Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Saint]

The fact is, I could tolerate them not giving the Batman lenses if they could show enough knowledge of the source material and restraint to not rely so heavily on the actor's eyes. He doesn't need his eyes when he's in the cowl. Michael Keaton barely did anything with his eyes when he was the Batman and he came off like a cold, creepy son of a ******. You know, like the Batman is supposed to?

:wolverine
Actually, lens issue aside, I disagree with your point about Keaton. Indeed, in both of his films--even as a child--I always found his eyes the most telling part of his performance in the cowl. The way his eyes worked greatly increased his ability to emote, in my opinion.

That said, I admit a natural bias for facial expressions. Since most of Batman's face is inevitably covered with unmoving material, I am left with few places to look besides the eyes. In the comics it is different because the cowl "moves." Regardless of costuming innovations, there will never be a movie cowl as expressive as the comics, so I believe allowances should be made for that fact. Lenses are a tricky issue in terms of faithfulness, because they are literally impossible as portrayed (they are said to be built into the cowl, yet they act as if they are his actual eyes--they allow him to squint and otherwise emote with his eyes).

As such, there will never be an "exact" translationof the lenses. We are left with two options--built in cowl lenses, or contacts. Built in lenses are easier to explain, but inhibit emotion (indeed, even in the comics Batman has always emoted with his eyes). Contacts are much harder to explain (relative the "world" of this franchise) but are very well suited because they still allow the actor to act with his eyes.

As far as I am concerned, if cowl-lenses are used, they MUST be retractable and there is simply nothing that can be said that can convince me otherwise. If they are retractable, the lenses can be used when appropriate and the eyes can be used when appropriate.

If they were to use contacts, I think the explanation would have to be that they are used for purely cosmetic purposes (which is to say they house no special technology), to instill fear rather than provide night vision or whatever. I just wouldn't by such technology existing in such tiny lenses (in THIS franchise anyway--you know my position on that sort of thing).

[Herr Logan]

It hink you people get too carried away on the costume.

Perhaps. I don't know where the line is drawn for "too carried away," and I'm resistant to accept just anyone's answer to that.

I will always believe and propogate the idea that a costume is an essential and important element for a superhero, or at least those superheroes that wear recognizable costumes. The Batman's costume in particular is an absolutely pivotal part of his character, even more than most in some ways.

I would think it would be obvious that the visual recognizability aspect would always be dominant over what gullible people accept as "realism," given that comics are a predominantly visual medium and costume designs are copyrighted in part so that a character's recognizability won't be compromised. This is a superhero we're talking about. Not only that, but we're talking about a hero whose classic costume has been developed over the years into an incredibly practical and intricate set of equipment that already blends elements of realism and sci-fi.
Nolan didn't add any realism whatsoever to the Batman mythos. That bulky suit, the crime plot, the ridiculous microwave emmitter... none of that was the least bit realistic, at least in comparison to what they've done in the comics. All he did was pass a faulty sci-fi plot under the label of "realism," and gullible fans that are self-conscious about their fandom bought it, defended it and harped on it non-stop.

So yeah, I'm perfectly willing to accept a fully faithful costume, since at least he can move in that, whereas the most Movie!Batman seemed to do in that foam-rubber water-coil suit in 'Begins' is crouch, run through a hallway and perform the most basic martial arts moves in between the excessive amount of seemingly random directorial cuts during fight scenes. He's supposed to move fast, not wear a bullet-resistant full-body innertube and take shots in case he can't dodge gunfire. What were the ninjas at the temple wearing? Ninja suits, not Kevlar tire-suits.

Yes, Nolan's Movie!Batman can be identified as the Batman on sight, regardless of the gratuitously deviant costume, but not only would using a more faithful costume be ... um, more faithful... it would be more appropriate for the situation. Jim Gordon said it himself: "We start wearing Kevlar, they use armor-piercing rounds." What do you do when the guy you're shooting at is fast enough to avoid all gunfire? You have to be that much faster, and very few people can match the Batman, because he spent years getting as fast and agile as he is.

If you can't leave the Cave and go into the city in something less protective than a body-tire, you have no business calling yourself Batman. That makes the redesign unnecessary. As for stylistic preferences, that's wholely subjective, which leaves seniority and authenticity as deciding factors.

:wolverine

[SilentType]

I don't know why people keep agruing with this guy, he's just going to keep to his party line and slyly insult you for not agreeing with him.

[Hades]

Perhaps. I don't know where the line is drawn for "too carried away," and I'm resistant to accept just anyone's answer to that.

I will always believe and propogate the idea that a costume is an essential and important element for a superhero, or at least those superheroes that wear recognizable costumes. The Batman's costume in particular is an absolutely pivotal part of his character, even more than most in some ways.

I would think it would be obvious that the visual recognizability aspect would always be dominant over what gullible people accept as "realism," given that comics are a predominantly visual medium and costume designs are copyrighted in part so that a character's recognizability won't be compromised. This is a superhero we're talking about. Not only that, but we're talking about a hero whose classic costume has been developed over the years into an incredibly practical and intricate set of equipment that already blends elements of realism and sci-fi.
Nolan didn't add any realism whatsoever to the Batman mythos. That bulky suit, the crime plot, the ridiculous microwave emmitter... none of that was the least bit realistic, at least in comparison to what they've done in the comics. All he did was pass a faulty sci-fi plot under the label of "realism," and gullible fans that are self-conscious about their fandom bought it, defended it and harped on it non-stop.

So yeah, I'm perfectly willing to accept a fully faithful costume, since at least he can move in that, whereas the most Movie!Batman seemed to do in that foam-rubber water-coil suit in 'Begins' is crouch, run through a hallway and perform the most basic martial arts moves in between the excessive amount of seemingly random directorial cuts during fight scenes. He's supposed to move fast, not wear a bullet-resistant full-body innertube and take shots in case he can't dodge gunfire. What were the ninjas at the temple wearing? Ninja suits, not Kevlar tire-suits.

Yes, Nolan's Movie!Batman can be identified as the Batman on sight, regardless of the gratuitously deviant costume, but not only would using a more faithful costume be ... um, more faithful... it would be more appropriate for the situation. Jim Gordon said it himself: "We start wearing Kevlar, they use armor-piercing rounds." What do you do when the guy you're shooting at is fast enough to avoid all gunfire? You have to be that much faster, and very few people can match the Batman, because he spent years getting as fast and agile as he is.

If you can't leave the Cave and go into the city in something less protective than a body-tire, you have no business calling yourself Batman. That makes the redesign unnecessary. As for stylistic preferences, that's wholely subjective, which leaves seniority and authenticity as deciding factors.

:wolverine
When you write a whole article regarding the subject on a messageboard:huh:

Like hell I'm reading all that you crazy son of a *****.

[Herr Logan]

Well, now I've got to live down to the expectations on me.

Saint, I may have to wait until tomorrow to give you a proper responce, but more unfortunate is that now I have to insult you for disagreeing with me. Sorry, man, but that's just who I am, apparently. :(



Hades, I think I was less cogent than I intended. I didn't overlook your statement about there needing to be a balance between fiction and realism. The point I meant to make is that the comics have already constructed just that, and that should show through in the movies.
Whether or not Nolan and Goyer would like to take credit for the multi-functionality and real-world technology used in the Batsuit, none of it was their own idea. I do give them props for using source material, I just wish the suit didn't have to look like crap just because the WB studio doesn't want to take a chance on a more practical costume and inadverently admit that the suits in previous movies were somehow fundamentally imperfect.

Also, I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned gullible fans.
At least not at the moment. I have a bad memory when it comes to which people gave what arguments in the past. :o

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

When you write a whole article regarding the subject on a messageboard:huh:

Like hell I'm reading all that you crazy son of a *****.

Just sayin', is all. :O

:wolverine

[Fenrir]

Actually, lens issue aside, I disagree with your point about Keaton. Indeed, in both of his films--even as a child--I always found his eyes the most telling part of his performance in the cowl. The way his eyes worked greatly increased his ability to emote, in my opinion.

That said, I admit a natural bias for facial expressions. Since most of Batman's face is inevitably covered with unmoving material, I am left with few places to look besides the eyes. In the comics it is different because the cowl "moves." Regardless of costuming innovations, there will never be a movie cowl as expressive as the comics, so I believe allowances should be made for that fact. Lenses are a tricky issue in terms of faithfulness, because they are literally impossible as portrayed (they are said to be built into the cowl, yet they act as if they are his actual eyes--they allow him to squint and otherwise emote with his eyes).

As such, there will never be an "exact" translationof the lenses. We are left with two options--built in cowl lenses, or contacts. Built in lenses are easier to explain, but inhibit emotion (indeed, even in the comics Batman has always emoted with his eyes). Contacts are much harder to explain (relative the "world" of this franchise) but are very well suited because they still allow the actor to act with his eyes.

As far as I am concerned, if cowl-lenses are used, they MUST be retractable and there is simply nothing that can be said that can convince me otherwise. If they are retractable, the lenses can be used when appropriate and the eyes can be used when appropriate.

If they were to use contacts, I think the explanation would have to be that they are used for purely cosmetic purposes (which is to say they house no special technology), to instill fear rather than provide night vision or whatever. I just wouldn't by such technology existing in such tiny lenses (in THIS franchise anyway--you know my position on that sort of thing).

I agree 100% with the part about Keaton's eyes. Yes, Keaton did come off as a badass, heartless sonuvabich but that's primarily because of his cold glare - that stare was just...chilling. Since his body language helped him very little in this regard because of the restraining suits he had to wear, and since one can only do so much with his mouth and jaw, it was in the end, his eyes with which he ultimately expressed himself. And if I'm not mistaken, I also recall Burton himself saying the exact same thing, that Keaton's eyes were one of the primary reasons why he was chosen for the role.

I dare anyone to look at Keaton's best scenes and imagine them with white lenses covering his eyes. Or better yet, why not take a screencap of Keaton as Batman from the Burton films - such as the scene in the beginning of B89 where he catches the thug with a roped batarang and then starts pulling him. Right there, there's a moment where the camera closes up on Keaton and you could just see the menace in his eyes - that look, almost dangerously psychotic. Now someone take that scene and try to edit white lenses into the scene and see if it looks anywhere near as good. I only imagine seeing Keaton's Batman in white lenses and I shiver with fear on the very thought of what we would have missed out.

I'm not opposing the idea of lenses. Sure, it's a practical solution considering the nature of Batman's methods. And I'm with Saint on this one that retractable lenses are the best way to go if the filmmakers actually decide to include that element. This way they could get the best of both worlds. But permanent lenses? Hell no!

[Hades]

I really didn't like the costume in BB.

I can't help from being taken out of the movie whenever I see it.
It's just...puffy looking. And don't get me started on the head, it's ****ing huge.

and the scene where he's in the back of the car when he's hallucianating. He looks like a raisin.

[Substance D]

I agree 100% with the part about Keaton's eyes. Yes, Keaton did come off as a badass, heartless sonuvabich but that's primarily because of his cold glare - that stare was just...chilling. Since his body language helped him very little in this regard because of the restraining suits he had to wear, and since one can only do so much with his mouth and jaw, it was in the end, his eyes with which he ultimately expressed himself. And if I'm not mistaken, I also recall Burton himself saying the exact same thing, that Keaton's eyes were one of the primary reasons why he was chosen for the role.

I dare anyone to look at Keaton's best scenes and imagine them with white lenses covering his eyes. Or better yet, why not take a screencap of Keaton as Batman from the Burton films - such as the scene in the beginning of B89 where he catches the thug with a roped batarang and then starts pulling him. Right there, there's a moment where the camera closes up on Keaton and you could just see the menace in his eyes - that look, almost dangerously psychotic. Now someone take that scene and try to edit white lenses into the scene and see if it looks anywhere near as good. I only imagine seeing Keaton's Batman in white lenses and I shiver with fear on the very thought of what we would have missed out.

I'm not opposing the idea of lenses. Sure, it's a practical solution considering the nature of Batman's methods. And I'm with Saint on this one that retractable lenses are the best way to go if the filmmakers actually decide to include that element. This way they could get the best of both worlds. But permanent lenses? Hell no!

:heart:

[Fenrir]

:heart:

You better not be a dude. :mad: :O

[Hades]

You better not be a dude. :mad: :O
Hey, sexy.:cwink:

[deathfromabove]

I'm not going to argue anymore about the "can the Batman act without his eyes" thing. You either can imagine a Batman who uses other means to communicate (i.e., every other means there is that he's been known to use), or you can't.
I'm not personally guilty of robbing people of imagination, so it's not my fault that this is an issue for so many people.

The fact is, I could tolerate them not giving the Batman lenses if they could show enough knowledge of the source material and restraint to not rely so heavily on the actor's eyes. He doesn't need his eyes when he's in the cowl. Michael Keaton barely did anything with his eyes when he was the Batman and he came off like a cold, creepy son of a ******. You know, like the Batman is supposed to?


:wolverine
what are you talking about?

since when does the god damned batman not use his eyes to emote in the books?

do you even read batman books?

batman's eyes are one of his most emotive features. go check.

every artist i can think of (even those blocks of wood mr. lee draws) uses those white slits to help show whats going on his head.

and im with saint and fenrir here. keaton's cold stare spoke volumes more than blank white lenses would have. i mean have you ever noticed the amount of screentime mr. burton gave those peepers of his? keaton uses his eyes to maximum effect, especially as batman.

and what does restraint have to do with it? you are going to cover an actors body and most of his face (even in a more mobile suit) and then cover his eyes as well? sure he could act without his eyes (look at hugo in vendetta) but my point is batman uses his eyes in every single incarnation from the comics to cartoons. like i said you can draw those "lenses" suprised, sad, angry, etc...

permanant lenses would offer no expression.

and thats not batman.

remember the eyes are the windows to soul.

for someone who doesn't want his batman to come across as animalistic why would you think covering his eyes is a good idea?

and i can easily imagine a batman acting without his eyes. and i imagine it sucking.

you keep accusing others of having no imagination but you sir seem to the one who can't imagine anything that doesnt fit into your narrow characterization of bats.

oh and one more thing. who are you to question anyones fandom as you so often do? whenever someone disagrees with your opinion you say they are not true fans. (or cowards)

give it a rest. if you can't make your arguments without belittling people...

try harder. bullying went out with primary school.

look, i really appreciate your passion. you obviously care alot about these characters. but stop assuming you are the only one who does.

[kenellard]

It hink you people get too carried away on the costume.
Batmans costume is a strange thing, though. I think you have to strike in the middle of fictional and realistic. Peopel seem to get too carried away on both sides.

the thing is, we don't have to strike anywhere between fiction and realism. this IS fiction. but what is needed is a point between "believable" and "fantastical", which is entirely different. In my opinion the only reason the suit doesn't look utterly ridiculous onscreen (though it pretty much does to me) is because they've changed certain important parts of bats' character, ala, his athleticysm and agility.

It seems to me like there has been a level of indoctrination with this whole "realism" idea, which is something I loathe more than words can say, because now every "Nolanite" on the planet is constantly wondering, when faed with a more faithful idea such as the cloth suit or the batmobile or the traditional joker, "could that happen in real life?" who cares? what's the difference? this is a movie, it's fantasy, it's the goddamn batman.

[Herr Logan]

Actually, lens issue aside, I disagree with your point about Keaton. Indeed, in both of his films--even as a child--I always found his eyes the most telling part of his performance in the cowl. The way his eyes worked greatly increased his ability to emote, in my opinion.

That said, I admit a natural bias for facial expressions. Since most of Batman's face is inevitably covered with unmoving material, I am left with few places to look besides the eyes. In the comics it is different because the cowl "moves." Regardless of costuming innovations, there will never be a movie cowl as expressive as the comics, so I believe allowances should be made for that fact. Lenses are a tricky issue in terms of faithfulness, because they are literally impossible as portrayed (they are said to be built into the cowl, yet they act as if they are his actual eyes--they allow him to squint and otherwise emote with his eyes).

As such, there will never be an "exact" translationof the lenses. We are left with two options--built in cowl lenses, or contacts. Built in lenses are easier to explain, but inhibit emotion (indeed, even in the comics Batman has always emoted with his eyes). Contacts are much harder to explain (relative the "world" of this franchise) but are very well suited because they still allow the actor to act with his eyes.

As far as I am concerned, if cowl-lenses are used, they MUST be retractable and there is simply nothing that can be said that can convince me otherwise. If they are retractable, the lenses can be used when appropriate and the eyes can be used when appropriate.

If they were to use contacts, I think the explanation would have to be that they are used for purely cosmetic purposes (which is to say they house no special technology), to instill fear rather than provide night vision or whatever. I just wouldn't by such technology existing in such tiny lenses (in THIS franchise anyway--you know my position on that sort of thing).

Looking back on it a bit harder, I do now remember the extent to which they used Keaton's eyes in 'BATMAN' and 'Batman Returns.' I apologize for the error.

I still respectfully disagree with your other points and believe the use of eyes isn't necessary, but if they are to be used, it should be pretty much the exact same way Keaton used them. Keaton spoke volumes with his eyes, but it was generally a two-note thing (indifferent and pissed off) with the major exception being the time he was smiling at Jack Napier when Bob had a gun on Comissioner Gordon. The Batman doesn't need the full range of human emotion, because he rarely displays it. At least in his recent incarnations in the comics, which is the one people seem to want to see in the movie (or a close approximation thereof).

I know lenses could work if done right, and they don't need to move to do it. Then again, retractable lenses would be fine, as long as the person in the Batsuit stops shuddering and screaming and acting extremely un-Batman-ish and learns how to hold a piercing stare like Keaton's and actually come off as scary. Again, the Batman doesn't usually act like a "rage-filled animal." Not even Frank Miller's version did.

