The Dark Knight Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Nivek]

Y'know for all you guys saying you want Bat's to wear realistic body armor, please feel free to produse pictures or info about edged weapon and ballistic tactical body armor that are not cloth based. Semi-rigid full body armor is about as unrealistic and silly looking as grey and blue tights. The rubber suits need to be toned down.

Hell, he could be wearing a suit no different than the SR costume that could be as plausable as the nomex survival suit that he had in the film. This is Batman, not Iron Man.

Over two years later, and the same old arguements.

 

[ToddIsDead]

No it's not. It's all black.

The difference in tone is easy to explain. The suit appears lighter than the cape because the cape is a different material, which absorbs less light than the suit. The foam latex for the suit IS black.

Not to be a nitpicker or anything, but the cape is darker because it absorbs MORE light than the suit. The more light is absorbed, the less light is reflected, and the darker the color. That's why black cars and clothes always get hotter than any other color in the summer.

 

[Boom]

Not to be a nitpicker or anything, but the cape is darker because it absorbs MORE light than the suit. The more light is absorbed, the less light is reflected, and the darker the color. That's why black cars and clothes always get hotter than any other color in the summer.

Oh okay. Guess I got it mixed up. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Fenrir]

Key Point: "Black works the same as grey".

A traditional color scheme is both workable and realistic.

But still looks less cool than all-black.

 

[BatScot]

Well it might not be better per se but it's definitely just as good...

Which, by definition, means that BOTH black and gray are “just as good”, and that one cannot summarily dismiss one in favor of the other, or assert with absolute certainty that ‘black is better’ or that a gray scheme ‘would not work’.

So of course, rationalizations be damned, it simply boils down to which color looks cooler. And I think all black kicks the crap out of grey-black in the coolness area.

I’ve seen the all-black and have become tired of it. It is no longer of any interest to me. I also find the grey-black to “look cooler” (opinion), to be perfectly viable in terms of stealth functionality (fact), and to be more representative of the character (fact).

The only reason why so many people are fixated with the grey-black color scheme is because they feel it is closer to the comics, and, as such are more familiar with it.

I don’t find that to be the only reason in the least,

1. As a design, Black&Gray works.
2. Gray is a viable color for stealth applications.
3. You'd actually see the logo that he took the time to place on his chest.
4. A gray suit more accurately portrays the iconography of the source character.
5. Batman is the ‘Dark Knight’ not the ‘Black Knight’, and there are various shades of gray that can be considered dark.

On the other hand, the only reason people are fixated with black is because they feel it is the only stealth color (false), that ‘ninjas’ wore only black (false), and that anything else looks campy (false), etc., etc.

Let's take a look at a few heroes that look "cool" wearing all-black costumes:

Goth modernism, and how cliché it has become… surely you don’t propose that heroes can only look cool in all-black?

Sure, ultimately one will simply call it my opinion and as such, dismiss it.

I actually accept that all-black ‘works’ reasonably well, I just don’t find it all that interesting anymore... it is all too familiar.

 

[Savage]

Y'know for all you guys saying you want Bat's to wear realistic body armor, please feel free to produse pictures or info about edged weapon and ballistic tactical body armor that are not cloth based. Semi-rigid full body armor is about as unrealistic and silly looking as grey and blue tights. The rubber suits need to be toned down.

Hell, he could be wearing a suit no different than the SR costume that could be as plausable as the nomex survival suit that he had in the film. This is Batman, not Iron Man.

Over two years later, and the same old arguements.

I'm glad that someone else noticed he's basicly an all black Iron Man. As cool as the costume is, Superman's suit actually looked more bulletproof than this one, which is just...weird.

 

[BatScot]

You gotta count all images from comic books in which the look you favor appears, and put it against the number of frames which the movie versions have had, that feature the look (about 24 frames per second). Sure, the look you'd favor would most likely still come out on top, but you gotta deal with the correct numbers here. No oversimplifications!

Why would one bother to do that? Does the film costumes change from frame to frame?

