Nightwing1977
I'm Batman....I wish.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 5,851
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 56
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".

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

Morgoth said:![]()
This would be way better than what they had in the first. Those Clooney clasps have got to go!


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.
Wams said:
BatScot said:You have quite the knack of paraphrasing what I say and then completely misstating the meaning.
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.
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 subtleoccurring in only a few frameswhich renders the effect virtually non-existent to the extent that the effect cannot be considered a basic characteristic in general terms.
Im just following Nolan and Goyers lead; surely you wouldnt fault me for that.
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.
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 its name. And as for black being the intimidating choice, well very few predators are black, and for a very good reasonblack masks the size of the predator thereby diminishing it's intimidation factor.
And those are the actual facts... but I'm probably just being needlessly technical.
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".![]()
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
lujho said:Don't talk like that here! They'll burn you at the stake!
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 glovesBatScot said:Guantlets.
lol at SuperLuda's "lol@"sSuper_Ludacris said:lol@ you 2
Wow...someone who gets it......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".![]()
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
lolSuper_Ludacris said:lol@ all this!
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.Boom said:Wow...someone who gets it......
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.![]()

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.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.
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.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.
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.![]()
I'm not. Believe me, I am tolerant of the Batman Begins suit.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.
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.
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.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)