The Dark Knight Should they use the pouch belt for this movie

[Crooklyn]

THE POUCH.......

 

[lujho]

Can someone tell me how pouches are a step back in technology? Small metal box... larger fabric pouch... one of these is technologically advanced over the other?

Just because a belt has pouches doesnt mean it has to be less advanced than the one we saw in Begins. It's just a bigger container attached to it, for goodness sake.

No-one's saying give him a piece of mediaeval-era equipment.

What I find most odd about the opposition to a more ordinary utility belt is that it's exactly the kind of thing real life crimefighters, soldiers etc actually wear. They wear them because they're practical and hold all the stuff they need.

I don't see why everything Batman uses has to look like it was designed specifically to look cool and slick for a movie, like it was precision made by a team of German engineers or machine-tooled or came out of a mould. It just seems so overly artificial.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I don't see why everything Batman uses has to look like it was designed specifically to look cool and slick for a movie, like it was precision made by a team of German engineers or machine-tooled or came out of a mould. It just seems so overly artificial.

As much as I would like to see this type of belt, or a more comic-type suit for that matter, I see the logic behind the filmmakers' decisions.

I think the fan appeal of the cloth (though kevlar bi-weaved) suit and leather pouch belt is rooted almost in fan fantasy, something any ordinary man could aspire to emmulate. A couple weeks toiling away in your basement and you could have your own crimefighting arsenal. That's appealing; it adds to that whole DIY vigilante angle.

But Batman, while he definitely has a huge DIY aspect, is also a million-times more advanced than any other man on earth - intellectually, physically, financially and technologically. And as technology (real-world and fantasy) evolves, Batman is a perfect candidate to wield it. And whether or not big pouches may be more practical than steel boxes (your call), one has that futuristic, gee wizz feel, and one has a decidely more earthy, street feel.

It all depends on which way you like your Batman - Nolan is a self-professed Bond geek, so naturally he's going to embrace the gadgetry. Darren Aronofsky (and his Frank Miller script) adopted a very stripped-down Batman.

But regardless of belts, I think Nolan did a bang up job, and will again. Batman is in good hands.

 

[strider]

"Should they use the pouch belt for this movie?" WTF?
- Ill say it again, it really feels like some of you guys want to see a bad, bad movie. This isnt going to be a str8 up fan boy movie. Get over it. Stop it with these pathetic threads.

 

[explode7]

THE POUCH.......

THE GEAR.......

THE MAN.........

THE CAR.........

THE DARK KNIGHT........ comeing 2008

Thats exactly why IM is going to beat TDK in 2008.

 

[jimmy]

THE POUCH.......

That's a toy.

 

[Eros]

That's a toy.

its from the 60s batman series, hence why it looks like crap lol.

 

[kytrigger]

"Should they use the pouch belt for this movie?" WTF?
- Ill say it again, it really feels like some of you guys want to see a bad, bad movie. This isnt going to be a str8 up fan boy movie. Get over it. Stop it with these pathetic threads.

1. How does having a certain belt make it a "bad, bad movie"?

2. Stop using "str8"...it sucks

3. These are the types of threads you get at a fan forum. It's not like this is one of those threads that has been created 100 times before. If you don't like the thread then don't come into it. It's quite easy to actually ignore a thread and you should try it some time instead of just coming in and acting like an *******.

 

[lujho]

one has that futuristic, gee wizz feel, and one has a decidely more earthy, street feel.

That's exactly it. And while I don't think there's anything wrong with either approach, I'm simply tired of the former. And anyone who thinks the latter couldn't be implemented successfully is lacking in imagination.

Nolan took the high-tech, moulded look of the previous movies and did it in just about the best way possible. I mean the suit, the belt, they all looked great (apart from some personal reservations about the cowl shape and cape attachment). As far as black rubber batsuits with sleek metallic belts go, you couldn't really get much better, ignoring minor superficial, cosmetic styling issues.

