BvS The Batsuit Thread - Part 7

[Astro13Zombie]

Nuance and insight? You just want to complain because the character isn't exactly how you wanted him. If you want your Batman or Superman to have bright blue or red underpants on, why don't you go and read a comic?You may as well because, no film will ever live up to the insanely high standards of the comic-geek community. You should be happy that someone decides to make these films at all.

 

[The Shape]

Nuance and insight? You just want to complain because the character isn't exactly how you wanted him. If you want your Batman or Superman to have bright blue or red underpants on, why don't you go and read a comic?You may as well because, no film will ever live up to the insanely high standards of the comic-geek community. You should be happy that someone decides to make these films at all.

Rawr.

Why would anyone ever need to wear trunks on the outside of their pants? Batman Begins did a good job at explaining why he's dressed like a bat, and Man Of Steel explains where Superman's suit comes from - much better than his Earth mother making it for him. Those are actual reasons which at least make some sense in a stupidly unrealistic universe. Things like that give films some credibility.

 

[craigaat]

Good replies.

 

[BatFan1979]

The problem is that people like Bathead have spent literally years patiently laying out cogent and reasonable arguments for why the trunks could be made to work- arguments that have over the years developed a notable degree of nuance and insight- but still, several times a week, some random blunders into the thread and proclaims-

"Dey can't do du underpants dere stoopid!!1"

And then a few more chime in with,

"Yer, yer, du patnies our ****@!!!"

And the Hype loses a few more of its remaining braincells.

Even though I'm relatively new to contributing on SHH, I've been a reader for a couple years now. I've also been a comic book and superhero film fan since about '83. You're right in saying that there are some on SHH that aren't very articulate with their positions, but we aren't all "random" who question the trunks. I'm not saying I'm against them totally, but I just don't think they make sense in a live-action film world.

I know that the trunks issue has been run into the ground in some people's minds, but I think it's still a viable point of discussion, since MoS kind of changed a lot of our recent perceptions of what an iconic superhero can look like on film (even though Batman has never had trunks in a major motion picture other than Batman the Movie, but that was a continuation of the classic TV show).

I'm not sure what "cogent and reasonable arguments" have been made regarding the wearing of trunks, but I'd like to understand the reasons why trunks would be the best way to go with the next Batman. What purpose would they serve other than keeping true to a classic comic book look?

We all know that the comic universe that has been around since the 30's is different than the cinematic universe that DC and others have created. It gives us a chance to see things that aren't typically shown in the great artwork of the comics (which, again, has a massive place in my heart). I mean if the suit made sense with trunks, then I'd be all for them; I just don't currently see a legitimate reason to include them in the next suit design.

 

[The Shape]

Good replies.

My replies were about as intelligent as your comments, so I'll live.

 

[craigaat]

So you don't think the DC Universe is unrealistic? Stupidly may have been the wrong word, try very unrealistic.

Get a grip.

 

[Infinity9999x]

We can try argue for reasons why certain parts of a costume should or shouldn't be kept, but when you get down to it, that's really a bit pointless, because we're trying to apply practicality to a deliberately unpractical outfit. Even though the Nolan films made a fun attempt at giving plausible reasons for different aspects of the costume, when you really look at these things in a realistic setting, it still falls apart. Take his cape. Sure, Batman's cape can allow him to glide, but it would still be a massive hindrance in a fight, and something that would probably just get him killed.

So when it comes down to it, it really just depends on what we think looks better. I don't really care about the costume with or without the trunks. The trunks in the comic were a necessity of design to brake up the shape of the body, and it made sense. In the films, we don't need that because it can be accomplished other ways. But I think the trunks could be done and still look okay in live action.

 

[Bathead]

The problem is that people like Bathead have spent literally years patiently laying out cogent and reasonable arguments for why the trunks could be made to work- arguments that have over the years developed a notable degree of nuance and insight- but still, several times a week, some random blunders into the thread and proclaims-

"Dey can't do du underpants dere stoopid!!1"

And then a few more chime in with,

"Yer, yer, du patnies our ****@!!!"

And the Hype loses a few more of its remaining braincells.

Thanks, Reg. I'd be perfectly fine with a well done costume in the movies with or without the trunks, it just irks me when I see people say ridiculous things like you mentioned.

 

[Bathead]

Yup, and we are provided with endless entertainment.

