If there's any basic element of a nerd fight -- which I'm sure we've all been involved in at one point or another -- it's that the most common type involves a debate over which iconic superhero would win against whichever other iconic superhero during a battle within the comic book world. Now, director and screenwriter Max Landis has sparked another debate: Could Batman take on all of the Avengers at once?
Landis insists that he could, and has laid it out as follows:
My opinion on this stems not from my love of preference of individual characters, but rather for how the characters work best. The Avengers work best when vulnerable; Batman works best when he's written as a domineering and intense force of nature.
I think they'd stand a better chance in Round 2, but Round 1 goes like this. Okay, so let's say The Avengers appear in a city with batman and they fight.
Banner gets knock-out darted before he turns into Hulk
Iron Man's suit gets hacked real quick
Vision gets EMP'd reeeeal quick
Thor gets Batwing'd into a building and then glued down with polymer
B Wids and H-Eye get knocked the f out
Cap's a fight but Batman wins
Honestly if they fought him one on one it would be a fairer fight because he wouldn't be able to use the city against them as effectively; that ninja training is gonna be a b*tch for the rough and tumble MCU Avengers. Honestly I like Cap as a character more than I like Batman, I like Iron Man more too.
Landis then insists that Superman -- as something of a walking tank -- would simply be unfair against Earth's Mightiest Heroes.
Superman fighting the Avengers is just...not a fight. There's no tactical element to it. He just punches all of them once.
That's a pretty bold opinion!
Do you agree with Max Landis, or do you have a different theory? Let me know below in the comments!