I have no doubt though that he could have done the same with a more gritty, basic, down to earth, lower-tech looking (but not neccessarily any more low tech) concept. And people would have eaten it up - not just the people here who have always been clamouring for a different look, but some of the people who still think the way Nolan went was the only way to go.

Seriously... the idea that pouches on a belt would somehow be irredeemably awful is just ludicrous.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

No it was just lame and stupid. And explain how I used this "pretzel logic"....

"Pretzel logic"... you know, like lambasting Nolan for making Batman glide, while excusing Burton for doing same. That logic is twisted, has at least three holes in it, and tastes good with mustard.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I do try!

I have never been happier to know you.

 

[Green_Lantern43]

Okay, I am a huge Batman fan...but im not pissing and moaning over the belt or the suit for that matter. It all looked great on screen and Nolan did an amazing job at bringing Batman to live on screen. Nolan made it just as good as I think you can make a batman film. The seriousness, the grittyness of the film and the darker more grisly version of Batman I thought was amazing. He did it the right way...

Now Im not gonna sit here and say I hate the fanboy threads because they are very interesting to read, and sometimes good points are made. But this one is pretty bad. I mean it's entertaining to read but for the love of Batman you are all pissing and moaning about his belt...

It's not gonna get changed to the soft fabric leather and canvas pouches. While that may work in the comics, in Batman Begins Nolan was trying to bring Batman to life. And if Batman really came to life for one thing the leather and canvas would not cut it. He is constantly in intense fights that involve guns, swords, knives, explosions, fire, and water...pretty much just about anything. If he was fighting a villian in a fire the leather and canvas would catch flames and he would then not have a pouch to hold his stuff at that moment. If he is getting slashed at and the knife catches his pouch it will tear through the materials and then he would either have to hold while he is fighting or let all of the materials in that pouch drop. It just wouldn't work out he would constantly be making new pouches. If he was fighting in the water, the water would go right through the pouches and soak his gadgets and stuff, and that could potentially ruin some gadgets of his. With the metal boxes the water wouldn't be able to penetrate through the metal, the fire wouldn't be able to catch them on fire and burn them. Bullets could still probably den't the boxes but not damage them as well as it would to the canvas pouches, and the knives wouldn't be able to catch and tear the metal like it would the pouches. Also most of the time the pouches seem too big and bulky and they look as if they would get in the way of his arms as he is swinging and such thus probably taking up more space and limiting mobility. While the metal boxes were small and sleek and not getting in the way like the bulky pouches would.

Last and not least, film makers will always alter the costumes and gadgets and such of the characters because they aren't making the movies for the fan boys in the world. They are attempting to make the films appealing to all audiences so comic geeks, and just regular old joes who look at the trailer on tv and say "hey that looks good lets go see that" so they wont make the uniform gray and fabricy with the canvas pouch belts. Just because that appeals to the fanboys dosn't mean that it's gonna appeal to little Sally who is going to see the movie with he star Quarter back boyfriend Brad. If I wasnt a comics fan or a Batman fan more specifically the tights with the large bulky canvas pouch belt would turn me off from the film. It wouldn't look right on screen or in person, so thats why they alter things so much. Of course most of everybody on here already knows that...but that is just my oppinions on this subject.

Im not against fanboys so please people on this thread don't you know think I am against you. I like the tights costume with the canvas pouch belt...in the comics. If it was on screen I am not sure how I would take to that, it would look bizarre or just plain out weird. But that is just my argument to help stick up for Nolan and the magnificent work that he did on Batman Begins. I understand that the movies will never hold up too all of the fans in the world, but please give him a chance he is taking the character in the right direction.

 

[lujho]

Okay, I am a huge Batman fan...but im not pissing and moaning over the belt or the suit for that matter. It all looked great on screen and Nolan did an amazing job at bringing Batman to live on screen. Nolan made it just as good as I think you can make a batman film. The seriousness, the grittyness of the film and the darker more grisly version of Batman I thought was amazing. He did it the right way...

