BvS The Batsuit Thread - Part 8

[Infinity9999x]

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?

Once again, I said it's only inconsistent going off the COMIC example. That's it. There's no reason this film universe couldn't operate differently.

But once again, you're trying to apply "sense" to a comic book costume. It makes not more or less sense to have trunks than it does to have a cape or large pointy ears on your costumes.

 

[NosfeRomas]

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.

It is a big deal. Haters will find another thing to hate on and its annoying and we need to avoid that.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I thought we were over this trunks talk when Superman's costume was confirmed to not have trunks. Sigh.

 

[Bathead]

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

Nope. Socialist left wing.

 

[Infinity9999x]

It is a big deal. Haters will find another thing to hate on and its annoying and we need to avoid that.

Haters on here on a message board, yes. The GA doesn't care. If they did, they would have been freaking out about the Joker using makeup, the muted colors on the SR costume, or the black Spider-man outfit not looking like the comics.

The GA didn't care. Because they're not comic nerds like we are.

 

[Bathead]

I thought we were over this trunks talk when Superman's costume was confirmed to not have trunks. Sigh.

That was Superman, this is Batman. I suppose it won't be over until the new suit is revealed, and it either does or doesn't have trunks.

 

[joeviterbo]

the batsuit IS an emblem hence why he needs the ears, logo and cape. Can you say the same for them trunks/undies?

 

[Bathead]

It is a big deal. Haters will find another thing to hate on and its annoying and we need to avoid that.

Seriously, who cares what haters think. Haters hate because they have so little going on in their lives, they have to be negative about everything because it's the only thing that gives them the sense of power that they lack. Accomodating haters is stupid. Much better to completely ignore them.

 

[regwec]

I'm not sure it will be over then. The likelihood is that the new suit won't have trunks, and that certain elements of our nerd fraternity will respond with the standard,

"Hur hur u nerds thought the suit wud have teh PANTIES? Lol11!"

And then other elements would rub their bloodshot eyes, massage their temples, drain their brandy, and head into battle once more.

 

[charl_huntress]

I'm not sure it will be over then. The likelihood is that the new suit won't have trunks, and that certain elements of our nerd fraternity will respond with the standard,

"Hur hur u nerds thought the suit wud have teh PANTIES? Lol11!"

And then other elements would rub their bloodshot eyes, massage their temples, drain their brandy, and head into battle once more.

LOLOLOL...I'm more interested in which faction you claim allegiance to.

 

[regwec]

I am selling gunpowder to both sides.

 

[Bathead]

the batsuit IS an emblem hence why he needs the ears, logo and cape. Can you say the same for them trunks/undies?

No, Batman himself is the symbol. The logo is a superfluous as the trunks, but no-one wants to get rid of the logo. (including me, I'm just trying to make a point)

 

[Travesty]

It's not who Batman is underneath, but the trunks he wears, that defines him.

 

[Bathead]

I'm not sure it will be over then. The likelihood is that the new suit won't have trunks, and that certain elements of our nerd fraternity will respond with the standard,

"Hur hur u nerds thought the suit wud have teh PANTIES? Lol11!"

And then other elements would rub their bloodshot eyes, massage their temples, drain their brandy, and head into battle once more.

Nope, Yukon Jack.

 

[charl_huntress]

I am selling gunpowder to both sides.

Way to say above the fray...lol

Nope, Yukon Jack.

It's not who Batman is underneath, but the trunks he wears, that defines him.

Y'all gotta stop with the jokes...lololo

 

[Bathead]

I am selling gunpowder to both sides.

Opportunist.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

I'm not sure it will be over then. The likelihood is that the new suit won't have trunks, and that certain elements of our nerd fraternity will respond with the standard,

"Hur hur u nerds thought the suit wud have teh PANTIES? Lol11!"

And then other elements would rub their bloodshot eyes, massage their temples, drain their brandy, and head into battle once more.

I like this post.
I like it alot.
Expertly crafted.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

Seriously, who cares what haters think. Haters hate because they have so little going on in their lives, they have to be negative about everything because it's the only thing that gives them the sense of power that they lack. Accomodating haters is stupid. Much better to completely ignore them.

 

[badgrammar]

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

Perhaps Superman could find Bruce at the gravesite.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_inKv6l5yas0/SyKFLsKLfbI/AAAAAAAABB8/NPFiK4geExg/s1600-h/Batman_Year_2_3[2].jpg Just change the gun to Flowers and you have your perfect pic

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_inKv6l5yas0/SyKFLsKLfbI/AAAAAAAABB8/NPFiK4geExg/s1600-h/Batman_Year_2_3[2].jpg Just change the gun to Flowers and you have your perfect pic

Well, that might be overdoing it a tad.

 

[The Shape]

No, Batman himself is the symbol. The logo is a superfluous as the trunks, but no-one wants to get rid of the logo. (including me, I'm just trying to make a point)

I usually respect your pro-trunks arguments and feelings, but this statement is a bit off the mark. Would you ever say the same about Superman's logo? That his logo is as superfluous (ie: unnecessary) as his trunks?

And before you say that Superman's logo is more important to the character than Batman's because of what it represents (family lineage, hope), or that Batman has adopted a symbolic persona while Superman simply is what he is -- There has never been a true incarnation of Batman that lacked a Batsymbol, while there have already been several versions of Batman (in live action and now in the comics) without the trunks.

Hell, the symbol on his chest is what the Bat signal in the sky is based upon.

 

[Caekzor]

Well, that might be overdoing it a tad.

I don't think it's overdoing it enough. He needs to be uncontrollably crying over their graves and shouting "I AM VENGEANCE!!!".

 

[Infinity9999x]

I am selling gunpowder to both sides.

I'm in the booth next to you handing out rations to both.

I don't care one way or the other either, but I can't help but be annoyed when I see people trying to rationalize why or why not to use an aspect of ridiculous costumes. It's pointless.

In much the same way I used to argue in the Perma-white debates, not because I was vehemently for bleached skin on Mr. J, but because it drove me nuts when I saw people trying to say it would be too "unrealistic" for the Nolan movies to have a bleached skin Joker, when it was obviously a stylistic choice by Nolan (his Two-Face proved that).

 

[InJustice]

Once again, I said it's only inconsistent going off the COMIC example. That's it. There's no reason this film universe couldn't operate differently.

But once again, you're trying to apply "sense" to a comic book costume. It makes not more or less sense to have trunks than it does to have a cape or large pointy ears on your costumes.

In terms of film, the thing is costumes generally have some semblance of sense behind its design. For instance, Kal-El's costume being a family suit in which the S is the El family crest. Nolan's and Burton's Batman having armor costume to take into account that he's a human (compared to comics where he's either wearing fabric, or tights. Though, there are instances where he's wearing armor).

To exclude sense is non-sensical, especially with the precedents shown thus far. Also, can you emphasize how the film universe could operate differently? I mean, the only reason I think this way is because Superman is emblematic of the Victorian Strongman, and yet he hasn't gotten trunks. So, logically, Batman and other heroes shouldn't either (and I admit, they're an outdated concept especially with how trunks-less suits look so far).

 

[B:TAS]

Hate to bring this up again, but I found a practical reason for the trunks. I just read an article about British soldiers wearing Kevlar and silk underwear to protect their junk from roadside bombs. Obviously they don't wear it on the outside, but I don't think it's too improbable to suspend disbelief that batman wears it on the outside to protect himself.