Bale's Batman can only fight with his elbows, so not him
Bale wins with his elbows
Bale got his buck broken by Bane. He wouldn't stand a chance against a venom-enhanced Battinson
Bale wins Bane venom was stronger
Nolan's Batman is too "grounded" in the real world to really have that level of hand to hand combat skill (assuming this is how they're fighting). Pattinson's Batman is "closer", I guess, to matching the ridiculous nature of Comic book Batman.
Bale wins because he had more closer to comic fight
pattinson wins the dick sucking round of the competition
bale wins everything else
>Never actually uses batashuriken in the entire movie and even in the next one
Why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FW9Sqxb-4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyXBQwwywT0
Nolan's Batman is too "grounded" in the real world to really have that level of Hand to Hand combat skill (assuming this is how they're fighting). Pattinson's Batman is "closer", I guess, to matching the ridiculous nature of Comic book Batman.
>lost >beats them all up
Losing is a term that when used during a battle, usually refers to the people unconscious or on the ground.
The winner of a fight would usually be standing above those he beat, still conscious.
https://i.imgur.com/F0zhZSK.jpg
Realistically, who would win?
Pattinson clears btw. Baleman struggled against fricking dogs in Year Two and almost got beat by the Joker with a crowbar.
Nolan essentially turned Joker into Riddler, and didn't have anything else for Joker to threaten Batman with after he solved his games.
So Nolan made Joker physically capable of one-upping Batman to the point where Bruce had to rely on a gadget to stop him instead of his strength.
It's a choice that I still don't understand.
So did Bale, moron.
Except Bale didn't immediately in return save Catwoman from being killed, whereas Pattinson did.
In fact, Batman in no point in TDKR saved Catwoman from anything. Whereas in The Batman, he saves Catwoman multiple times.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Wrong, he saves her from Bane's men on the rooftop
7 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah she was definitely fricked.
It's not like she had a valuable hostage and was holding a gun to his head, and immediately started fighting before Batman had even jumped down.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Batman literally tells her that they don't care about her hostage right before he saves her.
>petite bawd immediately gets shit on >have to save her while you die >beat up the final goon after beating the rest of them up
Yes that means you win anon.
When you eliminate all enemies against you, you win.
You do know what winning entails?
[...]
The Joker was wailing on him with a crowbar while he was being mauled by three dogs*
That is a realistic obstacle for a superhero who is a rich guy in a slightly armored suit.
Somehow ambushing the Joker whilst he was surrounded by the dogs (and whilst being under time pressure by the SWAT team clearing the building) was obviously not going to happen. It feels like a plausible outcome.
The dog shit is dumb enough.
But after the dogs are down and Batman gets fricked up by a crowbar because his sonar vision is glitching?
It makes him look incredibly lame.
7 months ago
Anonymous
you understand that conflicts can start and stop, right? your entire life isn't considered one, long fight. also, you betray yourself by previously agreeing that the petite bawd "saved" him. if he was winning the entire time then why did he need saving? the Cinemaphileners won, battinson lost, and he's only alive because the mixed-girl has a thing for white dudes.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>conflicts start and stop when I say they do!
Legendary cope.
The final fight is Batman vs Riddler Goons.
That fight ends when either Batman is defeated by the Riddler's men, or Batman defeats the Riddler's men.
The only one of those that occurs is the latter. Therefore, Batman won.
This isn't hard anon. I know you're reaching because you want to be right, but believe me, it isn't going to work. >if he was always winning he wouldn't need help!
But anon, by your logic, your entire life isn't considered one big fight. What if the fight was taking a break during that moment? Or maybe it ended right after he beat the first goon?
After all, you understand conflicts can start and stop, right?
7 months ago
Anonymous
kek, you must be pretty low IQ to habitually dig the holes you fall into.
>implies i'm using an arbitrary cut-off >frames the conflict as batman vs goons
so when catwoman enters the fight, it becomes a new conflict then, right? batman and catwoman vs goon(s) is different. so my methodology for when the previous fight ends and the new one begins isn't arbitrary at all, you even agree to with it.
>But anon, by your logic, your entire life isn't considered one big fight. What if the fight was taking a break during that moment? Or maybe it ended right after he beat the first goon?
After all, you understand conflicts can start and stop, right?
this is literal gibberish. has nothing to do with the conversation taking place.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>So when someone else enters the fight it's still Batman v Goons?
Is Batman still fighting the goons?
Then yes. He started the fight, and until he loses, is still in the fight.
