The Dark Knight Batsuit Discussion Thread

[SheldonLevene]

i'd be happy to see either one in the movies, just as long as they dont look too daft or silly.
the suit in the fan film dead end was excellent and i wouldnt mind seeing that in the big screen

Duely noted, I guess I should have prefaced in a future series b/c obviously it's not gonna happen in this run of films.

 

[mcallima]

But at the same time, you can also successfully argue that the realistic route can also be the BETTER route.

That depends on personal opinion and the extent of the realism.

Spider-Man is pretty unrealistic, and we all know how well that did at the box office.

 

[Crook]

Yes, but Indiana Jones' hat and whip actually serve a purpose other being an iconic mainstay of the character. The whip is both a weapon and a grapple/rope. The hat is useful because in all three Indy films, his adventures mostly take place in hot, tropical regions with heavy sunlight.

In my opinion most people look at this issue backwards. I think the suit is the reason why Batman needs armor. I think it is much better that the armored functionality of the suit provides even further justification for his outfit. By logically explaining their artistic choices, the filmmakers provide a much more convenient entry point into the world of the character. It's the Blade Runner approach - creating fantasy in a way that makes it seem possible. Believability is the reason why I think Blade Runner owns Star Wars when it comes to being the superior sci-fi.

As I said, protection isn't the suit's only purpose. Nolan has already showed us this. The ears, cowls, gauntlets, and belt have some sort of functionality to justify their existence. The bodysuit is simply part of this entire look.

To me, if the rubber bulletproof concept is erased, it changes nothing for me in terms of enjoying the story and film. And in terms of visuals, I certainly won't miss it, in favor of a slightly more accurate comic book suit. That's not to say it will be devoid of any purpose. It just takes the suit's merit a different way.

i get your point but i was talking about teh ''realistic'' batman comics. i may be wrong about this but integrating a slight part of *ugh* realism in the movies gets bigger audiences.
would a regular movie goer who hasnt read any comics be more likely to go see a batman movie where he wants to stop his son that has made a deal with the demon and fights clay and plant people OR one where he tries to protect his city from terrorists and mobsters ?

Considering fantasy movies absolutely demolish realistic movies in terms of blockbuster and mainstream success, you might want to rephrase your question, or take it back.

 

[Fenrir]

That depends on personal opinion and the extent of the realism.

Spider-Man is pretty unrealistic, and we all know how well that did at the box office.

Whatever gave you the idea that I give a damn about box office receipts? I thought my Blade-Runner/Star Wars comparison alone should have made that obvious.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Just out of curiosity, who here would like a direct (meaning no room for changes to be made) copy of the comic suit on screen? b/c after all that is what this thread is about. Not realism or fantasy. Just the damn suit. Who here really wants just the straight grey bodysuit with either blue or black accents and trunks. I don't personally, and I realize that it could be made out of something other than spandex, thats not the point. I just want to know who actually wants that.

A grey bodysuit with black trunks made of the same neoprene material as the Superman Returns suit? I'd totally be up for it

But at the same time, you can also successfully argue that the realistic route can also be the BETTER route.

You can, and I think it all boils down to opinion. Some people think the realistic route works better for the character, but I am not one of them. Whether other people agree or disagree, that's equally as fine.

 

[SheldonLevene]

Always so diplomatic Socko. Good point though. And I think in a future series a more comic faithful suit could work fine. It just would not mesh well in this series.

 

[Fenrir]

As I said, protection isn't the suit's only purpose. Nolan has already showed us this. The ears, cowls, gauntlets, and belt have some sort of functionality to justify their existence. The bodysuit is simply part of this entire look.

To me, if the rubber bulletproof concept is erased, it changes nothing for me in terms of enjoying the story and film. And in terms of visuals, I certainly won't miss it, in favor of a slightly more accurate comic book suit. That's not to say it will be devoid of any purpose. It just takes the suit's merit a different way.

And therein lies another problem with a very prevalent argument in this forum. I don't think it's implied even a single time in Nolan's films that the suit is a rubber bulletproof costume. So why does the "rubber suit" bother people so much when it isn't even supposed to be one in the context of the film? I mean, you people are ready to suspend disbelief and accept Batman without armor without hesitation, why not apply the same principle here and think it's not rubber, but rather a kevlar bioweave that he is wearing?

 

[Saint]

But at the same time, you can also successfully argue that the realistic route can also be the BETTER route.

If you are certain that you can make that argument, you must know what the argument is, yes? Please, present it. I'm interested to here how realism makes Batman definitively "better."

 

[gwynplaine]

Always so diplomatic Socko. Good point though. And I think in a future series a more comic faithful suit could work fine. It just would not mesh well in this series.

Great user name. IMO Jack Lemmon would have made a great Harvey Dentt: (but then again, Jack lemmon would have been great in anything).

 

[Da Joker]

As I said, protection isn't the suit's only purpose. Nolan has already showed us this. The ears, cowls, gauntlets, and belt have some sort of functionality to justify their existence. The bodysuit is simply part of this entire look.

To me, if the rubber bulletproof concept is erased, it changes nothing for me in terms of enjoying the story and film. And in terms of visuals, I certainly won't miss it, in favor of a slightly more accurate comic book suit. That's not to say it will be devoid of any purpose. It just takes the suit's merit a different way.


Considering fantasy movies absolutely demolish realistic movies in terms of blockbuster and mainstream success, you might want to rephrase your question, or take it back.

well....hmm.... let me think, im bad at debates
i guess theres a batman for everyone, some like batman in the movies and some like him in the comics.

 

[SheldonLevene]

Great user name. IMO Jack Lemmon would have made a great Harvey Dentt: (but then again, Jack lemmon would have been great in anything).