 

[Fenrir]

Which, by definition, means that BOTH black and gray are “just as good”, and that one cannot summarily dismiss one in favor of the other, or assert with absolute certainty that ‘black is better’ or that a gray scheme ‘would not work’.

I don't want a black-grey scheme because it looks less "cool" than all black. Like I said, functionality and faithfulness rationalizations be damned. I want something to stay the way it is because it LOOKS GOOD.

I’ve seen the all-black and have become tired of it. It is no longer of any interest to me. I also find the grey-black to “look cooler” (opinion), to be perfectly viable in terms of stealth functionality (fact), and to be more representative of the character (fact).

Similiarly, I'veseen the grey-black too much so that it is no longer of any interest to me. Plus it doesn't look as good as all-black.

I don’t find that to be the only reason in the least,

1. As a design, Black&Gray works.

So does all black.

2. Gray is a viable color for stealth applications.

So is black. And if I'm not mistaken, special forces use black a lot more frequently than they use grey.

3. You'd actually see the logo that he took the time to place on his chest.

That can be fixed by making the logo material a bit more reflective. We've seen that in Begins. It just needs to stand out a bit more.

4. A gray suit more accurately portrays the iconography of the source character.

Which can be done just as well with all-black. To me, the most striking and iconic images of the character is him in partly in the shadows or fully wrapped around in his cape, where there is no sign of the gray color on his suit.

5. Batman is the ‘Dark Knight’ not the ‘Black Knight’, and there are various shades of gray that can be considered dark.

He's not called the "gray Knight" or the "gray-black Knight" either.

Besides, you of all people should know he is called "The Dark Knight" because of the nature of the character not the color of his costume.

On the other hand, the only reason people are fixated with black is because they feel it is the only stealth color (false), that ‘ninjas’ wore only black (false), and that anything else looks campy (false), etc., etc.

...or because they feel it simply LOOKS BETTER than gray-black. Again, how's that for "justification"?

Goth modernism, and how cliché it has become… surely you don’t propose that heroes can only look cool in all-black?

No, heroes can look cool in other colors, but they look cooler in black.

I actually accept that all-black ‘works’ reasonably well, I just don’t find it all that interesting anymore... it is all too familiar.

Now that's funny. You can't accept all-black because it looks too familiar simply because you've seen it in about 5 films of the character, yet 60 years of comic books aren't repetetive and familiar enough for the grey-black look?

 

[Bathead]

If you're talking about that phoney-baloney reason given in the SE DVD that he did it to reduce the heat signature, that doesn't wash, mostly because of the considerable heat source which is his face. Which also is quite a lot brighter than grey. If stealth is his goal, then why doesn't he cover his face?

 

[Bathead]

Sigh. No, I don't want him to cover his face. I'm just saying to those who complain that grey is too "bright", then why aren't they also complaining about his face being exposed, which is FAR brighter than grey. That's all.

 

[Matt.S99]

he isnt batman beyond this is bruce wayne batman not terry mcguiness man!

 

[7Hells]

Perhaps Nolan is using the all black costume to subconsciously influence the audience into knowing Batman is not a hero like Superman and Spider-Man but more of an anti-hero. It would be reasonable since Nolan cannot portray Batman as such due to graphic violence being an issue.

I think this is also the reason for Batman not saving Ra's al Ghul in BB.

 

[deathfromabove]

No it's not. It's all black.

The difference in tone is easy to explain. The suit appears lighter than the cape because the cape is a different material, which absorbs more light than the suit. The foam latex for the suit IS black.

really? thanks.

i never said it wasnt black. i said on film it looks grey.

the foam for the suit might be black sitting in a vacuum but light it in any way and it reflects grey. the costume looks black and grey 90% of the time.

the cape is much darker because, yes, it refelects very little light.

if the rest of the costume looks less than perfectly black it is what?

lighter black???

black plus white (light) = grey.

open your eyes.

