The Dark Knight Batsuit Discussion Thread

Do you like the idea of a new Batsuit in TDK?

  • Yes, I like the idea of a change to a greyish, lighter & more streamlined suit.

  • No, I would rather Batman stay in the black, body armour type suit from BB.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Morgoth said:
This would be way better than what they had in the first. Those Clooney clasps have got to go!

You mean "Kilmer clasps". ;) Seeing as Kilmer was the one who wore the clasps first, not Clooney. Beside, I don't know why it a problem for Bat to wear one. It help him remove it if it 'cause in a trap & he need to escape from danger without removing his cowl. :)
 
Batman didn't do it when Two-Face trapped him then nearly burned him with gasoline in BF.
 
Thats a good point there. If Batman was in a burning building about to die and his cape was stuck under a 500 pound rock, all he's gotta do is remove the clamps.
 
Morgoth said:
DecoBat.jpg




This would be way better than what they had in the first. Those Clooney clasps have got to go!

Alright, I kinda like this design, it keeps the look of the original Begins suit but gives it a sorta "evolved" look to it. I also think it looks a lot slimmer which is good because Batman is basically a ninja. The color scheme is basically the same as before and it will still look black in the darkness, where batman almost always is. I also like the thinner, longer ears of the cowl, and the sharper nose on the cowl :o
I basically like the entire torso and upper body of the suit, but once it gets to the belt I start getting annoyed by the changes there. The legs look weird because of the tons of clippings of Kevlar or whatever the gray on black is there and the boots annoy me, the belt also doesn't look like a belt, it looks like capsules built into his waist. I would like the suit more if the legs were built a bit more like the begins legs, the gray was a bit darker, there was no black underwear, and they gave him black boots with the beginnish legs. Still, cool design :o
kudos to whoever did this :O
 
Mr. Socko said:
Thats a good point there. If Batman was in a burning building about to die and his cape was stuck under a 500 pound rock, all he's gotta do is remove the clamps.


You guys are missing the point.
Your are over thinking the cool fun
visuals
of the character.
You are willing to sacrifice what makes Batman
awesome for "realism".:down

If you wanna go all believable
just go this route

ninja.gif

:down

Nothing about Batman's costume is practical.
The character visuals is about fun and wonderment.
Don't weigh it down with so called "realism:

Wams
 
Well what if Batman was in a burning building about to die and his cape was stuck under a 500 pound rock?

Lol, I'm only joking.

Wams said:

Just put bat ears and a cape on that and voila :up:
 
BatScot said:
You have quite the knack of paraphrasing what I say and then completely misstating the meaning.

You have the knack of taking a simple statement and exploding it into a bunch of useless trivia that only sideline the actual point of discussion.

LOL… the chest logo in that scene actually appears lighter compared to the suit, cape, etc., which is the exact opposite of any contrast style that I, or anyone else for that matter, has suggested.

That's true. I never said it didn't. Again, this is because the light reflects off of the gloss-finish bat-logo and not off of the matte-finish suit. As I stated before, for the matte-black to look grey, it needs to be hit with a spotlight, and Batman doesn't stand in the way of spotlights. Not good ninja work.

A better example would have been the Arkham scene in which Batman is shown running through a cell ward as he looks for a way out of the asylum after having rescued Rachel, and where the lighting affects a somewhat darker tone to the chest logo. But even that effect is, as you say, “barely’ noticeable, which, I suppose, is akin to your notion of a ‘subtle’ effect… or course, that is just another way of saying that the logo looks “cool” when it appears darker than the suit, which is precisely my point. The problem is that the effect seen in this Arkham scene is far too subtle—occurring in only a few frames—which renders the effect virtually non-existent to the extent that the ‘effect’ cannot be considered a basic characteristic in general terms.

That's the point. Like I said, SUBTLE.

I’m just following Nolan and Goyer’s lead; surely you wouldn’t fault me for that.

There's a difference. Nolan and Goyer used a bunch of technical excuses to explain things like, why Bruce Wayne would make some of the improbable decisions that he needs to make in order to become Batman, so that it would seem less cartoony and more like a real-life thing, since we're dealing with a live-action film and not a cartoon or comic book.

You, on the other hand, are using a bunch of technical excuses to try and turn something realistic into something cartoony. Which is ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keyser Sushi
Bats are generally black with brown fur. Most people think of them as being completely black. Batman wants to look like a giant bat-creature. It makes sense that Bruce would choose black over grey. People don't associate the color grey with bats.

This statement is rank with misinfomation.

