BvS The Batsuit Thread - Part 8

[TheBat812]

Sort of agree- see above- but that idea certainly wasn't invented by Nolan or Goyer.

You're right but I'd never seen it explored as in depth as they did and make it such an integral part of his journey.

And look I understand designing something for the sake of design, but I'm coming g from a film perspective, i would imagine the costume designer would choose things for both look and function, and that's how I would personally approach it.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

Nolan tried so hard to give the emblem a purpose,but then used a batsuit that made it almost completely unnoticeable.
Who really gets close enough to batman to make out that that's a bat on his chest?
A tiny black on black emblem on top of a puzzle suit.
IT'S GONNA INSPIRE THE WHOLE CITY!

 

[BatFan1979]

Right,but would they be respected as suggestions for a live action batsuit if batman never had them originally?

If batman had nothing on top of his cowl for years and years and years and then some guy on some forum said:
"You know what would look cool on the costume? Two long spikes jutting off the top of his head.
Not anything that looks like actual bat ears....SPIKES"

I think you're example of the batears, or "spikes" as you call them, is misguided a bit. The batears are part of the Batman persona, both in the comics and the films. If he never had them to begin with then they would have never been suggested I don't think. I mean you could say "I think our Superman should wear a helmet"...people would laugh at it, some would even feel offended.

I mean you can't compare a key part of Batman's look to a piece of clothing that almost every old-timey superhero had in the comics. Black/blue trunks don't make Batman, they're just what we're all use to seeing before Burton challenged that untouched conception.

 

[BatFan1979]

Nolan tried so hard to give the emblem a purpose,but then used a batsuit that made it almost completely unnoticeable.
Who really gets close enough to batman to make out that that's a bat on his chest?
A tiny black on black emblem on top of a puzzle suit.
IT'S GONNA INSPIRE THE WHOLE CITY!

I guess maybe the Bat signal was suppose to accomplish that. A beacon of justice or whatever...

 

[Parquagh]

Gosh, if the suit is really based on the Bermejo suit, I'd love to see something like the one in the right:

 

[regwec]

Nolan tried so hard to give the emblem a purpose,but then used a batsuit that made it almost completely unnoticeable.
Who really gets close enough to batman to make out that that's a bat on his chest?
A tiny black on black emblem on top of a puzzle suit.
IT'S GONNA INSPIRE THE WHOLE CITY!

Yep.

 

[DarkKnight]

Nolan tried so hard to give the emblem a purpose,but then used a batsuit that made it almost completely unnoticeable.
Who really gets close enough to batman to make out that that's a bat on his chest?
A tiny black on black emblem on top of a puzzle suit.
IT'S GONNA INSPIRE THE WHOLE CITY!

Good point, agreed.

 

[Boy Scout]

As to the rest, my point is that the trunks are completely useless functionally

They could exist in the form of a harness.

do not look good in a modern context

That's not a fact.

and only serve to make Bruce look even more insane than he already is.

Depending on your point of view, that isn't a bad thing.

so please explain to me why having trunks is better than not having trunks in a logical intelligent way so I can understand why people are so adamant about it.

What's unintelligent about personal preference?

If you're okay with that then fine but I'd like to think there's at least some thought behind it.

There is. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

Because bathead, no it's not the same to intentionally keep something that looks stupid as it is to remove it because it adds absolutely nothing to his look or character, and I'm honestly baffled people would actually think that.

I'm baffled by your unnecessarily condescending attitude. It's not that serious, man. Lighten up.

 

[Shikamaru]

This is a good point, but I don't think it applies to the trunks argument. This world has already established heroes wearing overly flamboyant
costumes. Trunks aren't really going to make them look any sillier. Were this a Superhero world like the original Xmen films, then I would agree. But we already have Superman in a ridiculous outfit.

This world has only established one hero so far and he has no trunks. Heck, not just any hero but the hero that the general public associate trunks with the most. If he doesn't have the trunk, neither should Batman.

EDIT: I just had this thought right now. If they thought the trunks weren't necessary for the one superhero that was associated with them the most by the general public, why would they think the trunks are necessary for Batman?

Even if that was the only argument. so what? That's as good a reason as "the trunks look stupid."
And as to the point in your first paragraph, I would argue the opposite point, if no-one (I blame Burton for this specifically) had ever done a Bat-suit without the trunks would we be having this argument now? No, we wouldn't. Since we have had both with and without, your point (and mine by extension) is invalid.