 

[Herr Logan]

The Batman's suit in the comics is, according to the novelization of 'Knightfall' and I think possibly the 'Ultimate Guide,' supposed to be made of non-reflective material. The gray of the suit is in no way "bright" in the dark, because it isn't shiny. You know what is shiny? Black rubber.

So far, every single Batman movie has failed to use a non-reflective material, thus impeding the stealth element. A dark gray fabric that isn't shiny isn't going to look "bright" or too light, and only the most insecure coward would even suggest that. God no, it's one shade below pure black! Too bright!!

As for people who seem obsessed with the idea that the Batman blend into shadows 24/7, I wonder what brain disorder you have to have that would make you not understand that the Batman wants to be seen. Theatricality is just as important as stealth, and even 'Batman Begins' makes that clear. You don't dress in a cape and bat-cowl if you want to be invisible all the time, unless you're stupid or crazy (crazier than the Batman). You wear those things because you want them to be seen. Anyone who doesn't get that probably shouldn't be allowed to use the Internet by themselves, and probably should have close adult supervision at most times.

As for the texture of the suit, once again:

Any real Batman fan knows that the Batman needs more maneuverability than protection. If you don't know that, you're thinking of a different character. The Batman usually outmaneuvers gunfire, period. There's absolutely nothing more realistic about a guy performing [badly filmed] martial arts in a shiny black inner-tube suit than there is a man wearing tights and outmaneuvering gunmen. The Batman is an acrobat, period. Oh, I'm sorry, is that not "cool" enough for today's audience? The fact remains.

I couldn't care less about the wants of people who are insecure, childish, cowardly and don't want to be known as comic fans. If you're here, you're talking about a character who wears tights and doesn't kill. Is that not "edgy" enough for you? Watch me care.

The "tights" are formfitting, fire-******ant, Nomex garments, and he wears a bulletproof vest under the costume top. He also has a somewhat armored cowl and a fireproof cape. The real Batman doesn't need anything else for general bodily protection. It doesn't make you "cooler" to need heavier gear to do your job, it makes you less interesting.

Imagination is what allows a movie to be accurate to the source material. Cowardice is what doesn't. Yeah, that's what the world needs... more cowardice and pretense.

 

[Cobblepot]

A couldn't agree more with you.

 

[batman44]

Well said Herr Logan even though I do like the BB suit for the most part.

 

[kenellard]

A couldn't agree more with you.

same here, that post made me think about something, did batman do anything remotely acrobatic in BB? Is this really Batman?

 

[Lobster Charlie]

I want someone here to try to do a backflip while wearing a cape.

 

[Herr Logan]

A couldn't agree more with you.

Yeah you could. You're just not trying hard enough.

 

[Herr Logan]

Well said Herr Logan even though I do like the BB suit for the most part.

Thanks.

It's fine to like the suit. That's merely a preference, and cannot be judged. What I object to is people arguing that it's more realistic and practical than the suit from the comics and that the classic suit can't be done well in a film.

 

[The Sage]

The Batman's suit in the comics is, according to the novelization of 'Knightfall' and I think possibly the 'Ultimate Guide,' supposed to be made of non-reflective material. The gray of the suit is in no way "bright" in the dark, because it isn't shiny. You know what is shiny? Black rubber.

So far, every single Batman movie has failed to use a non-reflective material, thus impeding the stealth element. A dark gray fabric that isn't shiny isn't going to look "bright" or too light, and only the most insecure coward would even suggest that. God no, it's one shade below pure black! Too bright!!

As for people who seem obsessed with the idea that the Batman blend into shadows 24/7, I wonder what brain disorder you have to have that would make you not understand that the Batman wants to be seen. Theatricality is just as important as stealth, and even 'Batman Begins' makes that clear. You don't dress in a cape and bat-cowl if you want to be invisible all the time, unless you're stupid or crazy (crazier than the Batman). You wear those things because you want them to be seen. Anyone who doesn't get that probably shouldn't be allowed to use the Internet by themselves, and probably should have close adult supervision at most times.

