The Dark Knight Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Whack Arnolds]

the BEGINS suit was a wet suit with padding...

 

[Whack Arnolds]

"Narrow" is only ever doing something the one same way it's been done before.

Touche, my male muscle infactuated friend.

 

[lujho]

the BEGINS suit was a wet suit with padding...

On the outside, not the inside. 90% of the outside of the suit was sculpted rubber, the wetsuit wasn't even visible. As I said, there's a huge fundamental difference in look between an externally sculpted surface and one that isn't.

 

[Whack Arnolds]

Didn't WB mandate a rubber suit?

 

[Wams]

"Narrow" is only ever doing something the one same way it's been done before.

Thank you.

 

[Wams]

Why is "Spandex" the only alternitive to FOAM RUBBER?
It would completly conform to the body without fake enhancements.

This could be a cool valid way of making the Bat-suit.

 

[Wams]

DARK GREY ON BLACK WOULD BE SWEET!!!

 

[Wams]

 

[StorminNorman]

Now that is very nice work

 

[Wushuboy]

reminds me so much of the artwork in batman year one. I love it. Are you drawing these WAM?

 

[Steelsheen]

nice one Wams. i saw a t-shirt with this motif. very very cool

 

[Dangerous]

Leave the suit as it is I say.
If anything make the lines a bit more less angular but leave the bat symbol, and do not make the costume grey.
It just makes no sense in the context of real life street combat.
He is suppossed to be unseen.
All black is there for best.

 

[Dangerous]

I also really hope they dont mess w/ the look of the batmobile.
except for adding new weapons/features.

 

[batmaluco]

Pretty cool stuff!

 

[DorkyFresh]

that's a nice drawing, but what does it have to do with 'a new look for bats'

 

[JBElliott]

I refer you to my earlier point about degrees of believability. There is fiction that it is easy to pretend might exist in the present, and there is fiction that is not. I count bulletproof cloth in the latter category, along with intergalactic travel, lightsabers, jacking into computers, and tri-corders.

I count bullet proof rubber and a guy in a cape fighting crime in that category as well. Especially when that guy has a big unarmored bright colored target on his face (the cut out in the cowl) where a few bullets will kill him quickly and easily. (A report on NPR a few months ago gave details about how police were now training for head shot since many criminals are wearing body armor.) Nothing about Batman as detailed in "Batman Returns" is any more believable than "intergalactic travel, lightsabers, jacking into computers, and tri-corders" and it shouldn't be. Bond movies never work to explain how wearing only a tuxedo or business suit Bond is never shot, Batman films should do the same and give us a nice looking costume that's true to the comics.

 

[Saint]

I count bullet proof rubber and a guy in a cape fighting crime in that category as well. Especially when that guy has a big unarmored bright colored target on his face (the cut out in the cowl) where a few bullets will kill him quickly and easily. (A report on NPR a few months ago gave details about how police were now training for head shot since many criminals are wearing body armor.) Nothing about Batman as detailed in "Batman Returns" is any more believable than "intergalactic travel, lightsabers, jacking into computers, and tri-corders" and it shouldn't be.

If you actually believe that... well, then your logic is questionable, because by that logic a flying car, intergalactic spaceship, or teleportation device would not be out of place in a Batman film. This is why there are degrees of acceptability.

Furthermore, your analogies about the open mask and Bond tuxedo are irrelevant, because those are matters of [logic gaps, not fictional science. There is an entirely different set of degrees when it comes to logic in movies.

But your constant references to Bond reminds me of a good example: in the last Bond film (the one with Halle Berry that was disturbingly bad), wasn't it stupid how that one guy had a ridiculous suit of armour? Was I the only one who thought that didn't belong in a Bond film? Sure, laser-watches I can taken, but some guy in the Iron Man suit? No.

This bulletproof cloth thing is similar, if not so extreme.

 

[JBElliott]

If you actually believe that... well, then your logic is questionable, because by that logic a flying car, intergalactic spaceship, or teleportation device would not be out of place in a Batman film. This is why there are degrees of acceptability.

Furthermore, your analogies about the open mask and Bond tuxedo are irrelevant, because those are matters of [logic gaps, not fictional science. There is an entirely different set of degrees when it comes to logic in movies.

But your constant references to Bond reminds me of a good example: in the last Bond film (the one with Halle Berry that was disturbingly bad), wasn't it stupid how that one guy had a ridiculous suit of armour? Was I the only one who thought that didn't belong in a Bond film? Sure, laser-watches I can taken, but some guy in the Iron Man suit? No.

This bulletproof cloth thing is similar, if not so extreme.

The point about space travel and flying cars and what not is that people routinely accpet things far beyond the level of bullet proof clothe in movies all the time. If well done and germane to the plot people would accept them in a Batman movie, e.g. the Batman v. Predator comics or Batman v. Aliens comics show some good (and not as good) examples of how Batman can be done with that sort of thing.

The point is that Batman isn't real. The point of verisimilitude isn't to make up some fantastic explanation for the bat suit, the point is to make it feel like it's real using people's reactions and emotions, not some pseudo-science explanation for the materials. The Begins suit looked exactly like a wet suit. People believed it was bullet resistant because they were told it was. People will believe the same with a cloth looking costume.

