×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

You, Too, Could Be Batman In 10 To 12 Years

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-the-pay-is-lousy dept.

Movies 493

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

493 comments

Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (4, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241383)

and replace them as they 'fail' ... that way we've always got a batman.

Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (5, Funny)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241693)

That would be an insane morale buster for the bad guys. Say you knife the Batman -- actually see your knife tear into his guts -- but he shoots his BatRope and BatDisappears for ten minutes. When he comes back he's replaced and as strong as ever, but you don't know that. All you know is that the Batman can't be killed. Maybe he's an immortal?? Maybe he's a demon?? It would be like one of those bunker busters that just completely deflate the enemy..

Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (5, Informative)

bigtimepie (947401) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242091)

This is the exact premise of The Phantom [imdb.com]. The son replaces the father as The Phantom, but the bad guys think it's always the same guy.

Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (5, Funny)

Mechanik (104328) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241759)

and replace them as they 'fail' ... that way we've always got a batman.

I am not the real Batman. My name is Ryan; I inherited the Batmobile from the previous Batman, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Batman either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Batman has been retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia.

Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (5, Funny)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241911)

>I am not the real Batman. My name is Ryan; I inherited the Batmobile from the previous Batman, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Batman either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Batman has been retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia.

Inconceivable!

Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (5, Funny)

Siridar (85255) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242121)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (1)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242123)

This is the ending to a Batman story by Frank Miller regarding Batman's "retirement".

He beats up Superman, fakes his death, goes underground and starts a Bat network of autonomous crime-fighting splinter cells. Ends with a bat cavern filled with bat-teens.

Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242227)

But Superman knows! Part of the victory is that Superman starts thinking for himself again.

haha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24241393)

trix are for kids mutherfucker!!

Where do we sign up? (1)

yoinkityboinkity (957937) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241397)

I wouldn't mind training for the rest of my life for such a job.

Re:Where do we sign up? (1)

archkittens (1272770) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241409)

how much does it pay, though?

Re:Where do we sign up? (5, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241501)

Well, given the size and scope of Bruce Wayne's awesome shit, I'd say quite well.

That, or its being a self-loathing billionaire industrialist that pays out.

Frankly, its probably not even in the scope of most slashdotters to end up being ATHF's Meatwad... after all, Meatwad makes the money, see; Meatwad gets the honeys, G...

and we don't :(

Re:Where do we sign up? (1)

archkittens (1272770) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241825)

Well, given the size and scope of Bruce Wayne's awesome shit, I'd say quite well.

That, or its being a self-loathing billionaire industrialist that pays out.

or maybe it's a self-loathing billionaire industrialist's orphaned son that pays out? honestly now, mommy and daddy's money came with interest and a nice bank statement!

honestly though, you need to aim for the nerdy girls. they're much smarter and much hotter than mere "honeys"

Re:Where do we sign up? (-1, Troll)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241929)

Well, given the size and scope of Bruce Wayne's awesome shit, I'd say quite well.

That, or its being a self-loathing billionaire industrialist that pays out.

or maybe it's a self-loathing billionaire industrialist's orphaned son that pays out? honestly now, mommy and daddy's money came with interest and a nice bank statement!

To quote Lil' Bush: "Jobs are for suckers -- you should get your money the old fashioned way: inheriting it from your rich parents. Its what we call a free market economy!"

honestly though, you need to aim for the nerdy girls. they're much smarter and much hotter than mere "honeys"

My high school girlfriend was a runner-up and spirit award winner for Miss Teen VA when we were 16; She was also a brown belt in karate. I can do alright for myself, I'm just in a slump since we broke off our engagement a few months ago (we got back together after college).

Not that's relevant. just sayin'.

Re:Where do we sign up? (5, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242179)

My high school girlfriend was a runner-up and spirit award winner for Miss Teen VA when we were 16

Alright, that does not add to the conversation. You're just using this opportunity to gloat.

Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (5, Funny)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241407)

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 â" or at least not being able to be Batman anymore."

So, after all that, we should all stick to our day-jobs? Thanks Slashdot, you saved us again!

Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (4, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241463)

Looking at Scientific American articles from even fifty years ago, let alone a century, shows how sadly dumbed down the magazine has become. It used to target a readership of average citizens who were keen on the nitty-gritty of scientific developments. Now it all flash and no substance, little different from Popular Science. The lesson American media teaches us: nothing good is every ultimately profitable as is.

Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (3, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241515)

Not to mention that there's a great deal of viral marketing in it now -- vis a vis this "article"

Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (1)

Holammer (1217422) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241871)

I seem to recall a similar article elsewhere last time they released a batman movie. Quite sad actually.

Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (2, Insightful)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241545)

Well, you do know that their job is to sell ads and subscriptions, not educate readers, right??

Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (2, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241605)

Dude, education is so overrated.
You can just 'feel' something about pokemon and have a PhD in "Pokemon Studies", anymore.
See http://www.dourish.com/goodies/decon.html [dourish.com]

Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24241985)

"Evento rerum stolidi didicere magistro" - The stupid have no teacher except their own experience and you just so happen to be one of the stupid. So why don't you get off of slashdot and the internet so you can get back to your sister you married illegally and the children you have together. When you are at home, you can kill everyone around you with your toxic chemicals eminating from your cigarette. Afterwards you could listen to conservative talk radio, get drunk and copulate with your sister.

Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (5, Informative)

smussman (1160103) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241589)

If you want magazine that does a good job summarizing recent developments in science in layman's terms (or pretty close), I've found Science News [sciencenews.org] to be pretty good. I certainly enjoy reading it, and I feel they do a good job of summarizing without dumbing down.

its pop science (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241687)

pop science is important. it is a gateway to serious science for many youngsters and average joes

you are dismayed it does not feature serious science

ok, so go read something else

why the hate for a magazine of pop science?

it serves a valuable function. are you angry that some obscure technical journal is not popular? so why are you angry that a piece of pop science is doing what a piece of pop science must do?

if it is serious science, it is relegated to obscurity, as a rule. because it needs to be digested for the masses, where anything popular takes place

why don't you understand this?

Re:its pop science (4, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241801)

Scientific American as it was had a unique role, presenting things in an approachable fashion but still being quite rigorous. It's shift towards a wider demographic means that there is no longer a magazine at that level. In terms of popular science magazines, there's already Discovery and Popular Science, so it's not as if without the new SA there would be no science gateways for young people.

Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24241867)

Yeah, and I remember when Slashdot actually posted articles that were NEWS for Nerds, and Stuff that MATTERS. There are a disturbing number of articles like this that make the front page these days.

You're, like, totally black there, kettle.

US education system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24241987)

Remember that when the US education system is criticized.

The US educational establishment has become not much more than a political patronage system.

And look who squeals like a stuck pig whenever that patronage system becomes threatened.

Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (4, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241991)

I like Scientific American - I don't think you're being fair. The "fun" articles are obvious and they are careful to make no claims of certainty. Actually, I really have to put my thinking cap on when they get into Astrophysics these days.

Just as a for-instance, their medical articles are top-notch... my wife is a physician and will often read them. Their environmental articles are also often very interesting. It's not like the whole issue is full of Batman trivia!

Of course, I also like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics - but those I approach more from a comic book angle. At least Popular Mechanics has practical car and home project advice.

Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (1)

markk (35828) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242047)

When that great American publisher the Holtzbrinck group bought them the target audience and style changed and it no longer was the SA of the Gerard Piel era. Oh wait Holtzbrinck is German ... and turned down the quality. Yep, it must be that American education system.

Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (1)

gregbot9000 (1293772) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242089)

The lesson American media teaches us: nothing good is every ultimately profitable as is.

Quite the opposite, there is a lot of good evidence to support the argument that the internet has had a marginal effect on declining newspaper circulation, and that the only strong correlation was between corporate ownership and newsroom cuts.

What this show is that magazines and newspapers are like any industry where a corporate overlord can kill the golden goose by running it into the ground. There's a lot of competition for the pulp science magazines and others are already taking it's place for serious science, I think the market will reward their actions very harshly.

Glad I don't read slashdot (5, Insightful)

iwein (561027) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242131)

Looking at Scientific American articles from even fifty years ago, let alone a century, shows how sadly dumbed down the magazine has become. It used to target a readership of average citizens who were keen on the nitty-gritty of scientific developments. Now it all flash and no substance, little different from Popular Science. The lesson American media teaches us: nothing good is every ultimately profitable as is.

Looking at /. from even 5 years ago, let alone 10, shows you how lame it has become. It used to be about news for nerds and stuff that matters, now it is just about wannabe nerds whining about Popular Science. The lesson: making useful comments ultimately ever informative as if.

Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (2, Interesting)

menace3society (768451) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242169)

You think SciAm is bad, try actually reading Popular Science. It's all science-fiction military technology.

Part of the problem is actually that the mainstream news has gotten much better science reporting, so the gap between the NYT or Newsweek and SciAm has gotten to be quite narrow. It's still not as good as SciAm used to be, but most major newspapers have, if not a legitimate 'science person' on staff, easily-accessible consultants who can help break things down for them. Once you add in Wikipedia and the open-access research movement, the niche the magazine used to occupy is almost entirely gone.