Now Im not gonna sit here and say I hate the fanboy threads because they are very interesting to read, and sometimes good points are made. But this one is pretty bad. I mean it's entertaining to read but for the love of Batman you are all pissing and moaning about his belt...

It's not gonna get changed to the soft fabric leather and canvas pouches. While that may work in the comics, in Batman Begins Nolan was trying to bring Batman to life. And if Batman really came to life for one thing the leather and canvas would not cut it. He is constantly in intense fights that involve guns, swords, knives, explosions, fire, and water...pretty much just about anything. If he was fighting a villian in a fire the leather and canvas would catch flames and he would then not have a pouch to hold his stuff at that moment. If he is getting slashed at and the knife catches his pouch it will tear through the materials and then he would either have to hold while he is fighting or let all of the materials in that pouch drop. It just wouldn't work out he would constantly be making new pouches. If he was fighting in the water, the water would go right through the pouches and soak his gadgets and stuff, and that could potentially ruin some gadgets of his. With the metal boxes the water wouldn't be able to penetrate through the metal, the fire wouldn't be able to catch them on fire and burn them. Bullets could still probably den't the boxes but not damage them as well as it would to the canvas pouches, and the knives wouldn't be able to catch and tear the metal like it would the pouches. Also most of the time the pouches seem too big and bulky and they look as if they would get in the way of his arms as he is swinging and such thus probably taking up more space and limiting mobility. While the metal boxes were small and sleek and not getting in the way like the bulky pouches would.

Last and not least, film makers will always alter the costumes and gadgets and such of the characters because they aren't making the movies for the fan boys in the world. They are attempting to make the films appealing to all audiences so comic geeks, and just regular old joes who look at the trailer on tv and say "hey that looks good lets go see that" so they wont make the uniform gray and fabricy with the canvas pouch belts. Just because that appeals to the fanboys dosn't mean that it's gonna appeal to little Sally who is going to see the movie with he star Quarter back boyfriend Brad. If I wasnt a comics fan or a Batman fan more specifically the tights with the large bulky canvas pouch belt would turn me off from the film. It wouldn't look right on screen or in person, so thats why they alter things so much. Of course most of everybody on here already knows that...but that is just my oppinions on this subject.

Im not against fanboys so please people on this thread don't you know think I am against you. I like the tights costume with the canvas pouch belt...in the comics. If it was on screen I am not sure how I would take to that, it would look bizarre or just plain out weird. But that is just my argument to help stick up for Nolan and the magnificent work that he did on Batman Begins. I understand that the movies will never hold up too all of the fans in the world, but please give him a chance he is taking the character in the right direction.

No offense, but arguments like this often seem to be based on false suppositions. Such as:

If a belt has pouches, they HAVE to be big and bulky and encumber movement. Of course they don't. They can be bigger than the metal compartments but they don't have to be ridiculously huge. Not all artists drawn them THAT big. They'd obviously be designed to look right and not be a hindrance.

Pouches cannot possibly be tough enough to withstand damage. Again, nonsense. They could easily be tough enough, for whatever reason. Kevlar is a good enough one.

And that non-fans will somehow be turned off with some other kind of approach. Truth is Sally and Brad won't care one way or the other as long as it's done well.

It's as if people see a way that works (Nolan's way) then every other alternative has to have some manufactured reason why it wouldn't work as well - or they just automatically imagine an extreme version that has every flaw they can think of. I don't think it's always a concious thing... some people just don't really try to see ways that other options could work. There's no attempt at solving problems, other than the ones that have been solved for them already.

One could easily say that sleek metallic belts like Keaton's are useless because they can't really hold anything... so obviously pouches are the right way to go. Of course, that's nonsense... Nolan took a sleek, metallic belt and added clip-on compartments etc. If you can apply such problem-solving to one concept you can do it just as easily with another.

And the "wouldn't look right on screen" thing just holds no weight. A good designer can make anything look right on screen. Just as a bad designer can make any suit concept - leather, fabric or rubber, look absolutely awful.

