The Batsuit Master Thread

[Boy Scout]

Thats why I don't like the high belt, and I would rather the color scheme be black/gray.

Agreed. And I'd prefer the suit to look a little more...what's the word...I don't want to say "busy" but I'd like it to have a little more going for it. Like a rich texture or something.

 

[darklord1967]

There's nothing wrong or illogical about Batman wanting to protect himself.

I never said there was anything "wrong" or "illogical". What I expressed was a preference for The Batman of the comics who trades armored protection for freedom of movement, agility and stealth. A character who requires, yes, some suspension if disbelief when you read his exploits.

I am not for or against armor. What I want is for Batman to look protected. And if that look can be achieved using more flexible materials, then by all means.

Fair enough. And all I'm saying is, I don't agree with his looking so robotic and stiff in order to look "protected". I think if The Batman wore his basic comic book costume with a bullet resistant cape (for example), closed in front of him the way he wears it in the comics, then he would look pretty well "protected"... THAT plus his impressive fighting training, and use of shadows et-al...

Not really.

Well it's tough for ME to suspend disbelief under those circumstances, is what I meant to say.

Or a thief.

Good point.

So...he...made it known to the world that he is, to an extent, connected to Batman and his activities. I'm confused; how does that support your argument in any way?
Apparently not, because he's been doing it for years now.

I don't get what you're trying to do here. You're (arbitrarily) bashing things that have literally decades of precedence in comics, and for what? To prove tha Batman's cosume should be more low tech?

No. What I am trying to demonstrate is how the approach on film diverges from the approach in the comics (with it's decades of thought-out history), and therefore creates some logic gaps (at least to me). I am pointing to is Bruce Wayne's very clever PRE-EMPTING of the suspicions of his identity as The Batman due to the vigilante's use of highly expensive high-tech toys. What I am inferring is that at least in the comics, Wayne addresses how overly obvious it would seem to everyone that he is The Batman what with Wayne Tech's public development of high tech gadgets, AND Wayne's personal wealth, AND Wayne's public history as a victim of crime. So he PRE-EMPTS these suspicions by basically saying, "I am a supporter of this BATMAN, whoever he is, and I "sponsor" him with the latest in technology that my company offers." This tactic at least EXPLAINS The Batman's obvious connection to Wayne while deflecting (somewhat) the possibility that Wayne and The Bat are one and the same.

 

[Boy Scout]

I never said there was anything "wrong" or "illogical".

You didn't use those exact words, no.

What I expressed was a preference for The Batman of the comics who trades armored protection for freedom of movement, agility and stealth.

So you're saying wearing armor would be illogical? And by "armor" I don't mean basic protection, I mean the likes of which we've seen on film.

Fair enough. And all I'm saying is, I don't agree with his looking so robotic and stiff in order to look "protected".

Oh, trust me, I understand where you're coming from. And I do agree with you. But the only suit that's ever come across to me as "robotic" and "stiff" is the TDK suit.

I think if The Batman wore his basic comic book costume with a bullet resistant cape (for example), closed in front of him the way he wears it in the comics

Which we rarely see. It's an important visual that hasn't been given nearly enough screen time IMO.

Well it's tough for ME to suspend disbelief under those circumstances, is what I meant to say.

Fair enough. Is it hard for you to do so with the comics as well?

No. What I am trying to demonstrate is how the approach on film diverges from the approach in the comics (with it's decades of thought-out history), and therefore creates some logic gaps (at least to me).

But those same logic gaps exist in the comics. In different forms, perhaps, but they're there.

I am pointing to is Bruce Wayne's very clever PRE-EMPTING of the suspicions of his identity as The Batman due to the vigilante's use of highly expensive high-tech toys. What I am inferring is that at least in the comics, Wayne addresses how overly obvious it would seem to everyone that he is The Batman what with Wayne Tech's public development of high tech gadgets, AND Wayne's personal wealth, AND Wayne's public history as a victim of crime. So he PRE-EMPTS these suspicions by basically saying, "I am a supporter of this BATMAN, whoever he is, and I "sponsor" him with the latest in technology that my company offers." This tactic at least EXPLAINS The Batman's obvious connection to Wayne while deflecting (somewhat) the possibility that Wayne and The Bat are one and the same.

What he did is create a connection that hardly anyone thought was there in the first place. Which is...kinda asinine.

