BvS The Batsuit Thread - Part 17

[Rorschach2012]

i'd love to see a return to the oval.

Really, i'd like to see multiple Batsuits throughout these films, similar to how many Cap suits we've gotten.

 

[John-An]

Unless you are suggesting that Batman should be as freakishly strong as Croc, then it is moot, because he will always be out-muscled. He survives and thrives by speed, skill, quick-thinking and sometimes gadgetry.

Strong and fit though Batman is, he isn't a metahuman with "super strength".

This!!!!

 

[Smallville13]

Honestly this looks pretty great to me. It's got a Ghost in the Shell-esque look going on. It'd be a great way to keep with the modern armor take on the classic costume but differentiate it from the Nolan films.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Honestly this looks pretty great to me. It's got a Ghost in the Shell-esque look going on. It'd be a great way to keep with the modern armor take on the classic costume but differentiate it from the Nolan films.

Most people despise that suit buddy. I don't mind it, but I'm pretty sure that's not even close to what we're getting.

 

[MrsKent26]

Honestly this looks pretty great to me. It's got a Ghost in the Shell-esque look going on. It'd be a great way to keep with the modern armor take on the classic costume but differentiate it from the Nolan films.

While I don't like this suit (I'm hoping for a non-armored look this time), I have to give kudos to the Arkham games for being what I consider the best visual representation of batman so far. In previous games, the suits have been good, but the eerie atmosphere, personality of Gotham, his fighting technique and just the imagery in general have been fantastic. I post pics from those games all the time because they're just pure batman. They're comicy, but not cheesy and I'd love if this movie took cues from the games in terms of imagery, Gotham and batman's fighting style.

 

[Bathead]

Sorry, but IMO, the Origins suit is horrid, and I wouldn't want anything remotely like it in any movie.

 

[Loki882]

i'd love to see a return to the oval.

Really, i'd like to see multiple Batsuits throughout these films, similar to how many Cap suits we've gotten.

Yeah, the guy who's supposed to be all about stealth and using the shadows should have a big yellow target on one of the most vulnerable parts of his body. That doesn't make him look stupid at all.

 

[Loki882]

Why did Superman wear trunks in the seminal Reeve films? Why has Spiderman worn pajamas in five? If anyone thinks the general movie going audience is going to balk at a "Batman" movie because the batsuit resembles the ole trunks look in some fashion... let's just say that viewpoint is unlikely to be correct.

They weren't calling for black rubber either... until after Nolan showed up with black rubber, and then black rubber was the only possible possibility such that nothing else was even remotely possible. Oh those Nolanites. Of course, had Nolan given us a look with trunks those same Nolanites would have declared "now that's how Batman supposed look".

In Spider-Man's case, it's simple. He HASN'T worn "pagamas" in five movies. Those costume are made out of that basket-ball like material that no teenager has just lying around their bedroom. Those costume do not look home-made, no matter what the movie says.

 

[Perfect Cell]

Yeah, the guy who's supposed to be all about stealth and using the shadows should have a big yellow target on one of the most vulnerable parts of his body. That doesn't make him look stupid at all.

That's actually the (in-story) point of the oval. To direct a criminal's eyes to his chest, causing them to aim there. Batman has armour and protection there (again, in-story), so he'd rather have a criminal aim for his chest than a vulnerable spot like his face.

 

[Wise]

I think the problem with armor is that it lessens the dramatic effect of the Batsuit which is laced in it's simplistic symbolism.

I liked how Bruce explained that he wanted to create a symbol in Begins and the Batsuit was simple and symbolic. Then in the sequels it became more busy and the symbolism took somewhat of backseat to the 'cool technology' aspect.

 

[super85]

That's actually the (in-story) point of the oval. To direct a criminal's eyes to his chest, causing them to aim there. Batman has armour and protection there (again, in-story), so he'd rather have a criminal aim for his chest than a vulnerable spot like his face.

While I kind of like that Miller tried to explain that, it still is a bit of a weak reason. If I was that good of a shot I would then aim for the head. Or in panic, I would shoot at EVERYTHING.

 

[regwec]

We can assume that Batman wears a symbol because he intends it to be seen, so the "stealth" argument against the oval doesn't work.