I'd go with the Charles Atlas method instead (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24241417)

It's only 90 days from being a weakling to stopping bullies from kicking sand in your face. Isn't that what most nerds here really seek?

Re:I'd go with the Charles Atlas method instead (2, Insightful)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241869)

Even the mostly testosterone filled martial arts class has more of a chance of containing an actual attractive female than training alone at home with just those comics for company.

Bonk (5, Funny)

usefulidiot127 (1317861) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241427)

I've still yet to figure out how I can get things like "Bam, Pow, Biff, Boom" to pop out in the air when I hit people. I think that would require more training than anything else.

How many years for the morals? (5, Insightful)

Scotteh (885130) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241449)

10 to 12 years for the physical training, but Batman was more than physical ability. He was in a position to determine right and wrong. That takes a lot longer to learn and not everyone is capable of such a task.

Re:How many years for the morals? (5, Interesting)

CauseWithoutARebel (1312969) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241699)

A large portion of the Batman storyline revolves around the question of whether or not that's really true.

One of the more poignant observations made in the comics was by Commissioner Gordon when he pointed out that there were always regular criminals in Gotham before Batman arrived, but there weren't any supervillians until after Batman made room for them.

Re:How many years for the morals? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241899)

The new movie is supposed to say the same thing. I haven't seen it yet, but i wouldn't be surprised as the title is Escalation, and Gordon made that exact comment to Batman in Dark Knight.

Re:How many years for the morals? (1)

GleeBot (1301227) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241917)

Umm... there weren't any supervillains until the storyline called for them. I'm not sure how "realistic" it is for supervillains to even exist, especially if some unstoppable vigilante is always picking them off.

Re:How many years for the morals? (4, Interesting)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241707)

Haven't you heard. Might makes right. So training for the skills is the same as training for the morals.

Re:How many years for the morals? (0)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241897)

He's also a borderline psychopath. The idea of vigilantism is loved by children but in the real world all vigilantes are just as bad as criminals. They dismiss your civil rights and take matters into their own hands. The idea that someone can 'determine right and wrong' on a fair level like this is silly. Who do you petition for legal recourse while receiving a beating? Like most comics the premise is fantasy.

A real batman would quickly be imprisoned and we'd be happy to see him there.

What about the other characters? (1)

greenguy (162630) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241963)

And don't forget the difficult in finding a steady, evenly-spaced series of dastardly but colorful villains to fight, each time managing to defeat them in a way that results in their death without actually killing them outright.

Then there's the several bit players who provide moral guidance to Batman, and also provide key bits of help at certain plot points, which makes up for their propensity to put themselves in danger on a regular basis.

And don't get me started on how hard it is to find a good sidekick!

Re:How many years for the morals? (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242061)

He was in a position to determine right and wrong. That takes a lot longer to learn and not everyone is capable of such a task.

So vigilantism is moral and some people are born irrecoverably amoral. Right...

It's a good thing kids these days are getting their ethical training from Grand Theft Auto rather than comic books. "Might makes right" is a lot healthier than the categorical "good" and "evil", with its holier-than-thou monsters dishing out selective justice.

Hmmm.... (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241475)

My money would definitely be on the Joker or Riddler against a "professor of kinesiology and neuroscience (and a 26-year practitioner of Chito-Ryu karate-do)".

Obligatory Neal Stephenson: (5, Interesting)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241479)

Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherfucker in the world. If I moved to a martial-arts monastery in China and studied real hard for ten years. If my family was wiped out by Colombian drug dealers and I swore myself to revenge. If I got a fatal disease, had one year to live, and devoted it to wiping out street crime. If I just dropped out and devoted my life to being bad.

Finishing the quote (5, Informative)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241725)

Hiro used to feel this way, too, but then he ran into Raven. In a way, this was liberating. He no longer has to worry about being the baddest motherfucker in the world. The position is taken.

Re:Obligatory Neal Stephenson: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24241815)

Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherfucker in the world. If I moved to a martial-arts monastery in China and studied real hard for ten years. If my family was wiped out by Colombian drug dealers and I swore myself to revenge. If I got a fatal disease, had one year to live, and devoted it to wiping out street crime. If I just dropped out and devoted my life to being bad.

So, what happens at 25? I mean, we have a guy in his 60s [wikipedia.org] that toppled the last remaining superpower in the world, making it a laughingstock and a mere shadow of what it was... and he's not done yet!

Seriously, though, the problem is that people give up trying to be badass too soon. Sure, you might not be the most badass ever, but you'd still be better off than you would slumming on the couch.

