The Dark Knight Capes and Cowls - New Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Aidan2209]

Testify...I seriously believe in all honesty Robin can be done in the Nolanverse...They just need to give it the patient and practical approach.

My feeling is that the only way they can include him is to change him so drastically that he's essentially no longer Robin.

 

[metalhead_dave]

If Nolan uses Dark Victory as his inspiration for his next film like he used The Long Halloween as his inspiration for TDK, then Robin can be done well enough without any drastic changes(Though I'd make him older.)

 

[HUMANIMAL]

That's a good manip, I do dig that. But would you be able to do this?

Would you be able to reverse the blacks and greys around the upperbody and the arms(above the forearm gauntlets). But then keep the bat symbol black?

I'd like to see how that'd look.

i know you didnt ask me;-)....but i was around and thought ...oh i wanna see that too

 

[SheldonLevene]

It's a nice manip no doubt, but I like it the way it is for some reason. Maybe b/c the grey there looks quite silver. Idk good work though.

 

[HolyPurpleSocks]

i know you didnt ask me;-)....but i was around and thought ...oh i wanna see that too

Wow, I really do like that look for him...the contrast makes the black pop out more distinctly up against the tones of the grey...

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Robin is the perfect bookend to the paternal themes of Begins - he really deserves a spot in movie three.

I hope Nolan and Bale (or was it really just Bale?) re-evaluate their "Robin=Camp" perception. Given Nolan's love for TLH, maybe he'll at least take another look at Dark Victory.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

How would the presence of Robin in another version of Batman's story be sufficient for this version of batman's story? In any case, if they were interested in a complete and proper characterization of Batman, Robin would be absolutely necessary. Since this probably will not happen, I have to accept an incomplete characterization. I'll survive.


Nevertheless, the Batman you like is still the Batman written by writers who design his personality with an understand of the effects Robin has had on him. It is not necessary for you to read a Robin story in order for the effects of Robin to be important to the stories you do read, in the same way that it is not necessary for me to have read Identity Crisis in order for the events of Identity Crisis to affect Batman's characterization in the stories I do read (of course, I did read Identity Crisis, because it's awesome).


Which is not contradictory to sentimentality. Batman, ostensibly, may be the ultimate rational mind, but he is motivated purely by emotion and, yes, sentimentality.


Hardly--it creates an entirely new sort of conflict, rooted in Batman's emotionally unavailability and inability to appropriately parent a child, given his own psychological damage. Does vigilantism seem like an appropriate way to parent a traumatized child? That's Batman's response (even in interpretations where it's Robin's idea), because he doesn't interact very well emotionally, doesn't know how to handle with people who have been emotionally wounded. He doesn't have the tools most human begins acquire for human interaction and parenting, by virtue of how he grew up. Robin also forces him to struggle with his own degree of inhumanity.


Characters can't exist in a void, and accordingly Batman is never "solo." He always has his partners, from Gordon to Alfred and, in Batman Begins, even Lucius Fox.


So? Everything in Batman, and in all of mainstream superhero comics, is designed to appeal to children on some level.


The story has been updated appropriately.



Following in the footsteps of the father will always be relevant theme, and more importantly, the origins of the sidekick convention are unimportant, by the same token that batman merely being created to capitalize on the popularity of Superman is unimportant: these conventions have gone beyond their origins to become irrevocably ingrained components of the genre. The thematic relevance is always shifting (currently from master/apprentice, as you mentioned, to father/son), so saying 'It's not relevant anymore" doesn't fly: it's relevant as long as you can find a reason for it to be.

A lot of people think updating characters is about carving out the ideas that don't make sense anymore, but I subscribe to the philosophy that it's much more useful to find new explanations for those ideas, ones that do make sense. So instead of saying "Robin doesn't make sense, get rid of him," you ask "How can I make Robin make sense?" Hell, domino masks don't make a lick of sense, but I love them. That means that if I want to use them, I have to figure out a way for them to make sense.


That just makes it a challenge, and infinitely more interesting when the challenge is met. That's as close as you can get to a guarantee that the idea will be interesting. Naturally, there is enormous potential for failure, and that's the risk you take when you challenge convention: you have to be good enough to make it work.

I'm heading out now, so I'll have to answer your second post in a few hours, when I get back.

