Originally Posted by Saint
I would prefer the latter, but either is fine.
My issue is that's big and it's obvious. Muscle suits are (usually) a fact of life in Superhero films, and I understand why (though Spidey looked his best without one in ASM2). That said, I've always found the most effective muscle suits to be the ones that you don't think about because they aren't screaming at you.
MOS had a really elaborate muscle suit, but it was designed to be disguised by the suit itself in a way that made it (usually) look subtle. Superman's silhouette wasn't riddled with fake muscle, but when the light hit it the right way it added just enough to make him seem super.
That was great.
This Batman suit, as I've said previously, is a very different approach--and though I understand why, it isn't the way I would have gone. They clearly wanted to build a suit that, in the right conditions, is going to look like the rippling sinew of a horrible batmonster. I commend them for doing such an exceptional job in that regard; the suit has a wonderful balance where it looks, at once, like both a creature and like a rugged, used piece of equipment.
It's a very novel and interesting approach--but I can't help it, I still find the muscle distracting.
This is essentially where I'm coming from. I don't want to be consciously aware of the muscle suit--I mean, Thor's sleeves have padding and airbrushing, but you don't usually notice it, you know? Similar deal with the Raimi Spider-Man costumes.
If this had been my movie, I would have built a sleeker, more elegant Batman--more Neal Adams/Norm Breyfogle/Jim Aparo than Frank Miller. That said, I can hardly fault the filmmakers for making what is, in effect, the perfect Frank Miller Batman.
I like this post, and you made some good points..
Though, ASM2 had a muscle suit.. And that you didn't notice it? It supports your own theory..
Speaking of Thor, and such.. I suppose that when we "know" it's armor? It may distract us less? Look less out of place?
I think back to Michael Keaton.. The difference in the size and physic was obvious, but we also knew it was armor as well..
Never minded that they bulked up Keaton with the suit. Never minded it one bit.
Which brings us to the new suit.. To which I think the path is like what they did on Keaton. I know everyone wants the real muscles underneath, to see the strength of the character even when the suit is off. The so called preparation that "Bruce" would have taken for his nights out. But, I suppose, it matters a little less for myself.. They could show hundreds of pics of Ben eating pizza and not being in the shape that we want? But all it will take is one shot within the film, taken months from now.. And then sold.. Within the context of the film.
As far as the abs? And how obvious they are? It seems that, perhaps, that it is too direct of a translation for some? I look at all of the artwork over the years, especially the work of Jim Lee.. And the abs were always so defined in the drawings. Kind of what I see in these pic of Ben in the suit?
I also think that having your chin down in a slouched over position is one of the most unflattering position for your abs.. I am curious to see what the suit looks like in color, but also when he is standing up straight.. And the midsection is not so compressed.
I think that it is some sort of armor.. Or protection that batman is wearing..
And like the Keaton suit of '89, I will not mind if Batman looks different than Bruce as far as the anatomy and size... We never got a naked shot of Keaton, and I am fine with that.