Re:Obligatory Neal Stephenson: (1)

GleeBot (1301227) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241945)

So, what happens at 25?

When you become 25, you've become wise enough to know better. Usually. Either that, or natural selection generally takes care of it.

Yeah, but... (1)

The Dancing Panda (1321121) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241499)

10-12 years to get all that spare cash too? I think we should train Bill Gates to be batman. How long until I can be Iron Man?

Losing != death (2, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241523)

Losing means death -- or at least not being able to be Batman anymore.

That's BS. The Adam West Batman lost and got captured tons of times. That's when his utility belt's contents really got interesting!

10,000 hours (4, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241581)

I remember a stat that I saw a long time ago (I can't remember who to attribute it to). But basically it said that with 10,000 hours of training you can go from zero to a world class practitioner in *any* field you choose. That could me artist, scientist, astronaut etc.

But I doubt that many people have the finances or drive to keep up such a regime until you achieve your goal. And thats what separates the world class people from the rest of us.

Of course some people do have a natural ability that also gives them a benefit. So I doubt a really short person could ever be competitive in a world class basketball - unless there was a league for really short people.

Re:10,000 hours (1)

thedistrict (1327685) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241659)

Well, natural ability can trim hours off that improvement schedule was my understanding. So someone with natural advantages might need only 9,000 hours or something before being 'world class.' It's also worthy of note that the 'world class' is rarely defined and it's hard to get on a grip on what that actually means. The best in the world? Or one of... It makes for interesting food for thought though. And maybe Bill Gates is the wrong choice for Iron Man, how about someone with a love for thrills like Richard Branson. He's certainly god the money.

Re:10,000 hours (2, Informative)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241809)

... Of course some people do have a natural ability that also gives them a benefit. So I doubt a really short person could ever be competitive in a world class basketball - unless there was a league for really short people.

Hmm, what qualifies as Really short [wikipedia.org] ? I'd pay special attention to the entries for Bogues, Boykins, and Webb.

Re:10,000 hours (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242185)

touche .. but I was thinking of sub-five foot people. So I think my unstated assumption ultimately wins as there are no sub-five foot players listed there :-)

Re:10,000 hours (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241937)

That's about six hours a day on most days for five years. With world class teaching and appropriate practice facilities, that sounds pretty consistent with what I've found in everything from playing a musical instrument to martial arts. Obviously there are going to be some prerequisites: someone is going to have to be fairly smart to become a world class chess player, or fairly tall to become a world class basketball player. But you can get seriously good at most things if you have the resources and you're willing to devote the time to it.

The thing I always regret with my hobbies is that I never appreciated the difference a really good teacher and training facilities can make when I was young enough to take advantage of them. By the time I found a teacher who could answer my deeper questions in most cases, I had already spent several years studying with mediocre teachers and without access to the best facilities, or in one case well over a decade just messing around and learning by experimentation without any guidance. These things do work up to a point — after all, someone had to work each difficult thing out first — but for most of my hobbies, I could probably have achieved in 1–2 years what in reality took me 5+ with a lesser teacher and limited facilites, or a decade of experimentation on my own.

Oh he'd stay on top of his game (5, Insightful)

bigattichouse (527527) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241591)

Staying on top of his game is all part of his psychosis. If you hadn't noticed, he's a bit of a whackjob himself.

I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years (2, Informative)

objekt (232270) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241649)

And did not become Batman. I started at age 33 and by age 39 I had been in Physical Therapy 3 times; once for neck pain and twice for hip pain. I was not very flexible when I started training and was equally inflexible when I stopped. At least I didn't get much worse.

On the plus side, for a while I was reasonably confident in my ability to defend myself in a fair fight against a similarly skilled and otherwise unarmed person. It's now been another 6 years I'm quite out of practice and out of shape.

So as usual, YMMV.

Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years (5, Insightful)

dino2gnt (1072530) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241799)

When you find yourself in a fair fight, it's time to reevaluate your tactics.

*Scientific American* does dumb questions now? (1)

toby (759) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241655)

First Reality TV, now this? What a sad joke on the decline of American relevance.

Batman? Phooey (4, Informative)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241671)

Batman is a wanker. Now, how many years would it take to become an awesome superhero, like Rorschach?
  • Physically — Not that much work involved, but you should be bad-ass in a bar fight
  • Gadgets — Buy a case of pantihose, paint some black splotches on it and you're there
  • Mentally — Spend at least two hours a day meditating on the fact that most human beings are whores and scum

Re:Batman? Phooey (1)

rufus t firefly (35399) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241995)

Don't worry, when the Watchmen movie [imdb.com] finally comes out, we'll get a huge pantload of depressing bunk about the "scientific" aspects of all of it. And faintly in the background, you'll hear Alan Moore grinding his teeth.

