You're mixing everything up Saint. The suit is something he would wear in a real world context, he could wear the same leg-designs too.
He could wear anything in a "real world' context. He wouldn't wear those leggings, because nobody would design them like that. They wouldn't exist.
Well apparently some real people managed to design them that way so that doesn't mean anything.
That doesn't mean they're not ugly or overly-designed cause they obviously are, but in no way does it mean that they are "unrealistic" and if I said so I apologize for making it unclear.
But they are unrealistic. If they're designed in a way that doesn't make sense, that's not realistic. Nobody is going to design armour like that, because it's stupid and pointless. It serves no purpose.
The only purpose it has, or could have, and I will say right now that I still think it's a stupid purpose, is that the way the legs are segmented bring some kind of unity with the way the torso is segmented. Of course, the torso is segmented in a way that resembles human musculature and the legs don't.
But if you think about it, segmenting the torso that way has no practical purpose either. No one could physically bend their upper body in a way that would make this segmentation useful. It's just design. It serves no purpose. Like the gauntlets which, this time around, are unnecessarily segmented instead of being plain like in the previous installments. It's just some question of unity in the design of the whole suit.
I did say "the whole of the suit," but I also accounted for exactly what you said, "on the whole." As I said: on the whole it is still affected by the crappiness of the legs, and looks worse for it. The beauty of saying "on the whole" is that it means you account for all the parts, how they work together, and the final product they create--and that includes the bad parts, which bring the whole product down. The apple with the rotten quarter is, on the whole, a bad apple.
Well clearly you must be some kind of pessimistic, because that's just the way you see it: To you, the suit is unredeemably and irrevocably affected by the crappiness of the legs. To me it's not enough to call the suit a failure. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
Accounting for all the parts, the good ones, the crappy ones, I still think the TDK suit is a good suit.
How about the ones who repeatedly and unproductively bashed the whole suit -I said "the whole suit" this time- just because it has an odd design on its leg section?
If they're bashing the entire suit, it's a safe bet that it's because they think the entire design is stupid, not just the legs. Also, this doesn't answer my original request, which was that you explain which individuals you claim are "spoiling their potential enjoyment over such trivial things as the batsuit's leg section."
Well if I didn't answer correctly to you then I don't know what kind of answer you want from me. You asked me who I was referring to when I said some fans will spoil their own enjoyment because of the legs when watching the movie, and I answered that "they" will be the ones who after 170 pages of discussion are still unproductively calling the suit crap because they're still unable to make do with the legs pattern and who, while watching the movie, will whine and cry everytime they see the Batman's legs on screen because they won't be able to see anything else.
I don't see how else I could answer your question.
I just compared "looking past the leg section" and "cutting off the rotten part of the apple", fine, the analogy is not the best, and if you want to peel off the legs on the batsuit for the sake of having a proper analogy, be my guest.
Jesus Christ I can't believe how nitpicky people get when they want to be right at all costs.
Your point just didn't make sense. How else was I to answer it, besides telling you it didn't make sense?
Well I just commented on your analogy with the rotten apple and you just didn't accept my way of seeing things. To me, looking past the legs of the suit and have a good time watching the movie anyway is comparable to looking past the apple has a rotten bit, cut it out instead of throwing the entire apple in the bin, and eat the rest with pleasure. I'm not asking anyone to look at the legs on screen with pleasure, or "cut them out" or anything... just to forget them.
I see here a proper analogy. Analogies don't have to be taken literally. You can cut out the rotten part of an apple, you obviously can't do the same with the batsuit. The analogy was that in both case you can chose to still enjoy the rest of it (movie and apple) and be satisfied on the whole. It's a good enough analogy to me.
If by "on the whole" you mean "most of the elements," well, okay--but I interpret "on the whole" as meaning an overall view of the final product. That includes crappy legs that bring the entire product down.
Well it's pretty simple: To me, yes the suit has flaws, but none of them is significant enough to bring the entire suit down as you say. Ultimately I guess it's not a matter of being logic or not but rather a matter of different tastes. The legs look over-designed, unnecessary, maybe the bat symbol is a bit small too, but I like the rest. I like the segmentation in different pieces instead of just a rubber suit, I like the mobility and agility it supposedly allows compared to the previous installments...
I'm just saying that from my side of the road, the suit still has enough good things to counterbalance the bad ones and make it a good suit.
Your example conforms to my interpretation: considering everything, the entire design is affect by crappy legs, which are a part of the "everything" that is being considered. They are significantly crappy that the suit cannot overcome them "on the whole." Likewise, if the woman in the marriage shot the man in the face one night, despite fifteen years of happy marriage, on the whole, it's a bad marriage.
See above. Just a different point of view.
I'm sorry, but nothing in that quote changes the meaning of the comments I mentioned. I'm not sure why you think it would.
Because it was directed at people who actually come here and reproach the suit with being too far from the comics version and then accuse people of being pro-Nolan because they think the TDK suit has qualities. People who are so geeky and whiny that no matter what they just decided the movies' Batsuits wouldn't look good as long as they're not made of grey cloth.
People who, eventually, are exactly the way I told they were in my comments, which makes my comments true. I hope this is clear enough this time.
Now all things considered, I think we arrived at a point in the discussion where only our way of seeing things and our tastes are at stake, and there is no argument that can change that. You will always think the suit looks bad because the legs look bad, and I will always think the suit looks good because I can look past the legs and accept the way they are.
So I'm going to stop participating in that debate which went on for far too long, and I want you to know that if I over-reacted at times and I may have been unpleasant to you, there was no harm meant and ultimately I have no quarrel with you and look forward to discussing with you again.