 

[D.P.]

I don't want to argue with you guys anymore. I just want to see the suit.

 

[Bathead]

That's actually the (in-story) point of the oval. To direct a criminal's eyes to his chest, causing them to aim there. Batman has armour and protection there (again, in-story), so he'd rather have a criminal aim for his chest than a vulnerable spot like his face.

And again, that rationalization doesn't wash, it never did. You are also attracting gunfire to an area where he is also quite vulnerable - his face, which is only about 6-8 inches above the logo. Anyone who knows anything about gunfire will tell you that in a pressure situation like that, one's aim will more likely be of anywhere from a few inches to a foot or more. It's just as likely that Batman would get shot in the face as it would be that the shooter would hit the oval. The oval drawing fire to an armored area was an ill-thought out rationalization for what was actually a marketing decision. (it was easier to copyright the oval than it was to copyright a plain black bat)

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

We can assume that Batman wears a symbol because he intends it to be seen, so the "stealth" argument against the oval doesn't work.

This.

Any argument against the oval is an argument against the black bat.

The only genuine solution would be do away with both.

 

[Charlatan]

We can assume that Batman wears a symbol because he intends it to be seen, so the "stealth" argument against the oval doesn't work.

are you saying a yellow oval is as stealthy as a black bat on dark gray?

 

[lujho]

i'd love to see a return to the oval.

Really, i'd like to see multiple Batsuits throughout these films, similar to how many Cap suits we've gotten.

Yeah, I'd be fine with a different suit each time, as long as they were basically the same style. Actually, seeing how we're STARTING with a 40 year old Batman, I wouldn't mind them getting a BIT more techy. Christ, if Affleck's still playing the role at 50 I wouldn't mind if the suit was halfway between regular and Batman Beyond.

What I WOULD like to see it Batman's previous suits in the batcave, getting more and more basic the earlier they are, to the point that the first one is a really simple, flared-eared Bob Kane suit with combat boots and short gloves.

Also, what if the new Batman solo film was a prequel, in the sense that Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom was set before Raiders? Or just contained a large proportion of flashbacks? Then you could have him in an earlier suit for that.

 

[afan]

This.

Any argument against the oval is an argument against the black bat.

The only genuine solution would be do away with both.

Which Nolan pretty much did.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

are you saying a yellow oval is as stealthy as a black bat on dark gray?

No. He's saying if he's trying to be stealthy he shouldn't have any totem at all. Because no one will see it.

 

[afan]

Paramount for the suit's design should be a focus on it's primary purpose.... to connect with the bat, and hence use the power of the bat's superstitious lore as a weapon. It's the schtick of The Batman. There is of course Bruce Wayne's extensive training, but it is solely the BAT-man, that makes his crusade possible. He may not have any super-powers, but the connection to the bat is his super-soldier serum if you will.

So the bat emblem (along with the ears and the scalloped cape) must be prominent on the suit. All black or the black on gold/yellow oval is a matter of aesthetic opinion but the presence of the symbol loud and proud is essential.

 

[gdw]

Which Nolan pretty much did.

All of the Nolan films had a bat emblem. If you're talking about the fact that it was a black emblem on a black chest, to be fair, he wasn't the first.

 

[Neonzel]

No. He's saying if he's trying to be stealthy he shouldn't have any totem at all. Because no one will see it.

I think the same applies to the Bat-symbol here. Some things don't need an explanation. Like him wearing a Bat on his chest.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

That's the point most people are trying to make. You don't need a reason for the bat-symbol whether it be yellow or black. It's there because it's there.

Saying he shouldn't have a yellow one because it sticks out is a stupid argument because if he's wearing one that can't be seen, what's the point?

 

[afan]

All of the Nolan films had a bat emblem. If you're talking about the fact that it was a black emblem on a black chest, to be fair, he wasn't the first.

True...but visually, especially after Begins, it was non-existant.

 

[matt47]

I think the same applies to the Bat-symbol here. Some things don't need an explanation. Like him wearing a Bat on his chest.

I agree with this statement 30 years ago, when the movies weren't set in the real world. These days we get told my actors, directors, writers etc. that the movies today are set in a real world, so, with that comes real world questions.