The Dark Knight Capes and Cowls - New Batsuit Discussion Thread

[LegendaryCaleb]

simple and effective!
i love it

 

[lujho]

Perhaps it could do with more detail. Tech it up a little bit, maybe. I know that's what you were trying to get away from, but, it couldn't hurt if it looked a tad more like armor.

I say, add back in the shoulder pad, put a little detail to the ab-area

eg.

and make the upper part of the torso a seperate piece from the bottom.

Here's one with shoulder pads back, but for the torso, the armour's all underneath.

 

[Superhobo]

So, this, logically -

- reminded you of this?

 

[Dark Knigh7]

Holy-ridiculously-amazing-manip, Batman.

Good job!

 

[nickyg641]

Here's one with shoulder pads back, but for the torso, the armour's all underneath.

What about seperating the chest-area from the lower torso, as I mentioned? It would probably better allow the actor to turn his upper body, and bend over.

 

[lujho]

So, this, logically -

- reminded you of this?

They are identical, and look exactly equally good. The 70s suit would have been fine for the 2000s movies.

 

[Mandalore464]

Kay, Saint that's it, you've just won a free admission to a reading class.

I understand perfectly--you seem to think that unrealistic legs don't make the suit unrealistic, and that doesn't make sense to me. If a big part of the suit is unrealistic, then saying "the suit is realitic!" doesn't make sense.

Quote ME saying that.

You said the suit looks like something he would have, and the legs are part of the suit. Understand the contradiction.

I don't. The leg is a detail. The suit is a whole. Saying a real Batman could wear a whole suit similar does NOT in any way mean he'd have the same leg section. Sorry for employing words you don't understand.

But it's okay for you to continuously, redundantly complain about the types of discussions other people are having? Hurm. You'll understand if discussing the batsuit in the batsuit thread seems less ridiculous to me than coming into the same thread and complaining that people are talking about the batsuit in ways you don't like.

What can I say except you're right about this? I like to say to people how stupid I think they are for spoiling their potential enjoyment over such trivial things as the batsuit's leg section. Guess no one's perfect.

I'm sorry, but a big chunk of the suit being unrealistic and the claim that the suit is realistic are not compatible. If I have an apple that's gone rotten in the top left quarter, I don't say "I have a good apple."

Maybe the analogy was a bit too unclear for you. If a quarter of your apple's rotten, cut it off and eat the rest. Meaning : Why can some people see past this goddam leg section and others are too narrow-minded and stay focused on it to the point that they hate the whole suit because of it? All I'm saying is the suit, ON THE WHOLE, looks good. And again, I agree that the leg section is crap.

You're the one who made the connection, not me. I only asked that you explain it.

Your clarification of which people you are talking to doesn't change anything about anything I've said.

It does. See, if out of 10 people 8 people are wearing red and I say so, and then one of the 2 guys wearing blue tells me I'm wrong cause he's not wearing red, I tell him to look better and reconsider what I said. If he comes back and says "The fact you were talking about the 8 other people who actually wear red doesn't make you right", I call him a hopeless waste and stop arguing with him.

I am considering stopping arguing with you...

Let's hear it one more time, step after step, so you don't get carried away by it this time :

- I said some people are too dumb to look past the leg section and will have no enjoyment while watching the film because of that.

- You accused me of talking about ALL the people who discuss the suit on the boards.

- I told you you didn't understand, and clarified once more, I was ONLY talking about that minority of people who can't go on with their lives cause Batman's wearing the metro map on his legs.

- You told me that clarifying didn't change the fact I said that the people who discuss the suit are gonna focus on the legs while watching the movie.

 

[hame4479]

this picture makes me absolutely love the new suit!

You can really see the two tones of grey shining through. Where did this pic come from by the way?

 

[Superhobo]

They are identical, and look exactly equally good. The 70s suit would have been fine for the 2000s movies.

Well, they're not identical (which was my point), but I'd agree that they both work - spandex has been given too much of a bum-rap. Thanks, Adam West.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I like both of the Nolan movie suits... the new one seems to fit the look of the movie. Bats needs all the protection he can get in this one.


However, it's too over-complicated and busy. It's nice and all... and i'm sure it will be a technical marvel, but it lack something severely.