My entire wonderful post just got lost because I'm on a public computer at the moment and it didn't save when I had to re-log in. *sigh* *bangs head on wall* Time to go home!

 

[Saint]

I believe that all the surrogate family characters are interesting and important for plot purposes, but that they do not define Batman as a character. For example, how many stories have there been where one or more of these characters either a.) wasn't mentioned b.) killed off c.) renounced by Batman d.) rejected Batman e.) ran off somewhere or f.) generally played little to no part in the story?

So clearly you can cut them out of the story and Batman is still very much the same, unyielding, obsessive crusader he always was. These characters are merely extra pieces in the puzzle for writers to tell a personal story about Bruce Wayne and give him some humanity and vulnerability.

Again, you're not looking at the big picture. It doesn't matter that they don't appear here, there, in this story or that story. They do, though, absolutely, define Batman as a character (in every story in which he appears) whether they are present or not. Leslie and her lessons of pacifism are the source of Batman's humanity, whether she appears in the story or not. Alfred has imparted to him reason and rationality, Gordon duty and responsibility, and so on. If these characters were not a part of the history, Batman would not be the same person, by virtue of not having known them.

What I mean is not "Oh my God, Gordon isn't in this issue, so Batman is incomplete!" What I mean is that if there was no Gordon, if Gordon did not exist, Batman would not be complete, by virtue of never having been affected by Gordon. Conversely, if Robin does not exist, Batman is incomplete by the same token.

As I said, a character cannot exist in a void. They are defined by their supporting characters, irrevocably. Some characters they learn from, taking lessons, and others are the ones they test their own ideals against. You mentioned stories where Batman has renounced certain characters--this is just as important, because this is still learning--it's how he learns about himself. This is how a character tests his ideals and becomes stronger or weaker in his convictions. Without that, the character is not the same.

I mentioned earlier that there is a varying degree of importance among the assorted characters. You can say Killer Croc never exited, and probably not lose anything important. But if you say Alfred, Gordon, Leslie, Robin, Joker, or Two-Face, for example, do not exist, then you have lost important components of Batman's character, as these components were developed in him through interaction with these characters.

Let me see if I can give a clearer example. Marvel has a character called Miek, an alien insectoid who was an important part of the last two years of Hulk stories, as Hulk's friend. Miek, in the end, became something of a villain--and it was partially the Hulk's fault. Miek learned from the actions of the Hulk, from lessons the Hulk imparted to him both indirectly and directly; lessons about anger and revenge, about morality, about the nature of one's self, about their place in the world as monsters. Miek took these ideas to heart in a way Hulk couldn't have imagined, and they changed him. They made him, slowly, a villain, and it came back and bit Hulk in the ass. When the Hulk found peace, Miek believed it was contrary to Hulk's nature, that he was built for revenge and violence--and he killed everything and everyone the Hulk cared about, so that the Hulk would see this, and become again who Miek believed he was supposed to be: a monster. Hulk knew it was because of the things he had said, he had done: the lessons Miek had learned from him became the foundation for Miek's ideals, which lead to his actions. If Miek appears in a thousand stories without the Hulk, the Hulk's effect on him will always be relevant in all those stories. He will be there character he is in those solo stories because of how he was shaped by the Hulk.

Now, suppose Marvel made a Miek film. Ridiculous, of course, but stay with me. Suppose that, to keep things simple, they cut Hulk out of the story the same way WB cut Batman out of Catwoman. Is the character the same now? How is Miek the same, having never taken those lessons from the Hulk? The answer, simply, is that he is not. The Hulk's presence was critical to making Miek who he was. He's incomplete, unless shaped by the Hulk.

Part of who Batman is was shaped by Robin. This remains true whether Robin appears in a specific story or not. It will remain true if Robin dies tomorrow and never appears again. If Robin never existed, that part of Batman would not exist. If he does not exist in the film series, that part of Batman will not exist in the film series, and so, he will be incomplete.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Again, you're not looking at the big picture. It doesn't matter that they don't appear here, there, in this story or that story. They do, though, absolutely, define Batman as a character (in every story in which he appears) whether they are present or not. Leslie and her lessons of pacifism are the source of Batman's humanity, whether she appears in the story or not. Alfred has imparted to him reason and rationality, Gordon duty and responsibility, and so on. If these characters were not a part of the history, Batman would not be the same person, by virtue of not having known them.