As for the texture of the suit, once again:

Any real Batman fan knows that the Batman needs more maneuverability than protection. If you don't know that, you're thinking of a different character. The Batman usually outmaneuvers gunfire, period. There's absolutely nothing more realistic about a guy performing [badly filmed] martial arts in a shiny black inner-tube suit than there is a man wearing tights and outmaneuvering gunmen. The Batman is an acrobat, period. Oh, I'm sorry, is that not "cool" enough for today's audience? The fact remains.

I couldn't care less about the wants of people who are insecure, childish, cowardly and don't want to be known as comic fans. If you're here, you're talking about a character who wears tights and doesn't kill. Is that not "edgy" enough for you? Watch me care.

The "tights" are formfitting, fire-******ant, Nomex garments, and he wears a bulletproof vest under the costume top. He also has a somewhat armored cowl and a fireproof cape. The real Batman doesn't need anything else for general bodily protection. It doesn't make you "cooler" to need heavier gear to do your job, it makes you less interesting.

Imagination is what allows a movie to be accurate to the source material. Cowardice is what doesn't. Yeah, that's what the world needs... more cowardice and pretense.

I don't think it's a bulletproof vest, but some type of armor. Plus I think there are parts of armor underneath certain areas of the costume. But that's just minor nitpicking.

Well said.

 

[Herr Logan]

I don't think it's a bulletproof vest, but some type of armor. Plus I think there are parts of armor underneath certain areas of the costume. But that's just minor nitpicking.

Well said.

It's some kind of custom-made, very compact, lightweight, bulletproof armor vest. "Vest" just describes that it covers the torso only. In various comics of the past few years, you can see armor under the upper layers of his suit when they get torn around his chest.

Yeah, I think he also has armor panels in other key places in his costume. For the most part, he can still get shot in the arms and legs, but he usually avoids that. He messed up a couple times in 'Year One' on that score.

Thank you.

 

[kenellard]

I want someone here to try to do a backflip while wearing a cape.

Ah but you see, it's not about whether or not any of us can do it, the fact is that batman can do it. his agility is as much a part of him as his detective skills, one being pretty much useless without the other

 

[deathfromabove]

herr logan, you say this alot and it doesnt make any sense to me. you talk about people being too cowardly to admit they are comic book fans just because they think a direct translation of many costumes to screen would look silly. im not saying there isnt a better way to transalte batmans costume to screen, im sure there is a more "comic accurate" way to do so,
but i personally think a skin tight blue and grey costume onscreen would look horrible. does that make a coward? and what costume do you use? jim lees musclebound blue and grey or mazzuchelli's understated black and grey? and if you think white lenses would look better than someones eyes for expresing emotion i give up.
i mean you realize comics can do things that are completely ridiculous and that is part of the medium. do think wolvie would have honestly looked better in skintight blue and yellow spandex? i love the way he looks in the comics but if huge jackman was wearing that outfit i would laugh my ass off.
you are always ranting about the differences between comics and their movie counterparts but you seem to be missing an essential truth:
comic books and movies are two totally different mediums. different visual techniques and different storytelling techniques. im not saying filmmakers shoudnt respect the source material but at the end of the day i want good movies. sometimes adaptation is essential to good storytelling. how are you going to take 30-70 years of stories, character development, plot lines and yes different interpretations and boil that down to a film that is exactly what appears on the page?
its the same with books. i suppose you would have wanted stanley kubrick to translate "a clockwork orange" and "the shining" page for page instead of giving us his vision and two masterpieces? i saw the shining movie that was an exact translation a few years back. i hope i dont have to tell you which one was better.

and why is it when a comic book artist or writer takes liberties with a character or puts their own vision on the page everyone says "oh neat thats great" but when a filmaker does it people get all crazy? i suppose when miller wrote dkr or year one you were screaming bloody hell "the batmobile doesnt look like that! batman doesnt have pouches on his belt! he has little capsules! wtf!"

