The Batsuit Master Thread

[Majik1387]

So you're good with green fish scale briefs but not a hood?

 

[OP84CC82]

Actually, I think it might be interesting to see the next costume look a little like Spider-Man's costume in TASM with the texture and stuff.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I'd rather see it closer to MoS or CA suits. They look protective, practical and comics accurate.

As for Robin, I think the hood should be there, and the scaly's and pixies should go.

 

[OP84CC82]

I'd rather see it closer to MoS or CA suits. They look protective, practical and comics accurate.

The CA suit maybe, but the MoS one? That does not look like it can stop a bullet.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I'd prefer it over Spider-Man, as the Superman suit has chainmail, and therefore a semblance of protection for Batman.

 

[OP84CC82]

I'd prefer it over Spider-Man, as the Superman suit has chainmail, and therefore a semblance of protection for Batman.

I'm not saying I wouldn't want the texture of the MoS suit, I just don't think it looks like it could stop bullets. Just say that it has kevlar and padding and such underneath. But it's chainmail? I never noticed that. I've seen pictures of the suit in close up but it's hard to see the texture for me?

 

[Mr.?]

Clearly, what many of you consider to be "dated" in terms of Robin's traditional costume look, I consider more... charming and quaint. It is, by far, my favorite design for Robin's costume of all the ones that have come over the years.

In addition, I find it interesting that despite the vintage traditional outfit's official "retirement" back in 1989 (with the introduction of Tim Drake's new outfit), it is, nevertheless an outfit that keeps popping up even in the most recent Batman lore.

In the context of my ideal "retro" approach to The Batman, I would not have Dick Grayson's civilian garb be anything as contemporary (nor topical) as a hoodie. Therefore the "era" contrast between Dick's "civies" and Robin's costume would not be as drastic as you describe.





Actually, it wasn't very traditional to the original 40's costume at all. It was patterned a lot more after Tim Drake's comic book costume at the time (late 1980's early 1990's), although Dick Grayson in the comics never wore that outfit.



While i certainly agree with you that Tim Drake's costume was more appealing in TNBA when compared to Grayson's costume from the earlier BTAS, it was certainly not an outfit that I would describe as "same as Dick's". They were in fact, quite different. I will say that it was, at least, refreshing to finally see Robin portrayed as a young boy... the way he was originally created.




"Modern Age" ala Nolan and the gang? No. But for me, I'd have no problem with a "retro"-styled approach to a Batman film with Robin wearing his traditional garb. I really think it could work... with some minor adjustments.





Funny thing about that: In 1992 when Batman: The Animated Series began, (college-aged Dick Grayson) Robin was depicted wearing a variation of the Outfit worn by Tim Drake in the comics. I guess the powers that be at DC /Warners wanted no contradictions at the time between Robin on television and Robin in the comics. As a result there was no trace of (Grayson) Robin's traditional outfit anywhere on that show or its various spin-offs.

But now here we are in 2012, and it seems as though things have changed quite a bit with that production team (Bruce Timm / Andrea Romano/ Paul Dini) in regards to Robin's traditional original garb.

As we all know, an animated adaptation of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns is about to be released on home video by this production team. Carrie Kelly's Robin character feature's prominently (as she does in the book) wearing the traditional Robin costume.

This production team also saw fit to leave Carrie Kelly's Robin costume design un-changed when they made an adaptation of a scene from Miller's TDKR in an episode of BTNA entitled "Legends Of The Dark Knight"

And as recently as 2010 when this team produced the extraordinary Batman feature Batman: Under The Red Hood , they were brave and bold enough to depict Robin's traditional costume (this time worn by Jason Todd in a flashback scene).

They seemed to like this version of Robin so much, the film actually ended with a final image of Robin standing triumphantly atop the Batmobile in this garb.

I've never watched the recent Brave and The Bold animated show, but i understand that traditional green shorts-wearing Robin has appeared there too.

I think there quite a lot of life left in them little pixie boots.t:

Fair enough that you like his classic look but can't you see it would look ludicrous in live action?

I like the light blue and gray Batman color combo and I can say it probably wouldnt look good on film.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

I'm not saying I wouldn't want the texture of the MoS suit, I just don't think it looks like it could stop bullets. Just say that it has kevlar and padding and such underneath. But it's chainmail? I never noticed that. I've seen pictures of the suit in close up but it's hard to see the texture for me?