Thanks for weighing in, Saint. :up:

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

I really didn't like the costume in BB.

I can't help from being taken out of the movie whenever I see it.
It's just...puffy looking. And don't get me started on the head, it's ****ing huge.

and the scene where he's in the back of the car when he's hallucianating. He looks like a raisin.

I feel the exact same way.

For anybody who thinks "teh puffy" is an invalid point, just remember what I said: he's got coils of cold water in his suit; a smaller version of an astronaut's cooling system!

:wolverine

[Saint]

Looking back on it a bit harder, I do now remember the extent to which they used Keaton's eyes in 'BATMAN' and 'Batman Returns.' I apologize for the error.

I still respectfully disagree with your other points and believe the use of eyes isn't necessary, but if they are to be used, it should be pretty much the exact same way Keaton used them. Keaton spoke volumes with his eyes, but it was generally a two-note thing (indifferent and pissed off) with the major exception being the time he was smiling at Jack Napier when Bob had a gun on Comissioner Gordon. The Batman doesn't need the full range of human emotion, because he rarely displays it. At least in his recent incarnations in the comics, which is the one people seem to want to see in the movie (or a close approximation thereof).

I know lenses could work if done right, and they don't need to move to do it. Then again, retractable lenses would be fine, as long as the person in the Batsuit stops shuddering and screaming and acting extremely un-Batman-ish and learns how to hold a piercing stare like Keaton's and actually come off as scary. Again, the Batman doesn't usually act like a "rage-filled animal." Not even Frank Miller's version did.

Thanks for weighing in, Saint. :up:

:wolverine

As far as Bale's performance is concerned, I think it works well as young Batman. I have spoken of this at length elsewhere, so I will try to keep it short, but essentially Batman in his early career is more energetic, explosive, and emotive, and it stems from enthusiasm. As evidenced by dialogue in Begins, Bruce seems to think that he can come to Gotham and actually defeat crime. As a result he's in a hurry--the way he talks, moves, does everything reflects this. He wants to go out a stop evil now.

In the comics, this stage was eventually followed by a slump where Bruce begins to believe their is no hope. As such, he's in no hurry. He takes his time, he becomes methodical--he does his job because it's right, not because he's going to reach any particular end goal. This is the Batman Keaton played, the Batman with no hope for the future. Elements of this performance would mix well with Bale's Batman to indicate a change in character in the sequel--Bale's Batman should begin to enter this slump (perhaps initiated by the death of Rachel, or some such thing). In the comics it was caused by the death of Jason Todd, the crippling of Batgirl, the breaking of Batman, and any number of cataclysms that came to Gotham in the nineties.

Finally, as we are seeing now, Batman has emerged from the slump. He's not the same person he was when he started, but he's mentally a healthier person than he was in the nineties. That's what would be ideal for film three. Bale's change of perspective has already started happening--from the dialogue on the plane, Bale seems to believe he can defeat evil and stop being Batman. He doesn't like Gotham, he doesn't want to be there--he wants to do his job and get out. When he speaks to Ra's at the manor, his perspective has changed; he knows where he belongs, and he realizes he will never leave Gotham because evil will always be there. (perhaps why Ra's and the league were chosen--they well illustrate the "evil is forever" thing). I want to see that arc continue, as it did in the comics,which would likely prompt Bale to incorporate aspects of Keaton's performance into his own.

[Herr Logan]

what are you talking about?

since when does the god damned batman not use his eyes to emote in the books?

do you even read batman books?

batman's eyes are one of his most emotive features. go check.

every artist i can think of (even those blocks of wood mr. lee draws) uses those white slits to help show whats going on his head.
Perhaps it comes through on a subconscious level. I usually don't attribute his emotional output with the shape of the eyes unless they are highly exaggerated.

It occurs to me now that my strong feelings on this probably come from the fact that I've got a kind of non-verbal learning disorder. I have very high verbal intelligence, which makes my ideal way of communicating through words, but I've got some trouble with non-verbal cues. It's not the limitations that shape my opinion, but the fact that I'm in the habit of working around them, thereby relying on other cues.

That doesn't mean I don't believe in using facial expression, it just means I can easily see an effective Batman using just his lower face (mouth and jaw) and his overall body language to do the job. The benefit of the lenses is that it completes the look from the comics (that is if they throw out the tire-suit and give him a real Batman costume), he'll have more high-tech gadgets to go with the general theme that even Nolan's been using, and he'll look more inhuman.

I know from personal experience that "superstitious and cowardly" people (albeit not necessarily criminals) can be very uneasy when they can't see their eyes. I had to wear mirrored glasses day and night for weeks because LensCrafters couldn't get the prescription in my clear glasses right, and while at my job as a cashier, one person refused to even stand in front of me while I wore my glasses. Stupid ****** made me squint to use the computer... Other people in general were just kind of creeped out. If I was 6'2", wore a bat costume and swooped down from the sky with those things, they'd have been terrified.

and im with saint and fenrir here. keaton's cold stare spoke volumes more than blank white lenses would have. i mean have you ever noticed the amount of screentime mr. burton gave those peepers of his? keaton uses his eyes to maximum effect, especially as batman.
I corrected myself on the point about Keaton's eyes. I do agree about that. I won't say it's necessary, but if it's done right, it's damn effective. Bale never came close to Keaton's cold stare. Remember I never said he couldn't, just that he didn't.

and what does restraint have to do with it? you are going to cover an actors body and most of his face (even in a more mobile suit) and then cover his eyes as well? sure he could act without his eyes (look at hugo in vendetta) but my point is batman uses his eyes in every single incarnation from the comics to cartoons. like i said you can draw those "lenses" suprised, sad, angry, etc...

permanant lenses would offer no expression.

and thats not batman.
"No expression" in the eyes, you mean.

remember the eyes are the windows to soul.
That's a very strong argument in favor of lenses; you can see that, right? Do we really want a Batman that looks like he has a soul when he's at work? Maybe he can take his cowl off and look human in the Batcave (as long as he keeps the rest of the suit on, which is the way the Batman has always done it), but criminals are supposed to believe he's a monster. No soul = perfect for the Batman's desired image. He's not supposed to come off as a "good guy" to the people for which he's performing, he's supposed to be the Bogey Man, something to change your behavior for fear of a visit.

for someone who doesn't want his batman to come across as animalistic why would you think covering his eyes is a good idea?

Because... then he probably won't come off as a rage-filled animal? :huh:

and i can easily imagine a batman acting without his eyes. and i imagine it sucking.
I can imagine it sucking, too. That's in every version but the ones I can imagine where it doesn't suck. Many people on these boards seem to have one picture in their minds no matter how many images are put in front of them and that's it. I'm not saying that's you, but it's a common problem that is making people very limited in their ability to mentally "test" new or different elements.

you keep accusing others of having no imagination but you sir seem to the one who can't imagine anything that doesnt fit into your narrow characterization of bats.

I admit, I was a bit too emphatic about the lenses before. It was, partially, for the sake of the argument itself-- not the confrontational aspect, but in terms of making a real attempt at petitioning for the lenses, in some ways more for the sake of some others than even myself. Sometimes I actually write other people's arguments, as long as I can at least partially agree with them.

Like I said, I can deal with no lenses or retractable lenses (if he doesn't have either, than he needs to have a set of binoculars with night and/or infrared vision-- that's non-negotiable) as long as the actor and director do their jobs properly. So far, they (probably just the director in this case, as it is in most cases) haven't.

oh and one more thing. who are you to question anyones fandom as you so often do? whenever someone disagrees with your opinion you say they are not true fans. (or cowards)
Were you here when Charlie was on a rampage? That's why I question people's fandom, because there are people here that have real animosity for people who are real fans, and I'd rather have a more clear line drawn so at least I know who I'm wasting my time with in an argument.

give it a rest. if you can't make your arguments without belittling people...

try harder. bullying went out with primary school.
No, apparently it hasn't. There is rampant bullying of pro-source material fans on these boards and has been for years. That's why I do what I do, because I'm sick of seeing that kind of bullying. When I see people use words like "silly" and "stupid" to describe elements of a comic book property that have been in use for decades, even after its "campy" period had ended, I see cowardice. When people call me a "fanboy," they are unquestionably being a coward. Who else would be on these forums but a fanboy? That's hypocrisy and it's cowardice, and I don't tolerate it any more than those people tolerate my wish for more faithful movies.

I don't go into threads that are specifically designed to emphasize how much things should remain the same in a given franchise, I only argue in threads that are pro-source material, anti-studio or neutral. This thread is made to discuss a new look for the Batman, and I've seen plenty of bullying of those who want something more like the comics.

look, i really appreciate your passion. you obviously care alot about these characters. but stop assuming you are the only one who does.
I know I'm not. I'll see if I can be better in expressing that.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

the thing is, we don't have to strike anywhere between fiction and realism. this IS fiction. but what is needed is a point between "believable" and "fantastical", which is entirely different. In my opinion the only reason the suit doesn't look utterly ridiculous onscreen (though it pretty much does to me) is because they've changed certain important parts of bats' character, ala, his athleticysm and agility.

It seems to me like there has been a level of indoctrination with this whole "realism" idea, which is something I loathe more than words can say, because now every "Nolanite" on the planet is constantly wondering, when faed with a more faithful idea such as the cloth suit or the batmobile or the traditional joker, "could that happen in real life?" who cares? what's the difference? this is a movie, it's fantasy, it's the goddamn batman.

Very well said. :up:

I do agree that there should be some realistic elements, but that's only because those are already in the comics themselves. When people talk about "realism" (which is complete bull*****, the things they've been talking about), they're usually talking about something that deviates significantly from the comics.

All the carefully laid-out descriptions of both real-life and super-advanced equipment in 'Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight' just aren't good enough. It needs to come from a book that describes all the supposedly "original" ideas used for the movie before it's acceptable. Again, Nolan and Goyer didn't create anything significant that was original for this except for R'as Al Ghul being a ninja master from the mountains, and I don't think that was an improvement in the least.

:wolverine

[Infinity9999x]

Ahh, the lense debate again. I love the lense debate.

Anyways, I've always seen the arguments for both sides of the lenses, but I really think they should try them. Batman wants to scare people, and if you look at a huge creature with white eyes, it's a hell of a lot freakier then someone with normal eyes.

What I hope they do, is have retractable lense contacts. This way, Batman's eyes can still narrow and such as his eyes in the comics do, and we would get the lenses. I would also have him use the lenses for multiple purposes, to sheild his eyes from various attack gasses, nightvision, maybe heat vision ect...and to interrogate. To increase the fear level, when Batman interrogates thugs and such, I would have him use his lenses (maybe even have them glow a bit) just to freak the hell out of people even more.

[deathfromabove]

herr logan

thank you for the lively discussion. it takes a lot of humility for someone to actually admit a mistake or misjudgement. as well im glad to see you take criticism as constructive. i look forward to disagreeing again in the future:cwink:

DFA

[Herr Logan]

herr logan

thank you for the lively discussion.
No, thank you.

it takes a lot of humility for someone to actually admit a mistake or misjudgement. as well im glad to see you take criticism as constructive.
Humility?? Bah! Herr Logan knows no humility!

I'm just more dedicated to the truth than to my own ego. A man who values the latter over the former has not an ego worth preserving.

I'd be a hypocrite if I spent this much time criticizing things and expousing the value of critical analysis but didn't look for value in other people's constructive criticism, and I hate hypocrisy.

But thanks for noticing. ;)

i look forward to disagreeing again in the future:cwink:

DFA
As do I. :up:

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

Ahh, the lense debate again. I love the lense debate.

Anyways, I've always seen the arguments for both sides of the lenses, but I really think they should try them. Batman wants to scare people, and if you look at a huge creature with white eyes, it's a hell of a lot freakier then someone with normal eyes.

What I hope they do, is have retractable lense contacts. This way, Batman's eyes can still narrow and such as his eyes in the comics do, and we would get the lenses. I would also have him use the lenses for multiple purposes, to sheild his eyes from various attack gasses, nightvision, maybe heat vision ect...and to interrogate. To increase the fear level, when Batman interrogates thugs and such, I would have him use his lenses (maybe even have them glow a bit) just to freak the hell out of people even more.

I agree with all of that.

I think when the Batman is alone and searching for clues, digging through files, etc., he can retract the lenses if he doesn't require their functioning, but he should pretty much always have them in place when he's interacting with other people or preparing to or generally in view of anyone else.

I wouldn't have the Batman use night vision while searching through empty rooms for clues, for example, but rather use that finger-mounted flashlight (which should also have a rubberized mouth grip for when he needs both hands).
When he's dealing with enemies indoors or in a place outside where there are few few lights nearby that can be disabled with batarangs and shuriken, he should do just that and then use night vision to do his thing in the dark.

What I'd love to see is the Batman marking particular items he wants to track to wherever they're being transported (such as shipping crates, bricks of heroin, weapons, etc.) with infrared die that can only be seen with infrared viewing equipment. He'd either have that in his lenses or in his binoculars.

It would be great if he had compact binoculars (with a slightly scalloped design, which is his trademark) that he can use hands-free due to magnetic/electrostatic clips built into the cowl. He has that feature in the comics, according to the Ultimate Guide.

Another thing I want to see is the Batman either creating street contacts or interacting with ones he established between movies or whatever. If he's making first contact with one, then after seeing him follow and surveil the chosen target a bit, I want to see him throw that person's personal information (address, car tag number, etc.-- that would freak most people out) and police record in his face and threaten to get him put away for a long time based on parole violation or a third strike if he doesn't cooperate. Yeah, it's fun to see him bully people with fists and dropping them from up high, but I want to see him put research in play and deal with people that way, too.
Maybe there could be a mixture of both. Maybe he corners someone in an alley, tells him he wants a mole in whatever gang the guy is working for. He says that he'd better not deviate from the Batman's exact instructions, or the only way to escape his wrath-- even temporarily-- is to go to the police, which will put him back in prison, where the Batman can come get him after lights out, any night he chooses.

:wolverine

[7Hells]

Bale gave us a tribute to the vacant white eyed Batman as he was leaving the train after his fight with Ra's.
I urge everyone to watch his eyes as he floats backwards off the train.

[kenellard]

Bale gave us a tribute to the vacant white eyed Batman as he was leaving the train after his fight with Ra's.
I urge everyone to watch his eyes as he floats backwards off the train.

that's just a load of bollocks, one moment does not a batman make, and for me (in bb at least) he hasn;t nailed it at all yet

[Infinity9999x]

I agree with all of that.

I think when the Batman is alone and searching for clues, digging through files, etc., he can retract the lenses if he doesn't require their functioning, but he should pretty much always have them in place when he's interacting with other people or preparing to or generally in view of anyone else.

I wouldn't have the Batman use night vision while searching through empty rooms for clues, for example, but rather use that finger-mounted flashlight (which should also have a rubberized mouth grip for when he needs both hands).
When he's dealing with enemies indoors or in a place outside where there are few few lights nearby that can be disabled with batarangs and shuriken, he should do just that and then use night vision to do his thing in the dark.

What I'd love to see is the Batman marking particular items he wants to track to wherever they're being transported (such as shipping crates, bricks of heroin, weapons, etc.) with infrared die that can only be seen with infrared viewing equipment. He'd either have that in his lenses or in his binoculars.

It would be great if he had compact binoculars (with a slightly scalloped design, which is his trademark) that he can use hands-free due to magnetic/electrostatic clips built into the cowl. He has that feature in the comics, according to the Ultimate Guide.

Another thing I want to see is the Batman either creating street contacts or interacting with ones he established between movies or whatever. If he's making first contact with one, then after seeing him follow and surveil the chosen target a bit, I want to see him throw that person's personal information (address, car tag number, etc.-- that would freak most people out) and police record in his face and threaten to get him put away for a long time based on parole violation or a third strike if he doesn't cooperate. Yeah, it's fun to see him bully people with fists and dropping them from up high, but I want to see him put research in play and deal with people that way, too.
Maybe there could be a mixture of both. Maybe he corners someone in an alley, tells him he wants a mole in whatever gang the guy is working for. He says that he'd better not deviate from the Batman's exact instructions, or the only way to escape his wrath-- even temporarily-- is to go to the police, which will put him back in prison, where the Batman can come get him after lights out, any night he chooses.

:wolverine

Good point about Batman's character there. I was a bit dissapointed that they didn't show his intelligence/detective side as much in the Begins movie. I would love it if they display him searching for clues more, creating street contacts as you've mentioned. But I still have pretty high hopes for Nolan and Co. They gave us probably the best Superhero film do date, and Nolan has stayed truer to the comics then basically every other Superhero movie out there besides maybe Sin City, so maybe he'll give us a more cerebral Bats in the next installment. I'll be extremely dissapointed if he proves otherwise.

[lujho]

Another thing I want to see is the Batman either creating street contacts or interacting with ones he established between movies or whatever. If he's making first contact with one, then after seeing him follow and surveil the chosen target a bit, I want to see him throw that person's personal information (address, car tag number, etc.-- that would freak most people out) and police record in his face and threaten to get him put away for a long time based on parole violation or a third strike if he doesn't cooperate. Yeah, it's fun to see him bully people with fists and dropping them from up high, but I want to see him put research in play and deal with people that way, too.
Maybe there could be a mixture of both. Maybe he corners someone in an alley, tells him he wants a mole in whatever gang the guy is working for. He says that he'd better not deviate from the Batman's exact instructions, or the only way to escape his wrath-- even temporarily-- is to go to the police, which will put him back in prison, where the Batman can come get him after lights out, any night he chooses.