Bond films and Bourne films are perfect analogies and totally relevant. The hero is faced with overwhelming odds and fights villians better armed and wins with little or no body armor. People accept that with no problem when it's well done, the same would be true in any well done Batman movie.

The Begins suit is wholey unrealistic, it has a big hole in the face where Batman could easily be shot, the cape is a huge liability and it's clear from the movie that the suit limits his mobility and that he can't turn is head very well and finally it looks like rubber no matter what the movie tries to say. The only reason this doesn't matter is because people accept the suit within the context of the movie. The same would be true of a good cloth looking suit.

The level of degree change from bullet proof rubber to bullet proof cloth is miniscule and won't be a problem for the average person if the suit is well made, looks good and works within the context of the movie.

As for the Iron Man suit, well that's pretty much where the logic that gets you the Begins suit ends up, as technology at Wayne Enterprises progresses, it's only logical (according to the Begins movie) that Wayne would have a full suit of armor with all the latest technological gadgets. Of course, that's not the Batman we're used to in the comics and animated series, but it is the logical result from the Begins movie.

If you like the rubber suit, then that's fine. But using "logical" arguments is never going to "prove" that a rubber suit is better than a cloth suit.

 

[Saint]

The point about space travel and flying cars and what not is that people routinely accpet things far beyond the level of bullet proof clothe in movies all the time.

Yes, in the right context. A Batman film is not the right context.

If well done and germane to the plot people would accept them in a Batman movie, e.g. the Batman v. Predator comics or Batman v. Aliens comics show some good (and not as good) examples of how Batman can be done with that sort of thing.

Irrelevant; in those instances the technology is transplanted from another universe were it is appropriate.

The point is that Batman isn't real. The point of verisimilitude isn't to make up some fantastic explanation for the bat suit, the point is to make it feel like it's real using people's reactions and emotions, not some pseudo-science explanation for the materials.
The Begins suit looked exactly like a wet suit. People believed it was bullet resistant because they were told it was. People will believe the same with a cloth looking costume.

I don't, and I am of the "people."

Bond films and Bourne films are perfect analogies and totally relevant. The hero is faced with overwhelming odds and fights villians better armed and wins with little or no body armor. People accept that with no problem when it's well done, the same would be true in any well done Batman movie.

Re-read my point: it's a false analogy because you're comparing logic gaps with fictional technology. They're different situations with different degrees of acceptability assigned to them, relative the context of the film.

The Begins suit is wholey unrealistic, it has a big hole in the face

Logical fallacy as opposed to scientific fallacy, and thus irrelevant to the bulletproof cloth issue.

the cape is a huge liability and it's clear from the movie that the suit limits his mobility and that he can't turn is head very well

Same as above.

and finally it lookslike rubber no matter what the movie tries to say. The only reason this doesn't matter is because people accept the suit within the context of the movie. The same would be true of a good cloth looking suit.

No, it wouldn't be the same at all. I refer you to ever comment I've made on degrees of believability.

The level of degree change from bullet proof rubber to bullet proof cloth is miniscule

Wrong. While cloth that doesn't BREAK might be believable, cloth that PROTECTS from gunfire is NOT. Being SHOT while wearing CLOTH, whether the bullet penetrates the cloth or not, is going to wound you horribly. Any prevention against this is an entirely different level of technology, such as a personal dampening field, which--much like Iron Man armour in a 007 movie--is entirely out of place.

As for the Iron Man suit, well that's pretty much where the logic that gets you the Begins suit ends up, as technology at Wayne Enterprises progresses, it's only logical (according to the Begins movie) that Wayne would have a full suit of armor with all the latest technological gadgets. Of course, that's not the Batman we're used to in the comics and animated series, but it is the logical result from the Begins movie.

Yeah, good point--if we're talking about Batman waiting fifty years while technology develops. Since we're not, that's irrelevant.

If you like the rubber suit, then that's fine. But using "logical" arguments is never going to "prove" that a rubber suit is better than a cloth suit.

Sure they are.

 

[JBElliott]

Yes, in the right context. A Batman film is not the right context.

Depends on the story.

Irrelevant; in those instances the technology is transplanted from another universe were it is appropriate.

Irrelevant; Batman exists in a "science fiction" environment all the time in the pages of JLA etc.

I don't, and I am of the "people."

Yes, but you're just one. The rest (save the few on here who prefer the rubber look) will accept a cloth looking bat suit.

Re-read my point: it's a false analogy because you're comparing logic gaps with fictional technology. They're different situations with different degrees of acceptability assigned to them, relative the context of the film.

It's not a false analogy, it's perfectly applicable to the point in question. People accept the logical gaps (e.g. the hole in the cowl and the cape) because of the context of the film. Just the same way they would accept a cloth looking bat suit.

Logical fallacy as opposed to scientific fallacy, and thus irrelevant to the bulletproof cloth issue.