I look at Spider-man and iron Man, and even Superman... and it's just sad that Nolan won't bite the bullet and embrace Batman's suit. A really dark, dark Grey suit with under protection would look great. And always have batman engulfed by his cape.

Ultimately, i think Nolan made some wrong decisions with this suit. - But the movie may make me change my mind.

 

[Superhobo]

Kay, Saint that's it, you've just won a free admission to a reading class.



Quote ME saying that.



I don't. The leg is a detail. The suit is a whole. Saying a real Batman could wear a whole suit similar does NOT in any way mean he'd have the same leg section. Sorry for employing words you don't understand.



What can I say except you're right about this? I like to say to people how stupid I think they are for spoiling their potential enjoyment over such trivial things as the batsuit's leg section. Guess no one's perfect.



Maybe the analogy was a bit too unclear for you. If a quarter of your apple's rotten, cut it off and eat the rest. Meaning : Why can some people see past this goddam leg section and others are too narrow-minded and stay focused on it to the point that they hate the whole suit because of it? All I'm saying is the suit, ON THE WHOLE, looks good. And again, I agree that the leg section is crap.

You realize that the legs are 50% of the suit, right? To say the suit looks good 'on the whole' while saying the legs look 'puzzling' (HA!) makes the mind boggle and the brain fluids boil.

Also, it's not just the legs - you've forgotten the ridiculous man-bra contraption as well.

 

[Saint]

Its too plain. Reminds me of George Reeve's superman suit.

I am unaware of how being plain makes Lujho's manip look like the suits worn by Adam West or George Reeves. It's ridiculous.

 

[Mandalore464]

You realize that the legs are 50% of the suit, right?

Well actually I do and the problem we all have with this suit is not its knees or boots is it? I was under the impression that the only "over-designed leg section" we were talking about when using this expression was the thighs, which obviously are not 50% of the suit.

But you're right we shouldn't use the term "leg section" as "thighs section" would be more appropriate.

Also, it's not just the legs - you've forgotten the ridiculous man-bra contraption as well.

I actually have no problem whatsoever with the pectoral section of the TDK suit, which to me looks the same as the ones on the previous batsuits. Why is it that you call it a man-bra?

On a side note, luhjo, your manip looks great indeed and I would have no problem with that being the movie suit. It does look a bit stiff and unflexible as opposed to the high level of articulation of the TDK suit though, but that's the only negative thing I have to say about it.

 

[lujho]

What about seperating the chest-area from the lower torso, as I mentioned? It would probably better allow the actor to turn his upper body, and bend over.

Here, but I think it's kind of redundant - if it was cloth on the torso on the other manips, then the armour underneath would be articulated enough.

 

[Wams]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0qVNeVENHI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6el_1r1Q5k

The Dark knight how it should be. ^

 

[Superhobo]

Well actually I do and the problem we all have with this suit is not its knees or boots is it? I was under the impression that the only "over-designed leg section" we were talking about when using this expression was the thighs, which obviously are not 50% of the suit.

But you're right we shouldn't use the term "leg section" as "thighs section" would be more appropriate.

Well, I'd include the 'knees' as part of the ridiculous roadmap design, yeah.

I actually have no problem whatsoever with the pectoral section of the TDK suit, which to me looks the same as the ones on the previous batsuits. Why is it that you call it a man-bra?

Because it looks like a man-bra. It's in no way similar to the design of any of the previous suits. I mean, what?

 

[lujho]

On a side note, luhjo, your manip looks great indeed and I would have no problem with that being the movie suit. It does look a bit stiff and unflexible as opposed to the high level of articulation of the TDK suit though, but that's the only negative thing I have to say about it.

Thanks.

However, I'm not quite sure how it looks any stiffer that the Spider-Man, Superman Returns or Fantastic Four suits. It'd be the exact same method of construction.

 

[Mandalore464]

I think this is bloody awesome.

Well, I'd include the 'knees' as part of the ridiculous roadmap design, yeah.

OK I get you on this, but I mean, although thighs and kness represent probably 20% of the whole suit, eventually what makes a Batsuit a Batsuit is not the way his legs look. I don't mean he could have green tights of course, but at the end of the day this Batsuit does look like a Batsuit. I'd say the legs are kind of trivial. I mean it's not like if they'd gotten rid of the ears, that would be a big deal and yet they only take 1-2% of the suit.