 

[Green_Lantern43]

No offense, but arguments like this often seem to be based on false suppositions. Such as:

If a belt has pouches, they HAVE to be big and bulky and encumber movement. Of course they don't. They can be bigger than the metal compartments but they don't have to be ridiculously huge. Not all artists drawn them THAT big. They'd obviously be designed to look right and not be a hindrance.

Pouches cannot possibly be tough enough to withstand damage. Again, nonsense. They could easily be tough enough, for whatever reason. Kevlar is a good enough one.

And that non-fans will somehow be turned off with some other kind of approach. Truth is Sally and Brad won't care one way or the other as long as it's done well.

It's as if people see a way that works (Nolan's way) then every other alternative has to have some manufactured reason why it wouldn't work as well - or they just automatically imagine an extreme version that has every flaw they can think of. I don't think it's always a concious thing... some people just don't really try to see ways that other options could work. There's no attempt at solving problems, other than the ones that have been solved for them already.

One could easily say that sleek metallic belts like Keaton's are useless because they can't really hold anything... so obviously pouches are the right way to go. Of course, that's nonsense... Nolan took a sleek, metallic belt and added clip-on compartments etc. If you can apply such problem-solving to one concept you can do it just as easily with another.

And the "wouldn't look right on screen" thing just holds no weight. A good designer can make anything look right on screen. Just as a bad designer can make any suit concept - leather, fabric or rubber, look absolutely awful.

True...but many Directors have mentioned many times that things are changed to fit the screen. Although you do have alot of excellent points...props to that.

Now about the whole it wouldn't look right on screen it does hold up in alot of cases. I mean you are right if the designer is good enough than they can make anything look good on screen, but with movie crews these days its really hard to find and excellent designer. I think the best one I have ever seen was from Lord Of The Rings or in comics cases the Spiderman films. But the designer from the Spiderman films said that the reason the Goblins costume was altered was because the goofy purple and hat wouldn't hold up on screen and that it would turn audiences like Brad and Sally off. Same with the designer from the X-Men films, they said the reason why Wolverine didn't get his yellow costume was Cyclops didn't get his blue one was because that in the eyes of the non-comic world no matter how good the designer is it just wouldn't hold up or appeal to the audiences. So in alot of cases like Batman the tights and the pouches would look idiotic to the non-comic auidences it wouldn't appeal like the black rubber suit with the sleek metal belt design.

Also I understand what your saying about the pouches being altered to survive the battles, but if they were kevlar it wouldn't have the give like the canvas would so it wouldn't hold as many materials like the other people on the forum were talking about. But good points and I like your argument and I guess your right about having no one way to solve a problem...

 

[darknight7]

I hated the grapple-reeling thing. Wasn't much point to it. They should just have kept that in the gun. Portray it as it is in the cartoons.

The point of the belt reeling system is the fact that it will pull his core. It will pull his torso up and it locks and reels it up. If you are only holding onto a gun, there is much better chance that the gun will slip out of your hands. The gun hooking to the belt is perfect, because it allows him to hold on to the gun, or not hold on to the gun. When it reels him in, it is pulling his waste, therefore pulling his whole body from the central weight core. (his torso) his hands holding up his whole body weight, plus the weight of the body armor.

--dk7

 

[lujho]

True...but many Directors have mentioned many times that things are changed to fit the screen. Although you do have alot of excellent points...props to that.

Now about the whole it wouldn't look right on screen it does hold up in alot of cases. I mean you are right if the designer is good enough than they can make anything look good on screen, but with movie crews these days its really hard to find and excellent designer. I think the best one I have ever seen was from Lord Of The Rings or in comics cases the Spiderman films. But the designer from the Spiderman films said that the reason the Goblins costume was altered was because the goofy purple and hat wouldn't hold up on screen and that it would turn audiences like Brad and Sally off. Same with the designer from the X-Men films, they said the reason why Wolverine didn't get his yellow costume was Cyclops didn't get his blue one was because that in the eyes of the non-comic world no matter how good the designer is it just wouldn't hold up or appeal to the audiences. So in alot of cases like Batman the tights and the pouches would look idiotic to the non-comic auidences it wouldn't appeal like the black rubber suit with the sleek metal belt design.