:wolverine


Great ideas there. People seem to neglect that being a "detective" shouldn't just mean deduction and analisis of evidence... the cerebral aspect. It should *also* mean, in Batman's case, being a hard-nosed gumshoe in the best pulp/noir style. Sigh... I'd kill to see that done, I really really would.

[Herr Logan]

Great ideas there. People seem to neglect that being a "detective" shouldn't just mean deduction and analisis of evidence... the cerebral aspect. It should *also* mean, in Batman's case, being a hard-nosed gumshoe in the best pulp/noir style. Sigh... I'd kill to see that done, I really really would.

Exactly.

I'd kill right alongside you for that; accomplices in murder. We'll share a lawyer afterwards. Deal?

:wolverine

[Boom]

I'll serve jury duty :up:.

Great idea by the way, Herr.

[Herr Logan]

I'll serve jury duty :up:.

Great idea by the way, Herr.

Thank you kindly, General Boom. :)

:wolverine

[7Hells]

that's just a load of bollocks, one moment does not a batman make, and for me (in bb at least) he hasn;t nailed it at all yet
What are you even talking about? If you dont like Bales performance go to a thread about his performance.

[bunk]

What are you even talking about? If you dont like Bales performance go to a thread about his performance.

Is that what he said? That sentence looked like traffic noise written down.

[Herr Logan]

that's just a load of bollocks, one moment does not a batman make, and for me (in bb at least) he hasn;t nailed it at all yet

Seriously. A "tribute" to the white-eye look in the comics is a few frames in which his eyes happen to be rolled up in his head?

I guess Alicia in 'BATMAN' must have been doing the same thing when she first saw the Joker and fainted. Go look, her eyes turned white.

Pause your PC video player at the right moment while watching porn and you can see any number of people paying "tribute" to the Batman's white eyes in the comics.

I'm not going to hold this against Bale, or even Nolan, since I don't for one second buy this piss-poor, ignorant, desperate apologist bull***** that they were attempting to give "tribute" to anything with that split-second of screentime. If they had been, it would be a massive failure, and then I would hold it against him, but nobody who actually puts critical thinking into the film/comics comparison of the movie thinks they were doing that. Only someone compelled to defend this film to critics would even think of saying something like that.


Again, I'm okay with them not using the Batman's cowl lenses, as long as they "tame" Bale's misguided "rage-filled animal" approach and don't rely on the eyes for much at all. Bale has a chance to do what Michael Keaton never could (have more than one line of dialogue with an enemy, interact with both civilians and Jim Gordon), so he can express himself through body language and speaking with more time to do it, but the expression in the eyes should be as close to Keaton's as possible. I say this because Keaton is my only frame of reference for a passable current-age Batman who didn't have lenses shielding his eyes.

If the eyes are full of rage every time-- or most times-- he's in combat, then he's out of control. If his eyes actually convey more than one or two emotions in more than special circumstances, then he's a soft and poor excuse for a Batman. They need to start taking it seriously and not just play out their own fantasies of what they might do in the cape and cowl (scream a lot and say cute, trite lines to the superfluous love interest while in costume). The Batman has discipline, and he's cold, not hot, in his anger. Does that make him more difficult to identify with, for the audience and the writers/director? Probably, but you're either good enough to work around that or you don't deserve the job. All this "director's interpretation" crap goes way too far. Messing with the Batman's personality and behavior is worse than anything Tim Burton did (except for the killing) to the characters he used. At least he knew how to direct the actor to use his eyes without making the Batman out of character.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

Good point about Batman's character there. I was a bit dissapointed that they didn't show his intelligence/detective side as much in the Begins movie. I would love it if they display him searching for clues more, creating street contacts as you've mentioned. But I still have pretty high hopes for Nolan and Co. They gave us probably the best Superhero film do date, and Nolan has stayed truer to the comics then basically every other Superhero movie out there besides maybe Sin City, so maybe he'll give us a more cerebral Bats in the next installment. I'll be extremely dissapointed if he proves otherwise.
I say, always prepare yourself for disappointment. I'm certainly not getting my hopes up for anything about the next movie. The only good thing I've heard so far is that they might go with a better (as in, less bulky, more obviously fabric) costume, but I won't believe it until I see it. Everything else has been bad news. Rachel Dawes is coming back, the Joker won't act or look like the Joker, the Joker is going to be the one to scar Harvey Dent instead of a mob boss during a trial, and Bruce Wayne is going to end the movie with the realization that the Bruce Wayne personality is as important as the Batman one. Yeah, good times. :down

:wolverine

[Super Kal]

I say, always prepare yourself for disappointment. I'm certainly not getting my hopes up for anything about the next movie. The only good thing I've heard so far is that they might go with a better (as in, less bulky, more obviously fabric) costume, but I won't believe it until I see it. Everything else has been bad news. Rachel Dawes is coming back, the Joker won't act or look like the Joker, the Joker is going to be the one to scar Harvey Dent instead of a mob boss during a trial, and Bruce Wayne is going to end the movie with the realization that the Bruce Wayne personality is as important as the Batman one. Yeah, good times. :down

:wolverine
I can get into that kind of movie... :woot:

[Saint]

Well, I think in times of mental conflict Batman has often acknowledged Bruce Wayne as his genuine identity (obviously the "private" Bruce Wayne as opposed to the public one). For example, this was the entire point of the Batman: Murderer/Fugitive story, with my point illustrated very nicely by Ed Brubaker at the end of his fantastic run. Bruce's conclusion was that Batman was only an extension of the values that he upheld as Bruce Wayne, those things instilled by his parents, and that without the real Bruce he couldn't be Batman at all.

[bunk]

Seriously. A "tribute" to the white-eye look in the comics is a few frames in which his eyes happen to be rolled up in his head?

I guess Alicia in 'BATMAN' must have been doing the same thing when she first saw the Joker and fainted. Go look, her eyes turned white.

Pause your PC video player at the right moment while watching porn and you can see any number of people paying "tribute" to the Batman's white eyes in the comics.

I'm not going to hold this against Bale, or even Nolan, since I don't for one second buy this piss-poor, ignorant, desperate apologist bull***** that they were attempting to give "tribute" to anything with that split-second of screentime. If they had been, it would be a massive failure, and then I would hold it against him, but nobody who actually puts critical thinking into the film/comics comparison of the movie thinks they were doing that. Only someone compelled to defend this film to critics would even think of saying something like that.


Again, I'm okay with them not using the Batman's cowl lenses, as long as they "tame" Bale's misguided "rage-filled animal" approach and don't rely on the eyes for much at all. Bale has a chance to do what Michael Keaton never could (have more than one line of dialogue with an enemy, interact with both civilians and Jim Gordon), so he can express himself through body language and speaking with more time to do it, but the expression in the eyes should be as close to Keaton's as possible. I say this because Keaton is my only frame of reference for a passable current-age Batman who didn't have lenses shielding his eyes.

If the eyes are full of rage every time-- or most times-- he's in combat, then he's out of control. If his eyes actually convey more than one or two emotions in more than special circumstances, then he's a soft and poor excuse for a Batman. They need to start taking it seriously and not just play out their own fantasies of what they might do in the cape and cowl (scream a lot and say cute, trite lines to the superfluous love interest while in costume). The Batman has discipline, and he's cold, not hot, in his anger. Does that make him more difficult to identify with, for the audience and the writers/director? Probably, but you're either good enough to work around that or you don't deserve the job. All this "director's interpretation" crap goes way too far. Messing with the Batman's personality and behavior is worse than anything Tim Burton did (except for the killing) to the characters he used. At least he knew how to direct the actor to use his eyes without making the Batman out of character.

:wolverine


So you're saying Batman rolled his eyes back into his head before leaving the train? Makes sense :whatever:

[Boom]

So you're saying Batman rolled his eyes back into his head before leaving the train? Makes sense :whatever:
Yeah. That's pretty much it.

[Herr Logan]

So you're saying Batman rolled his eyes back into his head before leaving the train? Makes sense :whatever:

So, what, you're saying they digitally blanked out his eyes for one random short moment as a "tribute" to the comics? Yeah, that makes much more sense. :up:

:wolverine

[Bathead]

I don't know Logan.Where do you get the idea that "Joker won't act or look like the Joker"? The only thing I've seen that remotely suggests this is speculation from "fans", and I give them all the attention I think they're due. Which is none.
It's too early to start worrying. If you have this attitude now, it's possible you won't give the movie a fair chance when it does come out. Let's all wait and see a little more before we start condemning the movie based on unsubstantiated rrumor.

[Herr Logan]

Well, I think in times of mental conflict Batman has often acknowledged Bruce Wayne as his genuine identity (obviously the "private" Bruce Wayne as opposed to the public one). For example, this was the entire point of the Batman: Murderer/Fugitive story, with my point illustrated very nicely by Ed Brubaker at the end of his fantastic run. Bruce's conclusion was that Batman was only an extension of the values that he upheld as Bruce Wayne, those things instilled by his parents, and that without the real Bruce he couldn't be Batman at all.

Ed Brubaker made it work. The writer for this movie is the brother of the director, which automatically ruins his credibility with me if they already had a writer on call who did a decent job before and helped them make tons of money. This is about names and ego, which means it's not about the characters for which these movie players are named and modelled, which means I can't for one moment give them the benefit of the doubt on anything, much less a sensitive subject like this. This will more readily than not turn into a cheesy, out-of-character moment of revelation that requires the presence of the superfluous love interest.

They haven't even proven that the Batman might be the dominant personality in this movieverse, much less made it a steady theme to believe in which would be a surprise when disproved. I'm not convinced, and I'm someone who really wants to believe it.
"This is your mask; the face the criminals now fear is your real face." Yeah, nice lip service, Rachel, you useless little twit. While I'm not opposed to "telling" instead of "showing" occasionally when timing is an issue, this was one of the worst examples of it in recent comic book movies. That doesn't mean 'Begins' was the worst of them-- quite the contrary, overall-- but that scene was an embarrassment to the rest of the film and to the Batman universe as a whole. The conventions of Adam West's Batman series and the comics that prompted it are unforgivably lame, but people accept this tripe? They accept this made-up-for-movies childhood friend expressing an unrequited love for Bruce Wayne when she never made a pass at him before and then saying maybe they can date when Batman isn't needed anymore, as if there's a foreseeable end to that. Where's the consistency?

Rant over. Nice to hear from you again, Saint.

:wolverine

[Saint]

Ed Brubaker made it work. The writer for this movie is the brother of the director, which automatically ruins his credibility with me if they already had a writer on call who did a decent job before and helped them make tons of money. This is about names and ego, which means it's not about the characters for which these movie players are named and modelled, which means I can't for one moment give them the benefit of the doubt on anything, much less a sensitive subject like this. This will more readily than not turn into a cheesy, out-of-character moment of revelation that requires the presence of the superfluous love interest.


I'll reserve judgement on Jonathan Nolan for after I see the film. I don't believe he was brought on for the sake of ego; I believe he was brought on because Goyer is busy trying to get The Flash and possibly Thor off the ground--by the same token that Blade: Trinity nearly prevented him from doing Begins. Honestly, I do not consider it a huge loss. While Goyer brings the comic book sensibility to the project, some of the less-than-stellar dialogue choices seem to have his finger prints on them. Since he is still consulting, I believe getting another script writer who can better handle dialogue (and I hope this is true of Nolan's brother, but I can't say either way) combined with Goyer still bringing his comic mentality as a consultant and combined further with Jerry Robinson, we might get the best of both worlds.

As far as Rachel's scene at the end of Begins, that scene would have been saved if the dialogue was reversed. That's all they had to do; give Bruce Rachel's lines. I'll never understand why they didn't.

On the personalities of Bruce Wayne/Batman, I think for the most part that theme played throughout the film but in a subtle capacity. There's a reason that before he becomes Batman he's wandering from between schools and eventually between countries, with that blank, confused look on his face. I thought Bale did this very well--Bruce doesn't come alive until he's on the road to becoming Batman. In every flashback, his face is vacant because he's nobody. He finds his real self when he becomes Batman, and you see it in every scene following that: Bale's performance really comes to life, even when he's playing the playboy.

The fear theme gets a lot of flack for being overplayed, but if you take the time to look there is a lot happening beneath the surface, which is why I love the film. I only hope they continue these character trends in the next film. I spoke of this earlier in the thread, but you were rather embroiled in a biblical-scale conflict with another member so you may have missed it; it was in response to something you said about Bale's raging Batman being out-of-character. I'll quote it here:

As far as Bale's performance is concerned, I think it works well as young Batman. I have spoken of this at length elsewhere, so I will try to keep it short, but essentially Batman in his early career is more energetic, explosive, and emotive, and it stems from enthusiasm. As evidenced by dialogue in Begins (especially on the plane), Bruce seems to think that he can come to Gotham and actually defeat crime. As a result he's in a hurry--the way he talks, moves, does everything reflects this. He wants to go out a stop evil now.

In the comics, this stage was eventually followed by a slump where Bruce begins to believe their is no hope. As such, he's in no hurry. He takes his time, he becomes methodical--he does his job because it's right, not because he's going to reach any particular end goal. This is the Batman Keaton played, the Batman with no hope for the future. Elements of this performance would mix well with Bale's Batman to indicate a change in character in the sequel--Bale's Batman should begin to enter this slump (perhaps initiated by the death of Rachel, or some such thing). In the comics it was caused by the death of Jason Todd, the crippling of Batgirl, the breaking of Batman, and any number of cataclysms that came to Gotham in the nineties.

Finally, as we are seeing now, Batman has emerged from the slump. He's not the same person he was when he started, but he's mentally a healthier person than he was in the nineties. That's what would be ideal for film three. Bale's change of perspective has already started happening--from the dialogue on the plane, Bale seems to believe he can defeat evil and stop being Batman. He doesn't like Gotham, he doesn't want to be there--he wants to do his job and get out. When he speaks to Ra's at the manor, his perspective has changed; he knows where he belongs, and he realizes he will never leave Gotham because evil will always be there. (perhaps why Ra's and the league were chosen--they well illustrate the "evil is forever" thing). I want to see that arc continue, as it did in the comics,which would likely prompt Bale to incorporate aspects of Keaton's performance into his own.

[bunk]

So, what, you're saying they digitally blanked out his eyes for one random short moment as a "tribute" to the comics? Yeah, that makes much more sense. :up:

:wolverine

It's either a tribute or Batman just happens to orgasm every time he escapes an explosion.

[Boom]

Or he was looking back.

[bunk]

so your iris and pupil just vanish everytime you look back?

[Wams]

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i271/nwonknu2k/DECObatman1.jpg

Wait till you see this fully realized.:cwink:

:spidey:
:supes:

[Booznian]

I don't know really...I thought that the all rubber BB suit made him look kind of fat. If hes been working out for the role, he should show his abs/muscular devolopement. I want the suit to look more like this.

http://portiarediscovered.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/batman.jpeg

[Chris Wallace]

I don't know really...I thought that the all rubber BB suit made him look kind of fat. If hes been working out for the role, he should show his abs/muscular devolopement. I want the suit to look more like this.

http://portiarediscovered.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/batman.jpeg
:eek:

[Chris Wallace]

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i271/nwonknu2k/DECObatman1.jpg

Wait till you see this fully realized.:cwink:

:spidey:
:supes:
Apart from the symbol, I like it. I actually think the symbol should remain unchanged.

[Booznian]

:eek:

I think Batman got a little bit too buzzed and forget he doesn't have any super powers. hehe.

[Chris Wallace]

And no trunks. The trunks make him look like Superman w/a different color scheme.

[Bathead]

No trunks? Only if it's an all black costume. If it's grey and black it would look stupid without them.

[The Last Meatbag]

Peeps gotta check out Darth Coolius' old Bat-suit design :csad:

[Bathead]

so your iris and pupil just vanish everytime you look back?
In a manner of speaking,yes.Think about it. In order to look back, the pupils must move all the way to the corners of the eye, momentarily blending with
the black eye makeup Bale's wearing, making it look like they have disappeared for a second. As simple as that. No need to come up with convoluted reasons of supposed tribute. Nothing deliberate, just circumstance.

[Chris Wallace]

No trunks? Only if it's an all black costume. If it's grey and black it would look stupid without them.
1-I'd actually prefer all black.
2-they did it before w/o the trunks in the comics & it looked fine.

[Bathead]

1-I'd actually prefer all black.
2-they did it before w/o the trunks in the comics & it looked fine.
1. Nothing wrong with that.
2. Yes they did. And it was soundly dissed by a large majority of fans, and was shortly changed back to trunks after only a few issues.
I disagree it looked fine.
It looked stupid.

[Chris Wallace]

A "few" issues? As I remember it lasted a couple of years. I didn't even start reading Batman regularly until '95, & he wasn't wearing them then. The trunks didn't come back until late '98, when they went all retro w/his look after "No Man's Land" ended.
And I wasn't aware of any complaints.
Slightly o/t, but what do people say about Robin's new look?

[Herr Logan]

It's either a tribute or Batman just happens to orgasm every time he escapes an explosion.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but my best orgasms are ones that happen during explosions. Kinda ruined sex for me, in a way.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

In a manner of speaking,yes.Think about it. In order to look back, the pupils must move all the way to the corners of the eye, momentarily blending with
the black eye makeup Bale's wearing, making it look like they have disappeared for a second. As simple as that. No need to come up with convoluted reasons of supposed tribute. Nothing deliberate, just circumstance.

There you go.