And as I said countless times on this thread, yes, 100 times yes, I agree that the "roadmap" section looks off. I do agree. But it is unimportant when looking at the Batsuit in its entirety. It's a poorly-designed detail, so, yes, it's poorly-designed. But it's a detail.

Because it looks like a man-bra. It's in no way similar to the design of any of the previous suits. I mean, what?

Well it's a Kevlar pecs-shaped protection just like all the previous suits... Maybe the fact it's segmented makes it look bulkier and hence why you call it man-bra, but I'm sorry even though I could understand your point I don't think the same at all. It just looks like... pecs. Like the BB suit, the Kilmer and Clooney suits, the Keaton suits. Doesn't look like breasts or a bra to me.

 

[Superhobo]

I think this is bloody awesome.



OK I get you on this, but I mean, although thighs and kness represent probably 20% of the whole suit, eventually what makes a Batsuit a Batsuit is not the way his legs look. I don't mean he could have green tights of course, but at the end of the day this Batsuit does look like a Batsuit. I'd say the legs are kind of trivial. I mean it's not like if they'd gotten rid of the ears, that would be a big deal and yet they only take 1-2% of the suit.

And as I said countless times on this thread, yes, 100 times yes, I agree that the "roadmap" section looks off. I do agree. But it is unimportant when looking at the Batsuit in its entirety. It's a poorly-designed detail, so, yes, it's poorly-designed. But it's a detail.

Look at the nipples on Schumacher's suits. That's, at best, .3 percent of the suits themselves, and yet, look at how much rhuckus they've shook up since their inception.

Well it's a Kevlar pecs-shaped protection just like all the previous suits... Maybe the fact it's segmented makes it look bulkier and hence why you call it man-bra, but I'm sorry even though I could understand your point I don't think the same at all. It just looks like... pecs. Like the BB suit, the Kilmer and Clooney suits, the Keaton suits. Doesn't look like breasts or a bra to me.

Well, to each his own, I guess. It's got more to do with how they've segmented it than the segmentation itself.

 

[Saint]

Kay, Saint that's it, you've just won a free admission to a reading class.

Quote ME saying that.

I don't have to: the sentiment is reflected in all your posts. You have repeatedly said that the suit is something Batman would wear "in the real world," while the legs are not. The contradiction is clear.

I don't. The leg is a detail. The suit is a whole.

Do you know how you get a whole? By putting the pieces together. Looking at the entirety of the suit does not magically omit the legs from the whole.

What can I say except you're right about this? I like to say to people how stupid I think they are for spoiling their potential enjoyment over such trivial things as the batsuit's leg section. Guess no one's perfect.

Explain which individuals are "spoiling their potential enjoyment over such trivial things as the batsuit's leg section."

Maybe the analogy was a bit too unclear for you. If a quarter of your apple's rotten, cut it off and eat the rest. Meaning : Why can some people see past this goddam leg section and others are too narrow-minded and stay focused on it to the point that they hate the whole suit because of it?

Heh, you think I'm the one who doesn't get the analogy? You say cut out the rotten part, but then you say people should accept the rotten part of the suit and move on. Removing it because you don't like it is not the same as accepting it and eating it anyway. The proper analogy would be that those individuals are eating the rotten part along with the rest of the apple.

All I'm saying is the suit, ON THE WHOLE, looks good.

No it doesn't. Even if the legs were the only problem (and they are not, not by a long shot), saying "the whole" looks good when a big chunk of it looks bad just doesn't make sense. I don't know how you can think otherwise. A part of it looks bad, therefore the whole does not look good. If the chest looks good (it doesn't, but bear with me) and the legs look bad, it does not look good as a whole: only the chest looks good.

If you want to say "the rest looks good,' well, okay. But as a whole (which is what you keep saying), it does not look good, because the bad piece of that whole affects the final product.

You accused me of talking about ALL the people who discuss the suit on the boards.

I made no such accusation. Let us examine the discussion:

Guard said: "It's entirely possible to hate a costume and enjoy a movie."

You said: "It is, but I'd rather watch the movie with a free mind and enjoy what's coming at me instead of focusing on the bottom of the screen everytime Batman's on it to make sure the leg section is not too visible so I won't have to hear the audience complain about how "sectioned and ugly and unpractical and artificial" it looks.