You say that Wayne did everything in his power to make sure no one made a conection between himself and "Batman." And, obviously, it worked.

But then, for reasons I don't fully understand, he revealed to the entire world that yes, he is connected to Batman, and...you...support that? While at the same time you criticize Nolan's Batman for using high tech gadgets because doing so would encourage the average Gothamite to make that very same connection?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

He didn't take pre-emptive action. At the time of revealing himself as Batman's "financier", he had been Batman for over 15 years and Grayson had been Batman for over a year.

It didn't make up for the previous almost two decades of using very public and expensive gadgets. Some of which included a rocket, a flying car, several fighter jets, as well as other high tech cars and bikes. Not to mention the gadgets kept in the belt.

 

[Mr.?]

All they need to do is give him some cloth and say that its bulletproof. Or he could have a plate under his chest DKR style.

 

[Bathead]

How's this?


.

Perfect.

 

[darklord1967]

So you're saying wearing armor would be illogical? And by "armor" I don't mean basic protection, I mean the likes of which we've seen on film.

No, I am NOT saying it would be "illogical". I am saying that in at least a few regards (Re: speed, agility, and stealth) it might be a bit of a hinderance. I am also saying that to my eyes, it is wholly un-attractive.

Oh, trust me, I understand where you're coming from. And I do agree with you. But the only suit that's ever come across to me as "robotic" and "stiff" is the TDK suit.

Fair enough. This stuff is largely subjective. Suffice it to say that to my eyes, ALL big-screen Batmans (beginning with Keaton in '89, right through Bale in 2012) look stiff wearing their suits of armor.

Which we rarely see. It's an important visual that hasn't been given nearly enough screen time IMO.

Well THERE we agree wholeheartedly! I'm not sure, but I think Keaton may have been the only one to wear the cape in a similar configuration to this in the cathedral scene from Batman '89.

Fair enough. Is it hard for you to do so with the comics as well?

Well, since The Batman in the comics (for the most part) does NOT drive around in a sherman tank (or fly around in a stealth fighter jet)... both of which literally destroy everything in their path with heavy artillery, gatling machine guns, incindiary bombs, and missiles... there is certainly LESS disbelief for me to suspend.

But those same logic gaps exist in the comics. In different forms, perhaps, but they're there.

All too true. The logic gaps do exist in different forms in the comics. I suppose they exist in the comics in a way that I find much more subtle and much less glaringly obvious / offensive than the ones I've encountered on film.

What he did is create a connection that hardly anyone thought was there in the first place. Which is...kinda asinine.

Well... I don't think so... not if that created connection is part of a calculated plan. The most logical candidate for The Batman's true identity in Gotham City is Bruce Wayne. In Batman: Year One, when the vigilante made his first appearances in Gotham, Lieutenant Gordon immediately suspected Bruce Wayne, and even interrogated him.

When something becomes obvious (particularly to someone in law-enforcement who is watching you) sometimes, the best tactic is to laugh about it and glibly all but admit it. That is what Bruce Wayne did. (Re: Wayne: Ah! Lieutenant Gordon! Thank you for coming! I understand you wish to discuss The Batman... something about my being him?)

Sometimes, the best place to hide something is in plain sight. It's kinda like Superman NOT wearing a mask. Somehow the lack of a mask makes it easier for Clark Kent to go un-noticed as the Man of Steel (since a mask would call attention to a hidden identity). With a pair of spectacles, a change of hair style, a slight slouch, and a disguised voice, Kent easily passes as another individual... especially since no one suspects Superman of living a dual identity.

With The Batman, things are a little different. He is clearly an individual with a hidden identity (as evidenced by his mask and public disguise). It is logical for Bruce to assume that sooner or later people are going to start drawing connections between himself and The Batman, especially if the vigilante is publicly seen (on occasion) operating the latest technology usually only developed or made available through Wayne Tech. It follows, then, that Bruce would want to control those connections made by others, and pre-emptively deflect them away from himself in a believable way.

But then, for reasons I don't fully understand, he revealed to the entire world that yes, he is connected to Batman, and...you...support that? While at the same time you criticize Nolan's Batman for using high tech gadgets because doing so would encourage the average Gothamite to make that very same connection?

