I like this post, and you made some good points.. Though, ASM2 had a muscle suit.. And that you didn't notice it? It supports your own theory.. Speaking of Thor, and such.. I suppose that when we "know" it's armor? It may distract us less? Look less out of place? I think back to Michael Keaton.. The difference in the size and physic was obvious, but we also knew it was armor as well.. Never minded that they bulked up Keaton with the suit. Never minded it one bit. Which brings us to the new suit.. To which I think the path is like what they did on Keaton. I know everyone wants the real muscles underneath, to see the strength of the character even when the suit is off. The so called preparation that "Bruce" would have taken for his nights out. But, I suppose, it matters a little less for myself.. They could show hundreds of pics of Ben eating pizza and not being in the shape that we want? But all it will take is one shot within the film, taken months from now.. And then sold.. Within the context of the film. As far as the abs? And how obvious they are? It seems that, perhaps, that it is too direct of a translation for some? I look at all of the artwork over the years, especially the work of Jim Lee.. And the abs were always so defined in the drawings. Kind of what I see in these pic of Ben in the suit? I also think that having your chin down in a slouched over position is one of the most unflattering position for your abs.. I am curious to see what the suit looks like in color, but also when he is standing up straight.. And the midsection is not so compressed. I think that it is some sort of armor.. Or protection that batman is wearing.. And like the Keaton suit of '89, I will not mind if Batman looks different than Bruce as far as the anatomy and size... We never got a naked shot of Keaton, and I am fine with that.