Talia's death is the only death in film that I've ever laughed at in the theatre.
But I can't fathom how people think the scene I posted is Bale being bored. It plays a huge part in terms of TDKR plot, and his eyes show something that I interpret as cathartic, that he no longer needs Batman to have a purpose in his life.
There's nothing really there in his eyes. You're being tricked by cinematic language. Music and editing can play a HUGE part on how a performance is interpreted by an audience. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_Effect
Why is is it that trunks = campy?
Because they have their source in circus strongmen and a modern analogue in
professional wrestling. Do you think it's appropriate to tell a serious, dramatic story where the protagonist reminds you of professional wrestling? If they served a function outside of looking like circus strongmen or old-fashioned superheroes, they could get a pass despite being campy. For example, capes can be REALLY campy, but Batman's cape has been given all sorts of functions in various stories and serves to make him look more otherworldly. Superman's cape makes him look more regal and in Man of Steel serves as a connection to his Kryptonian culture. Capes are an unrealistic campy trope from comic books, but we accept it because it has a reason to exist beyond mere tradition.
But simple following of campy tropes doesn't make for anything but, at best, good camp. Superhero film adaptations work best by throwing out ALL of the campy tropes of comic books and reconstructing the superhero story anew out of cinematic tropes. So Superman becomes a scifi action piece, Batman becomes a noir-ish crime drama, Captain America becomes a WW2 period piece, Thor becomes a fantasy adventure. They are not produced as "superhero movies", they're produced as genre movies that happen to have a "superhero" as the lead. If you just accept comic book tropes into live action film without scrutiny, you end up with things more like Adam West's Batman or the 1990s Captain America movie. Some might like that, but that's not what is most successful financially or critically.
Out of curiousity, to those who are antitrunks, would you be angry if they featured the trunks on the Batman suit, and brought them back on the Superman suit?
I'm actually more open to seeing the trunks return to Superman. Connecting him to circus strongmen makes WAY more sense. Also, although Batman is generally preferred as a noirish masked detective than a "superhero", Superman is officially a superhero in-universe and a little bit of camp in-universe wouldn't be awful for him... although it might be strange if we immediately see Superman go fight Darkseid or some other similarly gravely serious threat wearing a silly, campy costume. The idea of Ma Kent helping Clark modify his Kryptonian suit into a more Earthly "strongman" costume could work well too, but it's really not necessary.
ps no, a harness does not explain why Bruce would put another colored briefs on his suit. Batman could and probably WOULD have a harness in his suit, but he wouldn't make it a contrasting color to his suit, and it would probably built in rather than merely sitting on top. If it was a Year One suit, I could maybe buy the harness-over-tights idea (and we even saw Bruce CUT OFF the harness in Batman Begins!), but in this Man of Steel sequel, this is an older, more experienced Batman who would NOT be using a "home-made" looking costume.