if its good art its good art, whether its sam raimi, steve ditko, frank miller, or christopher nolan. slavish translation is boring and uninspired and seldom works on screen. and before antone brings it up i'll give you sin city. a book that drew very heavily from film visually and thematically already.

i personally like when filmakers take some liberties and make there own mark. what is more cowardly: taking some risks with an iconic character that is loved the world over or copying someone elses work word for word?
and im not a coward. i love my batman comics. i wear my batman t shirts (in public) and i make no apologies for my tastes. and i still say a 100%completely comics accurate costume for batman is not only unnecessary but would look silly. could the costume been done better than begins? no argument. of course it could. but blue and grey tights would have been far worse.

hate away bub.

 

[Herr Logan]

herr logan, you say this alot and it doesnt make any sense to me. you talk about people being too cowardly to admit they are comic book fans just because they think a direct translation of many costumes to screen would look silly. im not saying there isnt a better way to transalte batmans costume to screen, im sure there is a more "comic accurate" way to do so,

Indeed, there is a way to make a more "comic accurate" way to do so, and several people here have been explaining how, although many others are either misinterpreting or ignoring those suggestions.

but i personally think a skin tight blue and grey costume onscreen would look horrible. does that make a coward?

No, it makes you off-topic. Who the hell is suggesting blue and gray? Granted, I haven't read through this entire thread, but in the last several pages (of which, again, I haven't read every post) I haven't seen anyone suggesting the use of the color blue.

There is no argument against a skintight costume with the Batman. He has always worn such a costume in all his decades of publishing. This is what superheroes usually wear, an anyone who says the Batman isn't a superhero is either lying, completely ignorant and/or a coward who doesn't want to admit that they either like superheroes or that a "cool" superhero wears a skintight costume.

As for the blue and gray thing, nobody I've seen here is asking for that. His costume is supposed to be black and gray. Perhaps it was something in line with the Comics Code mentality that first made the Batman's cape and cowl blue back in the day, or maybe it was a printing/coloring issue. I'm assuming that they kept it blue during the 70's for coloring reasons instead of... whatever you want to call it when people don't want to use black (ex. they rarely used it in the Spider-Man cartoon of the 90's, even when it made the most sense). Regardless, the cowl, cape, gloves, trunks and boots look best in black, and the bodysuit looks best in a darker shade of gray.

and what costume do you use? jim lees musclebound blue and grey or mazzuchelli's understated black and grey?

I forget, is Mazzuchelli the one who did 'Year One'? If so, then his, of course.
Jim Lee's art is incredible, but the ears were too short on his version's costume, and the blue parts didn't have nearly enough black on them (which may not be his call, since he probably wasn't the colorist).

and if you think white lenses would look better than someones eyes for expresing emotion i give up.

Fine. Be a quitter.

I don't understand why people have this idea that they're going to get a lot of emotion from the Batman, much less just from his eyes. His non-verbal cues come from body language and mostly subtle lower facial expressions. Just because Bale made a point of screaming and shuddering with rage doesn't mean that's how the Batman is meant to be played. This "emotion" crap has really gotten out of hand among the movie fans. What exactly are we watching here; a grim, outlandish crime drama or some typical Oscar-winning performance with big speeches and tears in people's eyes? Keep in mind, winning an Oscar doesn't make it quality, and a proper Batman movie probably would never win. It would probably be too off-beat.

Point is, all this talk about the Batman being a rage-filled animal is bull****. If that's what Nolan was going for, then he failed to get it right. The Batman is a dish best served cold, which is why Michael Keaton's version (while woefully understated and limited) is scarier and also more dignified.
If you can't play the Batman without using your eyes, you're not good enough. If you can't write and direct a Batman who can do the job without using his eyes, you're not good enough, period.

As for all the reality-junkies, if they were really so concerned with giving the Batman the best and most useful gear, they'd be begging for those lenses. It is a fact that he wears them in the comics, and it's for very good reasons, which I'm assuming you already know.

i mean you realize comics can do things that are completely ridiculous and that is part of the medium. do think wolvie would have honestly looked better in skintight blue and yellow spandex? i love the way he looks in the comics but if huge jackman was wearing that outfit i would laugh my ass off.