Accept it and go on."

Anyone with rudimentary reading comprehension skills understands that you are attributing the described behaviour (inability to "get over" the legs) to the individuals Guard described, who hate the costume but enjoy the film, hence your use of the "I'd rather" line.

Please, do not waste my time with another stupid quip about my ability to read: the meaning is right there in the language, clear as day. If you meant something different, you phrased it badly and that's your fault.

My response did not accuse you of assigning the behaviour described in your post to everyone, but rather asked you to explain what indicates the group (who hate the suit but enjoy the movie) will be unable to "get over" the legs (which makes no sense, since the group is described as enjoying the movie despite the legs, meaning they are already over it) by virtue of the fact that they are in here talking about how they hate it. I may not have phrased this clearly enough, which would be my fault.

 

[Mandalore464]

Quote ME saying that.
I don't have to: the sentiment is reflected in all your posts.

Bla bla blah...

You have repeatedly said that the suit is something Batman would wear "in the real world," while the legs are not. The contradiction is clear.

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. 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.

The fact that a real Batman would wear a suit of that kind means in no way he'd wear the exact same. At the very start of the discussion I was having with The Guard and some other poster whose name I forgot -sorry-, I was discussing people complaining about having a rubber/armor suit instead of a cloth one. And that's in the context of this argument and this argument only that the "a real Batman would wear such a thing" surfaced. MEANING : Forget the bloody design, I am talking about the fact it's an ARMOR.

As proof, at the very start of the discussion -which apparently you didn't bother to read-, blues_ux said :

i kinda get what you're saying, and in my opinion, i dont like the comic book costume that much (its alright) but i do think it works for the comics themselves, but i can also see a manip like what you made work for a move like TDK.
i dont know, i just prefer the TDK suit. it looks like something someone would wear if Batman existed in the real world

And I just quoted him saying so and approving. I didn't pull it out of my butt. We were discussing comic book costume versus live-action costume.

Now sure when you put it out of its context it may sound silly, but there is a context and it has to be taken into account, like it or not.

I don't. The leg is a detail. The suit is a whole.

Do you know how you get a whole? By putting the pieces together. Looking at the entirety of the suit does not magically omit the legs from the whole.

But saying the suit looks good ON THE WHOLE -which is what I wrote verbatim- does not mean "the whole of the suit looks good". The expression "on the whole" means "generally speaking" as in "The suit looks good ALTHOUGH there are details that are off in its design". The two are not imcompatible, you're just pretending I said "The whole suit looks good" when I said "The suit looks good on the whole". That's very different, and if you disagree, well there's no other way I can help except suggesting a return to school. Sorry if you can't take the quib.

What can I say except you're right about this? I like to say to people how stupid I think they are for spoiling their potential enjoyment over such trivial things as the batsuit's leg section. Guess no one's perfect.

Explain which individuals are "spoiling their potential enjoyment over such trivial things as the batsuit's leg section."

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?

Maybe the analogy was a bit too unclear for you. If a quarter of your apple's rotten, cut it off and eat the rest. Meaning : Why can some people see past this goddam leg section and others are too narrow-minded and stay focused on it to the point that they hate the whole suit because of it?

Heh, you think I'm the one who doesn't get the analogy? You say cut out the rotten part, but then you say people should accept the rotten part of the suit and move on. Removing it because you don't like it is not the same as accepting it and eating it anyway. The proper analogy would be that those individuals are eating the rotten part along with the rest of the apple.

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.

All I'm saying is the suit, ON THE WHOLE, looks good.

No it doesn't. Even if the legs were the only problem (and they are not, not by a long shot), saying "the whole" looks good when a big chunk of it looks bad just doesn't make sense. I don't know how you can think otherwise. A part of it looks bad, therefore the whole does not look good. If the chest looks good (it doesn't, but bear with me) and the legs look bad, it does not look good as a whole: only the chest looks good.

If you want to say "the rest looks good,' well, okay. But as a whole (which is what you keep saying), it does not look good, because the bad piece of that whole affects the final product.

Re-read yourself. You keep reacting to a dreamed-of "AS a whole" when even in the portion of my message you quoted it is written "ON the whole" and don't say I'm picky cause that makes a BIG BIG difference in what it means.