Also, when you say "Batman is a wanker", do you mean the character, or a specific interpretation of it? I mean, I think we can all agree that the Schumacher turd-like adaptation [imdb.com] was pretty awful, but the newer ones are much better. And Adam West's [imdb.com] is a little too campy for most people ...

Re:Batman? Phooey (1)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242133)

Why would you want to be Batman when you could be Bruce Wayne? Of course, I'm talking Movie Bruce Wayne, not Adam West Bruce Wayne.

It's more than physical ability and big money... (5, Insightful)

jvp (27996) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241715)

Yeah, the character has an almost super-human physique. And yes, he's got a big pile 'o cash that helps him afford the toys and tools he uses during his "night job". But there's more to it.

Wayne can out-think any of his opponents. His schtick is that he's 5-10 steps ahead of anyone. If he gets into a fight, he's already out-thought the opponent and knows exactly how the fight's going to end.

That's harder to teach. You could work someone for years so that they're at the peak of physical ability, and then dump a cubic f'load of cash on top of them. But they'd still be missing that keen tactical mind that Wayne has.

I don't care how good you are... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241729)

...more than a couple of attackers, and you're in trouble. Facing ten bad guys, short of some super-exo-skeleton that boosts your strength and armours your body against instantaneous impact and sustained pressure and torsion, you're going down hard, quickly. And no, they don't always helpfully attack one or two at a time: watch half a dozen cops taking down a violent drunk some time.

And if you're facing multiple bad guys with no possibility of escape, the only credible strategy is to try to put at least all-but-one of them down so hard they no longer present a threat. That means at least knocked out or injured seriously enough that they can't fight, not the cutesy pain compliance stuff. If they are weak and clueless when it comes to fight, you are fit and highly skilled when it comes to fighting, you can find some sort of weapon, you are lucky with the environment, and there aren't too many of them, you might just do this for long enough to create an opportunity to escape. Maybe, if you're really lucky.

But it's a fun read, I'll give it that. :-)

Re:I don't care how good you are... (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242029)

"And if you're facing multiple bad guys with no possibility of escape, the only credible strategy is to try to put at least all-but-one of them down so hard they no longer present a threat."

That's why we make firearms. All that unarmed combat bullshit is entertaining, but if you want to stop an opponent from functioning, kill him.

Re:I don't care how good you are... (1, Interesting)

The Dancing Panda (1321121) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242107)

There's a trick behind multiple attackers. 10 attackers is quite a few, and is very difficult, but not at all impossible if you're well trained and well prepared. Assuming you have some sort of weapon that the attackers don't (you're batman, right?) helps out.

The trick behind multiple attackers is moving around enough so that they eventually line up and come at you one or two at a time. If they've completely surrounded you you're in a bit of a mess, but usually there's a weak point of the circle that you can brute force your way through to get to the outside, then work on the 5 D's (Dodge duck dip dive dodge) until they move from a large group all coming at you atonce to a line trying to chase you. Groups are notoriously easy to guide. Another tactic is to sort of move like a sheep dog, circling them until they start bunching up in the middle, then hopefully getting the hell out of there (This will give you a head start, bunches have a harder time getting up to speed).

Assuming they don't want to hit their own men, this is completely doable. If you have a decent weapon (a long stick does wonders), you'd be perfectly capable. Not saying you're not in trouble with 10+ guys attacking you, I'm not saying you'd come out unscathed, not saying you'd always win, or that you should try it. But a person can do this, so its not impossible, and it'd be stupid to give up.

2 years if you took a Devil Dog (1)

carp3_noct3m (1185697) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241767)

When I was trying out for Force Recon, I was trying to explain to a civilian friend what they did, and I compared them to the navy seals. My friend laughed and said "no way Force Recon is similar to the seals." While not many Marines have, I have worked with seals, and my conclusion is this: "If you take someone with the right mental willpower to learn things and the right physical dedication, the only difference is the kind of training you give him." Basically, though seals are much more amphibious and deal much more with explosives, the only difference between Sgt. Kill in the infantry and that guy is the amount and quality of training given to him. It costs an awful lot to train people, especially the more "awesome" the training is. So if you took a good Marine and trained him to be Batman, I think it would only take a couple years, tops. Enter the Batman Batallion, ooo, I crack myself up sometimes...

But will the future "Batmen" be able to put you... (1)

kipin (981566) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241879)

to sleep?