What I mean is not "Oh my God, Gordon isn't in this issue, so Batman is incomplete!" What I mean is that if there was no Gordon, if Gordon did not exist, Batman would not be complete, by virtue of never having been affected by Gordon. Conversely, if Robin does not exist, Batman is incomplete by the same token.

As I said, a character cannot exist in a void. They are defined by their supporting characters, irrevocably. Some characters they learn from, taking lessons, and others are the ones they test their own ideals against. You mentioned stories where Batman has renounced certain characters--this is just as important, because this is still learning--it's how he learns about himself. This is how a character tests his ideals and becomes stronger or weaker in his convictions. Without that, the character is not the same.

I mentioned earlier that there is a varying degree of importance among the assorted characters. You can say Killer Croc never exited, and probably not lose anything important. But if you say Alfred, Gordon, Leslie, Robin, Joker, or Two-Face, for example, do not exist, then you have lost important components of Batman's character, as these components were developed in him through interaction with these characters.

Well I guess I just see it differently. I mean, I understand the argument that you are making, but I would counter with the fact that because Batman isn't an actual person, he hasn't been "affected" by anyone. He simply has certain character traits that writers have long ago decided to give him. And in an effort to make the story deeper and more realistic, those same writers have occasionally come up with various other characters as little shill reasons for him to have some of these traits that they originally intended.

"Oh Batman should be dark and brooding. Lets um... lets have his parents get killed off when he was a kid, that'll work."
"Oh Batman should never kill the bad guys. Well ... lets have him be close to some morally upstanding people like Alfred and Leslie."

But this was just a choice on the part of some writers to come up with these reasons, and the reasons don't always agree. Sometimes it's Wayne Senior teaching him the value of life. Sometimes it's Robin pointing it out. Sometimes it's Leslie or Alfred or a girlfriend. The only thing that remains consistent is that Batman, as a character, must restrain himself from killing - and whether or not the writers even state a reason for that choice, or if they just said "well this is simply how Batman is" - he would be the same, and act the same way.

So Leslie really isn't the source of Batmans pacifism. The source is that a writer needs Batman to retain some degree of pacifism in order to remain in the hero role. And if the writer chooses to give further explanation for this essential trait, whether they do it by the shill game of Leslie's words of wisdom or anyone else "affecting him," it's just smoke and mirrors. The character IS the character. Writers first see the character how they want them to be, and then work hard at coming up with reasons "why" that character "is" the way they are. You could take all those other made up reasons (characters) out of the equation, and you would still have Batman exactly as he is - only without the background information to fill in the blanks, giving him the illusion of being an absolute character, rather than a man who grew into his role.

For example, look to Joker with or without the origin story. Same crazy bastard

 

[Mandalore464]

I really wouldn't like to see a 13-year old accompany Batman out in the narrows wearing cape and mask in the Nolan verse. I mean it's infortunate but there really is no way you can make the audience accept that the Batman from Batman Begins is gonna take such a young kid out with him and put him in danger. Or maybe in another couple of films but he's definitely not ready yet and doesn't seem to evolve into that direction anyway.

Again you could make Robin older, but then Batman won't go through the same relation with his partner and ultimately he won't be "complete" the way he is in the comics.

When another director takes up the mantle and does something else, why not, but in the Nolan universe I think they already doomed Robin to be non-existent or ridiculously out of place, unless he's just another kid Bruce Wayne takes care of but who does not get to be a superhero. Just an average kid living at Wayne's mansion.

 

[Zohan Dvir]

I really wouldn't like to see a 13-year old accompany Batman out in the narrows wearing cape and mask in the Nolan verse. I mean it's infortunate but there really is no way you can make the audience accept that the Batman from Batman Begins is gonna take such a young kid out with him and put him in danger. Or maybe in another couple of films but he's definitely not ready yet and doesn't seem to evolve into that direction anyway.

Again you could make Robin older, but then Batman won't go through the same relation with his partner and ultimately he won't be "complete" the way he is in the comics.

When another director takes up the mantle and does something else, why not, but in the Nolan universe I think they already doomed Robin to be non-existent or ridiculously out of place, unless he's just another kid Bruce Wayne takes care of but who does not get to be a superhero. Just an average kid living at Wayne's mansion.

The side that supports Robin for inclusion into Nolan's Batworld has some very convincing arguments. I just don't like the character at all and hope he's never introduced.