I dunno if you've seen the pictures from that licensing event but there are some very good closeups of the suit in a glass case display where you can see that the texture resembles linked rings.

 

[darklord1967]

Fair enough that you like his classic look but can't you see it would look ludicrous in live action?

I am always so amused by people who find some sort of supreme validity and "realism" in grown muscle-bound men walking around in public wearing armor and capes, and yet somehow find the concept of a boy wearing a brightly colored Robin Hood-like costume in public to be "ludicrous".

Newsflash: They ALL look "ludicrous". They ALL look outlandish. That's the point. They're Superheroes. Superheroes are pretty silly-looking by our "real-world standard. They always HAVE been.

In my eyes, a classic Robin The Boy Wonder costume in a live action film is no less acceptable than an armor-clad Robocop in a cape. This all comes down to personal preference. That is mine.

With the proper color pallete, and material textures, Robin's classic costume would look amazing in a live action film... especially if it were a stylized piece.

Oh and for the record, a hood would NOT be my choice for a Robin costume. Aesthetically, I do not care for it. I think the classic outfit was pretty perfectly designed the way it was.

 

[Majik1387]

darklord, out of curiosity, how old are you?

 

[regwec]

His username ends in "1967".

 

[Majik1387]

I know that, but not every poster's username uses a birth year.

 

[darklord1967]

I will be turning 45 in August of this year. Why do you ask?

 

[Majik1387]

Was just curious is all. I mean I do feel you're looking at superheroes in general with nostalgia glasses, not just Batman, and that it affects how you feel costumes should look onscreen.

I don't remember if I asked, but how did you feel about the costumes of Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel, Spider-Man in the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man and the costumes in The Avengers?

 

[Bruce Malone]

 

[regwec]

Heh. I like the original Robin costume in its proper context, but that is pretty funny.

 

[darklord1967]

Was just curious is all. I mean I do feel you're looking at superheroes in general with nostalgia glasses, not just Batman, and that it affects how you feel costumes should look onscreen.

I don't remember if I asked, but how did you feel about the costumes of Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel, Spider-Man in the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man and the costumes in The Avengers?

Well I believe in one of my first posts on this message board, I did mention that I was a "traditionalist" when it comes to my preference for the look for these characters.

Quoting myself:

What do I think the Batsuit should look like?

Well... I am DEFINITELY a traditionalist.

And I freely admit that I may be looking at Superheroes with "nostalgia glasses" that affect how i feel their costumes should look on screen.

But I think it only fair to mention that I ALSO have a heavy arts background that contributes to my outlook as well (graphic design, photography, filmmaking, sculpting, and model making).

While my preference for the look of these characters (represented in live-action) is based on the appeal that their uniforms hold for me aesthetically, there is also something else at play here... something that I discussed at length on a talk radio program that I was a guest on recently:



GENERATION EXPOSURE TO THE CHARACTER:





The CONCLUSION I have come to (for the most part) regarding what is most appealing about these classic characters in the various mediums they appear in (comics, games, big screen, small screen, etc.) is that it is PURELY a matter of one's own subjectivity and personal generational exposure experience with the character.

Allow me to explain:

There are many people who are thoroughly enjoying Chris Nolan's current take on The Batman mythology. For a lot of those people, Chris Nolan's big-screen approach to the character is their generation's INTRODUCTION to the character. They don't know anything else... not the comic book, not the games.. nothing. SO to THEM, there is no reason to take issue with the interpretation. Obviously, there is nothing about Chris Nolan's interpretation that is "invalid", per-se. It is just one that I happen to disagree with because it is very, very different from my own generational introduction to the character.




The same thing happened back in 1989 with Tim Burton's approach to the mythology (which I and many other long-time comic book Batman fans disagreed with). Again, that was The Batman for a specific generation that was not mine.

I have quietly come to terms in recent months with the fact that there is no such a thing as a "real" version of The Batman character when you consider how often the character has been changed and re-imagined over the years in the pages of the comics and other mediums.

I see a clear distinction (for example) between MY OWN preferred version of the character VERSUS the "first version" of the character (the one who made his debut in Detective Comics #27 in May of 1939).

To some purists, that is the version of the character that carries the most weight since it was what Bob Kane and Bill finger ORIGINALLY came up with.

