If you like: their size is disproportionate to the the face, and disproportionate relations can have the side-effect of looking awkward, comedic, or silly, in the same way that drawing big eyes or long arms on an otherwise normal body can look awkward, comedic, or silly. Such things can be used for useful stylistic effect, but that doesn't serve this film.What constitutes "silly"? According to you, simply saying it looks silly isn't enough of an explanation. Your statement requires some sort of qualifier.
You seem to be having a different conversation than I am. It's sort of perplexing. Clearly we have miscommunicated somewhere.Because the argument of whether or not Batman should have the lenses or not is something that is usually brought up by people who are fans of the comics, not fans of the films or unfamiliar with anything other than the live action interpretation of the character. I never referred to anyone as a "fanboy". I also never said you could not nor did you not have the right to make your statements just as I have the right to offer a learned rebuttal.
what an ignorant thing to say!"Trunks" and Batman are antonyms now, thank you Nolan.
what an ignorant thing to say!
I remember when the first pic of the new batsuit for TDK came out (the one with him on top of the car) in that picture the bat emblem had a gleam to it that made it look like it was metal, or a different colour than the rest of the suit. I got the idea that the emblem would be the same gold colour as the belt. I reckon that it would make the suit look better with a gold emblem, anyone got any manips of this or any thoughts of this slight adjustment?
I thought you were being sarcastic and that you would enjoy them. But in any case, thank Burton.If you translate my post to mean i thank Chris Nolan for making trunks laughable in a batman film, as opposed to schumacher who probably wouldve went that way...
"Happy to disappoint."
Well, i wanted to declare you dead and take your company public, but... what the hell, i'll give you a job.Happy to disappoint
![]()
God i love this suit, but it needed de-puffying. And when you see his abs.....you ll **** bricks! Hahaha!
But on the other hand, it makes him so much bigger and menacing! So...Jim Lee?
I certainly think the contacts look cool. Nor are they necessary though.Covering just the pupils seems acceptable to me. It still allows looking, squinting, and any other expression while still being otherworldly. I can see the contact lenses striking fear into the hearts of criminals. I don't like the idea of lenses that cover the entire eye socket, however, unless they are going to animate them.
That suit really does look great in that pic, it looks really worn too which is awesome in my opinion.
Judging by the dust on the Batmobile, i'd say that he has some on him as well. Look at his right arm! And yeah, its awesome!That suit really does look great in that pic, it looks really worn too which is awesome in my opinion.
Seconded!Indeed. It looks really dirty and scuffed up. I want the new suit to get ripped at the mesh parts and maybe get scarred up a bit during this film.
Indeed. It looks really dirty and scuffed up. I want the new suit to get ripped at the mesh parts and maybe get scarred up a bit during this film.
well he has spares... Its that he is at this stage of gear right now. For example, when IronMonger ripped Ironman's suit to pieces, it doesnt necessarily mean that he has to design a new one. **** happens, you have spares or build a new one.But in doing so, wouldn't that mean we'd have to have another new suit in the 3rd film? I don't mind that, but is that what you were aiming at?
But in doing so, wouldn't that mean we'd have to have another new suit in the 3rd film? I don't mind that, but is that what you were aiming at?
LMAO, a $300 Thousand Survival suit...destroyed by adamn dog