I support Bruce Wayne using the tactic of pre-emptively establishing himself as a benefactor to the Batman, for the reason of dispelling the notion that he himself is The Batman

I criticize The Batman's high-tech gadgets use (in Batman movies), because there is no plan in place by Bruce Wayne to dispell notions of his connection to... OR identity as... The Batman. And his callous, very publicly high-profile, and often very destructive use of these gadgets only draws more attention to himself while raising more and more fiscal inquires.

So I see this as a contrast between:

(on the comics side) A man who uses high technology sparingly out in public, preferring instead to stick to shadows and back alleys, and to use clandestine SILENCE and STEALTH as his modus operandi. He therefore has a low risk of even being seen, much less being connected to the wealth and high technology afforded in Gotham only by Bruce Wayne. And even if a connection is made, he is prepared to dispell the notion by an apparent "open book" policy of supporting and even sponsoring this Batman... whoever he is.

VERSUS

(on the Movies side) A man who uses high-technology very visibly (and sometimes blatantly destructively) out in public, and operates (at times) in brightly-lit police stations, and even in the broad daylight of the steps of City Hall (in the upcoming TDKR). A man who uses EXPLOSIVES, AUTOMATIC WEAPONRY and HIGH VISIBILTY (at least part of the time) as his modus operandi, and therefore increases his risk of being seen, studied, and identified as a man in a very high-tech suit, using some very high-tech weapons that likely ONLY came from Wayne Tech. And if a connection is made between Wayne and himself (whether as his benefactor OR as his secret identity) , all he has in place to dispel the notion is a pleasant smile and a nod. (Re: Lucius Fox: Just don't think of me as stupid Mr. Wayne.
Wayne: (Smile and a nod) Fair enough.)

 

[darklord1967]

Perfect.

Sigh... thanks pal! Glad you like it. I sure could use more of my supporters like you during all this flaming, let me tell you. t:

 

[Two-Face]

Love to see that in a live-action film.

 

[darklord1967]

Love to see that in a live-action film.

A big thanks to you as well, buddy!

 

[Mr.?]

Love to see that in a live-action film.

Only thing that bothers me is the briefs and belt, otherwise I would as well.

 

[Boy Scout]

Well THERE we agree wholeheartedly! I'm not sure, but I think Keaton may have been the only one to wear the cape in a similar configuration to this in the cathedral scene from Batman '89.

BB gave us some great shots.

...there is certainly LESS disbelief for me to suspend.

Sure.

All too true. The logic gaps do exist in different forms in the comics. I suppose they exist in the comics in a way that I find much more subtle and much less glaringly obvious / offensive than the ones I've encountered on film.

So it's not the logic gaps you have a problem with. It's what causes them.

Well... I don't think so... not if that created connection is part of a calculated plan.

...really?

The most logical candidate for The Batman's true identity in Gotham City is Bruce Wayne.

Which he drew attention to.

I don't understand why you think revealing a connection to Batman would make anyone suspect Bruce Wayne less instead of more.

In Batman: Year One, when the vigilante made his first appearances in Gotham, Lieutenant Gordon immediately suspected Bruce Wayne, and even interrogated him.

And Wayne was able to fool him into thinking he wasn't connected to Batman in any way.

When something becomes obvious (particularly to someone in law-enforcement who is watching you) sometimes, the best tactic is to laugh about it and glibly all but admit it. That is what Bruce Wayne did. (Re: Wayne: Ah! Lieutenant Gordon! Thank you for coming! I understand you wish to discuss The Batman... something about my being him?)

Yes. Because telling everyone you fund Batman's entire operation is exactly that.

Sometimes, the best place to hide something is in plain sight. It's kinda like Superman NOT wearing a mask.

No it isn't.

With The Batman, things are a little different. He is clearly an individual with a hidden identity (as evidenced by his mask and public disguise). It is logical for Bruce to assume that sooner or later people are going to start drawing connections between himself and The Batman

So he should make it for them?

especially if the vigilante is publicly seen (on occasion) operating the latest technology usually only developed or made available through Wayne Tech.

Because he couldn't have stolen any of it. Or secretly be a Wayne Enterprises employee. Or have a man on the inside who acts as a supplier. Or gotten it from another company.

It follows, then, that Bruce would want to control those connections made by others, and pre-emptively deflect them away from himself in a believable way.

That's a good idea, in theory. But what you're defending is a terrible way to execute it.

I support Bruce Wayne using the tactic of pre-emptively establishing himself as a benefactor to the Batman, for the reason of dispelling the notion that he himself is The Batman

I know you do. Still doesn't make any sense to me.