 

[Saint]

Well I guess I just see it differently. I mean, I understand the argument that you are making, but I would counter with the fact that because Batman isn't an actual person, he hasn't been "affected" by anyone.

The opposite is true: because he is fictional, he has a much more clearly defined history of influences, where with a real person it is much more difficult to determine.

He simply has certain character traits that writers have long ago decided to give him.

It's not that simple. You don't just say "My character is...obsessive!" Not if you know what you're doing, anyway. You have to know why your character is obsessive, because the why will dictate his responses. Similarly, when you create a supporting character, you do so as a means of affecting your main character.

Sometimes characters are created for very specific purposes. Other times, they wil be created for less important or more general tasks, but you will conceive ways for your characters to interact that you did not anticipate when creating them, and they will become important.

And in an effort to make the story deeper and more realistic, those same writers have occasionally come up with various other characters as little shill reasons for him to have some of these traits that they originally intended.

You are vastly underestimating the importance of the supporting cast. You say "in an effort to make the story deeper and more realistic," but you dismiss this as a "fun bonus," when it is in fact of absolute critical importance. If your character simply "is" the way he is, you don't have a character. You've got a sketch. You've got an arbitrary collection of responses that might as well be absolutely random. "Why" is, without question, the most important question behind everything your character does. The supporting cast will always be a considerable portion of the answer.

"Oh Batman should be dark and brooding. Lets um... lets have his parents get killed off when he was a kid, that'll work."
"Oh Batman should never kill the bad guys. Well ... lets have him be close to some morally upstanding people like Alfred and Leslie."

Yes, exactly. If you dismiss that, and simply say "Well, Batman just is dark and brooding," well, that's just bad writing. Bad, bad, bad. That's a surefire way to make the most flat, uninteresting character you could possibly imagine, and on incomplete one at that--because the question of "why" a character is himself is as critical as who he is in the end. It's all connected, and every change adjusts the way he responds. Batman doesn't like guns because his parents were shot. A writer came up with that idea because his parents were shot. If the parents had been knifed, nobody would have ever come up with the idea that Batman should be adverse to guns. At the very least, the reason behind the aversion would be different, and accordingly his responses to guns would be different.

But this was just a choice on the part of some writers to come up with these reasons, and the reasons don't always agree. Sometimes it's Wayne Senior teaching him the value of life. Sometimes it's Robin pointing it out. Sometimes it's Leslie or Alfred or a girlfriend.

A character can learn the same (or similar) lessons from different people. Why not? I certainly have more than one reason behind my ideals. More importantly, though, is that this is simply the nature of characters who are composites of multiple authors. It's makes the character no less critical.

The only thing that remains consistent is that Batman, as a character, must restrain himself from killing - and whether or not the writers even state a reason for that choice, or if they just said "well this is simply how Batman is" - he would be the same, and act the same way.

The character cannot simply act a certain way "just because." Not unless you want your character to be incomplete and uninteresting.

So Leslie really isn't the source of Batmans pacifism. The source is that a writer needs Batman to retain some degree of pacifism in order to remain in the hero role.

There's no contradiction here. If Leslie is used to that end, that makes her critical--because without her, there's no place for the lessons to come from. If you create a different place, then the character is different for that. The Batman who fights crime because his parents were killed in a drug deal gone bad is different than the Batman who fights crime because his parents were mugged. One is chosen over the other because each will dictate specific responses in the character.

Every choice made serves the character. You don't just say "I'll throw in somebody who teaches batman this and that." You think carefully about who this person is, how Batman relates to them, why he takes what they say to heart--or why he doesn't. This is how the character is important. Change them, you change Batman. They (and their actions) must be designed specifically to suit your goal. Some other idea will not do the trick.

In the end, you have to know the character. If I want Batman to kill somebody, I can't walk the Joker in and have the Joker say "Killing is good, take this lesson to heart!" I have to decide who Batman will listen to, and why. Under what circumstances will he listen? Perhaps none of the available characters are suitable--perhaps he wouldn't listen to any of them, on this matter. Then I have to create someone new. I have to create the connection that suggests Batman will be affected by them the way I want. Only when I've explained this can I have Batman kill. And, in the future, he will be affected by his actions, and, just as importantly, by what and who drove him to that action. If I change the reason he killed, I change everything about that part of him--everything about who that event made him.

