Les Jones: Batman and Iron Man vs. Spiderman and Thor: Who is More Realistic?

July 21, 2008

Comic Books > Batman and Iron Man vs. Spiderman and Thor: Who is More Realistic?

jmcbain tips a fascinating interview in Scientific American with a professor of kinesiology and neuroscience (and a 26-year practitioner of Chito-Ryu karate-do). The question was, how much training would it take for a normal person to become Batman? The professor says: "You could train somebody to be a tremendous athlete and to have a significant martial arts background, and also to use some of the gear that he has, which requires a lot of physical prowess... In terms of the physical skills to be able to defend himself against all these opponents all the time, I would benchmark that at 10 to 12 years." The problem is, even after that amount of training, no one could remain on top of their game for more than a few years. And "Batman can't really afford to lose. Losing means death — or at least not being able to be Batman anymore."

For a time I preferred "realistic" superheroes like Batman and Ironman over Spiderman (who got his powers by the unlikely avenue of a radioactive spider bite) and Thor (who is a god).

Now I'm not so sure. God, human, or radioactive spider-bitten human, you only get 24 hours in your day. Ironman and Batman have to split their time between being CEOs of multinational corporations, building their own equipment, training, and having the social lives of playboy billionaires, while also shoehorning in some crimefighting.

It's easier to believe that Peter Parker is juggling superhero work, taking care of Aunt May, dating Mary Jane, and staging Spiderman photos for the Daily ~~Beacon~~ Bugle, especially since he's usually doing at least one of those things badly. At least he doesn't have to build and program his own Spider Computer or engineer his personal transportation.

Posted by lesjones | TrackBack

Comments

Daily Bugle.

Posted by: ColtCCO at July 21, 2008

I read an interview once in which Stan Lee said inspiration for Iron Man came in part from Howard Hughes. That theme is alluded to in the movie by reference to Stark's dad being a baron of industry who helped win WWII.

I think Hughes is as close as you could come in flesh and blood to Tony Stark the ceaseless inventor, multi-billionaire, playboy, high speed adventurer with a penchant for self-medication. Hughes was able to design, build and fly his own planes, while running a movie studio, dating movie stars, ticking off government officials and taking care of business with TWA.

Hughes had it all. And the only thing it cost him was his sanity. I've always thought that's probably how Stark winds up. I've always loved Iron Man. One of my all time favorites from childhood. But if you played out the character of Tony Stark to his natural conclusion, he surely must wind up an insane recluse like Hughes, or else go out in a blaze of glory. There's no way he settles down and dies with his boots on.

Posted by: Chris Range at July 21, 2008

Oh, right. The Daily Beacon is the newspaper where I worked. :-)

Posted by: Les Jones at July 21, 2008