I went to a midnight showing of The Dark Knight last night and managed to fall asleep with an hour left in the movie and wake up just in time for the credits to roll.

Sigh.....

Re:But will the future "Batmen" be able to put you (2, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241927)

I went to a midnight showing of The Dark Knight last night and managed to fall asleep with an hour left in the movie and wake up just in time for the credits to roll.

What kind of city do you live in where you can see a midnight showing of Dark Knight and not also have access to coffee 24 hours a day?

I can see it now..... (5, Funny)

mr_nazgul (1290102) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241883)

The Batman workout video collection...

How much will you pay for this?

900$?

NO!

500$?

NO!

For a limited time, just two easy payments of one parent!

To hell with the Batman, go the Punisher route (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24241885)

Becoming the Punisher would take a lot less than 18 years. All you need is some sneakiness, decent marksmanship and the prudence and stamina to run away before the cops show up.

Burt Ward vs Bruce Lee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24241893)

Burt Ward (Robin) "fought" Bruce Lee (Kato) to a draw in an episode of Batman or The Green Hornet.

So anything's possible.

Ribofunk (1)

non (130182) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241939)

although the wikipeda article actually refers to it as Biopunk [wikipedia.org].

Paul Di Filippo's book of that name includes a short story where there are drugs that would enable one to climb a skyscraper, but depending on the dosage, not enough to climb back down.

Batman has more then strength and speed (3, Insightful)

jmoo (67040) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241943)

I think what I liked most about Batman Begins is that it gave a reasonable explanation as to why Bruce Wayne would dress up like a bat. As much as Batman is a skilled fighter, he is also good at using psychological warfare on his opponents. Consider that during the fight at the docks, he had been playing enough mind games on the crooks that they were off balanced when he attacked them in a large group.

Now granted in real life most people would piss their pants laughing at a guy dressed up like a giant bat (also a viable attack strategy) but the idea is that batman is such a terrifying character that you are thrown off and are easier to take down.

Become a super villain instead! (5, Insightful)

Techguy666 (759128) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241979)

That just takes a spray of acid to the face or a dunk in a chemical vat. No training time whatsoever.

On another note, I get peeved by everyone ignoring Batman's "World's Greatest Detective" moniker and generally accepted reputation as one of DC Universe's smartest humans. Everyone focuses on Batman's physical skills where, in "reality", having keen observational skills and an intellect allowing superior strategems probably alleviates a lot of the need for ultimate physical skills.

One Minor Problem... (2, Insightful)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 4 years ago | (#24241993)

Batman's really only cool because of his enemies.

Batman vs the purse snatcher or Batman vs the social welfare fraudster etc, would get pretty boring after about a week.

Clearly "You, Too, Could Be The Joker In 10 To 12 Years" is required , or maybe just some freaky chemistry.

Then again, an "if you build it, they will come" universal harmony thing might apply...

"The Cost of Being Batman" (Forbes) (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24242001)

http://www.forbes.com/digitalentertainment/2005/06/20/batman-movies-superheroes-cx_de_0620batman.html [forbes.com]

http://xrl.us/batman [xrl.us]

Being Batman
David M. Ewalt, 06.20.05, 7:28 PM ET

Dark clouds have gathered over Gotham. Crime is rampant, despair is
widespread and no one is safe. Who will rescue the metropolis from
itself, fight the forces of evil and save the good people of the city?

Why don't you do it?

Plenty of us would love to fight for truth and justice--if only we had
magic powers or mutant genes. We all love superheroes. Last weekend,
Batman Begins was the No. 1 film in the U.S., pulling in $71.1 million
over its first five days. The Batman movie franchise is also one of
the most lucrative of all time, with five movies (not counting Batman
Begins) grossing nearly $1 billion.

OK, so he also has a couple billion dollars. Batman's alter ego, Bruce
Wayne, is an old-money heir and the owner of Wayne Enterprises, a
massive international-technology conglomerate. In our Forbes Fictional
Fifteen, we estimated his net worth at $6.3 billion. If he were a real
guy, he'd be the 28th richest person in America, right behind News
Corp.'s (nyse: NWS - news - people ) Rupert Murdoch.

Wayne uses his riches and corporate connections to equip himself with
the latest and greatest in military hardware, and uses those tools to
help him fight villains like the Joker, the Riddler, and Ra's Al Ghul.

But you don't have to be a billionaire to become a caped crusader.
Using commercially available training, technology and domestic help,
the average guy could conceivably equip himself to become a real-world
superhero, provided he's got at least a couple million to spare.

What would it cost to become a real-world Dark Knight? Click here [forbes.com].