But as I see it, even though that was indeed the version of the character that the public was FIRST exposed to, it was nevertheless a very SHORT-LIVED version. Those very same Batman's creators saw fit to make RADICAL adjustments to their creation within only a couple of months after the character's debut. The character AND his costume very quickly changed into the BASIS for what existed for over the next 70 years (cape instead of wings, long bat-finned gauntlets instead of the original small purple gloves, re-designed Bat-cowl etc.). Most importantly, by the time the character's origin story had been published (in Detective Comics #33 - November 1939), his aversion to the use of firearms and killing had been established.

With Robin the Boy Wonder placed very quickly by his side within less than a year of his debut, the only real adjustments made to the strip after that were in general mood and tone: Swashbuckling, light-hearted action and war-effort spokesmen in the 1940's. Sci-fi strangeness in the 1950's. Campy pop art in the 1960's. A return to the dark brooding loner in the 1970's. And a re-emphasis on the Dynamic Duo throughout the 1980's and early 1990's.

So which is The Batman character version that I prescribe to the most? Well, I suppose like anyone else, it is the one I was first (and predominantly) exposed to while growing up:

By the time I became aware of the character as a little boy (in the very early 1970's), I was being introduced during a very TRANSITIONAL PHASE in his development. The "campy 1960's" version of the character was only about 5 years behind us (with re-runs of the Adam West show still playing daily on TV).

HOWEVER, in the pages of the comics, Neal Adams, Denny O'Neil, Marshal Rogers, Steve Englehart, Bernie Wrightson, etc. were all doing their dark, gothic, solo, brooding avenger "thing" with The Batman (which more closely matched Kane and Finger's original version).

So there I had two (contradicting) versions of the character within my daily exposure.

The 1970's was also a time when COUNTLESS "limited Edition" comics were published that re-printed classic Batman tales from decades before (1940's-present). This gave my generation of Batman fans the perspective of seeing where the character had come from and how he had developed historically.

Interestingly, the very first version of The Batman... that is, the short-lived version which lasted less than six months before he was completely changed in 1939... that version was not really re-visited at all. I suppose it just did not fit in with DC comics editorial policy of the 1970's, NOR did it fit the specific guidelines of the (by then) long-established Comics Code Authority.

So from MY perspective, that early, short-lived version was not really a "definitive version" of the character... much less even a relevant one. This is very much the same way that my preferred version of The Batman is not at all relevant to some of you.

In the mid 1980's long time die-hard Batman fans (like me) were anxious to put behind us ALL memories of the campy Adam West Batman and see a serious, dark, brooding version of the character brought to the big-screen. But it seemed that Tim Burton had other ideas.

When his film "BATMAN" debuted in 1989, it heavily borrowed elements from throughout The Batman's history... the dark, brooding, and gothic elements were mixed with a touch of the campy pop art. These elements at times CONTRADICTED each other. The film even borrowed from that very first version of the character seen in 1939... the one that was willing to use firearms, and was willing to kill... But it was also the very same version that had NOT been considered "definitive" nor "relevant" in the pages of the comics for nearly 5 decades.

For some of us older comic book Batman fans during that time (those of us over 20 years old), this big-screen version of The Batman seemed disjointed and almost schizophrenic. And physically, the actor playing this character really did not resemble a faithful version of what we had come to expect from a comic book to big-screen translation.

Try to remember: A mere 10 years before, we enjoyed an INCREDIBLY faithful comic book to big screen translation with with the casting of Chris Reeve as Clark Kent / Superman.

And now, with the Batman comic book character universally understood to be a man of an imposing 6' 2" height, devastatingly handsome and irresistable to women, and with a body trained to "...olympic-level perfection...", it was tough for some of us long-time fans NOT to be disappointed by the casting of the short, balding comedian Michael Keaton in the title role.

Having said all of this, I certainly acknowledge that time has been VERY kind to Tim Burton's Batman film. It really is FAR better than I remember it being in '89.

But I also acknowledge that my distaste for Chris Nolan's current take on the character may have a lot to do with that.



As for the interpretation of Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel, and Spider-Man in the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man and the costumes in The Avengers... I think they all look fine... really beautiful designs. And I understand them to be updated interpretations of what we have had in the comics for many years.

But in the case of (movie) Superman and Spiderman, my personal preference actually still leans more toward the Chris Reeve and Toby Mcguire screen suits because of their closer resemblance to the classic designs that I am admittedly biased toward.

I actually don't have as strongly a vested interest in the comic book AVENGERS. So the re-design of their uniforms for the big-screen inspires no real preference in me one way or the other.