:wolverine

[Bathead]

A "few" issues? As I remember it lasted a couple of years. I didn't even start reading Batman regularly until '95, & he wasn't wearing them then. The trunks didn't come back until late '98, when they went all retro w/his look after "No Man's Land" ended.
And I wasn't aware of any complaints.
Slightly o/t, but what do people say about Robin's new look?

So, he didn't wear trunks for a whole two years out of sixty plus that he did wear them. Not a particularly compelling argument.

And there were plenty of complaints. DC themselves said that was one of the reasons they eventually when back. (however long it took) If the fans had been OK with that look, he'd still be trunks-less. They weren't, and he's not.

[Tad Fatherton]

Wait till you see this fully realized.:cwink:

what does that mean?

[Sandman138]

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i271/nwonknu2k/DECObatman1.jpg

Wait till you see this fully realized.:cwink:

:spidey:
:supes:

I would actually really like to see that in the right context.

[Soundwave88]

Yeah, here it goes. I didn't change much, if it ain't broke and so on. I went with taller straighter ears and a less angled brow. I still like the idea of white contacts. Have you guys ever seen someone with white contacts? sh** is creepy.http://www.tombunker.com/siteimages/bale_cowl.jpg

thats what I wanna see!!:woot:

[robzass]

if you truly think you will be seeing the grey costume you are a fool. this film series is based in the real world where batman needs his suit to be practical and serve a purpose. batman needs to maintain the illusion that he is a creature, if one saw the visible grey armor he would lose that image and it would be apparent that he is a guy in an outfit. he also needs the suit to be black for stealth purposes. nothing blends in the shadows better than black, despite what you think. nolan is not going to suddenly change the direction of the last film. tdk will also be grounded in reality. if you were a vigilante up against insane criminals and mobsters wouldnt you want to be sure that they couldnt see you in the night?? wouldnt you want to maintain the fear inside them so you could have the advantage??

[robzass]

if you truly think you will be seeing the grey costume you are a fool. this film series is based in the real world where batman needs his suit to be practical and serve a purpose. batman needs to maintain the illusion that he is a creature, if one saw the visible grey armor he would lose that image and it would be apparent that he is a guy in an outfit. he also needs the suit to be black for stealth purposes. nothing blends in the shadows better than black, despite what you think. nolan is not going to suddenly change the direction of the last film. tdk will also be grounded in reality. if you were a vigilante up against insane criminals and mobsters wouldnt you want to be sure that they couldnt see you in the night?? wouldnt you want to maintain the fear inside them so you could have the advantage??

[robzass]

if you truly think you will be seeing the grey costume you are a fool. this film series is based in the real world where batman needs his suit to be practical and serve a purpose. batman needs to maintain the illusion that he is a creature, if one saw the visible grey armor he would lose that image and it would be apparent that he is a guy in an outfit. he also needs the suit to be black for stealth purposes. nothing blends in the shadows better than black, despite what you think. nolan is not going to suddenly change the direction of the last film. tdk will also be grounded in reality. if you were a vigilante up against insane criminals and mobsters wouldnt you want to be sure that they couldnt see you in the night?? wouldnt you want to maintain the fear inside them so you could have the advantage??

[Saint]

The notion that all black is better camo than grey/black has been proven incorrect so many times that it actually makes my head hurt. As for grey making it obvious that he's a man in an outfit, I'd say the plainly visible armour plates did that already.

[bunk]

In a manner of speaking,yes.Think about it. In order to look back, the pupils must move all the way to the corners of the eye, momentarily blending with
the black eye makeup Bale's wearing, making it look like they have disappeared for a second. As simple as that. No need to come up with convoluted reasons of supposed tribute. Nothing deliberate, just circumstance.

Honestly, It's really meaningless to me if it's a "tribute" or not. If they go with white lenses in the next thats cool. And it's cool that they didn't use lenses in BB. Alls I'm saying is the train scene clearly shows some weird thing they tried to do with his eyes. Just go frame by frame with the DVD, you'll see it. His Iris just disappears, it doesn't move at all.

[bunk]

The notion that all black is better camo than grey/black has been proven incorrect so many times that it actually makes my head hurt. As for grey making it obvious that he's a man in an outfit, I'd say the plainly visible armour plates did that already.

Yeah, not to mention the reoccuring bum he talks to and the dudes in the asylum that were totally unimpressed by a guy in a batsuit.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Yeah, not to mention the reoccuring bum he talks to and the dudes in the asylum that were totally unimpressed by a guy in a batsuit.

I gotta disagree with you here. All three of those people seemed to me to be in utter disbelief. Both the bum and the guys in the asylum had this amazed, shocked, and hopelessly confused demeanor, as if they weren't sure if what they had just whitnessed was even real or a hallucination of some kind. Bats says "Nice coat" and flies into the air, and the bum, wide-eyed and delirious says simply "Thanks" as if he's either utterly frightened by this thing that's speaking to him, or he thinks he's talking to a figment of his imagination. When Bats blows up the door and walks through those guys' cell at Arkham, they simply stare at each other as if saying "Okay, you saw that too, right?"

[bunk]

I gotta disagree with you here. All three of those people seemed to me to be in utter disbelief. Both the bum and the guys in the asylum had this amazed, shocked, and hopelessly confused demeanor, as if they weren't sure if what they had just whitnessed was even real or a hallucination of some kind. Bats says "Nice coat" and flies into the air, and the bum, wide-eyed and delirious says simply "Thanks" as if he's either utterly frightened by this thing that's speaking to him, or he thinks he's talking to a figment of his imagination. When Bats blows up the door and walks through those guys' cell at Arkham, they simply stare at each other as if saying "Okay, you saw that too, right?"

Those reactions could have been to anything though. You could replace bats with a half naked crossdressing 82 year old grandfather and those reactions would fit. I want people to be genuinly frightened of him when he shows up, those guys in arkham should have jumped up on their feet when he walked in like "OH S***!" The scene with the bum was just stupid all together, it took you right out of the moment.

[Brian Braddock]

With regard to public perception of Bats after Batman Begins:-

I'd like them to explore the after effects of Ras' fear gas.

Batman mythic/fearsome reputation within the citizens of Gotham and the underworld (primarily in the narrows) should have grown since alot of them saw him while they were hallucinatiing from the effects of Ras' gas.

Word could probably spread from these individuals that he's this bat creature with light shining out his eyes who can fly - not a man at all.

Definately something to be feared.

[afan]

Yeah, not to mention the reoccuring bum he talks to and the dudes in the asylum that were totally unimpressed by a guy in a batsuit.

"It doesn't work in the daylight", or a lighted room.

The fear aspect of The Batman mythos and the public belief that he may be an urban myth can't come across in the big explosion action film genre, which BB was.

[Cobblepot]

It worked in Batman 1989, those crooks on the roof we're terrifeid...
That to me still is the coolest Batman scene ever on film.

I hope they do something about this in TDK.

[afan]

It worked in Batman 1989, those crooks on the roof we're terrifeid...
That to me still is the coolest Batman scene ever on film.

I hope they do something about this in TDK.

Except for The Batman allowing someone to drill him point-blank with a gun, I agree. May I add the first time Commissioner Gordon sees The Batman, to the coolest Batman scene list.

However once the thugs realize he is a man in a suit of armor, the populace are witness to the Batmobile, the Batplane, and the public announcement by Gotham's officials annointing Batman as the city's protector, the fear and the urban myth quality are pretty much done.

[Chris Wallace]

if you truly think you will be seeing the grey costume you are a fool. this film series is based in the real world where batman needs his suit to be practical and serve a purpose. batman needs to maintain the illusion that he is a creature, if one saw the visible grey armor he would lose that image and it would be apparent that he is a guy in an outfit. he also needs the suit to be black for stealth purposes. nothing blends in the shadows better than black, despite what you think. nolan is not going to suddenly change the direction of the last film. tdk will also be grounded in reality. if you were a vigilante up against insane criminals and mobsters wouldnt you want to be sure that they couldnt see you in the night?? wouldnt you want to maintain the fear inside them so you could have the advantage??
I've argued this several times on this board but the purists just won't buy it.

[bunk]

Except for The Batman allowing someone to drill him point-blank with a gun, I agree. May I add the first time Commissioner Gordon sees The Batman, to the coolest Batman scene list.

However once the thugs realize he is a man in a suit of armor, the populace are witness to the Batmobile, the Batplane, and the public announcement by Gotham's officials annointing Batman as the city's protector, the fear and the urban myth quality are pretty much done.

Batman just lets himself get shot so the thugs will go off and tell people bullets do nothing. The 89 movie was ridiculous with Joker on tv talking about batman, also the media declaring batman cracking jokers poison. Batman would never let himself be credited like that. I hope they restrain themselves in DK and pull him back into the darkness so to speak.

[Chris Wallace]

The second movie had the press blaming him for failing to stop Penguin's rampage. By the third he was on the cover of Time. When has the Batman ever allowed himself to be photographed?

[bunk]

The second movie had the press blaming him for failing to stop Penguin's rampage. By the third he was on the cover of Time. When has the Batman ever allowed himself to be photographed?

You mean in the comics? He doesn't really unless it's a group shot with the Justice League or something. I hope it never happens in DK, I don't even want Joker to be real exposed.

[afan]

Batman just lets himself get shot so the thugs will go off and tell people bullets do nothing. The 89 movie was ridiculous with Joker on tv talking about batman, also the media declaring batman cracking jokers poison. Batman would never let himself be credited like that. I hope they restrain themselves in DK and pull him back into the darkness so to speak.

But the cats(or bats) already out of the bag. Nolan's Batman already roars thru Gotham's streets in the Batmobile, Gordon's got a Bat-signal. There's no going back.

[bunk]

But the cats(or bats) already out of the bag. Nolan's Batman already roars thru Gotham's streets in the Batmobile, Gordon's got a Bat-signal. There's no going back.

The Bat signal is the big thing, there's no explaining that away. The news footage of the tumbler doesn't really prove his existence. It's not like the 89 movie where people watch him get in it. It doesn't bother me if the police force knows whats up.

Oh, the note from Batman at the end of the 89 movie was stupid too, almost forgot about that one.

[afan]

The Bat signal is the big thing, there's no explaining that away. The news footage of the tumbler doesn't really prove his existence. It's not like the 89 movie where people watch him get in it. It doesn't bother me if the police force knows whats up.

Oh, the note from Batman at the end of the 89 movie was stupid too, almost forgot about that one.

It wasn't stupid if that's the direction the story takes. If ultimately The Batman becomes Gotham's protector it's perfectly acceptable, and that's my point once you've placed Batman in the position of being the savior of Gotham City on a grandiose scale as '89 and BB did, then the whole fearful and mysterious creature of the night urban myth angle is pretty much done.

[Chris Wallace]

You mean in the comics? He doesn't really unless it's a group shot with the Justice League or something. I hope it never happens in DK, I don't even want Joker to be real exposed.
The JLA thing never made sense to me either. It seems contradictory that someone who's trying to keep his existence a big mystery would be seen w/THE premier superhero team on earth. And that's just one reason I had a problem with it.

[bunk]

It wasn't stupid if that's the direction the story takes. If ultimately The Batman becomes Gotham's protector it's perfectly acceptable, and that's my point once you've placed Batman in the position of being the savior of Gotham City on a grandiose scale as '89 and BB did, then the whole fearful and mysterious creature of the night urban myth angle is pretty much done.

Yeah, when I initially heard the premise for BB I was thinking the story would be more toned down. As soon as I heard "Ras" say in the movie "Gotham must be destroyed" I was thinking oh god this is going to get over the top. I wonder if Nolan will have Joker hatching this elaborate sceme to kill everyone in Gotham. I'd rather he didn't.

[bunk]

The JLA thing never made sense to me either. It seems contradictory that someone who's trying to keep his existence a big mystery would be seen w/THE premier superhero team on earth. And that's just one reason I had a problem with it.

Yeah, they do acknowledge this in the comics though. He wouldn't be involved in a team if he couldn't exploit it for his needs. He's also friends with a lot of his teammates. Depending on who's writing it can fit with his sensablitlies or be a complete departure. Brad Meltzer's writing now so we'll see how he handles it.

[Bathead]

I've argued this several times on this board but the purists just won't buy it.
Because it's not true that balck is better nighttime camouflage than grey. The Federation of American Scientists did a study on urban camo and concluded that grey is AS EFFECTIVE as black for nighttime camo, conversely, that black is no more effective than grey. So, if that's your argument for a black costume, then you're basing it on a false assumption.

[HLedgerJoker]

It would be way qool to see the grey cloth costume, but the Begins costume was pwn!

[Bathead]

I've argued this several times on this board but the purists just won't buy it.
Because it's not true. The Federation of American Scientists did a study on urban camo, and came to the conclusion that grey is AS EFFECTIVE as black
for nightime camouflage, conversely, that black is no more effective than grey. If your argument is that a black suit is "stealthier" than a grey one, that is based on an incorrect assumption.

[bunk]

I like this shot. I feel like there's another half to this picture with robin smoking a cig or something and bats is scolding him. "I thought you cut that s*** out robin."

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8822/batsjm7.jpg

[Cobblepot]

Heh...

[afan]

I like this shot. I feel like there's another half to this picture with robin smoking a cig or something and bats is scolding him. "I thought you cut that s*** out robin."

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8822/batsjm7.jpg

Where did this come from!?
Looks exactly like Alex Ross's Batman, not just the suit but the visible part of the face. Is it the model he uses?

[Bathead]

edit

[DAVIDYR1]

I really dont get this black VS grey intense debate...really I dont. :)
And I dont mean that in a bad way either..here's my take and how I feel about it....

In the comics he's grey with black or blue...for WHATEVER reason that is how he's drawn. Does he look cool? Sure...hell yea...

On the big screen would a grey and black suit?? Sure...hell yea it 'could' work..just as I find the all black does.

Begins sort of bridged the gap making a dark dark dark grey suit with black accents or elements that looked darker...the emblem, gauntlets, boots and cape.
I thought that was killer personally...

Was the suit MEANT to look all black? I believe so...but it still looked cool.

If the new suit is dark grey with black accents could it look cool?? Yea...absolutely.

I mean this is Batman...if he looks cool...however he's brought to life then what's the big deal if he has briefs or not...grey or black???

Maybe I'm easier to please because I love the rubber suits but I also say and have said from day one a cool fabric like suit would be just as awesome..

Grey...black...fabric...rubber...just make him look cool...bad a$$!!!

The Spidey and Sups returns suits worked just fine...Bats could do that too...and the rubber could keep working for me also...

David

[Bathead]

That's actually a wax statue made by a fan who does this for a living. He's made a number of statues based on Ross' art, including Superman, I think in his spare time as a hobby. He used to have a website, I think, but I don't know the URL.

[DAVIDYR1]

That statue is by Mike Hill. He works with Alex Ross. He also sculpted the licensed busts out there by Marvel...the cool Wolverine, Hulk and Spiderman just to name a few.
You dont get much better than Mike Hill..the guy is outstanding. Mucho respect for him.

David

[afan]

That's actually a wax statue made by a fan who does this for a living. He's made a number of statues based on Ross' art, including Superman, I think in his spare time as a hobby. He used to have a website, I think, but I don't know the URL.

Thanks for the info, Bathead and DavidYr1.

[Chris Wallace]

So, he didn't wear trunks for a whole two years out of sixty plus that he did wear them. Not a particularly compelling argument.

And there were plenty of complaints. DC themselves said that was one of the reasons they eventually when back. (however long it took) If the fans had been OK with that look, he'd still be trunks-less. They weren't, and he's not.
I honestly don't see why. What contribution does a silly pair of trunks over the tights make? Were it up to me, they'd be wiped out across the board. Nobody would wear them.

[Bathead]

I really dont get this black VS grey intense debate...really I dont. :)
And I dont mean that in a bad way either..here's my take and how I feel about it....

In the comics he's grey with black or blue...for WHATEVER reason that is how he's drawn. Does he look cool? Sure...hell yea...

On the big screen would a grey and black suit?? Sure...hell yea it 'could' work..just as I find the all black does.

Begins sort of bridged the gap making a dark dark dark grey suit with black accents or elements that looked darker...the emblem, gauntlets, boots and cape.
I thought that was killer personally...

Was the suit MEANT to look all black? I believe so...but it still looked cool.

If the new suit is dark grey with black accents could it look cool?? Yea...absolutely.

I mean this is Batman...if he looks cool...however he's brought to life then what's the big deal if he has briefs or not...grey or black???

Maybe I'm easier to please because I love the rubber suits but I also say and have said from day one a cool fabric like suit would be just as awesome..

Grey...black...fabric...rubber...just make him look cool...bad a$$!!!

The Spidey and Sups returns suits worked just fine...Bats could do that too...and the rubber could keep working for me also...

David
Exactly. Despite my often vehement defense of the grey-black suit, I like an all black suit just as much. As a kid I even had an idea/design for an all black costume that ironically turned out a lot like the costume in Batman Beyond.
It's just that when someone says the grey wouldn't work in a movie for whatever reason, I just have to speak up. I have yet to see any convincing reason why a black suit is better and a grey suit wouldn't work. I see a lot of rationalization , basically just repeating things written by other posters, that show a lack of imagination.

[Bathead]

I honestly don't see why. What contribution does a silly pair of trunks over the tights make? Were it up to me, they'd be wiped out across the board. Nobody would wear them.
Contribution? To me, and the majority of Batman fans, because it looks better.
And Thank God, it's not up to you.

[Saint]

I honestly don't see why. What contribution does a silly pair of trunks over the tights make? Were it up to me, they'd be wiped out across the board. Nobody would wear them.