Wolverine in the movies was a joke. A 6'2" heartthrob in a black leather costume with long sleeves who couldn't even bother to walk or talk like the character... Yeah, I'm not even going to compare him to what the real thing would be like. He doesn't rate that high. Anybody who actually liked that character and knew anything about him could have written, directed and dressed him up properly, but Singer was never a real fan.

I think the basic design of Wolverine's costume is fine. I wouldn't use yellow and blue, though; I'd use orange and black. Problem solved, except for those cowards who can't stand to see superheroes wearing superhero costumes. I'd love it if a person who is good with manips and actually wants to see Wolverine in a comics-accurate suit would produce an example of a good picture of Wolverine (i.e. not cartoony or messy art, but something solid, like Dave Cockrum, John Byrne, Jim Lee or one of the Kuberts) in his classic costume with the yellow replaced with a deep orange and the blue replaced with black. I'll also remind everyone that no amount of badly-made examples can ever possibly prove it "can't work". It can be supported, but never disproven. It was a disgrace when people started making crappy manips of the Batman with white lenses and claimed it was "proof" that it "wouldn't work." Let's be adults about our funny books, people.

Skintight, potentially breathable fittings are also obviously more viable than leather for superhero work. If you don't understand why that is, you shouldn't be questioning anything about this topic. I'd love to see gymnasts and martial artists start wearing full suits of leather and see how far it gets them. As it is, James Marsden and Hugh Jackman passed out from heat exhaustion during the filming of the first movie and had to be carried by crew members back to their trailers. That tells you all you need to know about that.
Christian Bale didn't have that problem though; he had tubes of cold water inside his suit to keep him cool. You know, like God damn astronauts and Martin Laurence in 'Big Mamma's House'. That's part of why it was so bulky. Real conducive to crime-fighting it was.

you are always ranting about the differences between comics and their movie counterparts but you seem to be missing an essential truth:
comic books and movies are two totally different mediums. different visual techniques and different storytelling techniques. im not saying filmmakers shoudnt respect the source material but at the end of the day i want good movies. sometimes adaptation is essential to good storytelling. how are you going to take 30-70 years of stories, character development, plot lines and yes different interpretations and boil that down to a film that is exactly what appears on the page?

That's an irrelevant argument. What does 30-70 years have to do with choosing a faithful costume? In some cases (possibly Green Lantern, for example), that might be an issue. In the Batman's case, it isn't. You simply pick the most often used design-- or the parts that have remained the same-- and make only the most minor modifications to either enhance the appearance or the story. In the Batman's case, I don't know which has been there for more time: the plain bat, or the bat in the yellow elipse. If it's of equal tenure (and I'm not claiming it is), then just pick one you like.
As for enhancing the story, I've already given an extended explanation for how to connect the Batman's black trunks to his habit of using high-tech, high-functioning gear and improved upon the actual comic in terms of "realism" and funcionality without changing the look (in the movie, you'd see several small plastic clamps holding leather and plastic straps beneath the belt, but they'd blend in pretty well).
The only possible argument against my trunks/harness proposal has nothing to do with the existance of the trunks at all, but is on the basis that I want it to be black against a dark gray bodysuit, and others do not. That's an issue of wanting the movies to maintain authenticity and reject unnecessary changes. In the dark, it all looks the same if the gray is the right tone. In the light, he'll actually look like the Batman we've known for years and years.

its the same with books. i suppose you would have wanted stanley kubrick to translate "a clockwork orange" and "the shining" page for page instead of giving us his vision and two masterpieces? i saw the shining movie that was an exact translation a few years back. i hope i dont have to tell you which one was better.