The point is that the entire bat costume is logically inconsistent. If one puts forth a "comic book" logic argument to support a rubber looking suit for the purposes of making the "suspension of disbelief" easier for the audience, then that same argument can be used to "justify" a cloth looking suit.

No, it wouldn't be the same at all. I refer you to ever comment I've made on degrees of believability.

During a Batman movie the audience is already accpeting the unbelievable, a cloth looking suit would just be one more small thing to add to the list and wouldn't cause any problem if well done.

Wrong. While cloth that doesn't BREAK might be believable, cloth that PROTECTS from gunfire is NOT. Being SHOT while wearing CLOTH, whether the bullet penetrates the cloth or not, is going to wound you horribly. Any prevention against this is an entirely different level of technology, such as a personal dampening field, which--much like Iron Man armour in a 007 movie--is entirely out of place.

Right. Anything done well will be accepted by an audience that is willingly suspending their disbelief.

Yeah, good point--if we're talking about Batman waiting fifty years while technology develops. Since we're not, that's irrelevant.

You mean the same fifty years before bullet proof rubber is developed? Why does it have to be fifty years? Iron Man is set in the current day. In the comics Batman exists with several heroes who wear armor (e.g. Steel), therefore a fully armored "Iron Batman" (or Bat Ironman) doesn't need to be fifty years in the future. Fox could just as easily (and more believable in terms of the monetary reason the suit was never mass produced for the army) opened a drawer with a full Iron Man type suit of armor in it that Wayne takes to his cave and spray paints black. It's completly silly to say that bullet proof rubber is current day technology and Iron Man armor is fifty years away. They're both years and years and years away.

Sure they are.

No, they aren't.

 

[Saint]

Irrelevant; Batman exists in a "science fiction" environment all the time in the pages of JLA etc.

With all of those elements being supplied by other characters.

Yes, but you're just one. The rest (save the few on here who prefer the rubber look) will accept a cloth looking bat suit.

Unlikely. I also do not prefer the look as it appeared in the film.

It's not a false analogy, it's perfectly applicable to the point in question. People accept the logical gaps (e.g. the hole in the cowl and the cape) because of the context of the film. Just the same way they would accept a cloth looking bat suit.

I would explain why that isn't so, but I would just be rerpeating myself. Save me the trouble and re-read my posts.

The point is that the entire bat costume is logically inconsistent. If one puts forth a "comic book" logic argument to support a rubber looking suit for the purposes of making the "suspension of disbelief" easier for the audience, then that same argument can be used to "justify" a cloth looking suit.

Sigh, degrees.

During a Batman movie the audience is already accpeting the unbelievable,

Degrees.

a cloth looking suit would just be one more small thing to add to the list and wouldn't cause any problem if well done.

Degrees.

Right. Anything done well will be accepted by an audience that is willingly suspending their disbelief.

Oh, and degrees.

You mean the same fifty years before bullet proof rubber is developed?

No, I don't mean that, because (aside from the batsuit being made of kevlar, not rubber) there are--you guessed it!--degrees! On one degree is flexible kevlar, and on another is a cloth material that somehow protects against bullets

Why does it have to be fifty years? Iron Man is set in the current day.

Context. Iron Man shouldn't exist in nolan's universe, should he?

In the comics Batman exists with several heroes who wear armor (e.g. Steel), therefore a fully armored "Iron Batman" (or Bat Ironman) doesn't need to be fifty years in the future.

In the comics, no. The comics have an ever-evolving universe thanks to a multitude of characters existing in one universe, all written by rotating creators. The film franchise is much narrower. Steel doesn't exist in Batman Begins, nor do ridiculous superarmours.

Fox could just as easily (and more believable in terms of the monetary reason the suit was never mass produced for the army) opened a drawer with a full Iron Man type suit of armor in it that Wayne takes to his cave and spray paints black. It's completly silly to say that bullet proof rubber is current day technology and Iron Man armor is fifty years away. They're both years and years and years away.

Do you still not comprehend what I'm saying here? One is MORE UNLIKELY than the other. The LESS UNLIKELY ONE is EASIER TO ACCEPT and MAKES MORE SENSE.

Your black-and-white "IF ONE THING CAN EXIST, EVERYTHING CAN EXIST!" mentality is ridiculous.

 

[Saint]

It seems to me your issue is that Nolan's world is not technologically advanced enough. If that's the case, that's a different matter.

But if you think Iron Men and Steels (what would the plural of Steel be? Heh) and bulletproof pajamas would fit in Nolan's world... Then there's no helping you.

 

[DV8]

DARK GREY ON BLACK WOULD BE SWEET!!!

They should totally take this approach . . . especially the hood of the suit . . . this would be a great solution to the neck mobility issues . . . by using this hood underneath, they could mold the cowl so that it covers the head, and doesn't bunch up at the neck . . .

 

[Wams]

that's a nice drawing, but what does it have to do with 'a new look for bats'

That Batman is a visual character and that it could be done
just like the illustration without deep explanation.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

That Batman is a visual character and that it could be done
just like the illustration without deep explanation.

It could. And it would look kinda silly.

Think Adam West.