Also I understand what your saying about the pouches being altered to survive the battles, but if they were kevlar it wouldn't have the give like the canvas would so it wouldn't hold as many materials like the other people on the forum were talking about. But good points and I like your argument and I guess your right about having no one way to solve a problem...

Kevlar can take different forms, rigid or flexible, including the form of a thick, woven fabric. Nylon-type stuff. The straps on Batman's harness in Begins, before he cuts them off, are supposed to be kevlar IIRC.

But anyway, as to the other stuff... yeah things like Wolverine's suit and Goblin's suit... exact translations of those would look silly. As it is, Wolverine's suit was a big departure but largely worked and looked really good (for the last 2 films at least). Goblin's didn't. But they could have gone ways with them that were more comic-booky and superhero-like and also looked really good and worked and NOT turned teh average person off. Designs that evoked the comic design rather than slavishly replicated it (honestly, Wolverine's traditional design is awful, especially the blue and yellow colour scheme, but there are elements that could be retained).

But the Batman suits have all been closer to the source than those.

Batman's outfit is the least garish and silly of all hero outfits, disregarding the sillyness inherent in the bat motif itself. A more comic-like approach could have easily worked precisely because of the dark, monochromatic colour scheme and because things like the boots and belt are exactly the type of things worn in real-life. I mean, people started drawing the belt with pouches 20 years ago (Frank Miller, I believe, was the first to do it, nowdays it's the norm), precisely to make it more realistic and logical, practical, looking cool etc. He made it somewhat less like the traditional design... less comic-booky... because it made sense, it was what people actually wore in certain lines of work. Same goes for when artists give Batman more realistic-looking treaded boots or gloves that actually look like thick leather rather than painted skin.

Batman's belt, as depicted in recent comics as a pouched utility belt, is absolutely the least problematic element of his suit to adapt to live action. Not problematic at all, really. It's just an ordinary belt, and a feature film ever went with something like that and did it right.... no-one would ever question it. No-one would say "hey, what if a pouch gets cut open with a knife?"... unless the film-maker deliberately showed that happenning.

You don't really need to explain such problems unless you make the audience notice they are there. You could show a pouch getting cut open, spilling it's contents, and the Batman later saying "hey, I'll get pouches that are re-inforced with kevlar so that won't happen again".... but that's pointless. It's just a waste of screentime. People just seem to LOOK for problems regarding other approaches though, seemingly in some attempt, concious or otherwise, to rule out that approach and therefore re-inforce that the one that they got and liked was "right".

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Knives cut kevlar.

 

[lujho]

The point of the belt reeling system is the fact that it will pull his core. It will pull his torso up and it locks and reels it up. If you are only holding onto a gun, there is much better chance that the gun will slip out of your hands. The gun hooking to the belt is perfect, because it allows him to hold on to the gun, or not hold on to the gun. When it reels him in, it is pulling his waste, therefore pulling his whole body from the central weight core. (his torso) his hands holding up his whole body weight, plus the weight of the body armor.

--dk7

But it's not simply the gun hooking on the to belt. They COULD have done that, like Luke's grapple gun in Empire Strikes Back. That would have been great because it would give the option of hooking the gun to the belt, or not, depending on the situation.

But he actually has to take the line, attach it to the mechanism in the belt... it breaks the action up in to 2 parts needlessly. The belt itself reels him in rather than the gun. It's never clear exactly what goes on with the gun when the belt's reeling him - does it just dangle from the belt? And where does the line go? Back in the gun or in the belt? It's just unneccessarily complicated and messy and honestly I think they cheat with it - the action and editing is so disjointed that they don't really need to bother to show exactly what's going on with it.

Using the gun as it is in BTAS is just a simpler, more elegant solution, a high-tech version of Indiana Jones' whip. It's an unbelievable device anyway - no motor or power-source that small could possibly lift a guy up like that, and the power needed to throw a grapple and a line such vast distances is also huge... better to confine such functions to one device rather than two.