Here you go, have a good read. : http://www.thefreedictionary.com/on+the+whole
Notice how "as a whole" and "on the whole" are two separated sections with their very own definitions.

on the whole
1. Considering everything: on the whole, a happy marriage.

Notice the example. It does not mean that this couple has had bright sunny shiny days of pure bliss together every single day of their union. It only means that ON THE WHOLE, it's a happy marriage.

You accused me of talking about ALL the people who discuss the suit on the boards.

I made no such accusation. Let us examine the discussion:

Guard said: "It's entirely possible to hate a costume and enjoy a movie."

You said: "It is, but I'd rather watch the movie with a free mind and enjoy what's coming at me instead of focusing on the bottom of the screen everytime Batman's on it to make sure the leg section is not too visible so I won't have to hear the audience complain about how "sectioned and ugly and unpractical and artificial" it looks.

Accept it and go on."

Anyone with rudimentary reading comprehension skills understands that you are attributing the described behaviour (inability to "get over" the legs) to the individuals Guard described, who hate the costume but enjoy the film, hence your use of the "I'd rather" line.

EXCEPT it all started before the first message you quoted. Here to be precise :

Originally Posted by regwec
It's because people get lose their powers of judgement when they are excited about a movie. It returns around a year later, before it lies dormant again in anticipation of the sequel.

Well same goes for geeky "it-doesn't-look-like-the-source-material" whining and that's not directed to you regwec but to whomever will take offense in my saying so, proof that it applies to them.

So maybe next time you jump at someone's throat for the sole purpose of displaying your famed logic you'll have the decency to read THE WHOLE of the argument first. If you had you'd seen I'd been talking about those people from the very start and you'd have seen this WHOLE stupid discussion wasn't meant to be.

 

[Mandalore464]

Look at the nipples on Schumacher's suits. That's, at best, .3 percent of the suits themselves, and yet, look at how much rhuckus they've shook up since their inception.

Actually that's what I meant hence the ears analogy. Some details may be small but they look so off that they spoil the whole thing. If the cowl had no ears, if the chest had nipples...

All I mean to say is that the legs are not a big deal at all although they're a big chunk of the costume. Batman's legs have never been something specific that had to answer to certain rules aesthetically-wise.

It sure doesn't excuse the poor design, I agree with that.

 

[lujho]

Actually that's what I meant hence the ears analogy. Some details may be small but they look so off that they spoil the whole thing. If the cowl had no ears, if the chest had nipples...

What if the EARS had nipples though? Or the nipples had EARS? Huh?

 

[Dark Knigh7]

What if the EARS had nipples though? Or the nipples had EARS? Huh?

Do I smell the best manip ever?

 

[Saint]

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.

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 fact that a real Batman would wear a suit of that kind means in no way he'd wear the exact same. At the very start of the discussion I was having with The Guard and some other poster whose name I forgot -sorry-, I was discussing people complaining about having a rubber/armor suit instead of a cloth one. And that's in the context of this argument and this argument only that the "a real Batman would wear such a thing" surfaced. MEANING : Forget the bloody design, I am talking about the fact it's an ARMOR.

Ah, my bad.

But saying the suit looks good ON THE WHOLE -which is what I wrote verbatim- does not mean "the whole of the suit looks good". The expression "on the whole" means "generally speaking" as in "The suit looks good ALTHOUGH there are details that are off in its design". The two are not imcompatible, you're just pretending I said "The whole suit looks good" when I said "The suit looks good on the whole". That's very different, and if you disagree, well there's no other way I can help except suggesting a return to school. Sorry if you can't take the quib.

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.

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."

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?

Re-read yourself. You keep reacting to a dreamed-of "AS a whole" when even in the portion of my message you quoted it is written "ON the whole" and don't say I'm picky cause that makes a BIG BIG difference in what it means.

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.

Notice the example. It does not mean that this couple has had bright sunny shiny days of pure bliss together every single day of their union. It only means that ON THE WHOLE, it's a happy marriage.

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.

EXCEPT it all started before the first message you quoted. Here to be precise :


So maybe next time you jump at someone's throat for the sole purpose of displaying your famed logic you'll have the decency to read THE WHOLE of the argument first. If you had you'd seen I'd been talking about those people from the very start and you'd have seen this WHOLE stupid discussion wasn't meant to be.

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.