He never lost. You can say he was gonna, but did he?
No. Therefore, Batman won the fight. Add in as many people as you want. But if Batman makes the ending blows each time, Batman is the winner. >LITERAL gibberish!
Yes, your arguments are. I'm glad you seeing them reworked for yourself helped you understand.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>he never lost
you already conceded this by agreeing that catwoman saved him.
>Therefore, batman won the fight.
he won the following conflict, not the original. this isn't that hard to comprehend kek.
>Batman is the winner.
we're back to your fascination with "all events are one, continuous event."
>implying you're reframing my argument back to me
a strawman isn't a proper reframing, it's why it's called a fallacy you moron kek. my premises of my argument have not changed from my first post while you have had to gymnastics your way out of two holes you've dug for yourself. now all you're doing is repeating points you made earlier that i've already refuted (and that you've failed to defend) and hoping i lack a short-term memory lol. do you think your argumentation is good? seriously, do you think of yourself as being smart?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>catwoman saved him
You can be saved without having lost yet. Like I said, he was going to, but he didn't. He was saved before he lost.
So, he didn't lose. >He won the following conflict not the original
The following is the exact same conflict as the original. There was no end to it. Catwoman came in and extended it, until Batman ended it.
He was going to lose, got saved from losing, and won.
Simple idea, kek. >we're back to your fascination with-
Except this is one continuous event.
You can't prove it isn't.
You can say it isn't, but you can't prove it isn't. Whereas I can prove it is. >implying youre (long ass cope ensues)-
Seems it did the trick.
dude, they almost had him
And villains almost having Batman is a common trope.
That's why one of the best Batman episodes is called >Almost Got Im'
7 months ago
Anonymous
ah, i see that we're resorting to the full-moron semantics portion of the conversation where you pretend to use language in a way that no one else does simply for the sake of winning an argument. this is rich coming from the moron sperging about "cope" and had earlier said: >This isn't hard anon. I know you're reaching because you want to be right
>You can be saved without having lost
you're just doing more of what i said you're doing which is repeating points that you haven't defended, that i've refuted already, and hoping that simply saying them again makes them true. you've glossed over this question once cause you can't answer it. why does batman need saving? what does it imply that he requires saving?
>The following is the exact same conflict as the original.
i had a fist fight with my friend Bob in first grade. I also had a fist fight with him at 90 years old. are these indistinguishable to you? at age 20 i had another fist fight with Bob and his friend Jane. are these all the same? just one, long fight right?
>You can't prove it isn't. I can prove it is.
you conceded this already by framing the original conflict as batman vs goons. lol, you just repeat yourself and hope the other party won't notice. again, do you think you possess good argumentative skills? you unironically think you're smart, don't you?
>long ass cope
hilarious coming from the person definitely read everything i said and that's still struggling to get past the first level of this conversation.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>You can be saved without having lost yet. Like I said, he was going to, but he didn't. He was saved before he lost. >So, he didn't lose.
Unreal cope
7 months ago
Anonymous
You do understand that there is a difference between doing something and about to be doing something?
If you are about to cry, you haven't cried yet.
If you see cope as a grasp on the English language, then you might be in need of an education.
ah, i see that we're resorting to the full-moron semantics portion of the conversation where you pretend to use language in a way that no one else does simply for the sake of winning an argument. this is rich coming from the moron sperging about "cope" and had earlier said: >This isn't hard anon. I know you're reaching because you want to be right
>You can be saved without having lost
you're just doing more of what i said you're doing which is repeating points that you haven't defended, that i've refuted already, and hoping that simply saying them again makes them true. you've glossed over this question once cause you can't answer it. why does batman need saving? what does it imply that he requires saving?
>The following is the exact same conflict as the original.
i had a fist fight with my friend Bob in first grade. I also had a fist fight with him at 90 years old. are these indistinguishable to you? at age 20 i had another fist fight with Bob and his friend Jane. are these all the same? just one, long fight right?
>You can't prove it isn't. I can prove it is.
you conceded this already by framing the original conflict as batman vs goons. lol, you just repeat yourself and hope the other party won't notice. again, do you think you possess good argumentative skills? you unironically think you're smart, don't you?
>long ass cope
hilarious coming from the person definitely read everything i said and that's still struggling to get past the first level of this conversation.
>you're using semantics!
Ah yes, how dare I use words in a discussion. >Why does Batman need saving!
Because he was going to lose. I've made this clear. He was winning, then was going to lose, and then won.