Actually, it's not. It's rank with generalizations, but that's not the same thing.

Red or brown are the predominant colors in the most common bat species, but practically all bat species show some ‘grayish’ tones (e.g., the Mexican Long-tongued Bat, and the Western Pipistrelle), while ‘blackish’ tones are uncommon. There are also several bat species that are primarily gray (e.g., the California Leaf-nosed Bat), but only a few that are primarily black (e.g., the Silver-Haired Bat)… and even the Silver-Haired Bat is black and gray, hence it’s name. And as for black being the intimidating choice, well very few predators are black, and for a very good reason—black masks the size of the predator thereby diminishing it's intimidation factor.

Once again, you completely missed the point. The point was that MOST PEOPLE THINK OF BATS AS BEING ALL BLACK, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT. That's the TRUTH. Most people are afraid of bats, have never seen one up close, and think they're rodents, when in fact they're not. Most people think bats are blind, which is also untrue. Most people think bats get tangled in your hair. Most people think bats are harmful.

MOST PEOPLE ARE ILL-INFORMED. THAT's my point. People think of Bats as being all-black. Bats have black skin, regardless of what color fur they have, which, as I said, is often brown (like the brown bat I chased through my store the other day, or vampire bats, or the positively GINORMOUS fruit-bats from India and Malaysia) and as you pointed out, sometimes grey, but people usually see them in the dark and usually think of them as being all black.

Black things frighten people. Black is a color that most humans associate with something sinister or frightening; witness the superstition about black cats, black being the color of mourning or death, the color of the grim reaper's robe, the emo kids decked out in black, bikers wearing black leather to appear tough (vs. brown leather which does not carry the same weight).

Black is also the color most often worn by people trying to be covert -- Navy SEALS, the Army's Delta Force, Marine Corps Force Recon, Ninja, SWAT Team units, and burglars. The Viet Cong also chose black as their pajama color of choice in Vietnam.

I'm not saying that other colors don't work just as well - I'm saying that Bruce Wayne would most likely choose to wear black for the purposes he has in mind, because that's the way the human mind works.

And those are the actual facts... but I'm probably just being needlessly technical.

You are. You're not stating anything that isn't true, you're just ignoring common sense because it's convenient to you.
 
Wams said:
You guys are missing the point.
Your are over thinking the cool fun
visuals
of the character.
You are willing to sacrifice what makes Batman
awesome for "realism".:down

Nothing about Batman's costume is practical.
The character visuals is about fun and wonderment.
Don't weigh it down with so called "realism:

Wams


Don't talk like that here! They'll burn you at the stake!
 
BatScot said:
Guantlets.
Nope. Gauntlets are basically long gloves, Bracers are armor for the forearm from wrist to elbow, with no gloves attached. In Batman Begins, Batman is wearing bracers,besides (and separate from) the gloves
 
Wams said:
You guys are missing the point.
Your are over thinking the cool fun
visuals
of the character.
You are willing to sacrifice what makes Batman
awesome for "realism".:down

Nothing about Batman's costume is practical.
The character visuals is about fun and wonderment.
Don't weigh it down with so called "realism:

Wams
Wow...someone who gets it......
 
Boom said:
Wow...someone who gets it......

I got it when I saw him for the first time.:up:
Go to Batmans world...Don't bring him to ours.:)

Wams
 
Boom said:
Wow...someone who gets it......
And you do get it? Are you saying Batman stories should only be told in one manner? The two most noteable and infamous Batman writers (Denny O'Neil and Frank Miller) both know that the best and most rich Batman stories come in a realistic setting. If you prefer the over the top, and style over substance...you have the original 4 films on DVD...go watch them. :up:
 
Whack Arnolds said:
And you do get it? Are you saying Batman stories should only be told in one manner? The two most noteable and infamous Batman writers (Denny O'Neil and Frank Miller) both know that the best and most rich Batman stories come in a realistic setting. If you prefer the over the top, and style over substance...you have the original 4 films on DVD...go watch them. :up:
:rolleyes:

What he "gets" is that a character like Batman, no matter how hard someone tries, will always be a fantastical character. No matter how much you explain about the suit, it's still a man dressed as a bat. That in itself is unrealistic. It doesn't matter what kind of setting or situations you put him in. It's still fantasy all the same.