I never watched all of 'A Clockwork Orange', I haven't read either of those books, and I never saw all of the TV movie of 'The Shining.' That in mind, yeah, I'd want a largely faithful adaptation, just on principal. Maybe after someone does a successful faithful version, then people can play with it, but someone should at least give an honest try first.

and why is it when a comic book artist or writer takes liberties with a character or puts their own vision on the page everyone says "oh neat thats great" but when a filmaker does it people get all crazy? i suppose when miller wrote dkr or year one you were screaming bloody hell "the batmobile doesnt look like that! batman doesnt have pouches on his belt! he has little capsules! wtf!"

If DKR was supposed to be regular continuity, you're damn right I'd be pissed and screaming "bloody hell." That's how I feel about 'All Star Batman & Robin.' I'm also not thrilled with parts of 'Year One'. I don't see why Miller is held in such high regard when it comes to the Batman. I think he just beat someone else to the punch. I certainly wouldn't want to see him take over a current title. He doesn't have enough self-restraint. That's not saying he isn't good in other things, but his stuff with the Batman leaves something to be desired, although it's not all bad.

You can be damn sure I've been just as pissed when comic writers screw with characters in the comics. That's all they've done in Marvel Comics (the ones I've been most familiar with, previously) for the past several years, which is why I stopped buying. I pretty much only buy the Batman now, but, when I do get to make it to the comics store, I'm not taking anything from Grant Morrison at face value. I'll never forgive what he did to the X-Men, and I'm not talking about the costumes.

if its good art its good art, whether its sam raimi, steve ditko, frank miller, or christopher nolan. slavish translation is boring and uninspired and seldom works on screen. and before antone brings it up i'll give you sin city. a book that drew very heavily from film visually and thematically already.

I myself am open to several changes that could be made, and I've been constructing concepts for my own scripts that deviate somewhat (for time constraints and other reasons). But I draw a line, clearly a lot sooner than you do. I don't accept change for the sake of change, ever. I accept a change when it's superior or at most neutral.

Example of a good change: The physical design of Movie!Ock's tentacle harness in 'Spider-Man 2.' Having it plug directly into his spine makes it just plausible enough for me to happily accept that the damn thing got melded to his central nervous system. The way the tentacles themselves were made are brilliant and very versatile. The idea of using AI technology to help out with the very complex process of operating those things with precision is good, too.

Example of a very bad change: making the AI take over Movie!Octavius' mind to any degree whatsoever. That's unacceptable, no question. Dr. Octopus' value as a villain lies in his personality as much as his power. They robbed him of a real motivation for being a supervillain and altered his personality in unacceptable ways. After some very nice character development in the comics and one of the paperback novels of the past ten years, he was-- excluding his being a cyborg-- one of the most realistic and compelling types of criminal (I'm a criminology major), and they turned him back into a B-movie cliche with no substance. I can explain to you why the real Dr. Octopus is psychologically realistic if you want. For now, let's just say he was never married, he was never into wooing women with poetry, and that's essential to his character, and they robbed him of that just to satisfy Sam Raimi's love of sappiness.

Good or neutral change: Giving the Joker a permanent smile. It doesn't take anything away from his character or his image from the comics and ties him firmly to his roots (the movie 'The Man Who Laughs,' which was the inspiration for the character).

Bad changes: Taking away the Joker's white skin, green hair or red lips. A comic book character is defined as much by his appearance as by his character traits and mannerisms (which is why Movie!Wolvie is a failure, because had only the faintest traces of each). The Joker has, to my knowledged, never looked anything different that having those three traits. Maybe there's some wiggle room with the lips, but never with the skin or hair. You either get that or you're not a knowledgable fan of any kind.

As for his clothing, the Joker wears "nice" clothes, period. Making the suit purple is perfect. Making it black is okay. Making it something other than a suit with a flower on the lapel is a complete failure. The Joker doesn't wear tattered, blood-stained rags unless he just got his ass beaten, and then he goes back to his "Ha-Hacienda" and dresses "nicely" again. He certaily doesn't wear a straight-jacket and no shoes unless he just broke out of Arkham. As soon as he gets anywhere near a source of clothing, he's gonna wear a real shirt and put some God damn shoes on.

