BvS The Batsuit Thread - Part 8

[Infinity9999x]

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

It's only inconsistent if you go with the idea that Superman and Batman have to have more or less the same design for their costumes. And that is a comic convention. There's nothing that says this Batman has to follow the same convention.

So I don't really think it would be inconsistent. Like many costume arguments, I don't think the trunks would even be a big deal because I have faith that professional costumers could come up with a way to make them look fine.

Again, I really don't care if they include it or not. But I do find it silly when people start trying to justify specific aspects of costumes that are ridiculous to begin with. Now, I completely understand someone saying "Hey, I just don't like the look of the trunks, never have." But trying to back up that opinion by trying to find a reason why they shouldn't be there is silly.

 

[Kane52630]

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

I would prefer Batman to wear trunks...otherwise how can he beat Joker in the Surf-off? It's practical and comforting!

 

[Astro13Zombie]

A surf off is exactly what this movie needs.

 

[Shikamaru]

It's only inconsistent if you go with the idea that Superman and Batman have to have more or less the same design for their costumes. And that is a comic convention. There's nothing that says this Batman has to follow the same convention.

So I don't really think it would be inconsistent. Like many costume arguments, I don't think the trunks would even be a big deal because I have faith that professional costumers could come up with a way to make them look fine.

There is some truth to that. Batman was created to be the exact opposite of Superman and they're seen as two sides of the same coin. They are often portrayed in images as somewhat resembling each other (both in and out of costume).

Whether or not such portrayal is true or accurate, don't you think it is subconsciously established to the GA to the extent that they would wonder why Batman wears trunks but Superman doesn't, even if their mind wonders to it for just two seconds?

 

[Infinity9999x]

There is some truth to that. Batman was created to be the exact opposite of Superman and they're seen as two sides of the same coin. They are often portrayed in images as somewhat resembling each other (both in and out of costume).

Whether or not such portrayal is true or accurate, don't you think it is subconsciously established to the GA to the extent that they would wonder why Batman wears trunks but Superman doesn't, even if their mind wonders to it for just two seconds?

Honestly, no I don't. I don't even think they would bat an eye, because the general audience is not us. They're not comic nerds. If they were, they would have been wondering why Joker didn't have bleached skin, but they didn't even notice.

We are the only people who notice this kind of stuff. I would be willing to bet that the majority of the general audience wouldn't care one bit if they included trunks on Batman's outfit, as long as the design is not ridiculous. Which I doubt it would be.

 

[regwec]

It's also worth baring in mind that, in popular perception, wearing external trunks is just one of those oddities of superheroes. It's always futile to speculate about "GA" reaction, but I expect a median reaction would probably be, "oh, huh, they brought the briefs back." And that would be about it.

It's hardly an argument for the trunks, but nor is it a compelling argument against them. Which is exactly where I stand on the matter.

Is this enough discourse on the ****ing trunks?

 

[Bathead]

It's also worth baring in mind that, in popular perception, wearing external trunks is just one of those oddities of superheroes. It's always futile to speculate about "GA" reaction, but I expect a median reaction would probably be, "oh, huh, they brought the briefs back." And that would be about it.

It's hardly an argument for the trunks, but nor is it a compelling argument against them. Which is exactly where I stand on the matter.

Is this enough discourse on the ****ing trunks?

Probably not. The next time someone posts a pic of a Batsuit design they like that has the trunks, some wag will almost inevitably pop in to say" I like that design, just get rid of the trunks." and it'll start all over again. Hopefully, I'll be able to restrain myself from posting too soon, LOL.

 

[GreySpider]

i would love a shot like this, super badass and references batmans origins/past

 

[GreySpider]

lol this is clearly how the eyes should look

 

[Astro13Zombie]

i would love a shot like this, super badass and references batmans origins/past

yes PLEASE

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I would love to finally see this in live action... It packs such an emotional punch.

Perhaps Superman could find Bruce at the gravesite.

 

[The Guard]

Agreed. There's pretty much no excuse for such a scene not being in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. If anything, it would have given the final scene with everyone at Bruce's grave more punch.

 

[GreySpider]

especially if they present batman as a cold antagonist to superman and they use a scene like that as our first peak at his humanity. or if like in pfieffer-pfan's post, superman finds batman there and gets to feel for him a bit

 

[regwec]

You know how some people are initially likeable then they wear pretty thin, while others are initially objectionable but, over time, you find they have all sorts of qualities, and they become genuine friends? I want Superman to discover Batman to be the latter.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You know how some people are initially likeable then they wear pretty thin, while others are initially objectionable but, over time, you find they have all sorts of qualities, and they become genuine friends? I want Superman to discover Batman to be the latter.