Again, there is a difference between doing something and about to be doing something.
In that situation, him losing would be getting shot in the face.
That did not happen. Therefore, he did not lose in that situation. >I had a fist fight with someone again ninety years later are they the same-
No. But if you're fighting Bob, Bob pushes you down, someone hits Bob, helps you back up, and then you hit Bob until he can't get back up, you have beat Bob.
The fight never ended just because you fell, because you were able to get back up and beat him.
This is incredibly simple anon. I'm worried that I'm debating someone who is not 18. >you unironically-
More cope ensues. >hilarious coming from-
More cope ensues.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>haha! i can't use words???
employing the "only address the strawman of a portion of a point rather than the whole." a sign of true desperation and cope, and more cope, and further cope, cope.
>In that situation, him losing would be getting shot in the face. That did not happen. Therefore, he did not lose in that situation.
all this cope. batman getting shot in the face would be him dying which is a consequence of him losing the fight. he had already lost the fight literally and figuratively. he literally could not fight any longer as evidenced by his inability to protect himself while a dude with a shotgun aimed at his head. this is hilarious coming from a dude that accuses others of arbitrary definitions to suit an argument.
>No.
kek. you just conceded the entire argument again.
it was entertaining for a bit, moron. you need to drastically alter your self-image though.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Most of this is cope. I'll respond to the one interesting point. >a consequence of him losing is him getting killed
No, that would be the losing itself.
Again, about to lose or almost losing is not the same as losing.
Just as screaming is not the same as almost screaming. Or about to be screaming.
He had not literally lost the fight. If someone holds a gun to your head, you have not lost. Figuratively or conceptually, losing could be in your near future.
But until nothing can be done to stop your loss, you haven't lost.
I hope one day you grasp English. The ESL journey is a tough one, but I think you can manage it.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Why is it dumb? It's a logical counter to a guy who doesn't use firearms. Dogs are dangerous.
Nolan essentially turned Joker into Riddler, and didn't have anything else for Joker to threaten Batman with after he solved his games.
So Nolan made Joker physically capable of one-upping Batman to the point where Bruce had to rely on a gadget to stop him instead of his strength.
It's a choice that I still don't understand.
The Joker was wailing on him with a crowbar while he was being mauled by three dogs*
That is a realistic obstacle for a superhero who is a rich guy in a slightly armored suit.
Somehow ambushing the Joker whilst he was surrounded by the dogs (and whilst being under time pressure by the SWAT team clearing the building) was obviously not going to happen. It feels like a plausible outcome.
Batman makes no fricking sense, why would hardened murderers be at all threatened by a guy who doesn’t kill. It makes Batfleck the superior Batman unironically and that’s a low fricking bar. Not to mention he’s a hypocrite, he “doesn’t kill” and “doesn’t use guns” yet he drives a tank armed with fricking rockets get the frick out of here.
Plus this guy saw his parents get killed as a child and now dresses up as a bat. I don’t even want to imagine what his sexuality is but it can’t be normal. Batman is cringe.
And dont forget this homie is an ultra rich mf who goes out at night to beat up poor people. Like as a wagie I find it fricking offensive. He’s a fricking fascist.
>be a low-level career criminal >head to local watering hole to see what's what >see Jimmy >haven't seen him in thre years since he got busted >he's gkt crutches >get over to him and he's got one fricking leg >"yeah we got busted by the bat last time... some of us literally. Turns out that batman broke my knee so bad the shards of bone cause permanent damage to the nerves and tendons. They had to amputate...
As opposed to getting tortured to death by the mob? Not exactly comparable if you wanna talk deterrence for crime. You’re not exactly making a point here.
It's mind shattering how Batfleck unironically blew all the other live action Bats out of the water. Even Bale and Keaton who at the time were the quintessential live action Batman look like children in cosplay compared to Batfleck.
BatKeaton was the worst Batman, he killed and put a bomb on people.
Like that youtube man said.
And yes all the other Batmans sucks too. Literally only Clooney doesn't.
Battinson no diff
Bale wins
Bale wins no diff
Bale wins with his elbows
Bale wins Bane venom was stronger
Bale wins because he had more closer to comic fight
Bale wins anyway
Bale's Batman can only fight with his elbows, so not him
What was Nolan thinking?
That it’s an effective up close striking technique that maintains guard.