Yup, it certainly gives me something to do. t:

 

[BatFan1979]

We can try argue for reasons why certain parts of a costume should or shouldn't be kept, but when you get down to it, that's really a bit pointless, because we're trying to apply practicality to a deliberately unpractical outfit. Even though the Nolan films made a fun attempt at giving plausible reasons for different aspects of the costume, when you really look at these things in a realistic setting, it still falls apart. Take his cape. Sure, Batman's cape can allow him to glide, but it would still be a massive hindrance in a fight, and something that would probably just get him killed.

So when it comes down to it, it really just depends on what we think looks better. I don't really care about the costume with or without the trunks. The trunks in the comic were a necessity of design to brake up the shape of the body, and it made sense. In the films, we don't need that because it can be accomplished other ways. But I think the trunks could be done and still look okay in live action.

I'd say capes are primarily just there to add dramatic effect to the characters - especially with Batman, being a shadowy figure and all, it adds an inhuman quality, but I totally agree that realistically it would be his downfall in a real fight.

I completely realize that debating about if a particular superhero should have a particular aspect of their suit may be pointless in the grand scheme of things, but that's the point of these types of forums, to have a place to freely discuss the minutia of these types of things. I think suit design is a fun topic to discuss, so I don't let anyone's opinions get to me

 

[regwec]

Nuance and insight? You just want to complain because the character isn't exactly how you wanted him. If you want your Batman or Superman to have bright blue or red underpants on, why don't you go and read a comic?You may as well because, no film will ever live up to the insanely high standards of the comic-geek community. You should be happy that someone decides to make these films at all.

I am not, myself, for or against the trunks, so much of this is misdirected. I do, nevertheless, read comics, which is an activity upon which you appear to look with disdain. Why is that? Has it occurred to you that you are lucky that somebody has written the original material to be adapted?

Why would anyone ever need to wear trunks on the outside of their pants? Batman Begins did a good job at explaining why he's dressed like a bat, and Man Of Steel explains where Superman's suit comes from - much better than his Earth mother making it for him. Those are actual reasons which at least make some sense in a stupidly unrealistic universe. Things like that give films some credibility.

Is someone's outfit being located in a spaceship from an alien world, or someone's mother making them clothes, less realistic?

I like both well enough, but your reasoning...is flattered by being referred to as reasoning.

Doubt that many right thinking people attach much "credibility" to a movie as a result of minor costume details, anyway.

So you don't think the DC Universe is unrealistic? Stupidly may have been the wrong word, try very unrealistic.

Get a grip.

You seem to think realism is the only route to a valid or interesting narrative. I suggest you try a different genre, if so.

 

[Afrobean]

A man dressing up as a bat sounds like it would be silly but looks good on screen because you've seen it so you can't say the trunks would look silly because it's never been done.

I've seen the trunks on real people many times. Adam West, cosplays, fan films. I've worn trunks in my own costume as well.

It's not necessary. It adds nothing of value to the design aesthetically or functionally. It doesn't serve to intimidate, it doesn't enhance theatricality, it has no function at all.

Those arguing in favor of trunks aren't doing it because it makes sense or is necessary. They argue for it because it's something that the comics had. Had. They're taking a preconceived notion and trying to rationalize it, which is completely backward from how good ideas come about.

For example, Batman occasionally has claws. These claws serve a purpose of making him look more animal-like, they can enhance climbing or grabbing, and they can be an offensive weapon. This would be a design element which has functional reasons and aesthetic reasons. A good argument can be made for them, even if most don't actually want it. The only REAL reason a person would wear trunks over "tights" or anything else is if they want to "look like a superhero", specifically an old-fashioned superhero. Think of Bruce Wayne and all that he would have been through. Do you think he cares if he looks like an old-fashioned superhero? Why would he try to look like that? Would criminals be afraid of a guy dressed as an old-fashioned superhero? If people make fun of the trunks in the real world, don't you think Bruce Wayne IN-UNIVERSE would see that as a possibility if he stuck trunks randomly on the outside of his costume?

 

[regwec]

Hey, in real life, would hardened criminals be scared of Batman?

No.

So fretting about the precise psychological impact his legwear would have on them is a waste of time.

 

[Shikamaru]

We can try argue for reasons why certain parts of a costume should or shouldn't be kept, but when you get down to it, that's really a bit pointless, because we're trying to apply practicality to a deliberately unpractical outfit. Even though the Nolan films made a fun attempt at giving plausible reasons for different aspects of the costume, when you really look at these things in a realistic setting, it still falls apart. Take his cape. Sure, Batman's cape can allow him to glide, but it would still be a massive hindrance in a fight, and something that would probably just get him killed.

