• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

The Dark Knight Capes and Cowls - New Batsuit Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think alot of people on here would like to get a room with Saint, so it makes them feel like a better Hype poster, and be like "WOW! Im sitting right next to Saint, the almighty savior of posting on superhero messageboards." LOL :)
 
The legs don't bend in those places...but....well, say, if you bend your legs, kneel down, or whatever, your muscles will flex, and your legs will grow...kinda...and if you're wearing one big piece of armor around your legs, that would be very uncomfortable.... so in that instance, there will be need for the cracks in the armor. Now, I do think they could've come up with a prettier design for it, so I'm not defending that, but I can see the reason behind it.

I see what you're saying, but I just don't think it matters that much. The man had no issues with bending his legs, crouching, kneeling, etc, in BATMAN BEGINS. Your muscles expanding simply aren't going to matter that much in context. Rubber is flexible. It stretches, and is designed to stretch.
 
Here's the thing; Saint is not posturing as an intellectual just by using varied syntax, and a dose of logic. If he spuriously name-dropped Wittgenstein in every other paragraph then yes, he would come across as a posturing charlatan. But he doesn't- he just gives reasoned discussion on the subject at hand.
I love reading your posts sometimes. I have no frickin clue what ur talking about but I love reading those big words. I wish I was smart. :csad:
 
Rubber is flexible. It stretches, and is designed to stretch.

I'd say that depends. Thick rubber in the "armor" context gets tighter when bent, which isn't too comfortable.

I agree that jointing the suit was a good idea, but it could have been carried out more aesthetically pleasing as pointed out before. I do sense however that the whole "knight" play up is what this suit is referencing, and will be improved upon in the next film.
 
^ Dude Borat you are smart, come on you should know this!!

Don't you mean that "You should know better than most."?
In response to him,that is. Hehehe,sorry,I was tempted to use that Ra's Al Ghul quote from BB.
:hehe:

Anyways,about Batman's cowl from BB,I don't see much of a problem with it. Didn't he have problems moving the kneck as well like how Keaton did from Batman 89? I don't remember. IMO,Bale's cowl for TDK needs work on it,the head portion of it makes him look bad,but awkward at the same time. His face looks wider because of it and it seems like it is going to explode. his Batman's cowl from BB looked perfect IMO.
 
Maybe the third movie should be called, "I Am The Night".

I mean, the first title, "Batman Begins" has a subject (noun) and an action (verb) there. The second title, "The Dark Knight" is a descriptive (adjective) subject (noun). Maybe the third could, "I Am The Night" switch to a present tense (main verb) and a subject again (noun). Sorta like a full circle effect. :p [/jibber jabber]

-TNC
 
I think the third Batman movie should be called The Caped Crusader.
Or why not,The Dark Knight:Strikes Back?
 
The Caped Crusader...Sounds good on paper, but it might turn some viewers off. I mean, when I hear "The Caped Crusader", I'm thinking of the campy and whimsical 60's and 70's Batman, not the dark, tragic hero I've been seeing in Batman Begins or TDK.

-TNC
 
I can't see "the caped crusader" as the story just because it does sound to campy, and doesn't seem Dark.
 
the new suit is slowly but surely growing on me

n1258333369_30048914_5813.jpg
 
Right, so after "stop using the big words!" comes "u 2 r gay LOLz!!".

You are in danger of achieving the kind of message board that you deserve.

You forgot "U eSSay post iz 2 long!!11 ZOMG."
 
Exactly. Batman is made by the interpretation of the character, not what he wears. And that's something these movies do well. So stop complaining so much.


What he wears is a huge part of Batman otherwise he wouldn't dress up in the first place. Also, it's movie, realism isn't important, what looks good is the only thing that should matter. Anyone can kick Christian Bales butt while he's wearing a Batman suit because even the best one inhibits movement. With that said give us something that looks like Batman and leave realism to the rest of the movie. These movies do a horrible job interpretating the character, remember the nipple fiasco of the 3rd and 4th movies? The director should not be allowed to give his interpretation of the character, he should just make a movie where the character, and the way he looks, is accurate. It shouldn't be Nolan's verison, Burton's version, or an over-realistic version, it should just be Batman. I'm allowed to complain about something that I have seen butchered for approximately six movies.
 
What he wears is a huge part of Batman otherwise he wouldn't dress up in the first place. Also, it's movie, realism isn't important, what looks good is the only thing that should matter. Anyone can kick Christian Bales butt while he's wearing a Batman suit because even the best one inhibits movement. With that said give us something that looks like Batman and leave realism to the rest of the movie. These movies do a horrible job interpretating the character, remember the nipple fiasco of the 3rd and 4th movies? The director should not be allowed to give his interpretation of the character, he should just make a movie where the character, and the way he looks, is accurate. It shouldn't be Nolan's verison, Burton's version, or an over-realistic version, it should just be Batman. I'm allowed to complain about something that I have seen butchered for approximately six movies.

What you are asking for is impossible. No matter who makes a Batman movie it will always be an interpretation. There is no single version of Batman; he has changed constantly over the past 70 years. For me Batman is some weird cross between the Timm-verse and Frank Miller's version, for some it may be the 70s, others the 60s, etc. And while, yes the suit matters, a perfect suit alone would not make the movie good. Putting a cloth suit with no nipples on George Clooney would not have saved B&R because the movie was heartless. What makes a good movie good (beyond a mere popcorn film) is the cast and crew (especially the director) being invested in the characters. You may not like Nolan's interpretation, it isn't perfect to me either (I'd like a bit more detective-ness), but to say there should be a Batman movie with absolutely NO interpretation is nonsensical.
 
The suit looks good WHEN...he's actually posing for the camera, as it should and as it will look in the movie. When there's a candid picture of a picture where the suit isn't even focus, it's more likely to look weird and awkward because it wasn't meant to be photographed for analysis.

This reminds me of what they've said about things like Hellboy's body suit or the Superman and Spider-Man suits or any other kind of full-body garment. Those kinds of outfits, they look fine and ok in photographs or production skills, but they're made particularly to look best on-film.

-TNC
 
I see what you're saying, but I just don't think it matters that much. The man had no issues with bending his legs, crouching, kneeling, etc, in BATMAN BEGINS. Your muscles expanding simply aren't going to matter that much in context. Rubber is flexible. It stretches, and is designed to stretch.
I've maintained since, like, a month ago that the "map legs" or whatever you guys call them are simply in place to tailor as much around Bale's legs as possible, all while maintaining an eye-catching design.

That's the only possible explanation, for me.
 
^ Didnt you hear Nolan said no to a third bat-film, Im sorry to break the news. lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"