|
Eh, not really. That was quite a good fight-- Batman played on Superman's boy-scout morality to resist Poison Ivy's mind-control (notice all the leaves around Supes' neck), knowing Clark pull his punches enough for Bruce to survive, and then by having Catwoman throw Lois off of the Daily Planet building, forcing Superman to break out of Ivy's control in order to save her and ending the fight.
Goes to show that with the right plan and enough brains, you can take on a Kryptonian pretty easily (In fact, Superman gets his ass kicked an awful lot in the comics, basically to appease non-fans who just bitch and moan about the fact that he's 'too powerful' and 'nothing bad ever happens to him.').
And Batman's got an even more strict no-killing code than Superman. Take someone like Luthor, who's got no problem butchering thousands of people to get what he wants and is even smarter than Batman, and put him in a similar situation, and you've got a real genuine threat. That's how you pit human villains like Luthor; you play on his moral limitations, put him in situations where being able to fly really fast and pick up heavy things don't do him any good, use Lex's massive resources and influence to turn the world against Supes. You don't just have him challenge him to a fist-fight.
That's what I really can't stand about the argument that people just want to see a villain that can punch Superman. Would The Dark Knight have been any better if the Joker was also a ninja who could hang with Batman in a kung-fu fight? A proper villain needs to challenge the hero on a mental and philosophical level, not just a physical one. It's a lot more satisfying to see a grand master-plan unfold or see the villain twist the hero's beliefs against him, not just have them roar and throw punches really hard.
|