The Training
Cost: $30,000

You'd better be ready to defend yourself if you plan to take on all
the thugs and super-villains that call Gotham home.

In the new movie, young Bruce Wayne goes to Tibet on the mother of all
study-abroad trips and ends up learning the martial arts from a group
of vigilante ninjas called the League of Shadows. But similar training
is available to those not lucky enough to get plucked out of obscurity
by Liam Neeson.

A good place to start would be an internship at the birthplace of kung
fu, the Shaolin Temple in Henan, China. One month of training at the
prestigious Tagou school costs about $740, including a private room
and training with a personal coach. It'll take a while to get good
enough to stop the Joker's worst thugs, though, so count on spending
at least three years and about 30 grand for the trip.

The Suit
Cost: $1,585

They say the suit makes the man, and Batman's no exception. Without
his outfit, it'd just be Bruce Wayne running around out there, and
there's nothing particularly scary about a billionaire playboy in his
underpants.

Batman's suit is a modified piece of infantry armor built by the
applied sciences division of Wayne Enterprises. It's waterproof,
bulletproof, knife-proof and temperature-regulating. Paired with an
impact-resistant, graphite-composite cowl and spiked ninja-style
gauntlets, it allows Batman to protect himself against everything from
swords to machine guns. Wayne Enterprises also supplies Batman with
his cape, a specially designed nylon-derivative fabric that stiffens
when hit with an electric charge, allowing Batman to use it as a
glider. All this doesn't come cheap. In the new movie, Wayne's told
that the armor alone costs $300,000.

Real-world superhero wanna-bes will have to go with a much more
prosaic solution. We recommend a lightweight ProMAX OTV bulletproof
jacket, which will cover your arms and torso for only $1,085. A decent
Kevlar helmet will run about $500.

Of course, if you don't want to lug around all that stuff, you could
forgo the armor and just buy yourself a collectors-grade Batman movie
costume for about $430. It won't provide any protection, but at least
you'll look cool.

The Belt
Cost: $290

Batman's utility belt was a recurring gag in the old 1960s TV show;
every time the caped crusader got into a jam, he'd find the perfect
deus ex machina right on his hip. Mister Freeze imprisoned him in an
icy jail cell? Good thing he brought along the old Bat-defroster.
Getting eaten by a giant carnivorous plant? Whip out the old
Bat-defoliant.

Needless to say, that's a source of never-ending angst for his
enemies. In Tim Burton's 1989 Batman movie, after Jack Nicholson's
Joker watches the Dark Knight fire wires out of a grappling gun and
escape from his clutches by flying through the air, he asks the
question on all our minds: "Where does he get all those wonderful
toys?"

The answer, unfortunately, is from Wayne Enterprises. Batman's utility
belt is a one-of-a kind prototype climbing harness, paired with a
magnetic grappling gun with a monofilament decelerator climbing line.
Fortunately, you've got other options. A decent nylon utility belt can
be procured for about $10 from any martial arts supply store. You can
also equip yourself with:

Climbing spikes: $70 (Black Diamond Spectre Ice Beak Ice Piton)
Small digital cell phone: $150 (Motorola RAZR, with cellular contract)
Ninja spikes: $10 (Set of three)
Throwing stars: $30 (Set of four)
Medical kit: $20

The Car
Cost: $2,000,000

Forget sports utility vehicles--what you need is a "sports tank."

That's what the producers of Batman Begins call the Caped Crusader's
new ride, a repurposed military vehicle that can leap buildings and go
from 0 to 60 in five seconds. Built by the Applied Sciences division
of Wayne Enterprises, the "Tumbler" is meant to move soldiers through
hostile territory--which explains the armor plating, jet engine and
front-mounted dual .50-caliber machine guns.

Unfortunately, most aspiring crime fighters don't have access to
prototype military hardware, so you'll have to armor up a Hummer. But
don't despair; Fred Khoroushi, president of Alpine Armoring, says
there's plenty you can do with a stock car.

For armor plating, you could use a composite material like silicon
carbide, which will stop bullets but not weigh the vehicle down too
much. Add all the electronics and gadgetry you want, including devices
that will sense chemical, biological and radiological weapons. And the
security system for this car won't just chirp and annoy the
neighbors--how about delivering an electric shock to anyone who tries
to open the door?

Many of the coolest modifications--like oil slicks and built-in
machine guns--are totally illegal in the U.S. But if you didn't care
about the law, a fully pimped-out gunboat could be obtained for around
$2 million, says Khoroushi, though you might not get it past your
first speed trap. Keeping the Batmobile street-legal would run you
only about $200,000. But where's the fun in that?