I criticize The Batman's high-tech gadgets use (in Batman movies), because there is no plan in place by Bruce Wayne to dispell notions of his connection to... OR identity as... The Batman.

Um...what? He goes out of his way to make the world believe he's nothing more or less than a brainless playboy who sleeps with a different woman every day of the week. You make it sound as if he makes no effort to protect his identity at all.

(on the comics side) A man who uses high technology sparingly out in public

You're not talking about modern comics, are you?

And even if a connection is made, he is prepared to dispell the notion by an apparent "open book" policy of supporting and even sponsoring this Batman... whoever he is.

Which is dumb.

(on the Movies side) A man who uses high-technology very visibly (and sometimes blatantly destructively) out in public, and operates (at times) in brightly-lit police stations, and even in the broad daylight of the steps of City Hall (in the upcoming TDKR). A man who uses EXPLOSIVES, AUTOMATIC WEAPONRY and HIGH VISIBILTY (at least part of the time) as his modus operandi, and therefore increases his risk of being seen, studied, and identified as a man in a very high-tech suit, using some very high-tech weapons that likely ONLY came from Wayne Tech. And if a connection is made between Wayne and himself (whether as his benefactor OR as his secret identity) , all he has in place to dispel the notion is a pleasant smile and a nod. (Re: Lucius Fox: Just don't think of me as stupid Mr. Wayne.
Wayne: (Smile and a nod) Fair enough.)

Careful. Your bias is showing.

 

[Boy Scout]

Sigh... thanks pal! Glad you like it. I sure could use more of my supporters like you during all this flaming, let me tell you. t:

I'm not flaming you. As a matter of fact, I'm enjoying this conversation and I admire your passion for the character.

 

[Saint]

I know you do. Still doesn't make any sense to me.

It actually makes perfect sense. It explains away many of the clues that would otherwise lead people to assume Bruce Wayne is Batman, such as his technology and resources. If there is a publicly known and understood connection between Batman and Bruce Wayne, when someone sees a clue that Batman is Bruce Wayne, they can ignore it--because it fits snugly within the paradigm of the relationship they already know exists between the two.

By keeping the secret right out in the open, where everyone can see it, you communicate to them that it's not actually a secret. If people weren't told Bruce Wayne funded Batman and saw Batman using Wayne technology, they're going to think "Oh man, there must be a secret connection! We should investigate further!" Instead, they now think "Well, duh, because Batman is funded by Bruce Wayne," and move on.

Of course, there's a much bigger problem with the Batman, Inc. explanation, which is that Wayne publicly admits to funding a criminal. It works in the DCU because vigilantes enjoy a comfortable grey zone where law enforcement is (usually) happy ignore or even cooperate with them. In a different universe (such as the film universe), it would never fly, of course.

 

[Boy Scout]

It actually makes perfect sense. It explains away many of the clues that would otherwise lead people to assume Bruce Wayne is Batman, such as his technology and resources. If there is a publicly known and understood connection between Batman and Bruce Wayne, when someone sees a clue that Batman is Bruce Wayne, they can ignore it--because it fits snugly within the paradigm of the relationship they already know exists between the two.

I don't see how that discourages anyone from assuming Bruce and Batman are the same person. If anything, I would say establishing that connection in the first place is a mistake. Why do the two need to be connected? If the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other, no one would assume that they are in any way involved with each other. That's why Bruce acts like a spoiled playboy in public.

"Sure, he could be Batman - God knows he's rich enough - but what's his motive? Why would he want to be Batman? He doesn't give a damn about anybody but himself."

If anyone seriously suspects that Bruce Wayne is Batman, they either have a lot of evidence, or he's doing something wrong.

People are less likely to suspect there's a connection when they're given the impression that there is no connection...so why establish that there's a connection?

By keeping the secret right out in the open, where everyone can see it, you communicate to them that it's not actually a secret.

But it was a secret. Which means that both Wayne and "Batman" had - and maybe still have - something to hide.

If people weren't told Bruce Wayne funded Batman and saw Batman using Wayne technology, they're going to think "Oh man, there must be a secret connection! We should investigate further!"

They could. Or they could assume Batman is a thief.

That'd actually be a funny running gag. Tech regularly being stolen from Wayne Enterprises.

Instead, they now think "Well, duh, because Batman is funded by Bruce Wayne," and move on.