First and foremost, the trunks prevent Batman appearing as a grey-skinned naked man. Because most superheroes are drawn as if their clothes are painted on, I have always found trunkless Batman to appear awkward (though this can sometimes be offset by a V-shaped belt). From a design standpoint they parallell the gloves and boots in that they break up colour; they prevent the costume from being a solid column of grey. Practically, they have not been explained in the comics but they can easily be rationalized as a harness attached to the belt (a belt alone would not be sufficient support for all the rappeling and whatnot batman does).

On film, though? They could work, but I feel there is less reason to use them. Obviously the "naked grey man" scenario does not apply, and trunks would be difficult to dowithout looking awkward. A better option might be to make the utility belt black and leave the trunks out. But I'm open to any good-looking solution, trunks or not (except in the comics; Batman should always wear them in the comics).

[afan]

Re the all black vs grey/black or very dark blue suit.

Visually for me the all black outfit is boring plain and simple. An outfit, any outfit, needs variation to be interesting. Before someone posts the ludicrous costumes of Batman and Robin, I'm not advocating the extreme just a preference for the classic.

Practically the all black suit of BB completely obscurred the chest symbol.

[Chris Wallace]

Contribution? To me, and the majority of Batman fans, because it looks better.
And Thank God, it's not up to you.
I'm sorry, I don't agree. It serves only to make him look more like your standard superhero, which he shouldn't. I like the idea of Batman looking more like a "creature of the night" & less like a Superman wanna-be.

[bunk]

I'm sorry, I don't agree. It serves only to make him look more like your standard superhero, which he shouldn't. I like the idea of Batman looking more like a "creature of the night" & less like a Superman wanna-be.

I guess this would be right up your alley then.

http://comic.eck24.de/images/BATMAN0101.jpg

[Chris Wallace]

I guess this would be right up your alley then.

http://comic.eck24.de/images/BATMAN0101.jpg
Truth be told I didn't mind that look. It was a bit extreme but I liked it.

[bunk]

Might as well put the rest up. I freaking hate that belt.

http://myspace-710.vo.llnwd.net/00003/01/72/3162710_l.jpg

http://myspace-575.vo.llnwd.net/00003/57/52/3162575_l.jpg

so shiny!

[Chris Wallace]

I never liked the forehead wrinkles in the mask.

[bunk]

Yeah it makes him look too old

[Chris Wallace]

It makes it look like it's painted on, too. Like Alex couldn't decide between makeup & a mask.

[bunk]

This kind of cool... I don't think batman should look like a date rapist though..

http://www.louanders.com/uploaded_images/Batman-706327.JPG

[Chris Wallace]

Has potential, in a Comic-Con kind of way. Wouldn't want it in a movie, though.
And the glossy look of the trunks puts me even more against them. He looks like a stripper.

[Herr Logan]

http://www.louanders.com/uploaded_images/Batman-706327.JPG

Nice.

Here's how I'd change it for my ideal Movie!Batman look:


The gray bodysuit would be a much darker gray, though still clearly contrasting with the black in proper lighting.
The seams on the suit should not be that visible. Darkening the suit might help with that. Then again, I'd be going with a neoprene wetsuit-type suit, and if there's a zipper, it'd be in the back.
The belt could stand to be darker in a movie. As a so-called "purist", I can never say across the board that you "shouldn't" use yellow in a Batman movie costume, but I'd personally prefer a darker shade.
Also regarding the belt, the belt itself and pouches need to be shorter in height and/or the hem-line of the trunks needs to be lower. I realize that if you took that belt away, if the trunks begin at the beltline, they'd be perfectly respectable (compare them to the mini-Speedo in 'Singerman Returns'), but with the belt that thick, there needs to be a lower cut for it to look right.
No part of the costume should look glossy, except for perhaps the chest emblem. The Batman of the comics wears a non-reflective suit, even if it comes across differently in the panels because of coloring issues. It's not just the gray bodysuit that doesn't reflect unnecessary light, it's everything. The chest emblem is-- if the designer wishes-- exempt from that because that's where he's most heavily armored and he wants people to either shoot his chest or shoot his cape (which is a target because he spreads it out wide), if they must shoot him at all.
I don't know what's with that guy's facial expression, but he needs to change it. Make him change it, now!

Good find. :up:

:wolverine

[Bathead]

About the belt in that pic. It's OK. I would change the pouches to look less like fabric and out of a hard material, more like they did in Begins. And I also liked the dark gold color of the belt in Begins too. Still sort of a "yellow feel", if you will, without being overly bright.
If anybody has the Alex Ross JLA Batman action figure, I'd like the belt to be more like that in color and construction, the only difference being the pouches would be smaller.

[Wams]

http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs11/i/2006/259/8/6/Bats_by_BroHawk.jpg

:spidey:
:supes:

[lujho]

Practically, they have not been explained in the comics but they can easily be rationalized as a harness attached to the belt (a belt alone would not be sufficient support for all the rappeling and whatnot batman does).

One other possibility thatr no-one really mentions is that it's not a separate piece worn over the suit at all. It's just a part of the suit that's a different colour, like the emblem. Depending on how it's done that could possibly work just as well as anything.

[Chris Wallace]

Some artists make it look that way when they draw it-like Lee & Ross.
I just prefer a solid color & I fail to see how a solid color could have stirred up such outrage.

[Saint]

One other possibility thatr no-one really mentions is that it's not a separate piece worn over the suit at all. It's just a part of the suit that's a different colour, like the emblem. Depending on how it's done that could possibly work just as well as anything.
I personally prefer the seperate-piece look (much like I prefer the symbol to be a seperate piece). Though, again, I am not qualified to speak on what will or will not work on film.

[lujho]

http://www.louanders.com/uploaded_images/Batman-706327.JPG

The trouble with a suit like this is that it tries so very, very hard to look exactly like the comic, without regards to choice of materials and overall look.

It looks like a masquerade costume, not a real functining garment.

Sure, the belt looks exactly like everyone draws it, but it looks fake - it's a prop, not a real belt. And yeah, it should not be bright yellow. I think medium brown/tan is actually the best balance of real/practical and faithful - it's not like artists haven't done it before.

The bodysuit is just cheap lycra was we always see on these sort of costumes and the finish is really a million miles away from what we'd want to see in a proper film. The emblem would look much better raised than simply printed on.

The gloves don't look like "real" gloves, if you know what I mean. They look like someone has tried to make some gloves that look like Batmans gloves in the comics and nothing more. They don't have any life or character.

And whatever material the suit should be (smooth-skin neoprene, probably), the trunks should be the same... perhaps even integrated into the costume itself as I said in my previous thread.

The cowl and cape, to me, is almost *too* sleek and seamless, and not practical or real looking. Too concerned with exactly replicating the drawn image. I don't think there's any real crime in seeing some obvious diffence between the cape and cowl, an obvious place where they join or change material or if they're both separate pieces, as long as it's still got the basic shapes of the comic design down, and a bit of elegance. Huge-ass cape clips is a little too inelegant.

And the whole thing... there's no wear or weathering or character. Real clothes have that. Your shoes have creases and scuffs, your jeans have fraying and fading and grime and wear etc, and stuff like belts and pouches would have the same.

Honestly, costumes like this hurt the suit purist's argument because there really is no way this exact suit should be seen in a film, and people with limited imaginations can only see the flaws. It doesn't show how great a more comic-looking suit *could* look.

Check out the dude's physique though... perfect for a superhero. And there's no reason a high-tech armour-vest couldn't be more or less that same shape and go underneath.

[The Last Meatbag]

His torso is awesome for a superhero.....arms.......not so much

[lujho]

I personally prefer the seperate-piece look (much like I prefer the symbol to be a seperate piece). Though, again, I am not qualified to speak on what will or will not work on film.

I think though that if the suit had a few seams though (like most of my designs), then the black part of the "trunks" area could be delineated by those seams.

The black part, I think, should not look simply "painted on" any more than the emblem should.

Another thing you could do is delineate the trunks-shape with seams or an actual separate pair of trunks... but keep them the same very dark grey as the suit. I'm not sure exactly how that would look but it's a thing to think about... something to eliminate the "naked grey man with a belt" thing.

If you think about it, the Begins suit has some very definite sculpted lines to delineate a briefs-type area, which happened to be the same colour as the rest of the suit (aka the codpiece). It was just somewhat closer to a thong-shape than briefs or trunks.

(edited to change "thing-shape" to "thong-shape", but you knew what I mean. I don't think anyone wants anything to be "thing"-shaped.)

[lujho]

duplicate post deleted.

[Saint]

I think though that if the suit had a few seams though (like most of my designs), then the black part of the "trunks" area could be delineated by those seams.

The black part, I think, should not look simply "painted on" any more than the emblem should.

Another thing you could do is delineate the trunks-shape with seams or an actual separate pair of trunks... but keep them the same very dark grey as the suit. I'm not sure exactly how that would look but it's a thing to think about... something to eliminate the "naked grey man with a belt" thing.

If you think about it, the Begins suit has some very definite sculpted lines to delineate a briefs-type area, which happened to be the same colour as the rest of the suit (aka the codpiece). It was just somewhat closer to a thing-shape than briefs or trunks.


Yes, I think of the codpiece was changed into a trunk-like shape it would look much better.

[afan]

http://www.louanders.com/uploaded_images/Batman-706327.JPG

Honestly, costumes like this hurt the suit purist's argument because there really is no way this exact suit should be seen in a film, and people with limited imaginations can only see the flaws. It doesn't show how great a more comic-looking suit *could* look.


I don't see that this concept hurts the "purist's" arguments at all, any more than the "home-made" costumes based strictly on the film designs to date are evidence against that concept.

[Bathead]

I don't see that this concept hurts the "purist's" arguments at all, any more than the "home-made" costumes based strictly on the film designs to date are evidence against that concept.
Exactly. This costume and others like it were made by someone in their spare time at home, to wear at cons and parties and whatever. Not made by a Hollywood studio with a budget to match. Spend as much time and money and man-hours on a comics-centric costume, then we'll talk. Until then, costumes like this one prove nothing.
BTW, for a homemade costume, it's pretty damn good.

[lujho]

It's not home-made, it's actually an official DC commissioned thing.

But anyway, I'm not saying that such costumes prove a purist take can't be done. Some people use them to say as much, but I firmly believe the opposite - it *can* be done, but these costumes don't do a great job of showing it. Such a costume is simply not good enough to show the true potential of how a comic-style suit could look.

They hurt our argument because even the absolute best comic-style suit that anyone can use as an example is still, as a whole, not good looking enough. You can use them to prove that yes, the cowl can be sleeker and more like the comics and that yes, the cape can be like it is in the comics etc, but you can't really (IMO) point to them and say, "see, this looks absolutely amazing and would work great on screen" because no-one's made one that's good enough yet.

[Bathead]

I see.
I think you're right there. As I said, until we see a studio spend the time and money on such a suit, there is no way anyone can say it "wouldn't" work, either.

[DAVIDYR1]

I see.
I think you're right there. As I said, until we see a studio spend the time and money on such a suit, there is no way anyone can say it "wouldn't" work, either.


Exactly!!

I'm a big fan of the rubber suits but a fabric 'type' suit certainly could be the cats meow!!!

I say as long as Batman looks cool...and I mean COOOOL then go with whatever....even briefs could work for me as long as in the whole context of the costume they worked...
I'm not big personally on the whole yellow/gold oval behind the chest logo any more though...loved it for Batman Forever...but dont want to see that anymore on the big screen.

Just make him cool!!! Batman 89 he was uber cool looking...was not at all a fan of Returns...loved Forever's Batsuit well at least the panther...and think they nailed it with Begins...I was blown away with that design and style...I'm hoping to be blown away once again with TDK...

Bring it!!!!!!

:)

David

[Herr Logan]

I don't know Logan.Where do you get the idea that "Joker won't act or look like the Joker"? The only thing I've seen that remotely suggests this is speculation from "fans", and I give them all the attention I think they're due. Which is none.
It's too early to start worrying. If you have this attitude now, it's possible you won't give the movie a fair chance when it does come out. Let's all wait and see a little more before we start condemning the movie based on unsubstantiated rrumor.

I apologize for overlooking this. It's a hard thread to keep track of sometimes.

Yes, I'm basing my lowered expectations on the rumors and childish speculation of so-called "fans" who want to see a bastardized, cheapened version of the Joker.

I'm not "worrying," I'm lamenting in advance. If things turn out badly, I'll have already accepted that (not that I'll stop complaining, mind you ;)) and won't be disappointed. If things turn out better, then I can only be pleasantly surprised.
It's the Power of Negative Thinking. It's not the best of all Powers to have on your side, but it gets the job done.

If anything, I'm giving the movie more than a fair chance. They're not going to make the movie worse simply because I expect it to be badly written and conceived. They'll do whatever serves their own ego and that of the studio higher-ups, and I will never believe that that includes a faithful rendition of the Joker until I see it. Why set myself up for disappointment?

I've seen people cling to false hope that the Fantastic Four movie would give us a faithful and quality rendition of Dr. Doom, and I had no pity for them when they were inevitably disappointed. It really depends on how much information is available before the final product is viewable, and when we get to a few short months before release, we'll definitely know enough to get an reasonable idea of what we'll see in the theater-- or at least those of us will who are without a desperate need to "believe" or "trust" in a film crew we've never met and a movie we're not profiting from.

When I'm wrong about predictions of things I can't control, that's almost always a good thing, since a positive turn of events will have occurred. If I'm right, then nobody can call me naive, gullible or ignorant. That's the Power of Negative Thinking.

:wolverine

[Bathead]

I understand. It can be hard to be positive when you feel you've been burned too many times.
Me, I generally try to keep a positive outlook, but I also try to be a realist at the same time. It can be a tricky balance to maintain.
When the news about Begins started trickling in about cast and crew, I was happy to see names like Caine, Neeson, and Oldman, but, not being familiar with Nolan or Bale, I held my enthusiasm in reserve, despite the positive things fans were saying. When I saw the first pics of the suit, I was apprehensive, but hopeful. It wasn't awful, and I thought again, let's wait and see. Same with the Batmobile. And in the end I was very happy with the results of the whole thing, despite some things I wished they had done differently. Overall those things to me were minor faults, and not big enough to ruin the movie for me. So, I'm gonna wait to see what TDK has to offer. Like Begins at this same basic time in it's development, the news to me so far has been good, but until I see the movie, I'm not gonna be sure about it, good or bad.

[Steelsheen]

http://www.louanders.com/uploaded_images/Batman-706327.JPG

The trouble with a suit like this is that it tries so very, very hard to look exactly like the comic, without regards to choice of materials and overall look.

It looks like a masquerade costume, not a real functining garment.

Sure, the belt looks exactly like everyone draws it, but it looks fake - it's a prop, not a real belt. And yeah, it should not be bright yellow. I think medium brown/tan is actually the best balance of real/practical and faithful - it's not like artists haven't done it before.

The bodysuit is just cheap lycra was we always see on these sort of costumes and the finish is really a million miles away from what we'd want to see in a proper film. The emblem would look much better raised than simply printed on.

The gloves don't look like "real" gloves, if you know what I mean. They look like someone has tried to make some gloves that look like Batmans gloves in the comics and nothing more. They don't have any life or character.

And whatever material the suit should be (smooth-skin neoprene, probably), the trunks should be the same... perhaps even integrated into the costume itself as I said in my previous thread.

The cowl and cape, to me, is almost *too* sleek and seamless, and not practical or real looking. Too concerned with exactly replicating the drawn image. I don't think there's any real crime in seeing some obvious diffence between the cape and cowl, an obvious place where they join or change material or if they're both separate pieces, as long as it's still got the basic shapes of the comic design down, and a bit of elegance. Huge-ass cape clips is a little too inelegant.

And the whole thing... there's no wear or weathering or character. Real clothes have that. Your shoes have creases and scuffs, your jeans have fraying and fading and grime and wear etc, and stuff like belts and pouches would have the same.

Honestly, costumes like this hurt the suit purist's argument because there really is no way this exact suit should be seen in a film, and people with limited imaginations can only see the flaws. It doesn't show how great a more comic-looking suit *could* look.

Check out the dude's physique though... perfect for a superhero. And there's no reason a high-tech armour-vest couldn't be more or less that same shape and go underneath.

you've got all the right critiques Lujho, but you gotta admit this is a pretty good prototype of what a classic suit could look like in a film and that it could actually work (versus the rubber armour look).

personally i would preffer a combination of both. there are manips around this place showing just that. the perennial problem of the Batsuit is to find a material closely resembling the finish of the classic suit but still offering enough protection for the human being in it.

[Spider-Bite]

I've always wondered whose idea it was to put undies on the outside of superheroes' costumes.

whoever created Superman. I think it was to exencuate the package and scream manly, while making the girls a little excited.

[Spider-Bite]

you know I kind of liked the costume in this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN9KjQhdtl4

I know that mainstream audiences wouldn't like it for a movie, but I personally wouldn't mind at all. It would all depend on the writing to pull this costume off. the writing would have to help you suspend disbelief towards the idea that a man would walk around dressed like that and still be intimidating.

[Wams]

Batmans suit should be like the same material and look as
the Val Kilmer All black spy outfit he wore in the Saint.:word:

:spidey:
:supes:

[Herr Logan]

Gotta love YouTube. I finally saw 'Dead End' for the first time, as it would never download for me off of other sites.