>
>ZA BATTO POWWAHHHH
>Never actually uses batashuriken in the entire movie and even in the next one
Why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FW9Sqxb-4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyXBQwwywT0
Bale at the time of Batman probably has 50lbs on that twink
Bale got his buck broken by Bane. He wouldn't stand a chance against a venom-enhanced Battinson
Nolan's Batman is too "grounded" in the real world to really have that level of Hand to Hand combat skill (assuming this is how they're fighting). Pattinson's Batman is "closer", I guess, to matching the ridiculous nature of Comic book Batman.
Adam West would annihilate them both at once because he didn’t have to Frankenstein around in 60 pounds of rubber and useless doodads
Bale wins easily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs66p5jQ9dM
didn't battinson almost die to a gang of Cinemaphileners?
no
?si=4tf1CYZUYcZjavGo
you sure? cause it kinda looks like he lost to a gang of Cinemaphileners that borrowed their dad's guns.
Rifles are good
Guy was tanking shots with his armor tho, hardly losing and more dumb cause he could have avoided them
>lost
>beats them all up
Losing is a term that when used during a battle, usually refers to the people unconscious or on the ground.
The winner of a fight would usually be standing above those he beat, still conscious.
Pattinson clears btw. Baleman struggled against fricking dogs in Year Two and almost got beat by the Joker with a crowbar.
How batman can ever lose to the joker is astounding to me
preptime
Nolan essentially turned Joker into Riddler, and didn't have anything else for Joker to threaten Batman with after he solved his games.
So Nolan made Joker physically capable of one-upping Batman to the point where Bruce had to rely on a gadget to stop him instead of his strength.
It's a choice that I still don't understand.
Crazy strength. It’s like moron strength but with the moronation.
He had to be saved by Catwoman or he would have had his brains blown out.
So did Bale, moron.
Except Bale didn't immediately in return save Catwoman from being killed, whereas Pattinson did.
In fact, Batman in no point in TDKR saved Catwoman from anything. Whereas in The Batman, he saves Catwoman multiple times.
Wrong, he saves her from Bane's men on the rooftop
Yeah she was definitely fricked.
It's not like she had a valuable hostage and was holding a gun to his head, and immediately started fighting before Batman had even jumped down.
Batman literally tells her that they don't care about her hostage right before he saves her.
>about to get your entire skull buck'd open
>petite bawd drops down 10 stories to save you
>haha, this makes me the victor
?
>petite bawd immediately gets shit on
>have to save her while you die
>beat up the final goon after beating the rest of them up
Yes that means you win anon.
When you eliminate all enemies against you, you win.
You do know what winning entails?
The dog shit is dumb enough.
But after the dogs are down and Batman gets fricked up by a crowbar because his sonar vision is glitching?
It makes him look incredibly lame.
you understand that conflicts can start and stop, right? your entire life isn't considered one, long fight. also, you betray yourself by previously agreeing that the petite bawd "saved" him. if he was winning the entire time then why did he need saving? the Cinemaphileners won, battinson lost, and he's only alive because the mixed-girl has a thing for white dudes.
>conflicts start and stop when I say they do!
Legendary cope.
The final fight is Batman vs Riddler Goons.
That fight ends when either Batman is defeated by the Riddler's men, or Batman defeats the Riddler's men.
The only one of those that occurs is the latter. Therefore, Batman won.
This isn't hard anon. I know you're reaching because you want to be right, but believe me, it isn't going to work.
>if he was always winning he wouldn't need help!
But anon, by your logic, your entire life isn't considered one big fight. What if the fight was taking a break during that moment? Or maybe it ended right after he beat the first goon?
After all, you understand conflicts can start and stop, right?
kek, you must be pretty low IQ to habitually dig the holes you fall into.
>implies i'm using an arbitrary cut-off
>frames the conflict as batman vs goons
so when catwoman enters the fight, it becomes a new conflict then, right? batman and catwoman vs goon(s) is different. so my methodology for when the previous fight ends and the new one begins isn't arbitrary at all, you even agree to with it.
>But anon, by your logic, your entire life isn't considered one big fight. What if the fight was taking a break during that moment? Or maybe it ended right after he beat the first goon?
After all, you understand conflicts can start and stop, right?
this is literal gibberish. has nothing to do with the conversation taking place.
>So when someone else enters the fight it's still Batman v Goons?
Is Batman still fighting the goons?
Then yes. He started the fight, and until he loses, is still in the fight.
He never lost. You can say he was gonna, but did he?
No. Therefore, Batman won the fight. Add in as many people as you want. But if Batman makes the ending blows each time, Batman is the winner.