I understand that's how it's supposed to work...but, again, it just doesn't make sense to me. It's the execution that's a little off; the idea itself is pretty interesting.

Of course, there's a much bigger problem with the Batman, Inc. explanation, which is that Wayne publicly admits to funding a criminal.

Yeah, there's that.

It works in the DCU because vigilantes enjoy a comfortable grey zone where law enforcement is (usually) happy ignore or even cooperate with them. In a different universe (such as the film universe), it would never fly, of course.

I will say that I think it works well enough for the comics.

 

[darklord1967]

It actually makes perfect sense. It explains away many of the clues that would otherwise lead people to assume Bruce Wayne is Batman, such as his technology and resources. If there is a publicly known and understood connection between Batman and Bruce Wayne, when someone sees a clue that Batman is Bruce Wayne, they can ignore it--because it fits snugly within the paradigm of the relationship they already know exists between the two.

By keeping the secret right out in the open, where everyone can see it, you communicate to them that it's not actually a secret. If people weren't told Bruce Wayne funded Batman and saw Batman using Wayne technology, they're going to think "Oh man, there must be a secret connection! We should investigate further!" Instead, they now think "Well, duh, because Batman is funded by Bruce Wayne," and move on.

Of course, there's a much bigger problem with the Batman, Inc. explanation, which is that Wayne publicly admits to funding a criminal. It works in the DCU because vigilantes enjoy a comfortable grey zone where law enforcement is (usually) happy ignore or even cooperate with them. In a different universe (such as the film universe), it would never fly, of course.

Thanks pal. You definitely get what it is that I'm saying. And honestly, I'm a little tired of finding different ways of explaining it.

It is not a perfect logic. I'll grant that. But to my sensibility, it is one that is infinitely more acceptable than the logic employed in the films.

 

[Boy Scout]

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[darklord1967]

it's not the logic gaps you have a problem with. It's what causes them.

Whatever. It's not an important distinction to me. In either case, they are unappealing to me.

I don't understand why you think revealing a connection to Batman would make anyone suspect Bruce Wayne less instead of more.

I can't explain it any better than I already have. As i said, it is a logic that exists in the pages of comic books. One that, to my sensibility, works way better than the far less subtle ("explosive") logic that is employed in films.

And Wayne was able to fool him into thinking he wasn't connected to Batman in any way.

If you know Batman's comic book history, he did NOT fool Gordon. That's the point. But that is another debate.

Suffice it to say that my point was that Bruce used the tactic of laughing about the possibility of being The Batman... and even NOT forcibly denying being The Batman's true identity... in order to make it seem less likely. Re: "Me thinks thou doth protest too much"... THAT is the person you usually suspect.

It's the proverbial pair of eye glasses you've been searching for and cannot locate, because they are being worn on top of your head the whole time. They're too close to you, therefore you cannot see them.

I know you do. Still doesn't make any sense to me.

I know it doesn't. But it makes sense to me. That's the point. And it makes sense to me a whole lot more than what I consider to be the far less subtle logic of the movies.

You're not talking about modern comics, are you?

Yes I am. Even The Batman in modern comics is far less subtle about his public visibility than he is in the movies.

Which is dumb.

Obviously, to me is isn't.

Careful. Your bias is showing.

I was never trying to hide it.

 

[darklord1967]

Different strokes for different folks.

Whatchu talkinabout, Willis?

 

[Boy Scout]

I can't explain it any better than I already have.

You don't have to. It's not the way you're explaining it that's faulty.

If you know Batman's comic book history, he did NOT fool Gordon. That's the point. But that is another debate.

He didn't fool him forever, no.

Suffice it to say that my point was that Bruce used the tactic of laughing about the possibility of being The Batman... and even NOT forcibly denying being The Batman's true identity... in order to make it seem less likely.

Which I never had an issue with.

I know it doesn't. But it makes sense to me.

I know. And that's cool. I wasn't trying to change your mind.

Yes I am. Even The Batman in modern comics is far less subtle about his public visibility than he is in the movies.

If you say so.

Obviously, to me is isn't.

Which is, again, fine.

I was never trying to hide it.

No worries. I was only kidding around.

Whatchu talkinabout, Willis?

 

[Saint]

I don't see how that discourages anyone from assuming Bruce and Batman are the same person. If anything, I would say establishing that connection in the first place is a mistake. Why do the two need to be connected? If the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other, no one would assume that they are in any way involved with each other.