Technically, the symbol does serve a purpose. Literally all superheroes in comics that look human (this is key; characters like Hulk don't count because they don't look human) have an iconic symbol they are identified by. On the other hand, not all superheroes wear trunks. In fact, I think most Marvel characters had no trunks at the time of their inception and the same goes for all DC characters created in the 1970's/80's and beyond. On top of that, a lot of the DC characters that originally had trunks (Aquaman, Hawkman, Green Arrow) had them dropped way before even the New 52.

 

[Shikamaru]

Right, but that isn't really the argument in play here. In this instance, the argument is deployed against the assertion it is believable that Batman would intimidate criminals, but that the trunks would militate against that. You have to go back a few pages to see how the chain has developed, but the comparison of thing criticised and thing accepted was initially quite direct.

That's not what he said. He said that one would have no reason to not accept Batman wearing trunks if they can accept the existence of clay monsters, peak humans, etc.

 

[TheBat812]

Boyscout - Ha, no condescension intended, i just get frustrated with the mindset that things should just be there because it's the norm with no good reason for it to be there. it's not a big deal, I just figure people would like a character they liked to be well thought out and not just wear underwear outside his pants for the bad place of it, and despite pages of them saying there are good reasons for it there still hasn't been one that fits the bill.

Like I said, coming from a film background where each and every decision is made purposefully, I'd like to know if there's an angle where they really are necessary. But **** it, it really doesn't matter, well get what we get and I'm sure it'll look better than any of us could have come up with anyway, haha. Mos set a very good precedent for that.

 

[The Guard]

Another strike against trunks...I prefer Batman to at least try to look like a creature of the night. Color coordinated trunks kind of hinder that image.

 

[Infinity9999x]

This world has only established one hero so far and he has no trunks. Heck, not just any hero but the hero that the general public associate trunks with the most. If he doesn't have the trunk, neither should Batman.

EDIT: I just had this thought right now. If they thought the trunks weren't necessary for the one superhero that was associated with them the most by the general public, why would they think the trunks are necessary for Batman?

Your point was would trunks work in the established fictional world. In this established fictional world we have one superhero wearing a ridiculous outfit. Trunks are not any more ridiculous than a bright blue outfit with a long red cape. That is the point.

Now, in terms of what the filmmakers will do, I agree. They probably wont go with the trunks, and honestly, I don't really care if they do or don't. However, my point is that it's silly to try and argue any reason for the trunks not to be included, since they're no more ridiculous than any other detail on Batman's outfit. I think trying to argue that is almost as silly as the people who said it would be "unrealistic" for the Joker to wear purple in TDK during the insane days of the perma-white debate.

Trying to justify why or why not the trunks shouldn't be included is pointless really, since Batman's entire outfit is ridiculous, and trying to justify any part of it is silly. It really just comes down to what people think looks good or doesn't. And that is the entire reason for any aesthetic part of Batman's costume. An artist thought it would look cool.

 

[Shikamaru]

Boyscout - Ha, no condescension intended, i just get frustrated with the mindset that things should just be there because it's the norm with no good reason for it to be there. it's not a big deal, I just figure people would like a character they liked to be well thought out and not just wear underwear outside his pants for the bad place of it, and despite pages of them saying there are good reasons for it there still hasn't been one that fits the bill.

Like I said, coming from a film background where each and every decision is made purposefully, I'd like to know if there's an angle where they really are necessary. But **** it, it really doesn't matter, well get what we get and I'm sure it'll look better than any of us could have come up with anyway, haha. Mos set a very good precedent for that.

I think the "we are used to it" argument is valid to a certain degree. We would be against a red/blue/green/whatever utility belt as opposed to a yellow/gold one because we are used to it. We would also be against a full-face mask as opposed to one exposing the mouth and chin because we are used to it (though this one is more debatable in terms of functionality).

 

[Astro13Zombie]

Who is your avatar a picture of,Shikamaru?
I don't know why,but his expression always makes me read your posts as if they were being said in a disgusted tone.

 

[TheBat812]

Another strike against trunks...I prefer Batman to at least try to look like a creature of the night. Color coordinated trunks kind of hinder that image.

Definitely. I guess personally from a characterization standpoint I don't think a highly intelligent man like Bruce would come to the conclusion that to terrify criminals he needs to break up suit tonally, least of all in the form of underwear. What I meant by modern context is that maybe that made sense in the 1930s, but it makes no sense to me in today's time.

 

[Boy Scout]

Boyscout - Ha, no condescension intended, i just get frustrated with the mindset that things should just be there because it's the norm with no good reason for it to be there.

Why isn't that a good reason? What's wrong with respecting the character's visual iconography? Why does there need to be a reason for every little thing?