>LITERAL gibberish!
Yes, your arguments are. I'm glad you seeing them reworked for yourself helped you understand.
>he never lost
you already conceded this by agreeing that catwoman saved him.
>Therefore, batman won the fight.
he won the following conflict, not the original. this isn't that hard to comprehend kek.
>Batman is the winner.
we're back to your fascination with "all events are one, continuous event."
>implying you're reframing my argument back to me
a strawman isn't a proper reframing, it's why it's called a fallacy you moron kek. my premises of my argument have not changed from my first post while you have had to gymnastics your way out of two holes you've dug for yourself. now all you're doing is repeating points you made earlier that i've already refuted (and that you've failed to defend) and hoping i lack a short-term memory lol. do you think your argumentation is good? seriously, do you think of yourself as being smart?
>catwoman saved him
You can be saved without having lost yet. Like I said, he was going to, but he didn't. He was saved before he lost.
So, he didn't lose.
>He won the following conflict not the original
The following is the exact same conflict as the original. There was no end to it. Catwoman came in and extended it, until Batman ended it.
He was going to lose, got saved from losing, and won.
Simple idea, kek.
>we're back to your fascination with-
Except this is one continuous event.
You can't prove it isn't.
You can say it isn't, but you can't prove it isn't. Whereas I can prove it is.
>implying youre (long ass cope ensues)-
Seems it did the trick.
And villains almost having Batman is a common trope.
That's why one of the best Batman episodes is called
>Almost Got Im'
ah, i see that we're resorting to the full-moron semantics portion of the conversation where you pretend to use language in a way that no one else does simply for the sake of winning an argument. this is rich coming from the moron sperging about "cope" and had earlier said:
>This isn't hard anon. I know you're reaching because you want to be right
>You can be saved without having lost
you're just doing more of what i said you're doing which is repeating points that you haven't defended, that i've refuted already, and hoping that simply saying them again makes them true. you've glossed over this question once cause you can't answer it. why does batman need saving? what does it imply that he requires saving?
>The following is the exact same conflict as the original.
i had a fist fight with my friend Bob in first grade. I also had a fist fight with him at 90 years old. are these indistinguishable to you? at age 20 i had another fist fight with Bob and his friend Jane. are these all the same? just one, long fight right?
>You can't prove it isn't. I can prove it is.
you conceded this already by framing the original conflict as batman vs goons. lol, you just repeat yourself and hope the other party won't notice. again, do you think you possess good argumentative skills? you unironically think you're smart, don't you?
>long ass cope
hilarious coming from the person definitely read everything i said and that's still struggling to get past the first level of this conversation.
>You can be saved without having lost yet. Like I said, he was going to, but he didn't. He was saved before he lost.
>So, he didn't lose.
Unreal cope
You do understand that there is a difference between doing something and about to be doing something?
If you are about to cry, you haven't cried yet.
If you see cope as a grasp on the English language, then you might be in need of an education.
>you're using semantics!
Ah yes, how dare I use words in a discussion.
>Why does Batman need saving!
Because he was going to lose. I've made this clear. He was winning, then was going to lose, and then won.
Again, there is a difference between doing something and about to be doing something.
In that situation, him losing would be getting shot in the face.
That did not happen. Therefore, he did not lose in that situation.
>I had a fist fight with someone again ninety years later are they the same-
No. But if you're fighting Bob, Bob pushes you down, someone hits Bob, helps you back up, and then you hit Bob until he can't get back up, you have beat Bob.
The fight never ended just because you fell, because you were able to get back up and beat him.
This is incredibly simple anon. I'm worried that I'm debating someone who is not 18.
>you unironically-
More cope ensues.
>hilarious coming from-
More cope ensues.
>haha! i can't use words???
employing the "only address the strawman of a portion of a point rather than the whole." a sign of true desperation and cope, and more cope, and further cope, cope.
>In that situation, him losing would be getting shot in the face. That did not happen. Therefore, he did not lose in that situation.
all this cope. batman getting shot in the face would be him dying which is a consequence of him losing the fight. he had already lost the fight literally and figuratively. he literally could not fight any longer as evidenced by his inability to protect himself while a dude with a shotgun aimed at his head. this is hilarious coming from a dude that accuses others of arbitrary definitions to suit an argument.
>No.
kek. you just conceded the entire argument again.
it was entertaining for a bit, moron. you need to drastically alter your self-image though.