That's definitely not true, since plenty of people have deduced Batman's identity. There are clearly connections to be found. The Incorporated cover discourages people from looking to closely at them. of course it isn't perfect, but neither was the original arrangement, clearly, since people kept cracking it.

"Sure, he could be Batman - God knows he's rich enough - but what's his motive? Why would he want to be Batman? He doesn't give a damn about anybody but himself."

Well, all of Gotham knows that's not true. Bruce may be a buffoon but he's always bent over backwards for Gotham, and the city would have to be blind not to see it.

If anyone seriously suspects that Bruce Wayne is Batman, they either have a lot of evidence, or he's doing something wrong.

Not really--Bane and Ra's Al Ghul figured it out with nothing specific to go on, really. They found tenuous connections between Wayne and Batman and they put the pieces together.

People are less likely to suspect there's a connection when they're given the impression that there is no connection...so why establish that there's a connection?

Well, that's not what the Incorporated revelation was about--that was about making Batman a public figure. That it also provides cover for evidence connecting Bruce and Batman was mostly a nice side-effect.

But it was a secret. Which means that both Wayne and "Batman" had - and maybe still have - something to hide.

That's easy to explain, though--especially in the early days when Batman was much less highly regarded by the police. Obviously when Batman himself was being hunted, Wayne would not out their arrangement.

They could. Or they could assume Batman is a thief.

They could assume a lot of things, but if you establish an idea in their heads they're less likely to assume the thing you don't want them to.

I understand that's how it's supposed to work...but, again, it just doesn't make sense to me. It's the execution that's a little off; the idea itself is pretty interesting.

Well, like I said--nothing's perfect. Even the idea that some journalist hasn't followed Batman home and outed him is pretty absurd when you think about it.

 

[darklord1967]

Heeeeey... Boy Scout, what gives? Why'd you post a photo of Arnold half-dressed as Robin The Boy Wonder? I thought you didn't like those classic comic book-based costumes!

BWaaaah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.... Errr.... ehhh... snicker... snicker... snort... snort... eh... eh... eh... mmmmmmBaaaahhhh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!!!!

Ooh... ohhhhhh.... whew... sometimes I just kill myself.t:

 

[Boy Scout]

That's definitely not true, since plenty of people have deduced Batman's identity. There are clearly connections to be found.

Of course there are. But I think the best way for Wayne to protect his identity would be to discourage people from making those connections in the first place. If no one is given a reason to make a connection, they probably won't.

The Incorporated cover discourages people from looking to closely at them.

I don't see how. If anything, I would think more people would be looking at them now more than ever. Especially at Bruce Wayne. If he's now a known supporter of Batman, doesn't that put him and everyone he loves in danger?

of course it isn't perfect, but neither was the original arrangement, clearly, since people kept cracking it.

It worked better for me, personally.

Well, all of Gotham knows that's not true. Bruce may be a buffoon but he's always bent over backwards for Gotham, and the city would have to be blind not to see it.

You're right. But that's the thing: he's a buffoon. He has Gotham's best interests at heart...but, in the eyes of the public, he's still that spoiled rich kid who's banging Russian supermodels every other night. Is it likely that that man dresses up like a bat and stalks criminals every night?

Not really--Bane and Ra's Al Ghul figured it out with nothing specific to go on, really. They found tenuous connections between Wayne and Batman and they put the pieces together.

Those are individuals who have the intelligence and resources to do so.

That's easy to explain, though--especially in the early days when Batman was much less highly regarded by the police. Obviously when Batman himself was being hunted, Wayne would not out their arrangement.

How long did Wayne say he had been funding Batman?

They could assume a lot of things, but if you establish an idea in their heads they're less likely to assume the thing you don't want them to.

Or you could put the idea out of their heads entirely.

Well, like I said--nothing's perfect. Even the idea that some journalist hasn't followed Batman home and outed him is pretty absurd when you think about it.

I don't think a journalist could follow Batman home.

But yes, I agree...nothing's perfect.

 

[Boy Scout]

Heeeeey... Boy Scout, what gives? Why'd you post a photo of Arnold half-dressed as Robin The Boy Wonder? I thought you didn't like those classic comic book-based costumes!

I never said that.

 

[darklord1967]

I never said that.

Hmm... sorry. My mistake. Egg all over my face