 

[B:TAS]

How many people in the US believe in UFO's or Bigfoot or the Lizard man or the Jersey Devil?

Good point

 

[B:TAS]

Astro - No because the majority of his attire serves a true function.

As to the rest, my point is that the trunks are completely useless functionally, do not look good in a modern context, and only serve to make Bruce look even more insane than he already is. 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. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed as simpleminded fanboy ism to many many posters. If you're okay with that then fine but I'd like to think there's at least some thought behind 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 don't like them because they've "always been there" I like them because I think the costume looks ridiculously stupid with out them( I'm looking at you New 52 suit)

 

[Afrobean]

What about the bat on his chest?
Does the guy dressed as a bat need a bat on his chest?

Actually, I don't think so. Have the cape drape in the right way and the chest can be totally bare without issue. The idea of Batman as a symbol is kind of important too, but that symbol is born elsewhere: batarangs, the bat signal, perhaps the Batmobile.

The ears, however, are important to the stylized iconic imagery. Look at how many times people have posted Batman in hard shadows, seen in silhouette. Pointed ears are VERY important to that look, and that look ties into his mythic nature and his goal to intimidate by looking demonic.

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 actually would love to see a batsuit with bat-like ears. Maybe as a variant? At least like his debut in Detective Comics #27. But the ears look as they do on the batsuit now because they look like demon horns. Being a creature of darkness, his imagery shifted a little from "flying rodent" to Hell-spawn.

 

[Bathead]

My point about the logo on his chest being unnecessary still stands. It is Batman himself that is the symbol Nolan talks about, not the logo on his chest. It is the costume that makes him look like a giant demonic bat that people recognize, not the logo. The logo is as un-necessary as the trunks, people will rationalize the heck out of the logo, but the trunks "have no reason to be there".
That's the very definition of a double standard, IMO.

 

[B:TAS]

My point about the logo on his chest being unnecessary still stands. It is Batman himself that is the symbol Nolan talks about, not the logo on his chest. It is the costume that makes him look like a giant demonic bat that people recognize, not the logo. The logo is as un-necessary as the trunks, people will rationalize the heck out of the logo, but the trunks "have no reason to be there".
That's the very definition of a double standard, IMO.

I feel like I agree with everything you post

 

[regwec]

He's like that. He should probably start a populist right wing talk show.

 

[InJustice]

It's only inconsistent if you go with the idea that Superman and Batman have to have more or less the same design for their costumes. And that is a comic convention. There's nothing that says this Batman has to follow the same convention.

So I don't really think it would be inconsistent. Like many costume arguments, I don't think the trunks would even be a big deal because I have faith that professional costumers could come up with a way to make them look fine.

Again, I really don't care if they include it or not. But I do find it silly when people start trying to justify specific aspects of costumes that are ridiculous to begin with. Now, I completely understand someone saying "Hey, I just don't like the look of the trunks, never have." But trying to back up that opinion by trying to find a reason why they shouldn't be there is silly.

If it wasn't inconsistent, then why did certain comic universes set precedents in the sense that they've shown consistency in their costuming? Such as the Justice League in the New 52, where Superman and Batman are shown to be trunks-less?

It just doesn't make sense for one hero to have trunks while another doesn't. Especially in the context of Man of Steel, where Snyder himself said that trunks symbolized the whole victorian era of strongmen. Yet, Superman (who is argued to be emblematic of the whole strongman archetype) doesn't have it, so why should Batman or any other hero for that matter?

 

[regwec]

I know, it's the same as it would be totally stupid for one to go around hiding his identity in a mask, cape and cowl, while the other is totally bareheaded.

Oh, wait...

 

[InJustice]

I know, it's the same as it would be totally stupid for one to go around hiding his identity in a mask, cape and cowl, while the other is totally bareheaded.

Oh, wait...

Except...

Batman = real face
Bruce Wayne = mask

Superman = real face
Clark Kent = mask

 

[Lencho01]

It's also worth baring in mind that, in popular perception, wearing external trunks is just one of those oddities of superheroes. It's always futile to speculate about "GA" reaction, but I expect a median reaction would probably be, "oh, huh, they brought the briefs back." And that would be about it.

It's hardly an argument for the trunks, but nor is it a compelling argument against them. Which is exactly where I stand on the matter.

Is this enough discourse on the ****ing trunks?

I like the trunks. And I don't really think it's a big deal with the GA. It's just how those characters look and they've accepted it for years and will continue to do so. Plus, at the end of the day we're talking about characters that are actually for kids. It's not that serious.