Most of this is cope. I'll respond to the one interesting point.
>a consequence of him losing is him getting killed
No, that would be the losing itself.
Again, about to lose or almost losing is not the same as losing.
Just as screaming is not the same as almost screaming. Or about to be screaming.
He had not literally lost the fight. If someone holds a gun to your head, you have not lost. Figuratively or conceptually, losing could be in your near future.
But until nothing can be done to stop your loss, you haven't lost.
I hope one day you grasp English. The ESL journey is a tough one, but I think you can manage it.
Why is it dumb? It's a logical counter to a guy who doesn't use firearms. Dogs are dangerous.
The Joker was wailing on him with a crowbar while he was being mauled by three dogs*
That is a realistic obstacle for a superhero who is a rich guy in a slightly armored suit.
Somehow ambushing the Joker whilst he was surrounded by the dogs (and whilst being under time pressure by the SWAT team clearing the building) was obviously not going to happen. It feels like a plausible outcome.
dude, they almost had him
>Thank god no one ever aims for his mouth.
4chinners dont leave the house
Why did Patman need so many gel pens?
to write into his little emo diary whenever he wants
Bale has the weight advantage and better gadgets
Batman Begins version beats Pattinson. Dark Knight version probably sucks Pattinson's wiener. Dark Knight Rises version gets fricked in the ass.
What's with the weird angle on that Baleman pic? I legit thought it was a prepubescent kid wearing a costume.
>IM
>NOT
>WEARING
>HOCKEY PADS
*sneeds you*
>Chad cryptid only seen in glimpses in the dark
>Virgin emo boy, tanking bullets in his invincible superman suit
>Thanks for standing up for me bro
Yw, Batman
Bale Batman because he has more experience.
Where is the meme though, please lurk more.
I don't know what you want from me.
Yeah exactly
>Breaks their limbs, snaps necks, and stabs their throats
>Kills everyone with a remote controlled bat gadget
>Goes home and eats cold soup
But it's vichyssoise. It's supposed to be cold.
>Shoots you
Count E. Ghonnit would easily beat him
Batman, hands down.
pattinson wins the dick sucking round of the competition
bale wins everything else
actually I'm not sure about the 1st part
Bale is VERY committed to his roles
Batman makes no fricking sense, why would hardened murderers be at all threatened by a guy who doesn’t kill. It makes Batfleck the superior Batman unironically and that’s a low fricking bar. Not to mention he’s a hypocrite, he “doesn’t kill” and “doesn’t use guns” yet he drives a tank armed with fricking rockets get the frick out of here.
Plus this guy saw his parents get killed as a child and now dresses up as a bat. I don’t even want to imagine what his sexuality is but it can’t be normal. Batman is cringe.
And dont forget this homie is an ultra rich mf who goes out at night to beat up poor people. Like as a wagie I find it fricking offensive. He’s a fricking fascist.
>be a low-level career criminal
>head to local watering hole to see what's what
>see Jimmy
>haven't seen him in thre years since he got busted
>he's gkt crutches
>get over to him and he's got one fricking leg
>"yeah we got busted by the bat last time... some of us literally. Turns out that batman broke my knee so bad the shards of bone cause permanent damage to the nerves and tendons. They had to amputate...
As opposed to getting tortured to death by the mob? Not exactly comparable if you wanna talk deterrence for crime. You’re not exactly making a point here.
Batfleck bodies them all and it's not even close
Yeah cause he actually bodies people it’s literally the only answer
WARESDUHDATONATUUH
>reaches for his bat-emo repellant
Do you guys think he does that voice when he fricks?
>the guy trained by ninjas
>or the guy who isn't
Powerful.
out of my way skinny boys
>batfat
gtfo
It's mind shattering how Batfleck unironically blew all the other live action Bats out of the water. Even Bale and Keaton who at the time were the quintessential live action Batman look like children in cosplay compared to Batfleck.
and the day he was announced as Batman everyone thought it was a terrible decision and made fun of it. Me included. He turned out to be based as frick
Bale's, experience
Holy shit, I hate the Batman fans on this board. Except the Batman '89 fans. You guys are cool.
BatKeaton was the worst Batman, he killed and put a bomb on people.
Like that youtube man said.
And yes all the other Batmans sucks too. Literally only Clooney doesn't.
>he killed and put a bomb on people
I fail to understand how that makes him the worst Batman.
he killed, killing is not Batman like.
so whyd you post a pic from batman returns?
The ninja one.
battinson whoops his ass