 

[OP84CC82]

Well I believe in one of my first posts on this message board, I did mention that I was a "traditionalist" when it comes to my preference for the look for these characters.

Quoting myself:





And I freely admit that I may be looking at Superheroes with "nostalgia glasses" that affect how i feel their costumes should look on screen.

But I think it only fair to mention that I ALSO have a heavy arts background that contributes to my outlook as well (graphic design, photography, filmmaking, sculpting, and model making).

While my preference for the look of these characters (represented in live-action) is based on the appeal that their uniforms hold for me aesthetically, there is also something else at play here... something that I discussed at length on a talk radio program that I was a guest on recently:



GENERATION EXPOSURE TO THE CHARACTER:





The CONCLUSION I have come to (for the most part) regarding what is most appealing about these classic characters in the various mediums they appear in (comics, games, big screen, small screen, etc.) is that it is PURELY a matter of one's own subjectivity and personal generational exposure experience with the character.

Allow me to explain:

There are many people who are thoroughly enjoying Chris Nolan's current take on The Batman mythology. For a lot of those people, Chris Nolan's big-screen approach to the character is their generation's INTRODUCTION to the character. They don't know anything else... not the comic book, not the games.. nothing. SO to THEM, there is no reason to take issue with the interpretation. Obviously, there is nothing about Chris Nolan's interpretation that is "invalid", per-se. It is just one that I happen to disagree with because it is very, very different from my own generational introduction to the character.




The same thing happened back in 1989 with Tim Burton's approach to the mythology (which I and many other long-time comic book Batman fans disagreed with). Again, that was The Batman for a specific generation that was not mine.

I have quietly come to terms in recent months with the fact that there is no such a thing as a "real" version of The Batman character when you consider how often the character has been changed and re-imagined over the years in the pages of the comics and other mediums.

I see a clear distinction (for example) between MY OWN preferred version of the character VERSUS the "first version" of the character (the one who made his debut in Detective Comics #27 in May of 1939).

To some purists, that is the version of the character that carries the most weight since it was what Bob Kane and Bill finger ORIGINALLY came up with.

But as I see it, even though that was indeed the version of the character that the public was FIRST exposed to, it was nevertheless a very SHORT-LIVED version. Those very same Batman's creators saw fit to make RADICAL adjustments to their creation within only a couple of months after the character's debut. The character AND his costume very quickly changed into the BASIS for what existed for over the next 70 years (cape instead of wings, long bat-finned gauntlets instead of the original small purple gloves, re-designed Bat-cowl etc.). Most importantly, by the time the character's origin story had been published (in Detective Comics #33 - November 1939), his aversion to the use of firearms and killing had been established.

With Robin the Boy Wonder placed very quickly by his side within less than a year of his debut, the only real adjustments made to the strip after that were in general mood and tone: Swashbuckling, light-hearted action and war-effort spokesmen in the 1940's. Sci-fi strangeness in the 1950's. Campy pop art in the 1960's. A return to the dark brooding loner in the 1970's. And a re-emphasis on the Dynamic Duo throughout the 1980's and early 1990's.

So which is The Batman character version that I prescribe to the most? Well, I suppose like anyone else, it is the one I was first (and predominantly) exposed to while growing up:

By the time I became aware of the character as a little boy (in the very early 1970's), I was being introduced during a very TRANSITIONAL PHASE in his development. The "campy 1960's" version of the character was only about 5 years behind us (with re-runs of the Adam West show still playing daily on TV).

HOWEVER, in the pages of the comics, Neal Adams, Denny O'Neil, Marshal Rogers, Steve Englehart, Bernie Wrightson, etc. were all doing their dark, gothic, solo, brooding avenger "thing" with The Batman (which more closely matched Kane and Finger's original version).

So there I had two (contradicting) versions of the character within my daily exposure.

The 1970's was also a time when COUNTLESS "limited Edition" comics were published that re-printed classic Batman tales from decades before (1940's-present). This gave my generation of Batman fans the perspective of seeing where the character had come from and how he had developed historically.

Interestingly, the very first version of The Batman... that is, the short-lived version which lasted less than six months before he was completely changed in 1939... that version was not really re-visited at all. I suppose it just did not fit in with DC comics editorial policy of the 1970's, NOR did it fit the specific guidelines of the (by then) long-established Comics Code Authority.

So from MY perspective, that early, short-lived version was not really a "definitive version" of the character... much less even a relevant one. This is very much the same way that my preferred version of The Batman is not at all relevant to some of you.