I don't like the cowl from 'Dead End', nor do I think the belt/trunks set-up looks good (the belt needs to be shorter or the trunks need to be longer, or both). I also think the material of the costume is too thin. There shouldn't be any wrinkles in the middle of the torso. Again, I want a cloth-like material and not a thick rubber suit, but smooth-skin neoprene can better represent the Batman's real costume than thin fabric. The gray could stand to be considerably darker, too.

Unrelated to the Batman's costume, I personally hated 'Dead End's' rendition of the Joker. The voice, the face, the dialogue... it was all pretty bad.

:wolverine

[Saint]

I think any material they go with has to have some considerable weight to it. Aside from preferring that sort of thing aesthetically, I also have a hard time believing thinner materials to be bullet resistant. I also think the suit would be interesting if it was textured. If not, I would like to see some raised seams or other detailing.

I really don't mind wrinkling. In fact, I prefer it--even in the comics I prefer art where the costume exhibits the traits of actual garmets. Nothing extreme, mind you, but smartly drawn wrinkles can add a lot. Tricky to find the proper balance for film, though, I suspect. Of course, the is a difference between wrinkles and folds--folds being the problem the Begins costume had in certain areas. Not as noticable in the film as they were in promotional photos, but still a distraction from an otherwise good costume.

While my "ideal" batsuit would probably not fit in Nolan's batworld, it would be a black and (dark) grey suit of heavy fabric with some subtle seams and detailing, using the Alx Ross version of the batsymbol. I can go either way on trunks, but if there were no trunks the belt (which would have large pouches, small canisters, and other things) would have to be black. Actually, I might go with a black utility belt even WITH trunks. The cape an cowl would have to appear as one piece (somehow, even if they were not actually one piece) and the shoulders of the cape would need to be square. That is a MUST; I absolutely LOVE the look of the square-shouldered cape. The cowl is tricky because it would need to be thin enough to fit with the rest of the suit, but heavy enough to be stylized and keep it's shape. Long or short ears would work, but preferably not medium-length.

But, since the neoprene suit is established my suit would probably be to much of a departure. That being the case, there are simple changes do the Begins suit that could be made to make it cooler than it already is.

First, if one looks at the suit one can see that the arms and legs are much thinner and conservative in their decoration than the torso. I would suggest using that approach on the torso; thinner, simpler, and more flexible. It could even keep a plated look, though less complicated. Next up is the cape, which I think is made out of the most perfect material imaginable, so i won't tamper with that. My only issue with it is the damn clasps; the one aspect of the begins suit that I have to say are downright ugly. Obliterate them. I'd like the cape attached in such a way that in hangs in front of Batman a little more (Like the Returns suit, if not more so). I think having a collar added to the cape (like in many of Luhjo's designs) would work well, and would also solve my next issue: the cowl. I'm hesitant to suggest any changes because I really love the begins cowl. That said, eliminating the neck (by having the cape be a collar) would solve both the "neck folds" problem and the head movement problem (theoretically). The entire cowl would probably have to be thinned in order to avoid looking awkward on a thinner neck, but I want the cowl to retain it's current shape, because it looks great.

As far as colour is concerned, I would suggest that they NOT change the colour of the bodysuit. Despite the fact that the suit is meant to be all black, it isn't. The bodysuit appears a very dark shade of grey for most of the film, while all black in certain lights, which I think is great. All they need to do is make the cowl and symbol matte black (like the cape), and it would be perfect. Finally, It might be interesting to see the belt turned black as well.

[Herr Logan]

Ah, maybe I mean "folds" instead of "wrinkles." Not sure. All I know is, I don't want the folds that appeared on the Batman in 'Dead End,' and I sure as hell don't want that puffy look of the suit in 'Batman Begins.' If they went with a basic wetsuit, they could avoid both. But as long as they use something so thick it requires coils full of cold water to keep Bale cool, they'll never have a proper suit. The Batman doesn't need heavy armor, he needs to move. Even a traditional police issue safety vest would provide better maneuverability and comfort than what they're using.

:wolverine

[Saint]

Yeah, a wetsuit or something similar is essentially what I was talking about in my "ideal" description. The Begin's suit itself is essentially a wetsuit with rubber glue-ons. Obviously, the glue-on pieces are much thicker on the torso than they are on the arms and legs. Also, they are greater in number and complexity. In my second description--the compromise--what I would be suggesting is keeping the glue-ons, but using the same sort of simple, thin ones they used on the arms and legs (which were much more flexible than the core of the body in the film).

Just to illustrate my point, here's a shot of the Begins suit:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/batsuit.jpg

Here the difference between the chest and limbs is pretty obvious. You can see "wrinkles" at the joints, which I like, but the torso folds (which I don't like). The thinner. smoother, simpler approach to the arms and legs needs to be applied to the torso.

[Boom]

This should be the new batsuit:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_32/b3996068.htm

[Saint]

Best link ever. You win the thread.

[Boom]

"OMG teh fabric wouldn't be teh realistic!!!"


Out the window.

[Bathead]

Vunderbar! This is the perfect excuse for a traditional clothlike suit. Who said bullet proof armor has to look like armor. Whoever it was, was WRONG!!!!

[MJZ]

"OMG teh fabric wouldn't be teh realistic!!!"


Out the window.

You tell em man.

Bleedin' idiots.

[Herr Logan]

"OMG teh fabric wouldn't be teh realistic!!!"


Out the window.

Damn skippy, General Boom. Out the friggin' window. Good job. :up:

:wolverine

[Infinity9999x]

This should be the new batsuit:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_32/b3996068.htm

:up: :up: Someone should show that to Nolan.

[Bathead]

:up: :up: Someone should show that to Nolan.

"My thoughts, exactly." He said enthusiastically. :woot:

[Herr Logan]

If Nolan used that, it would be the first thing other than the "memory fabric" cape that was a new addition to the actual functions of the suit. Hope he'd have enough sense to use it properly and make the suit sleek instead of robotic.

And put some God damn scallops on that cape, for crying out loud! A cape without scallops is not a Batman cape, period. Everybody knows that.

:wolverine

[The Last Meatbag]

I still want teh cloth over armor :o


Good link Boom

[circa81]

I can't access the picture posted here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_32/b3996068.htm Could someone e-mail it to me? My e-mail address is: circa19812000@yahoo.com

[circa81]

Nevermind, I got it to work.

[Goddamn_Batman]

Check out the liquid armor in action. Wait until about 55 seconds into the video; awesomeness.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=V5mHnt3OlEA

[Bathead]

And put some God damn scallops on that cape, for crying out loud! A cape without scallops is not a Batman cape, period. Everybody knows that.

:wolverine
To be fair, the scallops were there, but there were too few, they were too large and shallow that they were basically invisible when the cape was relaxed. You could only see them when the cape was in glider position. I do agree they should have been a LOT more obvious than they were.

[lujho]

you've got all the right critiques Lujho, but you gotta admit this is a pretty good prototype of what a classic suit could look like in a film and that it could actually work (versus the rubber armour look).

Oh sure, it's got its strengths as well as its faults. Like I said, it (along with the DE cowl and some others) prove that a cowl can be extremely sleek and form-fitting like the comics, with a big mouth-hole etc. I don't like the ultra-smooth look of this cowl or the ultra-organic DE cowl, but they both have general shape and sleekness down. (Althoug notice that these sleek cowls are on guys with really thick necks - "comic-book thick" necks, which Bale certainly doesn't have - maybe he should work on that and the cowl wouldn't have to go to such pains to compensate).

Anyway, yeah, what these suits *do* show is that the general shapes of the costume parts as depicted in the comics *can* feasibly and quite easily be replicated in real life. They prove that not everything on the Begins suit was the way it was because it absolutely had to be.

[lujho]

Unrelated to the Batman's costume, I personally hated 'Dead End's' rendition of the Joker. The voice, the face, the dialogue... it was all pretty bad.
:wolverine

Concur. Looked extremely silly, it was a bad choice to emulate the more caricatured renditions of the Joker. All Joker *should* be is a guy with thin, angular, aquiline facial features, in a completely natural, yet visual striking way. Hey, that sounds just like Heath Ledger... oh wait, no it doesn't.

[The Last Meatbag]

He has a pretty strong jaw and a thin nose....

[lujho]

I really don't mind wrinkling. In fact, I prefer it--even in the comics I prefer art where the costume exhibits the traits of actual garmets. Nothing extreme, mind you, but smartly drawn wrinkles can add a lot. Tricky to find the proper balance for film, though, I suspect.

I agree, I like the look wrinkles give. You'd probably want about as much as the Superman or Fantastic Four suits have... which is what you'd logically get anyway. But even more wrinkling would probably look okay. Wrinkling is obviously inversely proportional to the thickness of the material anyway, so a thicker material would give the right amount.

While my "ideal" batsuit would probably not fit in Nolan's batworld,

People always say that, even if they agree with the idea that a more comic-like suit can work on film, like you. But I totally disagree. Any suit could fit in to Nolan's world, provided it is shown to be believeably sufficiently armoured (simply show armour underneath) and dark enough to not adversely harm his visibility. Such a suit is no more ridiculous than Begins'. Nothing else is neccessary - if the suit is treated seriously in the film it'll be taken that way by the audience, as long as it looks good enough.

and the shoulders of the cape would need to be square. That is a MUST; I absolutely LOVE the look of the square-shouldered cape.

Bolland style? Funny, I've thought about this but don't think I've ever mentioned it - you could simply have some shoulder pads embedded in the cape (or only some of them, when he's fully draped. You wouldn't do it so it's blatantly obvious, you'd make it subtle and invisible - done right no-one would notice. AND you could possibly use this technique to emulate something like Mignola's downward sloping shoulders too, if that look was desired (I thick it could look cool). Of course, you wouldn't try to get the look as extreme as that, but a more subtle version. ANOTHER possibility with the cape would be to have some sculpted inserts running down the back of it that look like vertebra, to give it a kind of Simon Bisley look (other artists do this too). You'd probably just want them to appear when the cape is flat against his back... you'd probably just need to have them on the back of the suit. If the back part of the cape (just a triangle going down from his shoulders to the small of his back) was thin leather, the inserts would show through and give a very creatury look (which is what the Begins suit greatly lacks IMO, apart from some of the cowl's facial features). That's why leather is a great material - the creature look. Same for possibly skin-textured neoprene. Would do wonders for the batman's look. Thanks for reminding me about this cape stuff - those are a couple of ideas I've had for years but don't think I ever mentioned here.

First, if one looks at the suit one can see that the arms and legs are much thinner and conservative in their decoration than the torso.

And much more organic, too.

I would suggest using that approach on the torso; thinner, simpler, and more flexible. It could even keep a plated look, though less complicated. Next up is the cape, which I think is made out of the most perfect material imaginable, so i won't tamper with that. My only issue with it is the damn clasps; the one aspect of the begins suit that I have to say are downright ugly. Obliterate them. I'd like the cape attached in such a way that in hangs in front of Batman a little more (Like the Returns suit, if not more so). I think having a collar added to the cape (like in many of Luhjo's designs) would work well, and would also solve my next issue: the cowl. I'm hesitant to suggest any changes because I really love the begins cowl. That said, eliminating the neck (by having the cape be a collar) would solve both the "neck folds" problem and the head movement problem (theoretically). The entire cowl would probably have to be thinned in order to avoid looking awkward on a thinner neck, but I want the cowl to retain it's current shape, because it looks great.

Well, I disagree about some aspects of the cowl shape, but I agree with all the rest of that, especially about thinning down the entire cowl. The thing about the head-neck ratio is true - all that matters is that the neck is at least as wide as the head or a bit wider, and it'll look right. Having the whole head/neck thinner would also broaden the shoulders, and combined with abovementioned shoulder-padding would create a really awesome sillhouette

As far as colour is concerned, I would suggest that they NOT change the colour of the bodysuit. Despite the fact that the suit is meant to be all black, it isn't. The bodysuit appears a very dark shade of grey for most of the film, while all black in certain lights, which I think is great. All they need to do is make the cowl and symbol matte black (like the cape), and it would be perfect. Finally, It might be interesting to see the belt turned black as well.

I still don't know how black the suit really is - I'm not sure I agree that it's not black. There's only really one way to know - get the blackest matte black paint and paint a dot of it on the actual suit, let it dry. If it's visibly darker than the rest of the suit then the suit is indeed grey, and simply the cowl and emblem need to be darkened to match (but with the emblem glossier - that would look good IMO).

But I still think the suit's actually pretty black, because the boots don't look that much darker and surely they're as black as can be, and the gauntlets looking darker is really more about the matte vs gloss thing, which is an optical illusion - a glossier object has blaker blacks and whiter highlights, and is overall less diffused, but overall it's reflecting the same amount of light.

In some of those high-res, well-lit studio shots floating about there are bits where the suit, boots and gauntlets look pretty much the same shade.

In which case the black (back to the paint experiment, if the dried black paint really is no darker than the rest of the suit) then the suit really IS black, and the main part of it could be lightened slightly... and lit on film accordingly so that the contrast is visible when needed and not when not.

[lujho]

The Begin's suit itself is essentially a wetsuit with rubber glue-ons.

And something we've never seen in Superhero stuff is a wetsuit with smaller, more spaced out rubber glue-ons. Like, separate shoulder caps, bicep caps, forearm and shin plates, chest and ab plates, and maybe a codpiece.

That's a thing I think could look good. Shark-Boy and Lavagirl kind of did it with Shark-boy's a outfit but not to great effect. I think maybe some asian films have done something similar but I'm not sure.

If not for Batman it's something I'd like to see if they ever do another Daredevil... maaaaaaybe Flash. If you can get dark red smooth-skin neoprene, you're set. Would actualy work for a LOT of characters especially ones who are essentially mortal/human/not completely invincible. X-Men, Shield, Captain America etc. It's basically a whole new look that's never been done.

[lujho]

I still want teh cloth over armor :o
Good link Boom

Even with a cloth that was armour in some way, you'd probably have armoured plates underneath in certain areas anyway. The fact that the cloth is also armour would be of most benefit to the joints and extremities. There's be no reason not to have some kind of vest over the torso too.

[Herr Logan]

Concur. Looked extremely silly, it was a bad choice to emulate the more caricatured renditions of the Joker. All Joker *should* be is a guy with thin, angular, aquiline facial features, in a completely natural, yet visual striking way. Hey, that sounds just like Heath Ledger... oh wait, no it doesn't.

Heh heh heh. Ouch. :D

:wolverine

[lujho]

He has a pretty strong jaw and a thin nose....

He has a very strong, masculine jaw and chin (God, I wish Bale and Routh rivalled him in that department - Joker should not have stronger/more masculine features than Batman for Chrissakes), but it's much wider than is ideal.

I don't think his nose is particularly thin and it's certainly not aquiline... while it's not huge it's ever so slightly bulbous. They had a similar problem with McKellen as Galndalf - the character's supposed to have a very long, thin nose, which mC Kellen certainly doesn't have. They ended up giving him a hawkish but still quite wide nose, which was okay because the beard compensated for it and also Gandalf's entire look isn't based around thin-ness... Joker's is.

I think that the best we can get with Ledger... possibly... is that with prosthetics he'll end up looking something with Noel Fielding, at least in the nose department. That could possibly work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Fielding
http://images.google.com.au/images?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGGL_enAU177&q=noel%20fielding&sa=N&tab=wi

[The Last Meatbag]

Meh, I still think he'll kick ass :o

[Saint]

I agree, I like the look wrinkles give. You'd probably want about as much as the Superman or Fantastic Four suits have... which is what you'd logically get anyway. But even more wrinkling would probably look okay. Wrinkling is obviously inversely proportional to the thickness of the material anyway, so a thicker material would give the right amount.
Yeah; I've always said the FF suit approach would be absolutely perfect for Batman--maybe just a little thicker.

People always say that, even if they agree with the idea that a more comic-like suit can work on film, like you. But I totally disagree. Any suit could fit in to Nolan's world, provided it is shown to be believeably sufficiently armoured (simply show armour underneath) and dark enough to not adversely harm his visibility. Such a suit is no more ridiculous than Begins'. Nothing else is neccessary - if the suit is treated seriously in the film it'll be taken that way by the audience, as long as it looks good enough.
I agree, to a degree, but the issue is that the Begins suit is established now. I think a huge departure would be stretching it--not that I would mind seeing one, though.

Bolland style? Funny, I've thought about this but don't think I've ever mentioned it - you could simply have some shoulder pads embedded in the cape (or only some of them, when he's fully draped. You wouldn't do it so it's blatantly obvious, you'd make it subtle and invisible - done right no-one would notice. AND you could possibly use this technique to emulate something like Mignola's downward sloping shoulders too, if that look was desired (I thick it could look cool). Of course, you wouldn't try to get the look as extreme as that, but a more subtle version. ANOTHER possibility with the cape would be to have some sculpted inserts running down the back of it that look like vertebra, to give it a kind of Simon Bisley look (other artists do this too). You'd probably just want them to appear when the cape is flat against his back... you'd probably just need to have them on the back of the suit. If the back part of the cape (just a triangle going down from his shoulders to the small of his back) was thin leather, the inserts would show through and give a very creatury look (which is what the Begins suit greatly lacks IMO, apart from some of the cowl's facial features). That's why leather is a great material - the creature look. Same for possibly skin-textured neoprene. Would do wonders for the batman's look. Thanks for reminding me about this cape stuff - those are a couple of ideas I've had for years but don't think I ever mentioned here.
YTeah, there are plenty of ways to get the square shouldered look to work. Hell, it wouldn't even impede mobility if they did it right (see: Neo).

And much more organic, too.
Yes, exactly.