Do you understand? I can't say "Batman decides to kill, just because!" No differently, you cannot say "Batman is obsessive, just because!" You explain why, and then that explanation (be it a character or circumstance) becomes important, because it dictates how you decide the character will respond in the future. Change it, and you change the character.

And if the writer chooses to give further explanation for this essential trait, whether they do it by the shill game of Leslie's words of wisdom or anyone else "affecting him," it's just smoke and mirrors.

All of fiction is smoke and mirrors. This makes nothing any less important.

The character IS the character.

The character is how you build him. Nobody cares about Batman's obsession if you say "Batman is just so very obsessed!" If you have a reason, the reason becomes important by virtue of being the thing that convinced the reader of Batman's obsession. Remove it, and the reader is no longer convinced. Change it, and you have to change the characters specific responses, and you alter who the character is.

Consider this: suppose there is a character who wears a domino mask. A domino mask is much less practical than a full helmet that would protect him, and conceal his identity better. He can't wear a full helmet, though, because he's extremely claustrophobic, and enclosing his head gives him panic attacks.

Now, suppose he needs to wear a helmet in a specific instance. In that instance, unless the writer sucks, he will consider that being forced to wear this helmet is giving him a panic attack and affecting how he acts in this situation. He either manages to subdue his claustrophobia or not, and if he does manage it, even that affects the way he acts. He might be abnormally cautious, for example, and that might affect the outcome of whatever situation he's in. The writer may not have originally intended for him to panic in this part of the book, but it has to has to happen, because that's how the domino mask was explained. If nothing happens and this is not addressed, the reader says "This is stupid," and rightfully so.

Now, suppose this character is adapted to film. They cut out the claustrophobia and say he wears a domino mask because he thinks it's pretty. Suddenly, this character is reckless, driven by superficial leanings instead of practicality, who think prettiness more important than protection. He wasn't reckless in the original version: he wanted to wear a helmet, but he couldn't. In the new version, he says "To hell with protection, I like pretty domino masks!" The character has changed.

Now, when he gets into the situation where he must where a helmet, everything is perfectly normal. He's not having a panic attack because he's not claustrophobic--wearing a helmet is just a wardrobe change. He does not act abnormally cautious, so the outcome of the situation is not affected. There's been a ripple effect. If you say "He was still cautious, just for a different reason," then you've changed the character. The original character, had he not been having a panic attack, would not have been cautious. The new character, while not having a panic talk, is cautious. Something must be different between them to make them act differently, so the character has changed again.

Writers first see the character how they want them to be, and then work hard at coming up with reasons "why" that character "is" the way they are.

Yes, and I am explaining to you why they do that: because it's important, for all the reasons I've explained.

You could take all those other made up reasons (characters) out of the equation, and you would still have Batman exactly as he is

For example, look to Joker with or without the origin story. Same crazy bastard

Except, not at all the same. This is what I've been explaining. If you take your character and transplant him onto another background, he will be different in a thousand tiny ways that will culminate in serious and important differences. The Joker who cuts his face is not the same as the Joker who falls in a chemical bath. The Joker who has no origin is not the same as the Joker who has an origin. To say they are the same is superficial. For the writer to write them as if they are the same is simply bad writing.

I believe I can't put this even more concisely. First, if there is no explanation for why your character is who he is, he will be flat, uninteresting, inconsistent, and worst of all, unconvincing. This is bad. Second, if the explanation changes but the character is not different in some way for the change, this is inconsistent, unconvincing, unrealistic, and pointless. This too, is bad.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Get back to the suit, If you don't like Saint's long posts, don't read them.

 

[magus]

IMO,Robin can work with the right direction. I thought the way he was handled in Batman Forever was acceptable.

I agree. What made the movie terrible was the villain side of things but Batman and Robin were actually handled quite well. There was a good amount of psychological play with Bruce Wayne and Robin, though considerably older, was faithful. His suit wasn't half bad either.

 

[magus]

Again, you're not looking at the big picture. It doesn't matter that they don't appear here, there, in this story or that story. They do, though, absolutely, define Batman as a character (in every story in which he appears) whether they are present or not. Leslie and her lessons of pacifism are the source of Batman's humanity, whether she appears in the story or not. Alfred has imparted to him reason and rationality, Gordon duty and responsibility, and so on. If these characters were not a part of the history, Batman would not be the same person, by virtue of not having known them.