In the mid 1980's long time die-hard Batman fans (like me) were anxious to put behind us ALL memories of the campy Adam West Batman and see a serious, dark, brooding version of the character brought to the big-screen. But it seemed that Tim Burton had other ideas.

When his film "BATMAN" debuted in 1989, it heavily borrowed elements from throughout The Batman's history... the dark, brooding, and gothic elements were mixed with a touch of the campy pop art. These elements at times CONTRADICTED each other. The film even borrowed from that very first version of the character seen in 1939... the one that was willing to use firearms, and was willing to kill... But it was also the very same version that had NOT been considered "definitive" nor "relevant" in the pages of the comics for nearly 5 decades.

For some of us older comic book Batman fans during that time (those of us over 20 years old), this big-screen version of The Batman seemed disjointed and almost schizophrenic. And physically, the actor playing this character really did not resemble a faithful version of what we had come to expect from a comic book to big-screen translation.

Try to remember: A mere 10 years before, we enjoyed an INCREDIBLY faithful comic book to big screen translation with with the casting of Chris Reeve as Clark Kent / Superman.

And now, with the Batman comic book character universally understood to be a man of an imposing 6' 2" height, devastatingly handsome and irresistable to women, and with a body trained to "...olympic-level perfection...", it was tough for some of us long-time fans NOT to be disappointed by the casting of the short, balding comedian Michael Keaton in the title role.

Having said all of this, I certainly acknowledge that time has been VERY kind to Tim Burton's Batman film. It really is FAR better than I remember it being in '89.

But I also acknowledge that my distaste for Chris Nolan's current take on the character may have a lot to do with that.



As for the interpretation of Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel, and Spider-Man in the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man and the costumes in The Avengers... I think they all look fine... really beautiful designs. And I understand them to be updated interpretations of what we have had in the comics for many years.

But in the case of (movie) Superman and Spiderman, my personal preference actually still leans more toward the Chris Reeve and Toby Mcguire screen suits because of their closer resemblance to the classic designs that I am admittedly biased toward.

I actually don't have as strongly a vested interest in the comic book AVENGERS. So the re-design of their uniforms for the big-screen inspires no real preference in me one way or the other.

Wow. I'm going to admit, I'm glad you're not an ******* who blindly hates or adheres to a certain aesthetic without providing some insight as to why. I'm sorry for my tone a couple of pages back when I replied to you. I now understand why you feel the way you do about the costumes and aesthetics you prefer.

 

[OP84CC82]

Well I believe in one of my first posts on this message board, I did mention that I was a "traditionalist" when it comes to my preference for the look for these characters.

Quoting myself:





And I freely admit that I may be looking at Superheroes with "nostalgia glasses" that affect how i feel their costumes should look on screen.

But I think it only fair to mention that I ALSO have a heavy arts background that contributes to my outlook as well (graphic design, photography, filmmaking, sculpting, and model making).

While my preference for the look of these characters (represented in live-action) is based on the appeal that their uniforms hold for me aesthetically, there is also something else at play here... something that I discussed at length on a talk radio program that I was a guest on recently:



GENERATION EXPOSURE TO THE CHARACTER:





The CONCLUSION I have come to (for the most part) regarding what is most appealing about these classic characters in the various mediums they appear in (comics, games, big screen, small screen, etc.) is that it is PURELY a matter of one's own subjectivity and personal generational exposure experience with the character.

Allow me to explain:

There are many people who are thoroughly enjoying Chris Nolan's current take on The Batman mythology. For a lot of those people, Chris Nolan's big-screen approach to the character is their generation's INTRODUCTION to the character. They don't know anything else... not the comic book, not the games.. nothing. SO to THEM, there is no reason to take issue with the interpretation. Obviously, there is nothing about Chris Nolan's interpretation that is "invalid", per-se. It is just one that I happen to disagree with because it is very, very different from my own generational introduction to the character.




The same thing happened back in 1989 with Tim Burton's approach to the mythology (which I and many other long-time comic book Batman fans disagreed with). Again, that was The Batman for a specific generation that was not mine.

I have quietly come to terms in recent months with the fact that there is no such a thing as a "real" version of The Batman character when you consider how often the character has been changed and re-imagined over the years in the pages of the comics and other mediums.

I see a clear distinction (for example) between MY OWN preferred version of the character VERSUS the "first version" of the character (the one who made his debut in Detective Comics #27 in May of 1939).