 

[lujho]

Knives cut kevlar.

Batman's ****ed then, because that's what his armour's made of. Honestly, how hard is it to say that all of Batman's equipment is tough enough for the job at hand? You don't even have to explain it.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Batman's ****ed then, because that's what his armour's made of. Honestly, how hard is it to say that all of Batman's equipment is tough enough for the job at hand? You don't even have to explain it.

Well, in the comics it's because Batman's so good that he doesn't get hit often. Although he does get diced up pretty good from time to time.

In the movies... Selina stabbed Batman with her claws in "Returns." And Bale's suit in Begins is not kevlar, it's Nomex, which is flame ******ant but not bulletproof by any means. It does have kevlar bi-weave and "reinforced joints," whatever that means. It's harder than Nomex or Kevlar would be, so I'm guessing there's supposed to be more to it.

At any rate, I'm not saying. I'm just saying. Kevlar stops bullets, not knives -- bullets are not sharp. Knives are. This is why there are AP rounds - they knife through kevlar.

 

[darknight7]

But it's not simply the gun hooking on the to belt. They COULD have done that, like Luke's grapple gun in Empire Strikes Back. That would have been great because it would give the option of hooking the gun to the belt, or not, depending on the situation.

But he actually has to take the line, attach it to the mechanism in the belt... it breaks the action up in to 2 parts needlessly. The belt itself reels him in rather than the gun. It's never clear exactly what goes on with the gun when the belt's reeling him - does it just dangle from the belt? And where does the line go? Back in the gun or in the belt? It's just unneccessarily complicated and messy and honestly I think they cheat with it - the action and editing is so disjointed that they don't really need to bother to show exactly what's going on with it.

Using the gun as it is in BTAS is just a simpler, more elegant solution, a high-tech version of Indiana Jones' whip. It's an unbelievable device anyway - no motor or power-source that small could possibly lift a guy up like that, and the power needed to throw a grapple and a line such vast distances is also huge... better to confine such functions to one device rather than two.

You make a good point. But just to give you a heads up, I'm pretty sure he hooks the gun on his back. The belt has a clip on the back, and the gun hooks onto the clip (in place) and kind of like...locks in you know. And I always wondered where the line went?...because if the buckle's pully system is spinning the line, Where is it retracting to? Or is actually the gun that is spinning, like as in: Rolling the line back into the gun...but by hooking it to the system on his belt...it rolls through the pulling on the belt...and acts as a pully system by pulling him upwards. Like the gun is reeling in the line, but it is also pulling on his buckle. It is so hard to explain, but I am pretty sure I understand how it works.

--dk7

 

[K.B.]

Oh I see my "pretzel logic"...except for the part where I DIDNT let Burton off the hook for doing the same, you ******. I said at least I understand WHY he did it unlike Nolan and that at least Burton had the sense to have only last 10 seconds.

 

[lujho]

You make a good point. But just to give you a heads up, I'm pretty sure he hooks the gun on his back. The belt has a clip on the back, and the gun hooks onto the clip (in place) and kind of like...locks in you know. And I always wondered where the line went?...because if the buckle's pully system is spinning the line, Where is it retracting to? Or is actually the gun that is spinning, like as in: Rolling the line back into the gun...but by hooking it to the system on his belt...it rolls through the pulling on the belt...and acts as a pully system by pulling him upwards. Like the gun is reeling in the line, but it is also pulling on his buckle. It is so hard to explain, but I am pretty sure I understand how it works.

--dk7

I thought the clip at the abck was just to hold it. Anyway, it's confusing and needlessly complicated - the fact that it's not immediately obvious what's going on proves that.

 

[dark_b]

about the grappčing gun. the grappling gun only fires the grappe outside. there is no motor in there tu pull you up. the engine is in the belt. thats why he does what he does. i like it because there is no way that this gas powered grappling gun would have a motor inside.

 

[Crooklyn]

But a thin ass belt would?