Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Iron Man is a ripoff of Batman


Matt Foley

Recommended Posts

Billionaire playboy, inherited wealth, gadgets galore, haunted past

The main difference is Batman's identity is a secret, but they couldn't completely rip off the character. Secondary difference...Iron Man has no Joker, just a bunch of villains who ripped off his stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theory...because the villains aren't over-the-top goofballs.

That and the fx are better AND Scarlett is in IM2, which trumps any chick in Batman.

I don't think Iron Man was better than Batman Begins or The Dark Knight... Haven't seen IM2 yet though...

As far as "getting back to your comic book roots," yes, Tony Stark is a similar character to Bruce Wayne...

I was referring to BB in my post above... TDK was good, but not great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good God, Batmans wanna be Girl Friend was the brokeback mountains sister!

She maybe is the uglyest freaking actress out there...I think her name is Molly Glyanhal?!?!?

Otherwise, I have never really thought about this comparison...it brings up a good point. However, u must take into consideration that Iron Man is Marvel Comics and Batman is DC comics. So its not like its one comic company trying to milk the audience on a "hot trendy superhero".

However, in a fight, as much as I hate to admit, Ironman wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Iron Man movies were just riding the coattails of Batman Beings/DK. I can see where there are similarities as both tried to move out of the "comic book universe" and more into the real world. The Batman reboots are much better though. As far as characters go, yes they are similar but a lot of comic-book characters follow the established superhero archetypes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wealthy playboy superhero, yes. Other than that, the differences stop there. Being that Wayne has beaten Superman, I would think that he could find a way to defeat Stark as well.

I have had to argue with many a people about how Batman beat the holy hell outta Superman.

ANYways, Batman and Spiderman are more alike. They are both considered the perfect example of an "anti-hero". Haunted pasts from murdered family members, vigilantes, secret identities, and conflicts with moral roots make their stories closer than comparing Bruce Wayne to Tony Stark. GRANTED Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne when not in costume are almost opposites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just wealthy. Both Stark and Wayne are wealthy beyond reality. They're both geniuses, but geniuses don't usually make money, so they both got their money from their parents. It's almost like Marvel saw Batman and said "hmm, let's tweak this and tweak that, but the man whose only superpower is his unlimited checkbook is too good not to do."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Would Morgan or Beason have been HOFers' if injuries hadn't derailed their careers?  I was not a close watcher of the game when Morgan was in his prime but I thought Beason had a few seasons at close to Lukes' level of play.
    • Franchise QBs feast when things are rolling and the tide that raises boats when things are going sideways.  Bryce isn't that. He's a complimentary player, that's it.  When the defense and STs are on point, he plays loose and it shows.  When we are in a dog fight and things haven't gone our way, he struggles.  It's that simple. He's not a horrible QB, but he's not top tier either.  So the question begs, is this worthy of a second contract?  The answer should be no.  It definitely is my answer. Bryce will never be a QB that can produce wins largely on his arm.  That's a FRANCHISE QB, any other QB is simply a placeholder at the starter's position until that guy can be found.   At some point the excuses of lack of weapons will be a straw man.  Heck, it's nearly there now.  I mean if he doesn't look even better than last year will we blame it on the TE position?  'Well if Bryce only had a player like Kelce, Kittle or Gronk on this team...'  Are we really going to do that?  
    • When I arrived at college, I was 18, not too much younger than some of these draft picks.  It was not a huge school, but there were guys on the team who were 21, 22, 23....playing ahead of me.  I was seventh on the depth chart.  Those guys have been through a few seasons, were stronger, more knowledgeable.  I was a better raw player than some of them, but those other factors matter.  As I grew stronger, more familiar with the playbook, and learned what it was like to play in college, I gradually improved and with that, I rose up the depth chart.  It took most of my freshman year for the light to come on.  Had the coach thrown me into the starting lineup day 1, I would have probably failed.    And that was college.  So I agree with you based on my experience on a much lower level.  Frankly, I think that is why so many kids drafted to fill huge gaps bust.  The teams are desperate.  Anyone who looks to fill vacancies in the starting lineup through the draft is desperate.  You draft depth to develop.  For this reason, I say, "Let Walker start for a while."  Maybe Brazzell can be our WR 4.  Throw Hunter into a rotation and ask him to do one or two things.  Freeling needs some strength and he needs to work on run blocking.
×
×
  • Create New...