What I mean is not "Oh my God, Gordon isn't in this issue, so Batman is incomplete!" What I mean is that if there was no Gordon, if Gordon did not exist, Batman would not be complete, by virtue of never having been affected by Gordon. Conversely, if Robin does not exist, Batman is incomplete by the same token.

As I said, a character cannot exist in a void. They are defined by their supporting characters, irrevocably. Some characters they learn from, taking lessons, and others are the ones they test their own ideals against. You mentioned stories where Batman has renounced certain characters--this is just as important, because this is still learning--it's how he learns about himself. This is how a character tests his ideals and becomes stronger or weaker in his convictions. Without that, the character is not the same.

I mentioned earlier that there is a varying degree of importance among the assorted characters. You can say Killer Croc never exited, and probably not lose anything important. But if you say Alfred, Gordon, Leslie, Robin, Joker, or Two-Face, for example, do not exist, then you have lost important components of Batman's character, as these components were developed in him through interaction with these characters.

Let me see if I can give a clearer example. Marvel has a character called Miek, an alien insectoid who was an important part of the last two years of Hulk stories, as Hulk's friend. Miek, in the end, became something of a villain--and it was partially the Hulk's fault. Miek learned from the actions of the Hulk, from lessons the Hulk imparted to him both indirectly and directly; lessons about anger and revenge, about morality, about the nature of one's self, about their place in the world as monsters. Miek took these ideas to heart in a way Hulk couldn't have imagined, and they changed him. They made him, slowly, a villain, and it came back and bit Hulk in the ass. When the Hulk found peace, Miek believed it was contrary to Hulk's nature, that he was built for revenge and violence--and he killed everything and everyone the Hulk cared about, so that the Hulk would see this, and become again who Miek believed he was supposed to be: a monster. Hulk knew it was because of the things he had said, he had done: the lessons Miek had learned from him became the foundation for Miek's ideals, which lead to his actions. If Miek appears in a thousand stories without the Hulk, the Hulk's effect on him will always be relevant in all those stories. He will be there character he is in those solo stories because of how he was shaped by the Hulk.

Now, suppose Marvel made a Miek film. Ridiculous, of course, but stay with me. Suppose that, to keep things simple, they cut Hulk out of the story the same way WB cut Batman out of Catwoman. Is the character the same now? How is Miek the same, having never taken those lessons from the Hulk? The answer, simply, is that he is not. The Hulk's presence was critical to making Miek who he was. He's incomplete, unless shaped by the Hulk.

Part of who Batman is was shaped by Robin. This remains true whether Robin appears in a specific story or not. It will remain true if Robin dies tomorrow and never appears again. If Robin never existed, that part of Batman would not exist. If he does not exist in the film series, that part of Batman will not exist in the film series, and so, he will be incomplete.

The best, or at least easiest, examples to point to are the deaths of Jason Todd or Stephanie Brown. They had a profound effect on how Batman acts today, whether you read those stories or not. There are much more subtle effects in his interactions with a live Robin: my favorite being one that Saint mentioned, Robin showing Batman just how inhuman he is sometimes.

If we were talking about including Robin 60's style, I would be completely against him but modern updates incorporate him very successfully and with little to no camp. An interpretation similar to BTAS would be adequate enough, never mind the huge backlog of comics with a modern Robin.

 

[Sandouras]

Maybe we should make a robin thread. This thread is about the batsuit people, remember? Ok i ll make one.

 

[Eggyman]

Maybe we should make a robin thread. This thread is about the batsuit people, remember? Ok i ll make one.

Ahh. Now your thread makes sense . . . kinda.

 

[batman_1982]

i know you didnt ask me;-)....but i was around and thought ...oh i wanna see that too

Very nice work. I really like the silver background on the bat symbol, I actually even prefer it to the old gold/black colored batman symbol.

 

[Compi716]

i know you didnt ask me;-)....but i was around and thought ...oh i wanna see that too

 

[Zohan Dvir]

That horizontal piece beneath the symbol sticks in my craw. Thankfully the black of the suit is muted and it doesn't look so bad on film. But why oh why could they just not put the symbol on w/o that horizontal piece.