The Cave
Cost: $24,000 (for one year)

Now that you've got all the cool gear, you need somewhere to stash it.
Bruce Wayne once again lucks out by advantage of his birth. Stately
Wayne Manor just happens to be atop a huge network of caves,
accessible to the outside world through a hidden entrance behind a
waterfall.

Regular folks don't have access to that sort of resource. Besides,
according to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation,
there are no natural caves or caverns of any size in New York City,
the real-world "Gotham."

So what's a budget-minded vigilante to do? We recommend you find
yourself a nice out-of-the-way warehouse. In the outer boroughs of New
York City, a decent-sized ground-floor commercial space can be leased
for as low as $2,000 a month, particularly in isolated, questionably
safe neighborhoods, exactly the kind of place the Bat would fly.

The Alter Ego
Cost: $1,109,574

Bruce Wayne was born into money and the social elite, so he's no
stranger to huge homes, fancy cars, nice clothes and splashy parties.

But this conspicuous consumption serves a purpose, too. Wayne lives
the high life as cover for his life as Batman. He goes to big parties,
dates models and swigs champagne so people will think of him as a
playboy, not as the kind of guy who hangs out in a cave, dresses like
a bat and beats up muggers.

To pull off a Wayne-style alter ego, your expenses would include the
following, based on the Forbes Cost of Living Extremely Well Index:

Clothing and accessories, including bespoke suits and shoes, Patek
Phillippe watches and Tiffany platinum cuff links, would run $434,230.
Food and dining, including regular doses of filet mignon, lobster and
meals at the city's finest restaurants, would clock in at $233,844 a
year. Entertainment, including tickets to all the city's best events,
would run $144,000 a year. And count on forking over $297,000 a year
on gifts, including Tiffany diamond earrings and necklaces for your
lady friends.

The Butler
Cost: $200,000 a year

Batman's secret weapon isn't a gun, Bat-arang or even the car. It's
his faithful servant Alfred.

Born in England, Alfred Pennyworth was hired by Bruce Wayne's parents
to serve as Wayne Manor's butler. Upon their death, he raised Bruce on
his own and today remains his closest friend, confidant and ally.
Sure, he cooks, cleans and keeps appointments. But he also maintains
the Batcave, helps build and repair Batman's gadgets and vehicles, and
even tends to the crime fighter's wounds.

So what would it cost to get help like this? "You can buy a Chevy
Chevette or a Rolls-Royce, and either one will get you from A to B,"
says Charles McPherson, vice chairman of the International Guild of
Professional Butlers. "The cost depends on the lifestyle of the
family."

Inexperienced butlers just out of school earn annual salaries of
around $50,000 to $60,000, says McPherson. But experienced help can
easily pull in $125,000 to $150,000 a year, and a gentleman's
gentleman like Alfred might earn $200,000 or more.

The Bottom Line
Final Cost: $3,365,449

The Training: $30,000
The Suit: $1,585
The Belt: $290
The Car: $2,000,000
The Cave: $24,000
The Alter Ego: $1,109,574
The Butler: $200,000

minus the storyline (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242043)

Well, don't forget that to truly become batman, you have to witness your rich parents being murdered outside an opera house, or else your twisted sense of justice and reckoning won't develop into a "troubled superhero" complex.

Batman on the beach (1)

MmmmYah (1328361) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242071)

LOL who would want to actually BE Batman?? It's not like Santa Claus ya know. Kids these days are doin a lot more fun stuff like books on the beach (Damn I wish I could do my work from the beach ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n8gbVasY1c [youtube.com] I did enjoy "play acting" Batman as a kid with my younger bro who used to be "Robin" hehe would be cool to read out loud their comic books

Street fighting (2, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 4 years ago | (#24242199)

Let's see some hands: How many people have been in a street fight? Against one person? Against two?

When I was young, I was sort of a bad ass. I was a "baby huey" sort of kid. Without working out, I was 6' 210lbs in high school. 32 inch waste 46 inch jacket. I was pretty strong. When I started working out, for football, I started bench press at 210lbs, my weight.

I hung out in Dorchester and South Boston and got in a lot of fights. 1:1 I could hold my own against almost anyone, even the kids who took karate. 2:1, I would usually get my ass kicked unless I could get rid of the first guy quickly. 3:1, no f-ning way you're getting out without serious bruises or broken bones.

Batman is a myth. It can't happen. Kung Foo movies are a joke. Guns are popular because you *can* take on a bunch of people at once. Hand to hand, no matter how big and strong you are, two or three guys are stronger than you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...