I'm not attached to the briefs at all, but I just don't understand why some people are so vehemently against their inclusion.

I just figure people would like a character they liked to be well thought out and not just wear underwear outside his pants for the bad place of it, and despite pages of them saying there are good reasons for it there still hasn't been one that fits the bill.

I haven't heard any convincing arguments from either side, to be honest.

Like I said, coming from a film background where each and every decision is made purposefully, I'd like to know if there's an angle where they really are necessary.

Purposeful decisions aren't always necessarily necessary for the story being told. (I hope that made sense.)

But **** it, it really doesn't matter, well get what we get and I'm sure it'll look better than any of us could have come up with anyway, haha. Mos set a very good precedent for that.

Imagine the cape porn.

 

[regwec]

...and we're back to the "realism" argument.

If Bruce Wayne was of sound mind, there wouldn't be a Batman. A pair of trunks wouldn't even feature in the evidence bag of a lawyer trying to win an insanity plea on his behalf.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Definitely. I guess personally from a characterization standpoint I don't think a highly intelligent man like Bruce would come to the conclusion that to terrify criminals he needs to break up suit tonally, least of all in the form of underwear. What I meant by modern context is that maybe that made sense in the 1930s, but it makes no sense to me in today's time.

Trying to apply "sense" to a comic book costume is foolish to begin with, which is my entire point on this. It would make no sense to wear a cape, and it would result in Bruce's death the second he got in a fight. It doesn't make sense to leave your mouth exposed, it doesn't make sense to have giant ears on the top of your head that could get caught on things. And it doesn't really make sense to have differently colored trunks.

The suit was created entirely because someone liked the way it looks. That's it. Trying to apply practicality to it is useless. We can all try to come up with reasons why he should or shouldn't have a certain detail on the suit, but it's really pointless.

When it comes down to it, the only real point we can make about aspects of the costumes is what we think looks the most aesthetically pleasing, or compliments the design the most effectively.

 

[TheBat812]

I think the "we are used to it" argument is valid to a certain degree. We would be against a red/blue/green/whatever utility belt as opposed to a yellow/gold one because we are used to it. We would also be against a full-face mask as opposed to one exposing the mouth and chin because we are used to it (though this one is more debatable in terms of functionality).

Personally i wouldn't go any of those colors for a belt, I'd want it to be a dark brown or black to blend into the shadows more and I would be fine with a full face ask long as it looked awesome. I actually thought the million batman costume that's in arkham origins is an awesome concept, although not a fan of those colors and some of the specifics

 

[lime]

Wasn't it official confirmed that they will use the Batman: Noel costume for inspiration?

 

[regwec]

No.

 

[Shikamaru]

Who is your avatar a picture of,Shikamaru?

That would the real world's Batman: Christopher Hitchens. An intellectual badass with a vast knowledge and indomitable will that strikes fear into the hearts of his opponents (in debates) and fights injustice wherever it arises.

At least he was. He is dead now.

I don't know why,but his expression always makes me read your posts as if they were being said in a disgusted tone.

That's the idea.

Your point was would trunks work in the established fictional world. In this established fictional world we have one superhero wearing a ridiculous outfit. Trunks are not any more ridiculous than a bright blue outfit with a long red cape. That is the point.

Now, in terms of what the filmmakers will do, I agree. They probably wont go with the trunks, and honestly, I don't really care if they do or don't. However, my point is that it's silly to try and argue any reason for the trunks not to be included, since they're no more ridiculous than any other detail on Batman's outfit. I think trying to argue that is almost as silly as the people who said it would be "unrealistic" for the Joker to wear purple in TDK during the insane days of the perma-white debate.

Trying to justify why or why not the trunks shouldn't be included is pointless really, since Batman's entire outfit is ridiculous, and trying to justify any part of it is silly. It really just comes down to what people think looks good or doesn't. And that is the entire reason for any aesthetic part of Batman's costume. An artist thought it would look cool.

But would it not seem at least inconsistent in the context of this universe for Batman to wear trunks?

 

[Astro13Zombie]

Wasn't it official confirmed that they will use the Batman: Noel costume for inspiration?

Thought it was just the cowl that was supposedly noel inspired?

I actually really love the design of that suit.

That would the real world's Batman: Christopher Hitchens. An intellectual badass with a vast knowledge and indomitable will that strikes fear into the hearts of his opponents (in debates) and fights injustice wherever it arises.

At least he was. He is dead now.



That's the idea.

Thanks for the answer,been meaning to ask for a while now.

 

[Spamtron]

Really liking your NiteOwl manip here Alex... keep it very Snydery.