 

[Kaizer]

I'm not that much a fan of the silver color, but If it could be toned down to a darker grey, it would look great.... Silver=B&R Ice-suit.

 

[Dark Knigh7]

I'm not that much a fan of the silver color, but If it could be toned down to a darker grey, it would look great.... Silver=B&R Ice-suit.

I don't think its that bad, in fact, I'm shocked by how good it looks. Although, you could be right about toning it down a bit. If it was, I'm sure it would look much better.

 

[Hole Shot]

i know you didnt ask me;-)....but i was around and thought ...oh i wanna see that too

I like the direction you're going but I'm not a fan of the shiny look. The grey areas on the suit are carbon fiber which is more of a charcoal color, I'd just do the whole chest piece, from where it was already grey to the area around the symbol in the carbon fiber, maybe even the entire abdomen section as well or maybe not.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

The opposite is true: because he is fictional, he has a much more clearly defined history of influences, where with a real person it is much more difficult to determine.

It's not that simple. You don't just say "My character is...obsessive!" Not if you know what you're doing, anyway. You have to know why your character is obsessive, because the why will dictate his responses. Similarly, when you create a supporting character, you do so as a means of affecting your main character.

Sometimes characters are created for very specific purposes. Other times, they wil be created for less important or more general tasks, but you will conceive ways for your characters to interact that you did not anticipate when creating them, and they will become important.

You are vastly underestimating the importance of the supporting cast. You say "in an effort to make the story deeper and more realistic," but you dismiss this as a "fun bonus," when it is in fact of absolute critical importance. If your character simply "is" the way he is, you don't have a character. You've got a sketch. You've got an arbitrary collection of responses that might as well be absolutely random. "Why" is, without question, the most important question behind everything your character does. The supporting cast will always be a considerable portion of the answer.

Yes, exactly. If you dismiss that, and simply say "Well, Batman just is dark and brooding," well, that's just bad writing. Bad, bad, bad. That's a surefire way to make the most flat, uninteresting character you could possibly imagine, and on incomplete one at that--because the question of "why" a character is himself is as critical as who he is in the end. It's all connected, and every change adjusts the way he responds. Batman doesn't like guns because his parents were shot. A writer came up with that idea because his parents were shot. If the parents had been knifed, nobody would have ever come up with the idea that Batman should be adverse to guns. At the very least, the reason behind the aversion would be different, and accordingly his responses to guns would be different.

A character can learn the same (or similar) lessons from different people. Why not? I certainly have more than one reason behind my ideals. More importantly, though, is that this is simply the nature of characters who are composites of multiple authors. It's makes the character no less critical.

The character cannot simply act a certain way "just because." Not unless you want your character to be incomplete and uninteresting.

There's no contradiction here. If Leslie is used to that end, that makes her critical--because without her, there's no place for the lessons to come from. If you create a different place, then the character is different for that. The Batman who fights crime because his parents were killed in a drug deal gone bad is different than the Batman who fights crime because his parents were mugged. One is chosen over the other because each will dictate specific responses in the character.

Every choice made serves the character. You don't just say "I'll throw in somebody who teaches batman this and that." You think carefully about who this person is, how Batman relates to them, why he takes what they say to heart--or why he doesn't. This is how the character is important. Change them, you change Batman. They (and their actions) must be designed specifically to suit your goal. Some other idea will not do the trick.

In the end, you have to know the character. If I want Batman to kill somebody, I can't walk the Joker in and have the Joker say "Killing is good, take this lesson to heart!" I have to decide who Batman will listen to, and why. Under what circumstances will he listen? Perhaps none of the available characters are suitable--perhaps he wouldn't listen to any of them, on this matter. Then I have to create someone new. I have to create the connection that suggests Batman will be affected by them the way I want. Only when I've explained this can I have Batman kill. And, in the future, he will be affected by his actions, and, just as importantly, by what and who drove him to that action. If I change the reason he killed, I change everything about that part of him--everything about who that event made him.

Do you understand? I can't say "Batman decides to kill, just because!" No differently, you cannot say "Batman is obsessive, just because!" You explain why, and then that explanation (be it a character or circumstance) becomes important, because it dictates how you decide the character will respond in the future. Change it, and you change the character.

All of fiction is smoke and mirrors. This makes nothing any less important.