What he "gets" is that certain elements of Batman's costume that are iconic shouldn't be casted aside simply because they're not "practical" or "realistic." Why not try something that has potential of coming across beautifully on screen? You can honestly tell me that you wouldn't get chills if you saw Batman, completely shadowed, but with beaming white eyes? And that's just one example. People have become so bogged down by this "realism" factor that it's sucking the fun out of the character, in my honest opinion. I want something that I can look at and say, "Damn, now THAT'S cool." Believe it or not, you can have style and substance blend together.
 
Boom said:
What he "gets" is that a character like Batman, no matter how hard someone tries, will always be a fantastical character. No matter how much you explain about the suit, it's still a man dressed as a bat. That in itself is unrealistic. It doesn't matter what kind of setting or situations you put him in. It's still fantasy all the same.
And the concept of Batman Begins, NEVER professes to be complete reality based. It isn't a documentary. It's still fantasy, in a heightened reality, with explainations to give more validity to the actions and drama going on within the comic world. It allows for more ensured suspension of disbelief.

What he "gets" is that certain elements of Batman's costume that are iconic shouldn't be casted aside simply because they're not "practical" or "realistic." Why not try something that has potential of coming across beautifully on screen? You can honestly tell me that you wouldn't get chills if you saw Batman, completely shadowed, but with beaming white eyes? And that's just one example. People have become so bogged down by this "realism" factor that it's sucking the fun out of the character, in my honest opinion. I want something that I can look at and say, "Damn, now THAT'S cool." Believe it or not, you can have style and substance blend together.
I agree, but it's not like all "iconic", which also is completely subjective, is lost with the current suit. The cape is actually a closer incarnation to the comic version than ANY of the previous suits, you still have the classic Bat-cowl, symbol on the chest etc. Just say you don't prefer the look, because trying to dis-credit the suits relevance because it lacks a certain style to your liking is just ridiculous.
 
Whack Arnolds said:
And you do get it? Are you saying Batman stories should only be told in one manner? The two most noteable and infamous Batman writers (Denny O'Neil and Frank Miller) both know that the best and most rich Batman stories come in a realistic setting. If you prefer the over the top, and style over substance...you have the original 4 films on DVD...go watch them. :up:

Frank Miller also wrote DKR and that is definatly not realistic. Denny O'Neil created a character who gained immortality through occult rituals. A better example of a "realistic" approach to Batman might be found in Alan Grant who created the characters of Zsasz and The Ventriliquist, and delved into Batman as a psychological drama, but even in his work, Breyfogle's art leant a surreal quality to the overall stories. Going back even further, one could say that Bill Finger took a realistic approach, but there are also many elements of pulp fiction ala The Shadow and The Bat in his work and Kane was definatly taking inspiration from German Expressionist films for the visuals.
 
Whack Arnolds said:
I agree, but it's not like all "iconic", which also is completely subjective, is lost with the current suit. The cape is actually a closer incarnation to the comic version than ANY of the previous suits, you still have the classic Bat-cowl, symbol on the chest etc. Just say you don't prefer the look, because trying to dis-credit the suits relevance because it lacks a certain style to your liking is just ridiculous.
I'm not. Believe me, I am tolerant of the Batman Begins suit.

I am merely frustrated by the fact that there are many people here who think Batman's costume has to have an explanation for everything. Batman can't just have lenses because they look cool. They HAVE to serve a purpose.
 
Are you pro-lenses, Boom? I don't remember


I think most people are anti-lenses not because of the realism thing, but because Bale needs his eyes to act the part well. (I know I am)
 
Boom said:
I'm not. Believe me, I am tolerant of the Batman Begins suit.

I am merely frustrated by the fact that there are many people here who think Batman's costume has to have an explanation for everything. Batman can't just have lenses because they look cool. They HAVE to serve a purpose.

The lenses still don't jive with me. Not because they need a purpose (that's just hokey, give him goggles if you want night vision, don't pull junk science crap) but because actors act mainly with their eyes. Look at Spider-Man, every emotional scene gets hampered because you're looking at a blank slate in Spider-Man 2 any time there was drama, the mask came off (and people still keep *****ing about it) because there was no way to get the drama of his desperation without seeing his eyes.
 
Ronny Shade said:
Are you pro-lenses, Boom? I don't remember


I think most people are anti-lenses not because of the realism thing, but because Bale needs his eyes to act the part well. (I know I am)
Lujho proposed the transparent/semi-transparent lense idea. In close ups, we see the intensity of Bale's eyes. In distant shots, we either see "empty" eye sockets or glowing eyes (depending on lighting). That's a good compromise.

I can live without lenses. The only reason I'd consider myself pro-lenses is because I'd love to see them. They've never been done before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"