As for his behavior, the Joker behaves in a histrionic and center-stage manner, period. Anyone who doesn't get that isn't a fan of any kind. He has never been something other than an attention ****e, except when he was clearly written out of character. He is whacky and over-the-top, period. He has always been this way. In his first appearance, he was somewhat reserved, but he did announce his intentions to murder people and laughed about it. He doesn't just slink around in dark alleys and shiv people like some non-fans are expecting. He is not any kind of serial killer (I know what I'm talking about on this), much less the cartoon version the people of these forums have in mind. He is funny. He doesn't need to be scary to the audience necessarily (although he should probably scare younger viewers, as I was scared of the Joker in 'BATMAN' when I was 6), but he should be menacing. Everyone keeps talking about how he needs to be "darker" than he's been in every incarnation every before. Yeah, 'cuz that's what the cool kids are into these days, "darkness." That doesn't require sneaking around in alleys and using knives at random or carving smiles into people's faces instead of using nerve gas.

i personally like when filmakers take some liberties and make there own mark. what is more cowardly: taking some risks with an iconic character that is loved the world over or copying someone elses work word for word?

I'm not saying everything should be word-for-word (although certain iconic lines should be that). A discerning, critical fan with a mind for storytelling should know how to consolodate a large amount of a character's history, choose which stage of that character's history they want to portray and represent all the most important elements (including visuals, obviously, since they're both visual media).

No one has done anything courageous in terms of the costume used in 'Begins'. Not in the least. They're required to use a bulky, rubber suit (and that's a fact) because WB is too cowardly to move on from that (that's an editorialization). Nobody has made an honest attempt to portray a proper, comics-accurate Batman suit in a movie. Again, a proper suit includes a (preferably) dark gray bodysuit, black gloves, boots, trunks (which could and should be a customized rapelling harness, like I keep telling everyone), cape and cowl, and everything on it should be non-reflective except for maybe the emblem and/or the belt (depending on what material they use for the belt). In addition to the mandate that they use a suit that was halfway between a wet-suit and an astronaut suit, they were pressed for time, I think, so I guess we won't know if they would have actually tried or not. Yeah, yeah, they claimed they did some tests and it didn't work. That's bull****, because again, you can never, ever disprove that it can work, but it just takes one time to prove that it can.

Let me just reiterate from weeks ago that Nolan and Co. didn't add any new elements to the Batsuit from what was in the comics. The directional microphones in the ear-piece? Already in the comics. The Nomex and Kevlar in the suit? Already in the comics. Scallops on the gloves that can be used defensively? Already in the comics.

Well, there might be one thing, depending on whether I heard this right or not. When Lucious Fox (who shouldn't need to play "Q" for Bruce Wayne, although I loved his performance) mentioned the grappling gun, did he say "pneumatic" or "magnetic"? If he said "magnetic", then that's one thing that was added... I think. "Pneumatic" fits not matter what, though, so it may be irrelevant.
In the video game 'Tomb Raider: Legend,' Lara uses a grappling device which is a super-electromagnet at the end of a cord which can be turned on and off and holds onto metal things when on. If this is how the one in 'Batman Begins' worked, then that's new, but I don't know if it was.

and im not a coward. i love my batman comics. i wear my batman t shirts (in public) and i make no apologies for my tastes. and i still say a 100%completely comics accurate costume for batman is not only unnecessary but would look silly.

Well, not everyone's imagination fires at the same rate. But what are ya gonna do, right?

could the costume been done better than begins? no argument. of course it could. but blue and grey tights would have been far worse.

Again, where the hell does this factor in? I probably should have asked you to correct this obvious, glaring error in your argument before responding. It would have saved some time. If anyone is asking for the shade of blue in the Batsuit in a movie, I haven't seen it and I certainly am not thinking it.

hate away bub.

Always. But I don't hate you. Not yet, anyway.