The character is how you build him. Nobody cares about Batman's obsession if you say "Batman is just so very obsessed!" If you have a reason, the reason becomes important by virtue of being the thing that convinced the reader of Batman's obsession. Remove it, and the reader is no longer convinced. Change it, and you have to change the characters specific responses, and you alter who the character is.

Consider this: suppose there is a character who wears a domino mask. A domino mask is much less practical than a full helmet that would protect him, and conceal his identity better. He can't wear a full helmet, though, because he's extremely claustrophobic, and enclosing his head gives him panic attacks.

Now, suppose he needs to wear a helmet in a specific instance. In that instance, unless the writer sucks, he will consider that being forced to wear this helmet is giving him a panic attack and affecting how he acts in this situation. He either manages to subdue his claustrophobia or not, and if he does manage it, even that affects the way he acts. He might be abnormally cautious, for example, and that might affect the outcome of whatever situation he's in. The writer may not have originally intended for him to panic in this part of the book, but it has to has to happen, because that's how the domino mask was explained. If nothing happens and this is not addressed, the reader says "This is stupid," and rightfully so.

Now, suppose this character is adapted to film. They cut out the claustrophobia and say he wears a domino mask because he thinks it's pretty. Suddenly, this character is reckless, driven by superficial leanings instead of practicality, who think prettiness more important than protection. He wasn't reckless in the original version: he wanted to wear a helmet, but he couldn't. In the new version, he says "To hell with protection, I like pretty domino masks!" The character has changed.

Now, when he gets into the situation where he must where a helmet, everything is perfectly normal. He's not having a panic attack because he's not claustrophobic--wearing a helmet is just a wardrobe change. He does not act abnormally cautious, so the outcome of the situation is not affected. There's been a ripple effect. If you say "He was still cautious, just for a different reason," then you've changed the character. The original character, had he not been having a panic attack, would not have been cautious. The new character, while not having a panic talk, is cautious. Something must be different between them to make them act differently, so the character has changed again.

Yes, and I am explaining to you why they do that: because it's important, for all the reasons I've explained.

Except, not at all the same. This is what I've been explaining. If you take your character and transplant him onto another background, he will be different in a thousand tiny ways that will culminate in serious and important differences. The Joker who cuts his face is not the same as the Joker who falls in a chemical bath. The Joker who has no origin is not the same as the Joker who has an origin. To say they are the same is superficial. For the writer to write them as if they are the same is simply bad writing.

I believe I can't put this even more concisely. First, if there is no explanation for why your character is who he is, he will be flat, uninteresting, inconsistent, and worst of all, unconvincing. This is bad. Second, if the explanation changes but the character is not different in some way for the change, this is inconsistent, unconvincing, unrealistic, and pointless. This too, is bad.

Wow this is fun. It’s like “Writing Master Class With Saint.” I should start printing this stuff out.

I think basically we actually agree but I was looking at the question a bit sideways. Of course changing a characters background, even in a small way, will effect how they act (Joker cutting himself vs Joker being pushed into an acid bath.) What I was thinking about is that if you don’t have any background at all, but still give the character the same essential traits, they will act the same, but have less “depth.”

It’s like what you would have if the creators of Batman stopped at “stage one” of character creation, just said to themselves, “Okay – he doesn’t kill, but he’s dark, brooding, obsessive and hates crime. Why is he like that? Oh… who cares, too much effort. Lets just write the story shall we!”

Well in that case you would still have Batman essentially act like Batman, only without the history there it would be less interesting and less convincing for the audience. My point was that he would still *act* the same without the supporting cast of characters and background info, NOT that the story will be just as good! Because of course the story wouldn’t be just as good.

Now I suppose you could also say that even so, he wouldn’t act the same in the small things … because while the broad strokes of “brooding, obsessive, doesn’t kill” are still there, the details of a characters actions are most often chosen based upon their background and interactions with other characters, and you would loose that information without planning it all out. I can agree with that point as well, it’s just that I’ve seen and read so many Batman stories which never seem to take into account the little details and character influences… many are just painted with the broad, basic strokes without any real explanation for anything and make Batman an iconic, god-like absolute rather than a human being who had to develop into who he is. And therefore I wonder if the majority of these types of Batman stories would even change without half the supporting cast having been invented…

I guess it would be nice if all the writers who work on these things thought about it as much as you do. =P That would be a serious improvement.

 

[SuperKoala]

just give it up saint you lost