing can be 'proven', because there is no definitive 'proof' to be had one way or the other. Same coin: you cannot 'prove' anything for the very same reasons-- remember, this discussion is based exclusively on how we personally feel Nolan intended to convey that scene. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ok let me tackle this another way. Let's say we see a white horse in a movie.

Us: "It's a white horse".
You: "No, it's a black horse".
Us: "Prove that it's a black horse".
You: "Prove that it's a white horse".
Us: "Just look at it. It's colored white".
You: "That's not proof. Just because that's what it looks like doesn't mean that's how it was meant to be. It may just be lousy props. We don't know what color it is because we don't know what color the director wanted it to be".

See the difference? We're not as much "proving" anything as just simply stating the obvious. The pillar obviously didn't look like it was made of solid concrete, so we assume that it wasn't solid concrete. You keep insisting that it is despite there being no indication that it's supposed to be concrete, therefore you provide the proof because all we're doing is stating how we see it whereas you're stating something different without any visual evidence whatsoever.

Originally posted by Galan007

So no. I do not have to 'prove' anything, because nothing can be 'proven', because there is no definitive 'proof' to be had one way or the other. Same coin: you cannot 'prove' anything for the very same reasons-- remember, this discussion is based exclusively on how we personally feel Nolan intended to convey that scene. Nothing more, nothing less.

So wouldn't that make the "pillar busting" feat not a true feat? I mean if the material of the pillar is a matter of opinion then we can't say for certain how much force he had to exert to bust it up. Anyways I guess this question has little to do with anything. I just read your (quoted) response and wondered where you stood on this.

I thought it looked like concrete...

Originally posted by FrothByte
Ok let me tackle this another way. Let's say we see a white horse in a movie.

Us: "It's a white horse".
You: "No, it's a black horse".
Us: "Prove that it's a black horse".
You: "Prove that it's a white horse".
Us: "Just look at it. It's colored white".
You: "That's not proof. Just because that's what it looks like doesn't mean that's how it was meant to be. It may just be lousy props. We don't know what color it is because we don't know what color the director wanted it to be".

See the difference? We're not as much "proving" anything as just simply stating the obvious. The pillar obviously didn't look like it was made of solid concrete, so we assume that it wasn't solid concrete. You keep insisting that it is despite there being no indication that it's supposed to be concrete, therefore you provide the proof because all we're doing is stating how we see it whereas you're stating something different without any visual evidence whatsoever.

Referring to the pillar exclusively as a 'white horse' implies that there is tenable evidence to suggest that the 'horse' is, in fact, 'white'. There isn't. As far as what we can prove with tenable evidence, the 'horse' is neither white nor black-- it is grey(both literally AND figuratively, it would seem.) Why? Because its 'color' cannot be definitively proven one way or the other.

Again: this discussion is based solely on each of our personal opinions regarding how we think Nolan intended to portray Bane's strength in that sequence, because there is no way to incontrovertibly prove what the pillar was made of. I've said this several times now... Is it really this hard to grasp?

In the end, I don't care what you think the pillar is made of-- but please refrain from acting like your interpretation of the scene is the only correct one.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I thought it looked like concrete...

Spock kills him.

Khan would rip Bane in half.

Spock did pretty well against him.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Ok, I was wrong about who you thought wins. I also found where you admitted that it could have been plaster...so I guess there is no need to continue.

👆

+2 respect for admitting fault and moving on.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Carrying a man with one arm (I don't recall him lifting Batman over his head with one arm) is a feat that can be replicated by regular strongmen competitors and gymnasts. So still within the boundaries of human fitness.

Punching through a concrete pillar.... well I've yet to see humans do that.

Holding Batman, bodyweight and uniform and all, with one hand, while casually walking, is something gymnasts can do? Seriously? Maybe the strongest of men sure, but nothing close to a gymnast. Heck of the two feats, Id say punching cracks into concrete would be the more real one over comparing it to that.

Originally posted by DTM
Holding Batman, bodyweight and uniform and all, with one hand, while casually walking, is something gymnasts can do? Seriously? Maybe the strongest of men sure, but nothing close to a gymnast. Heck of the two feats, Id say punching cracks into concrete would be the more real one over comparing it to that.

Gymnasts carry each other one handed while hanging upside down. *shrugs*. Sure no body armor, but it's not too far of a stretch from there.

Originally posted by dadudemon
👆

+2 respect for admitting fault and moving on.

-5 for pretending that this is something you practice rather than derail the topic. 👇

ridiculous hypocrite

Originally posted by focus4chumps
-5 for pretending that this is something you practice...

But...I do...and there's nothing in my post that says it is something I practice. 😐

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ridiculous hypocrite

You don't know what those words mean.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So, the argument is now "Rachel and Batman have superhuman durability?"

Originally posted by dadudemon
But...I do... 😐

So you now apologise for three pages of trolling and recognise that the Nazis actually DID steal Walt's money, despite your repeated claims that they didn't - despite all screenfeats, script and admission from Jack that it was Walt's money..?
😐

Oh you don't: Well +2 points for at least recognising your betters.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Pretty much.At least as far as them falling on a tax's hood from a multi-storey height goes.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
So you now apologise for three pages of trolling and recognise that the Nazis actually DID steal Walt's money, despite your repeated claims that they didn't - despite all screenfeats, script and admission from Jack that it was Walt's money..?
😐

Oh you don't: Well +2 points for at least recognising your betters.

I apologize that my subjective opinion offended you. I never intended offense, good sir.

no that was actually not a subjective opinion.

it was a complete contradiction to established fact. a falsehood. a lie. the ignorant false assertions of a pathetic man-child. ...etc.

its clear you lack the intelligence to know the difference so lets just drop it. 🙂