So when it comes down to it, it really just depends on what we think looks better. I don't really care about the costume with or without the trunks. The trunks in the comic were a necessity of design to brake up the shape of the body, and it made sense. In the films, we don't need that because it can be accomplished other ways. But I think the trunks could be done and still look okay in live action.

You took the words right out of my mouth. These are my exact thoughts.

As a side note, Nolan was originally not going to give Batman the cape because he thought it was unrealistic. Goyer convinced him otherwise in the end (not that the cape was realistic but that he had to include it no matter what).

 

[Astro13Zombie]

You took the words right out of my mouth. These are my exact thoughts.

As a side note, Nolan was originally not going to give Batman the cape because he thought it was unrealistic. Goyer convinced him otherwise in the end (not that the cape was realistic but that he had to include it no matter what).

That is absolutely ****ing ridiculous.

 

[The Guard]

Personally, I think the argument that the trunks, along with the Utility Belt, form a sort of "harness rigging" isn't a bad one. It's been brought up before. That said, designwise, I still see no reason for them to be two-tone color coordinated against the rest of his suit, even if they have a purpose.

 

[The Shape]

I am not, myself, for or against the trunks, so much of this is misdirected. I do, nevertheless, read comics, which is an activity upon which you appear to look with disdain. Why is that? Has it occurred to you that you are lucky that somebody has written the original material to be adapted?



Is someone's outfit being located in a spaceship from an alien world, or someone's mother making them clothes, less realistic?

I like both well enough, but your reasoning...is flattered by being referred to as reasoning.

Doubt that many right thinking people attach much "credibility" to a movie as a result of minor costume details, anyway.


You seem to think realism is the only route to a valid or interesting narrative. I suggest you try a different genre, if so.

Well said, my friend.

Get a grip.

Says the guy angrily campaigning against Batman's trunks on the Internet.

 

[Saint]

Nuance and insight? You just want to complain because the character isn't exactly how you wanted him. If you want your Batman or Superman to have bright blue or red underpants on, why don't you go and read a comic?

I do. Then, when I'm finished my comics, I look for other Batman media to consume, because I do not subsist on comics alone. Pretty simple.

You may as well because, no film will ever live up to the insanely high standards of the comic-geek community.

My insanely high standards have been very satisfied by many comic book films. Doesn't mean I can't ask for some underwear.

You should be happy that someone decides to make these films at all.

Why? It's not done as a favour. It's a business, we're consumers, and these are products.

 

[Saint]

Doubt that many right thinking people attach much "credibility" to a movie as a result of minor costume details, anyway.

This is an important statement that doesn't get enough airtime around here. I always groan when I hear about what the "General Audience" will not accept. I am forced to ask: do the people making this argument watch popular movies? Because fun fact: the audience will swallow anything in the right context. I mean, we're to believe the general audience is okay with flying broomsticks but not a pair of trunks on superheroes--imagery so ingrained it's part of our visual shorthand for them.

Shrug.

 

[Wise]

I'm not against the trunks. I actually prefer the classic costumes from the New 52 ones.

However.

If there were trunks I would have preferred it if Superman had them from the get go. Now that he doesn't have them I don't want Batman to have them.

Just adapt the New 52 costumes I say.

 

[Boom]

 

[hafizbat]

Hey, in real life, would hardened criminals be scared of Batman?

No.

So fretting about the precise psychological impact his legwear would have on them is a waste of time.

I agree with you, but I must admit this is a slippery slope.

Because by this logic, we can start questioning the long ears on the cowl, the black and grey color tones, and basically everything else that makes Batman a scary, demonic wraith type of figure.

 

[Bane Cook]

Snyder makes everything looks awesome. No matter how good/bad this movie is, it will do what it does in style.

I'm partial to the armored Batman look. Trunks and tights will take you out of the movie. How can this normal human wear tights and fight crime? He'll probably rip the bottom jumping over a fence.

 

[Shikamaru]

Snyder makes everything looks awesome. No matter how good/bad this movie is, it will do what it does in style.

I'm partial to the armored Batman look. Trunks and tights will take you out of the movie. How can this normal human wear tights and fight crime? He'll probably rip the bottom jumping over a fence.

Batman's comic suit isn't made of tights. It's made of fabric/kevlar.

 

[Boom]

How has James Bond survived 20+ movies wearing nothing but regular street clothes and tuxedoes without being riddled with bullets?

How has Zorro avoided being slashed into human confetti?