Couldn't agree more. Never really saw him as Dent, but your right hes great in whatever. I'm always impressed when people recognize my name.

 

[Crook]

And therein lies another problem with a very prevalent argument in this forum. I don't think it's implied even a single time in Nolan's films that the suit is a rubber bulletproof costume. So why does the "rubber suit" bother people so much when it isn't even supposed to be one in the context of the film? I mean, you people are ready to suspend disbelief and accept Batman without armor without hesitation, why not apply the same principle here and think it's not rubber, but rather a kevlar bioweave that he is wearing?

I'm not talking about the film's context.

I have a problem with it, because many times it DOES look and move like rubber. My distaste isn't with the protective approach for the story (though I don't mind if that was excluded either), it's with the outdated material they decided to utilize.

I have no problem suspending my disbelief. But it does get annoying when you can plainly tell material X is clearly material Y, despite not being so in the film's world.

 

[Fenrir]

If you are certain that you can make that argument, you must know what the argument is, yes? Please, present it. I'm interested to here how realism makes Batman definitively "better."

I've already been doing so for the last two pages. In my view, a "realistic" Batman is not one that fully and completely conforms to all laws of our own physical reality, but rather a character that is so intimately detailed and fully explained for his artistic direction and is presented in a manner that makes him appear far more believable and plausible.

 

[Saint]

i get your point but i was talking about teh ''realistic'' batman comics. i may be wrong about this but integrating a slight part of *ugh* realism in the movies gets bigger audiences.
would a regular movie goer who hasnt read any comics be more likely to go see a batman movie where he wants to stop his son that has made a deal with the demon and fights clay and plant people OR one where he tries to protect his city from terrorists and mobsters ?

Science fiction and fantasy didn't stop the general audience from watching LOTR, Star Wars, or Spider-Man a hell of a lot more than they watched Batman Begins. The truth is that the choice between fantasy and realism will not be significant in persuading the general audience to see the film.

 

[mcallima]

Whatever gave you the idea that I give a damn about box office receipts? I thought my Blade-Runner/Star Wars comparison alone should have made that obvious.

I hadn't read that post. I do agree the Blade Runner is superior to Star Wars (which I also love), but you can't say that Blade Runner is without fantasy.

And while I certainly enjoy Begins more than the SM movies, simply because I'm a Batman fan, I respect the first two SM movies more than Begins in their creation of a wonderful superhero world.

Batman doesn't have powers, but he IS a superhero. He's not the Punisher with pointy ears and no guns. Just my two cents though, and what do I know?

 

[SheldonLevene]

Good point Crook, while I don't mind the bodyarmor idea either (kinda like it actually) the suit in BB was to obviously foam latex in far too many scenes imo. TDK seems to have remedied the problem with the exception of busying the hell out of the suit.

 

[Fenrir]

But it does get annoying when you can plainly tell material X is clearly material Y, despite not being so in the film's world.

But for a keen eyed or knowledgeable viewer, this same problem would persist even if any other material was used and presented differently in the context of the film.

 

[Saint]

I've already been doing so for the last two pages. In my view, a "realistic" Batman is not one that fully and completely conforms to all laws of our own physical reality, but rather a character that is so intimately detailed and fully explained for his artistic direction and is presented in a manner that makes him appear far more believable and plausible.

You have not explained how realism is better, you have only described the conditions of being realistic (also, you mistakenly attribute intimate detail and full explanation to realism, when in reality these are simply the result of good writing, and can appear in any story, no matter how fantastic).

So, again, how is realism better?

 

[Fenrir]

I hadn't read that post. I do agree the Blade Runner is superior to Star Wars (which I also love), but you can't say that Blade Runner is without fantasy.

When did I ever even imply that? I said Blade Runner is the superior sci-fi (fiction, as in fantasy, NOT real) on account of its believability. On the same principle I maintain that Nolan's Batman is superior to Raimi's Spiderman.

 

[Crook]

But for a keen eyed or knowledgeable viewer, this same problem would persist even if any other material was used and presented differently in the context of the film.

That solely depends on the material and the context in which they plan to depict it in the film's world.

There's a whole slew of variables there.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I'll go on a limb and say Batman Begins is a better made film than Batman'89, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Spider-Man 1, Spider-Man 2, X2, Star Wars, etc. But all of the latter films I found to be more enjoyable and 'fun' than Batman Begins.

I think trying to be entirely realistic makes the film lose some of it's resonance in the same way being entirely fantastical and 'out there' made B&R lose it's resonance.

 

[Fenrir]

You have not explained how realism is better, you have only described the conditions of being realistic (also, you mistakenly attribute intimate detail and full explanation to realism, when in reality these are simply the result of good writing, and can appear in any story, no matter how fantastic).

So, again, how is realism better?

And you are not understanding what I mean by realism. You're mistaking my argument of "intimate detail and full explanation" as being aspects of writing, rather than tools of justification to add touches of plausibility and believability to a character in his world.

 

[Fenrir]

That solely depends on the material and the context in which they plan to depict it in the film's world.

There's a whole slew of variables there.

But the general logic is the same, isn't it?

 

[Crook]

But the general logic is the same, isn't it?

More or less.

But I maintain that there's a higher chance of success in all the aspects we've discussed, with material that isn't rubber.

 

[Saint]

And you are not understanding what I mean by realism. You're mistaking my argument of "intimate detail and full explanation" as being aspects of writing, rather than tools of justification to add touches of plausibility and believability to a character in his world.

Oh? So using "intimate details and full explanation" to "add touches of plausibility" is not an "aspect of writing?"

Also, you have yet to explain how realism is better.