To some purists, that is the version of the character that carries the most weight since it was what Bob Kane and Bill finger ORIGINALLY came up with.

But as I see it, even though that was indeed the version of the character that the public was FIRST exposed to, it was nevertheless a very SHORT-LIVED version. Those very same Batman's creators saw fit to make RADICAL adjustments to their creation within only a couple of months after the character's debut. The character AND his costume very quickly changed into the BASIS for what existed for over the next 70 years (cape instead of wings, long bat-finned gauntlets instead of the original small purple gloves, re-designed Bat-cowl etc.). Most importantly, by the time the character's origin story had been published (in Detective Comics #33 - November 1939), his aversion to the use of firearms and killing had been established.

With Robin the Boy Wonder placed very quickly by his side within less than a year of his debut, the only real adjustments made to the strip after that were in general mood and tone: Swashbuckling, light-hearted action and war-effort spokesmen in the 1940's. Sci-fi strangeness in the 1950's. Campy pop art in the 1960's. A return to the dark brooding loner in the 1970's. And a re-emphasis on the Dynamic Duo throughout the 1980's and early 1990's.

So which is The Batman character version that I prescribe to the most? Well, I suppose like anyone else, it is the one I was first (and predominantly) exposed to while growing up:

By the time I became aware of the character as a little boy (in the very early 1970's), I was being introduced during a very TRANSITIONAL PHASE in his development. The "campy 1960's" version of the character was only about 5 years behind us (with re-runs of the Adam West show still playing daily on TV).

HOWEVER, in the pages of the comics, Neal Adams, Denny O'Neil, Marshal Rogers, Steve Englehart, Bernie Wrightson, etc. were all doing their dark, gothic, solo, brooding avenger "thing" with The Batman (which more closely matched Kane and Finger's original version).

So there I had two (contradicting) versions of the character within my daily exposure.

The 1970's was also a time when COUNTLESS "limited Edition" comics were published that re-printed classic Batman tales from decades before (1940's-present). This gave my generation of Batman fans the perspective of seeing where the character had come from and how he had developed historically.

Interestingly, the very first version of The Batman... that is, the short-lived version which lasted less than six months before he was completely changed in 1939... that version was not really re-visited at all. I suppose it just did not fit in with DC comics editorial policy of the 1970's, NOR did it fit the specific guidelines of the (by then) long-established Comics Code Authority.

So from MY perspective, that early, short-lived version was not really a "definitive version" of the character... much less even a relevant one. This is very much the same way that my preferred version of The Batman is not at all relevant to some of you.

In the mid 1980's long time die-hard Batman fans (like me) were anxious to put behind us ALL memories of the campy Adam West Batman and see a serious, dark, brooding version of the character brought to the big-screen. But it seemed that Tim Burton had other ideas.

When his film "BATMAN" debuted in 1989, it heavily borrowed elements from throughout The Batman's history... the dark, brooding, and gothic elements were mixed with a touch of the campy pop art. These elements at times CONTRADICTED each other. The film even borrowed from that very first version of the character seen in 1939... the one that was willing to use firearms, and was willing to kill... But it was also the very same version that had NOT been considered "definitive" nor "relevant" in the pages of the comics for nearly 5 decades.

For some of us older comic book Batman fans during that time (those of us over 20 years old), this big-screen version of The Batman seemed disjointed and almost schizophrenic. And physically, the actor playing this character really did not resemble a faithful version of what we had come to expect from a comic book to big-screen translation.

Try to remember: A mere 10 years before, we enjoyed an INCREDIBLY faithful comic book to big screen translation with with the casting of Chris Reeve as Clark Kent / Superman.

And now, with the Batman comic book character universally understood to be a man of an imposing 6' 2" height, devastatingly handsome and irresistable to women, and with a body trained to "...olympic-level perfection...", it was tough for some of us long-time fans NOT to be disappointed by the casting of the short, balding comedian Michael Keaton in the title role.

Having said all of this, I certainly acknowledge that time has been VERY kind to Tim Burton's Batman film. It really is FAR better than I remember it being in '89.

But I also acknowledge that my distaste for Chris Nolan's current take on the character may have a lot to do with that.



As for the interpretation of Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel, and Spider-Man in the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man and the costumes in The Avengers... I think they all look fine... really beautiful designs. And I understand them to be updated interpretations of what we have had in the comics for many years.