Well, I disagree about some aspects of the cowl shape, but I agree with all the rest of that, especially about thinning down the entire cowl. The thing about the head-neck ratio is true - all that matters is that the neck is at least as wide as the head or a bit wider, and it'll look right. Having the whole head/neck thinner would also broaden the shoulders, and combined with abovementioned shoulder-padding would create a really awesome sillhouette
Precisely.

[lujho]

I agree, to a degree, but the issue is that the Begins suit is established now. I think a huge departure would be stretching it--not that I would mind seeing one, though.

Well, that's true... a radically different suit would have to be written in to a sequel very well, and couldn't just be there without explanation. Just a tweaked version of the existing suit *could* be there with no explanation - he could have been using it for the last 6 months and honestly lines such as "Well, tonight I'll take the new suit out for a spin" are really kind of lame anyway.

But if you had a suit based on slightly different armour with cloth over it or something... one thing to incorporate into a way of explaining it would be to have SWAT cops wearing the same stuff, except over some kind of uniform. Think the various SWAT and security forces from the animated series. Then a few lines of dialogue about Waynetech's new, lighter, cheaper, better armour that was actually commercially feasible. And have those lines being made in regards to the police having them, not Batman. Just show that Batman's wearing the same (or similar) stuff. That makes Batman's gear more mundane and commonplace (though still very high end), which is what I think it very much should be. I don't think it makes sense for Batman to have a lot of very unique, one-off technology, unless it's for a very specific purpose. His everyday stuff should be modified from more widely available equipment (that even extends to the car for me, IMO).

On the other hand, if this theoretical new-look suit had been introduced in the very first movie, it would not harm or significantly alter the tone or believeability of Begins in anyway. They could have done it and it would have "fit" into the otherwise same universe that Nolan created, no problems.

[Saint]

Well, that's true... a radically different suit would have to be written in to a sequel very well, and couldn't just be there without explanation. Just a tweaked version of the existing suit *could* be there with no explanation - he could have been using it for the last 6 months and honestly lines such as "Well, tonight I'll take the new suit out for a spin" are really kind of lame anyway.

But if you had a suit based on slightly different armour with cloth over it or something... one thing to incorporate into a way of explaining it would be to have SWAT cops wearing the same stuff, except over some kind of uniform. Think the various SWAT and security forces from the animated series. Then a few lines of dialogue about Waynetech's new, lighter, cheaper, better armour that was actually commercially feasible. And have those lines being made in regards to the police having them, not Batman. Just show that Batman's wearing the same (or similar) stuff. That makes Batman's gear more mundane and commonplace (though still very high end), which is what I think it very much should be. I don't think it makes sense for Batman to have a lot of very unique, one-off technology, unless it's for a very specific purpose. His everyday stuff should be modified from more widely available equipment (that even extends to the car for me, IMO).

On the other hand, if this theoretical new-look suit had been introduced in the very first movie, it would not harm or significantly alter the tone or believeability of Begins in anyway. They could have done it and it would have "fit" into the otherwise same universe that Nolan created, no problems.

I agree.

[Chris Wallace]

Vunderbar! This is the perfect excuse for a traditional clothlike suit. Who said bullet proof armor has to look like armor. Whoever it was, was WRONG!!!!
1. The problem is selling it to the general moviegoing audience. We comic fans buy into the "armor that looks like cloth" bit all the time.
2. I seriously doubt they would switch to a radically different material when the rubber has-overall-been going over just fine.

[Bathead]

All it would take is a one sentence explanation by, say, Fox, and the general audience would be fine. General auduiences don't dwell on these things like fans do, it's not a big deal to them. And the point is if it had been done this way from the start, there wouldn't need to be a radical change. I'm just saying all the rationalization people use to justify the present suit over a more traditional suit has been shown to be incorrect.

[Chris Wallace]

Although I'm not in favor of him wearing tights, I do agree w/your general points.

[Saint]

He already wears tights; neoprene tights.

[Chris Wallace]

You know what I mean.

[Saint]

No, actually I don't. I have no idea why you keep going on about "tights." If you think anyone here has ever suggested Batman wear nylon or lycra, you're sadly mistaken.

[Chris Wallace]

No-some posts have suggested he wear "something along the lines of what Spider-Man wore in his movies."

[bunk]

I thought it was weird how in the 89 movie joker was like "he's at home, washing his tights!" Its kind of funny but it takes you out the movie a little.

[Saint]

No-some posts have suggested he wear "something along the lines of what Spider-Man wore in his movies."
Which is neoprene: exactly what the Begins costume is made of, without the foam-rubber glue-ons.

[Herr Logan]

Which is neoprene: exactly what the Begins costume is made of, without the foam-rubber glue-ons.

Everyone getting this so far?

:wolverine

[JBElliott]

Where did all the rubber suit lovers go? When Begins was in production there were more of them than "traditional suit" people. Now it sounds like there are more traditional suit people. Which is nice because I like the traditional suit and made many of the same arguments I've read on the last two or three pages of this thread a long time ago. Maybe the tide will change with the new movie as well and we'll finally see a bat suit that looks like what we see in the comics.

[batman44]

Everyone getting this so far?

:wolverine

hopefully:o

[Bathead]

From what's been said so far, BY Chas. Roven, I think, The suit will be "lighter and smoother", which leads me to believe it will be closer to the comics design. Not exactly, but closer.

[The Last Meatbag]

I just want some sort of middleground.....that will have better movement...



Because I wanna see Batman do something acrobatic this time dammit :cmad:

[lujho]

1. The problem is selling it to the general moviegoing audience. We comic fans buy into the "armor that looks like cloth" bit all the time.
2. I seriously doubt they would switch to a radically different material when the rubber has-overall-been going over just fine.

The point is that if such stuff really existed (as researchers are obviously working towards) you wouldn't HAVE to sell it to the audience, just as you don't have to sell the idea of heavier than air flying machines or horseless carriages.

If soldiers are going to be wearing lighter, more flexible armour in 5-10 years time, it would be silly for Batman not to. The whole idea with Batman's technology in Begins is it's supposed to be stuff that'd be do-able 5-10 years from now (like the memory fabric).

[lujho]

Because I wanna see Batman do something acrobatic this time dammit :cmad:

Yeah, I want to see an acroBatman, too.

[Alpha and Omega]

I wouldn't mind seeing some improvements to the suit, if they were for better agility or helped in some specific way, but I don't think it should be done just to appease people who don't like the feel of the BB design.

[Saint]

Yeah, I want to see an acroBatman, too.
Damn straight.

[Herr Logan]

Yeah, I want to see an acroBatman, too.

Double damn straight!

:wolverine

[Kaizer]

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3356/batmanja6.jpg

http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=batmanwn2.jpg

Homemade...

[KalMart]

They have to change that mask/cowl...the inward-tapered ears and circular jawline-cutout really looked quite silly to me....kinda made him look like Scooby-Doo. I think they should go with straighter, more angular lines. Even Clooney's cowl looked better to me than the one Bale wore. Skip the nipples, of course. :cwink:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40624000/jpg/_40624008_clooney_ap_220.jpg

[Cobblepot]

I liked the Begins cowl, but your richt sometimes the jawline area looked weird. But I doubt that they will change the cowl.
'cause remember, he had about 5000 spares.

[bunk]

Yeah, I feel like the cowl is one part of suit that they probably won't mess with.

[Chris Wallace]

I just want some sort of middleground.....that will have better movement...



Because I wanna see Batman do something acrobatic this time dammit :cmad:
Not really his forte. Flashy moves were part of Schumacher's Batman.

[DorkyFresh]

i like the liquid cloth idea...

...unfortunately, he would still need some sort of padding underneath the cloth. the cloth can stop the bullet, but it can't stop broken bones.

[cryptic name]

I liked the Begins cowl, but your richt sometimes the jawline area looked weird. But I doubt that they will change the cowl.
'cause remember, he had about 5000 spares.

true, but they were also in the process of ordering improved cowls. on account of a problem with the graphite :word:

[KalMart]

QWuick mock-up of bale in a different mask/cowl....

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4637/balebattercn3.jpg

[Chris Wallace]

QWuick mock-up of bale in a different mask/cowl....

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4637/balebattercn3.jpg
*VOMITS*

[KalMart]

*VOMITS*
And that's something new? :woot:

Was it the nipples?

[Chris Wallace]

In part; it was just revisiting a bad memory coupled with the idea of its return.

[KalMart]

In part; it was just revisiting a bad memory coupled with the idea of its return.
I know what you mean...unfortunately, whatever miniscule good aspects of those Batman movies (I include those Burton atrocities as well) are overwhelmed by the films themselves. But they REALLY need to do something about Bale's mask/cowl. It's too egg-shaped.

[Chris Wallace]

I didn't mind the cowl at all. And I DON'T want his neck immobilized like his predecessors.

[KalMart]

I didn't mind the cowl at all. And I DON'T want his neck immobilized like his predecessors.
Agree about the neck...Bats moving around like he has a neck brace doesn't fly. But I just felt that the BB cowl didn't look every good from a lot of angles. And the whole nomex armor thing looked a bit too bulky....made his shoulders less broad.

[fabman]

the cowl was great. i don't want a streamlined cowl like we got in the 1989 - 1997. wouldn't work with bale in it...

[KalMart]

I dunno...to me, the cowl/mask was the weakest part of the entire film (leaving Ms. Cruise out of the discussion), which was otherwise quite good. It definitely won't kill the sequel if they keep it, but changing it some would just top things off nicely. It just felt underwhelming, especially when we first actually see Batman pull Falcone out of the car.

[The Last Meatbag]

the cowl was great. i don't want a streamlined cowl like we got in the 1989 - 1997. wouldn't work with bale in it...

Yes it would :confused:

His face shape is perfect for a more form fitting mask...

[lujho]

But I doubt that they will change the cowl.
'cause remember, he had about 5000 spares.

ONLY of the graphite shell part, which does not include the neck, ears, or the shape of the mouth-hole. It's only the face top of the head. ANd even then there's room to tweak the face if it's only minor, a in a retcon kind of way (i.e. pretend it was always like that).

[Thespiralgoeson]

I hade the Begins cowl. I f***ing hate it. It bores me to tears...

Seriously, I hate the tiny ears, the ridiculously oversized jaw-line and the fact that the head itself is just to friggin big, and I hated eyebrows. Really, other than the nose, which I kinda liked, I hated everything about the cowl.

[Lobster Charlie]

The Begins cowl was weird---it managed to look completely different from every single angle.

Looked great in these scenes:

-Batcave while talking to Rachel
-Train station while giving Rachel photographs
-Confronting Ra's before fighting the 4 ninjas
-"I'm Batman." with Falcone
-Storming down Arkham's hallways wtih bats swarming
-Talking to Gordon on the roof ("And you'll never have to," "We will. We can bring Gotham back.)
-Straight ahead while using the weapons-mode in the Tumbler



Looked weird in these scenes:

-Batman arriving at the narrows, talking to Gordon, asking if he could drive stick.

-Batman looking at the kid while scaling the wall
-Talking to Gordon at his apartment building
- Batman getting up right before being attacked by the gassed mob (right as he faces the camera)
-Batman using the thug's arm to shoot the other thug in the foot
-Batman just after he slams Crane's head into the wall


Basically, whenever he did a 3/4 angle, it was pretty tough on the eyes. Whenever he tilted his head down (and the ears were visible), it looked like the top of his head was too tall. But he looked fine from the side, and from straight ahead.

I thought the mean eyebrows worked, the mouth opening was a good size, and the actual mobility of it was fairly natural when it needed to be. I also really appreciated the scene where he just pops the thing off, after Rachel passes out.

They just need to make sure it works from a 3/4 angle better. And work a little more on the neck mobility, as good as it already is.

[Saint]

Fah, the cowl is the one thing they shouldn't change.

[The Last Meatbag]

I am for a thinner cowl :o

[Saint]

Well, yeah. I mean the shape. All the good stuff (98% of the cowl was awesome).

[bunk]

It seemed like they made such a big deal about bats being able to turn his head but still looked akward to me. His neck is so massive it looks bad when he does have his head turned. I get that they wanted him to look more animalistic, but should he really? I mean he's a bat, not a lion.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

the cowls are designed also to fit the look of the actor..

Bales cowl suits him..it doesn't need to be changed.

[KalMart]

the cowls are designed also to fit the look of the actor..

Bales cowl suits him..it doesn't need to be changed.
I bet we could find a pink tutu or frilly conga-band shirt to fit Bale perfectly. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try something else.

[Tad Fatherton]

Which is neoprene: exactly what the Begins costume is made of, without the foam-rubber glue-ons.
he is talking about appearances. the tights that batman wears in batman begins look like a completely different material than the tights spider-man wears. and in batman begins its not supposed to be neoprene.

[Jager X]

i just want bale to stop doing that thing with his mouth when he talks through the cowl. it's like when someone tries to talk when choking and they push their lips out farther to get the words out. without the mask it is less noticable but with the mask on it's friggin' annoying.

[KalMart]

i just want bale to stop doing that thing with his mouth when he talks through the cowl. it's like when someone tries to talk when choking and they push their lips out farther to get the words out. without the mask it is less noticable but with the mask on it's friggin' annoying.
It also isn't helped by the fact that the circular jaw cutout bunches up his cheeks.

[Saint]

he is talking about appearances. the tights that batman wears in batman begins look like a completely different material than the tights spider-man wears. and in batman begins its not supposed to be neoprene.
He says, not making one actual argument as to why a neoprene costume (as opposed to the Begins costume which is neoprene with rubber glue-ons) isn't feasible. Indeed, if neoprene with foam rubber detailing can pass as armor, neoprene alone should be able to as well--especially given recent advances in armor technology in the real world (see the various links in this thread).

Removing the glue-ons will not magically make the costume unbelievable.

[Tad Fatherton]

He says, not making one actual argument as to why a neoprene costume (as opposed to the Begins costume which is neoprene with rubber glue-ons) isn't feasible. Indeed, if neoprene with foam rubber detailing can pass as armor, neoprene alone should be able to as well--especially given recent advances in armor technology in the real world (see the various links in this thread).

Removing the glue-ons will not magically make the costume unbelievable.
i believe you missed the entire point that i was making. the neoprene costume used for the movie is not supposed to be made out of neoprene in the movie. yes, in the real world it is made out of neoprene, but in the movie it is a bulletproof material. just because spider-man's costume is made out of the same material in the real world does not mean it is made out of the same material in the movie world.

but yes, the idea of pretending neoprene is something else when it is on screen is completely feasible, they did it in batman begins.

[Chris Wallace]

He says, not making one actual argument as to why a neoprene costume (as opposed to the Begins costume which is neoprene with rubber glue-ons) isn't feasible. Indeed, if neoprene with foam rubber detailing can pass as armor, neoprene alone should be able to as well--especially given recent advances in armor technology in the real world (see the various links in this thread).

Removing the glue-ons will not magically make the costume unbelievable.
There IS a big difference. With it he looks like an armored avenger & without it it looks like a Halloween costume. And I'm simply not in favor of him wearing the simplistic tights. I like the armored look on film. I have seen many versions of his comic costume on living people & they just don't work for me; they convey more "superhero" than "creature of the night", & I prefer to think of him as the latter. The best Batman artists are the ones who manipulate shadow, positioning & his cape to conceal the fact that he is merely a man in a costume. Put that grey outfit & those trunks on a man in the real world & the fact becomes almost impossible to downplay.

[afan]

Originally posted by ChrisWallace:
I have seen many versions of his comic costume on living people & they just don't work for me; they convey more "superhero" than "creature of the night", & I prefer to think of him as the latter. The best Batman artists are the ones who manipulate shadow, positioning & his cape to conceal the fact that he is merely a man in a costume.

I've seen many versions of the black rubber Bat-suits on people that also leave much to be desired.

So would the best filmaker manipulate the lighting and camera angles.

[Chris Wallace]

When I referred to the suits I've seen on live people, I didn't mean just the ameteur costumes at the Con. And again, I'm not talking about the quality of the suits; I'm talking about the basic design. I'm not trying to be a naysayer here, it's just that Batman's comic book costume is essentially Superman with a different color scheme. It doesn't matter how much money or time you put into it when that's your template.

[jimmy]

I'd like to see this

http://www.darkknight.ca/gallery/azrael-b.jpg

[Cobblepot]

Azbats?

[Saint]

i believe you missed the entire point that i was making. the neoprene costume used for the movie is not supposed to be made out of neoprene in the movie. yes, in the real world it is made out of neoprene, but in the movie it is a bulletproof material. just because spider-man's costume is made out of the same material in the real world does not mean it is made out of the same material in the movie world.[
No s*it? If you took the time to read my post properly, you would realize my point was that if neoprene + foam rubber can pass as armour in the movie world, so can neoprene on it's own. I never said a word about the armour in the movie being made of neoprene, so I don't know where the hell you got that from.

[Saint]

When I referred to the suits I've seen on live people, I didn't mean just the ameteur costumes at the Con. And again, I'm not talking about the quality of the suits; I'm talking about the basic design. I'm not trying to be a naysayer here, it's just that Batman's comic book costume is essentially Superman with a different color scheme. It doesn't matter how mush money or time you put into it when that's your template.
Sweet; this post gives me warrant to disregard everything you say about anything, ever.

[Chris Wallace]

Sweet; this post gives me warrant to disregard everything you say about anything, ever.
And why is that? Becuase I don't think a grey body stocking conveys what Batman is supposed to be? I suppose they should go back to the blue cowl, too.

[Saint]

And why is that? Becuase I don't think a grey body stocking conveys what Batman is supposed to be?