But in the case of (movie) Superman and Spiderman, my personal preference actually still leans more toward the Chris Reeve and Toby Mcguire screen suits because of their closer resemblance to the classic designs that I am admittedly biased toward.

I actually don't have as strongly a vested interest in the comic book AVENGERS. So the re-design of their uniforms for the big-screen inspires no real preference in me one way or the other.

Wow. I'm going to admit, I'm glad you're not an ******* who blindly hates or adheres to a certain aesthetic without providing some insight as to why. I'm sorry for my tone a couple of pages back when I replied to you. I now understand why you feel the way you do about the costumes and aesthetics you prefer.

 

[OP84CC82]

I beg to differ. I think people are underestimating the visual departure we will witness for the next Batman series. It will be much more stylized and I know that some filmmakers must be dying to get the black and grey Batman on film.

I'm pretty sure you as much as most of us, do not know what will happen for the next film.

 

[Mr. Finger]

nicely put darklord1967...

You have me by a couple of years, so most of what you were exposed to I can completely identify with.

Chris Reeve... that "Superman" movie... it is hard to explain to people that did not grow up in that era the impact that film had. With all of the effects.. technology.. and things they can do today?.. One has to remember that when Superman came to theater's, "Astroids" was a top notch video game.. give you an idea of how things have changed.

I too had problems with "Batman" '89...
Loved what they did with the suit, but I hated the belt, and the "oval" on the chest.. Anton Furst's design's were cool, and rewarded for His efforts (RIP).

Darklord... You also mention a name that I'll give you props for... Mr. Bill Finger. Anyone who pretends to be a fan of this character, must know that name.

When the '89 film came out... I wanted to beat up Bob Cane... taking credit for all of the things that Finger contributed... and also taking credit for Jerry Robinson's work as well (Joker).

Bob Cane was an artist... his Batman had a mix of red's, grey's, with the DaVinci wing.
There was no cowl... (Finger)... only a mask like Zorro's (Fairbanks).
And the movie "the Bat Whispers" was already out.

Comic editor Vince Sullivan asked Bob Kane to come up with a new "hero" to go along with the new "Superman" character that was out.

What Bob Cane came up with was crap... Bill Finger got rid of the colors... used the "Bat" motif.. added the cowl, the cave, the gadget's, the "alter" identity.. Just once I wanted to hear Bob Cane mention Bill Finger's name... just once... nope.

And Bob Cane drew it based on Finger's idea's. When that film came out in '89, it changed too much of the origin for me. It looked dark, but was layered with camp... and Prince?... Really? A very disjointed.. confused film.

I digress.. So as far as the "suit" goes for me, it was started by Bill Finger... Later Neal Adams took the mantle and continued the original idea of Bill Finger and made it great.

If a movie was to be made today, and they did not want it all black? It would be a tribute towards the work of Bill Finger and Neal Adams.

I like what Nolan has done... but not with the suit. He gave proper tribute to the writings of Bill Finger and the true origin of Batman.
But that suit?... whatever...

I look forward to the next "bat" film after Nolans... no more origins... no more explaining... and the suit can be what it needs to be and not have to make sense in the "real" world..

It can be a translation of the great artwork of Neal Adams, that was inspired by the original idea;s of Bill Finger...

sorry for the rant... a bit of nostalgia mixed with the idea that Bill Finger does not get the credit that he deserves... The more I think about it, the more I want to see the Dark Blue and Grey suit in a film..

but no spandex

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

No blue, it was never meant to be blue. Dark grey and black, it's what Finger designed, and it's what is used today.

 

[DaveMoral]

Does it drive anyone else crazy that Mr.Finger keeps referring to Bob Cane and not Bob Kane?

 

[Mr. Finger]

intensional... sorry.
Not a fan of the man that wanted to take all of the credit of others.

Cane... that is all..

 

[Mr. Finger]

No blue, it was never meant to be blue. Dark grey and black, it's what Finger designed, and it's what is used today.

I have yet to see a cool Black and Grey suit yet... So, it is not really what is used today.

And the same problems that happened back in the late 30's with color and shadows in the comic's, happens with film today. Especially with the switching to the digital and red camera's.

Bob "Kane".. only came out and said that it was always meant to be black after Bob Ringwood and Vin wanted to propose the idea. Bob Kane liked the idea.. and said.. "oh.. well it is the way we intended to do it in the first place."

I think that a really dark shade of blue with a dark grey would work. And having color instead of just black would allow some of the forms to show as well.