Because given that hillarious post I can conclude that there is a fundamental difference in our points of view and that no mutual terms will ever be established between us. As such, reading your posts would be a waste of my time and only serve to annoy me. It seems to me you just don't like the look of Batman, which makes your comments on adapting Batman's look irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.

Comprehend?

[Herr Logan]

Because given that hillarious post I can conclude that there is a fundamental difference in our points of view and that now mutual terms will ever be established between us. As such, reading your posts would be a waste of my time and only serve to annoy me. It seems to me you just don't like the look of Batman, which makes your comments on adapting Batman's look irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.

Comprehend?

And he bares his teeth once again. Very gratifying. :up:

:wolverine

[Chris Wallace]

I feel the same way about Batman as I feel about Daredevil; awesome character, great motif. I love the mask. But the bodysuit doesn't do the motif justice. I grew up on a blue & grey-clad Batman. And I never took him seriously. The first time I did was when I saw the all-black Batman, crashing through the skylight & speaking in that gruff voice. And I fell in love w/that portrayal. The last thing I wanted was to see him in blue & grey again. If it were up to me his body stocking in the comics would be all black.

[The Batman]

Because given that hillarious post I can conclude that there is a fundamental difference in our points of view and that now mutual terms will ever be established between us. As such, reading your posts would be a waste of my time and only serve to annoy me. It seems to me you just don't like the look of Batman, which makes your comments on adapting Batman's look irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.

Comprehend?

OUCH!

Glad i wasnt on the receiving end of that

[Saint]

I feel the same way about Batman as I feel about Daredevil; awesome character, great motif. I love the mask. But the bodysuit doesn't do the motif justice. I grew up on a blue & grey-clad Batman. And I never took him seriously. The first time I did was when I saw the all-black Batman, crashing through the skylight & speaking in that gruff voice. And I fell in love w/that portrayal. The last thing I wanted was to see him in blue & grey again. If it were up to me his body stocking in the comics would be all black.
You have confirmed my assesment. Thank you.

[Tad Fatherton]

[
No s*it? If you took the time to read my post properly, you would realize my point was that if neoprene + foam rubber can pass as armour in the movie world, so can neoprene on it's own. I never said a word about the armour in the movie being made of neoprene, so I don't know where the hell you got that from.
calm down. you don't need to freak out. you still don't understand, so stop trying to justify yourself. go back a couple pages and read the quotes above the one from you that i originally posted. but seriously, you don't need to throw a temper tantrum every time someone dissagrees with you, either grow up, or calm down.

i am talking about the costume being neoprene in th movie because the quote i quoted from you was responding to someone saying the batman suit should be like the spider-man suit. i thought i made that very obvious.

and by the way, filling your post with cuss words makes you look really cool, i'm totally intimidated by your presence on the internet.

[cryptic name]

calm down. you don't need to freak out. you still don't understand, so stop trying to justify yourself. go back a couple pages and read the quotes above the one from you that i originally posted. but seriously, you don't need to throw a temper tantrum every time someone dissagrees with you, either grow up, or calm down.

how come you're not this chilled in the transformers boards?

[Tad Fatherton]

You have confirmed my assesment. Thank you.
does it make you feel like a big man to bully people on the inernet? what do you get out of this?

[Tad Fatherton]

how come you're not this chilled in the transformers boards?
i like to mess with Cflash and xwolverine2

[Saint]

calm down. you don't need to freak out. you still don't understand, so stop trying to justify yourself. go back a couple pages and read the quotes above the one from you that i originally posted. but seriously, you don't need to throw a temper tantrum every time someone dissagrees with you, either grow up, or calm down.
I'm perfectly calm. That my manner is not peaches and cream does not constitute "freaking out." My freaks outs are much more... elaborate.

i am talking about the costume being neoprene in th movie because the quote i quoted from you was responding to someone saying the batman suit should be like the spider-man suit. i thought i made that very obvious.
I never said the batsuit should be like the Spider-man suit--I said they ARE the same, save for foam rubber detailing. Again, why you responded to me at all is still baffling. You posted as if you were refuting something I had said, in reality you were only rambling about the batsuit in the movie world not being made of neoprene; a notion I have never contradicted, anywhere, ever, in any universe, dimension or timeline.

and by the way, filling your post with cuss words makes you look really cool, i'm totally intimidated by your presence on the internet.
I've used one curse in this exchange (unless you count "hell" as a curse, which would be amusing), so I question your definition of "filling." That is to say, your definition of it is apparently wrong.

If you find my manner to be rude or aggressive and don't want to read my posts, put me on ignore. Otherwise, deal. I've broken no rules, and I'm not hugely concerned if Random Forumer #23643 thinks I'm a jerk, so I will continue to post as I always do.

does it make you feel like a big man to bully people on the inernet? what do you get out of this?
If you think what I'm doing is bullying, well, I suppose there's just no helping you.

[Tad Fatherton]

if this were a room filled with real people you would not be running your mouth the way you do. i had no intention of arguing with you, but you seem to be so incredibly insecure that you take everthing as a threat. just stop being rude, honestly, is that too much to ask? are you not capable of being polite? we get it, you're an elitist, now get over yourself.

[Saint]

if this were a room filled with real people you would not be running your mouth the way you do.
You are mistaken.

had no intention of arguing with you, but you seem to be so incredibly insecure that you take everthing as a threat. just stop being rude, honestly, is that too much to ask?
Yes, it is too much to ask. Perhaps if you were someone I knew or respected, I might consider. But you are not. You are only one of the vast number of people who, either on the internet or in real life, who have taken issue with my dialogue, and I will file you among their number under "Irrelevant."

Indeed, I am only rude when I feel it is warranted. If you look back, maybe you'll find the point where that happened.

are you not capable of being polite? we get it, you're an elitist, now get over yourself.
If I did, I wouldn't be an elitist.

[Tad Fatherton]

I never said the batsuit should be like the Spider-man suit--I said they ARE the same, save for foam rubber detailing. Again, why you responded to me at all is still baffling. You posted as if you were refuting something I had said, in reality you were only rambling about the batsuit in the movie world not being made of neoprene; a notion I have never contradicted, anywhere, ever, in any universe, dimension or timeline.

there you go again, attempting to be as rude as possible thinking it helps you to prove a point.

yes you do say the batsuit and spider-man suit are made out of the same thing, but they are not supposed to be, so your argument is worthless.

infact someone mentioned something about batman wearing tights, and you said "he does wear tights, neoprene ones" you're wrong batman does not wear neoprene tights.

[Tad Fatherton]

You are mistaken.


Yes, it is too much to ask. Perhaps if you were someone I knew or respected, I might consider. But you are not. You are only one of the vast number of people who, either on the internet or in real life, who have taken issue with my dialogue, and I will file you among their number under "Irrelevant."

Indeed, I am only rude when I feel it is warranted. If you look back, maybe you'll find the point where that happened.


If I did, I wouldn't be an elitist.

all i can say to you then, is that one day you are going to gt the **** beat out of you, and hopefully you will understand that you deserved it.

don't bother replying to me, i've already put you on ignore.

[Infinity9999x]

Sweet; this post gives me warrant to disregard everything you say about anything, ever. Well, he's acutally right. If you read books about the creation of Batman, Kane talks about how they were told to come up with another Superhero like Superman. He said he went for a design simmilar to Superman's, then altered it a bit. Finger made him change it even more, originally Batman was going to have red in his costume.

[Saint]

there you go again, attempting to be as rude as possible thinking it helps you to prove a point.
It has nothing to do with proving points and everything to do with being annoyed. Of course, I am not surprised you think you can decipher my motivations.

yes you do say the batsuit and spider-man suit are made out of the same thing, but they are not supposed to be, so your argument is worthless.
What argument? I have no idea what you're on about. I never said they're supposed to be made of the same thing, I only said that saying the batsuit should not be like the spider-suit makes no sense because, in reality, they're the same thing (except for foam rubber glue-ons). I am still trying to figure why you even commented.

infact someone mentioned something about batman wearing tights, and you said "he does wear tights, neoprene ones" you're wrong batman does not wear neoprene tights.
Oh yes--in the movie, they're nomex/kevlar tights. Perhaps the fact that I was talking about the real world confused you.

Again, why are we even having this discussion? What point did I make that you were trying to refute? Really, tell me, because I have no bloody idea.

[Saint]

Well, he's acutally right. If you read books about the creation of Batman, Kane talks about how they were told to come up with another Superhero like Superman. He said he went for a design simmilar to Superman's, then altered it a bit. Finger made him change it even more, originally Batman was going to have red in his costume.
I am well aware that Batman was created to capitalize on the success of Superman (In the past, I have pointed this fact out to people who think Robin being created to draw in a younger audience is a valid reason to omit him from the films). I am likewise aware of the Kane/Finger... relationship. It doesn't affect my statement. If you read a few posts above, I explained the reasonings behind said statement.

[Infinity9999x]

I feel the same way about Batman as I feel about Daredevil; awesome character, great motif. I love the mask. But the bodysuit doesn't do the motif justice. I grew up on a blue & grey-clad Batman. And I never took him seriously. The first time I did was when I saw the all-black Batman, crashing through the skylight & speaking in that gruff voice. And I fell in love w/that portrayal. The last thing I wanted was to see him in blue & grey again. If it were up to me his body stocking in the comics would be all black.

That's the way I was. I never liked the two color look for him when I was younger, and aside from that I never bought that he would be able to avoid bullets because I thought he wasn't wearing anything under his comic style suit. When I saw B89 I loved it, because it was different.

But now that I've seen lots of suits like that, I wouldn't mind them going back to something more traditional, albeit much darker then the comic colors. I would want the gray to be charcoal grey, and a dark dark black for the cowl, gloves, boots, cape. Also, I'd like to see them use a lighter suit so the actor can move more. I want to see an acrobatic Batman on film. But also I agree with you, I never want to see the grey/blue Batman. I've always hated that look in the comics, on film it would be horrible.

[Infinity9999x]

I am well aware that Batman was created to capitalize on the success of Superman (In the past, I have pointed this fact out to people who think Robin being created to draw in a younger audience is a valid reason to omit him from the films). It doesn't affect my statements.

Oh, ok. I just thought you were saying that you were disregarding everything he said because you didn't believe him that Batman's basic design was based off Superman. Misinterpretation on my part.

[Saint]

Oh, ok. I just thought you were saying that you were disregarding everything he said because you didn't believe him that Batman's basic design was based off Superman. Misinterpretation on my part.
Understandable.

[cryptic name]

i like to mess with Cflash and xwolverine2

ah. noted

[Chris Wallace]

That's the way I was. I never liked the two color look for him when I was younger, and aside from that I never bought that he would be able to avoid bullets because I thought he wasn't wearing anything under his comic style suit. When I saw B89 I loved it, because it was different.

But now that I've seen lots of suits like that, I wouldn't mind them going back to something more traditional, albeit much darker then the comic colors. I would want the gray to be charcoal grey, and a dark dark black for the cowl, gloves, boots, cape. Also, I'd like to see them use a lighter suit so the actor can move more. I want to see an acrobatic Batman on film. But also I agree with you, I never want to see the grey/blue Batman. I've always hated that look in the comics, on film it would be horrible.
See, I could live with charcoal grey (sans trunks; I'm not budging on that) & perhaps a muted color for the belt.
I guess my main beef w/the grey is that we keep seeing this pale grey, & that's what makes my mind go immediately to Adam West.

[Chris Wallace]

Well, he's acutally right. If you read books about the creation of Batman, Kane talks about how they were told to come up with another Superhero like Superman. He said he went for a design simmilar to Superman's, then altered it a bit. Finger made him change it even more, originally Batman was going to have red in his costume.
I didn't even need that bit of information to base my statement on; just look at the 2 heroes side-by-side.

[Chris Wallace]

I should also point out that my previous remarks about artists manipulating the shadows & the cape-those same artists tend to keep the bodysuit concealed quite a bit.

[lujho]

That's the way I was. I never liked the two color look for him when I was younger, and aside from that I never bought that he would be able to avoid bullets because I thought he wasn't wearing anything under his comic style suit. When I saw B89 I loved it, because it was different.

But now that I've seen lots of suits like that, I wouldn't mind them going back to something more traditional, albeit much darker then the comic colors. I would want the gray to be charcoal grey, and a dark dark black for the cowl, gloves, boots, cape. Also, I'd like to see them use a lighter suit so the actor can move more. I want to see an acrobatic Batman on film. But also I agree with you, I never want to see the grey/blue Batman. I've always hated that look in the comics, on film it would be horrible.

I was reading son of The Demon and Batman is basically light, light grey and nearly sky blue in it. And he had a very similar (though slightly darker) colour scheme for many, many years (decades). I honestly can't think how anyone took that seriously... although, it was NOT meant to be taken *literally*. Often in captions it would describe Batman's cowl or cape as being black or night-blue or something, when the colouring was obviously light or medium blue.

Anyway, no-one's really asking for that colour scheme. If they are they're being way too faithful to a flawed representation of the character. The colour got brighter through laziness in inking and comic-book convention... but look right back to the beginning and it's plainly obvious that the intention is jet black and dark grey - some of the early Kane comics even had pen-hatching over the grey to make it darker.

That's what people want, and really what they want is far, far closer to 89's all black than it is to the abovementioned Son of the Demon style light grey and sky blue.

I mean, what most purists really seem to want is what Batman had in his "all-black" phase in the comics - which was rarely if ever all black at all - it was clearly a very dark grey with black or dark blue.

[lujho]

I guess my main beef w/the grey is that we keep seeing this pale grey, & that's what makes my mind go immediately to Adam West.

But most of us go to great pains to make clear that a dark grey is what we want. I shouldn't have to manip a costume pic of a black and light grey suit to be darker grey when it's easy enough to imagine it that way.

[JBElliott]

News is leaking out that they're going to use the old suit in the new movie.

[KalMart]

I should also point out that my previous remarks about artists manipulating the shadows & the cape-those same artists tend to keep the bodysuit concealed quite a bit.
Many of them also draw Batman with hyper-exaggerated musculature (with the help of said shading and definition), so you're looking more at his physique than the actual suit. Not as doable in live-action, especially in movement. I'm okay with the design approach to the BB suit, but the fit didn't look good....made him look too stocky and not broad enough in the shoulders. I think Bale put on too much muscle, as he's not as lanky as someone like Routh or Jackman...so it made him thicker, but not necessarily bigger-looking. I think he should've had his more toned and streamlined physique from American Psycho, and let the suit add a bit more girth and width in the shoulders.

[Chris Wallace]

Many of them also draw Batman with hyper-exaggerated musculature (with the help of said shading and definition), so you're looking more at his physique than the actual suit. Not as doable in live-action, especially in movement. I'm okay with the design approach to the BB suit, but the fit didn't look good....made him look too stocky and not broad enough in the shoulders. I think Bale put on too much muscle, as he's not as lanky as someone like Routh or Jackman...so it made him thicker, but not necessarily bigger-looking. I think he should've had his more toned and streamlined physique from American Psycho, and let the suit add a bit more girth and width in the shoulders.
I'll buy that. That seems to be the key to Jim Lee's appeal.
I think part of the reasoning behind Bale's suit is the fact that his predecessors relied TOO MUCH on the suit to bulk them out, & here they might've overcompensated a little.

[KalMart]

I'll buy that. That seems to be the key to Jim Lee's appeal.
I think part of the reasoning behind Bale's suit is the fact that his predecessors relied TOO MUCH on the suit to bulk them out, & here they might've overcompensated a little.
I still liked the actual design and reasoning behind it. It's just that...in being so dark, you tend to lose all those little details when worn and when moving, except in harder lighting like the Arkham hallway. Plus, you have that cape draped over it. Really though, aside from my quibbles with the actual cowl, I just thought they needed to make him look taller and broader altogether. Not necessarily adding extra musculature with the suit, but more of a towering, V-shape profile...especially in the shoulders and with how the cape hung. When you look at some cuts of business suits, you can add some width in the shoulders and adjust the fit in certain areas/waist to make even a skinny person look broader. If Bale were slimmer, there would be more room for adjustment, but since he was so thick in the chest and arms, it started to take away, proportionally, from his overall height, IMO of course. He dosn't have to look ninja-thin, of course, but I still think some work could have been done if he hadn't been so husky. He doesn't have the longer frame of someone like Hugh Jackman or, say, Dolph lundgren...so the more muscle he puts on, the stockier and more barrel-shaped he looks. So for the next movie, I'd ask Bale just to tone down some, for starters. ;)

[Chris Wallace]

I was reading son of The Demon and Batman is basically light, light grey and nearly sky blue in it. And he had a very similar (though slightly darker) colour scheme for many, many years (decades). I honestly can't think how anyone took that seriously... although, it was NOT meant to be taken *literally*. Often in captions it would describe Batman's cowl or cape as being black or night-blue or something, when the colouring was obviously light or medium blue.

Anyway, no-one's really asking for that colour scheme. If they are they're being way too faithful to a flawed representation of the character. The colour got brighter through laziness in inking and comic-book convention... but look right back to the beginning and it's plainly obvious that the intention is jet black and dark grey - some of the early Kane comics even had pen-hatching over the grey to make it darker.

That's what people want, and really what they want is far, far closer to 89's all black than it is to the abovementioned Son of the Demon style light grey and sky blue.

I mean, what most purists really seem to want is what Batman had in his "all-black" phase in the comics - which was rarely if ever all black at all - it was clearly a very dark grey with black or dark blue.
I'm well aware of where the blue came from; the numerous Blue Panthers & blue Venoms I've seen over the years can attest to that. I just don't want Batman to look like a modified Superman. Surely there's some sort of middle ground.