BvS The Batsuit Thread - Part 8

[J.Drangal]

There's often an explication about suits design in the latest cbm.
For Superman, we had the traditional kryptonian fashion, and when it comes to Batman, we have the armor for protection, the helmet designed to terrorize ennemies, the cape to plane over the city, etc.
In this optic, it's hard to find an explication for the trunks, unless maybe to keep his butt warm...
But, if a film plays an heavy visual card, heroes can wear pretty much anything. In Watchmen, Silver Silk's suit is completely comic booky, and it works very well in my opinion. Even Nite Owl got his trunks.
So, in my opinion, it's just a matter of what the director wants for his film. Now, knowing that Superman didn't have his trunks despite being in a traditional alien costume, it's kind of hard to figure out why Batman would have one. But who knows ? t:
Again, I find Watchmen to be a movie with a great balance between fantastical design and a world with a certain degree of realism. If Man of Steel was about the arrival of a new dimension of SFy and fantastic things over a world similar to our, maybe this route is possible.

 

[Bathead]

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.

I understand all that, but my point is, that the anti trunks people keep saying there must be a practical functional reason for the trunks or they don't belong. To be fair, the logo, if you're going to be honest, has no realistic practical function either, other than being an integral part of the costume for over 70 years, but no-one is arguing against it. (I'm certainly not against it) Whether it's been on more Batsuits than the trunks is irrelevant, I'm just trying to point out the double standard here. To insist on certain criteria for one element of the coastume, but not to apply it to another that could be aregued to be as unnecessary as the other is hypocritical.

 

[InJustice]

I understand all that, but my point is, that the anti trunks people keep saying there must be a practical functional reason for the trunks or they don't belong. To be fair, the logo, if you're going to be honest, has no realistic practical function either, other than being an integral part of the costume for over 70 years, but no-one is arguing against it. (I'm certainly not against it) Whether it's been on more Batsuits than the trunks is irrelevant, I'm just trying to point out the double standard here. To insist on certain criteria for one element of the coastume, but not to apply it to another that could be aregued to be as unnecessary as the other is hypocritical.

There's a difference between a signifier and trunks. How the logo is used depends entirely on the writers. For instance, Superman's logo being the symbol of the House of El (depending on which continuities you read/watch), Green Lantern's logo being the symbol of the entire corps (akin to officers and their badge/POLICE logo).

Though, I'm not sure there's an argument that says the trunks has to be practical (maybe I'm the only one that isn't saying it anyways). Where I see a problem with trunks is that (I think) they're an outdated concept.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I never said there must be a practical reason for the trunks. I said that I prefer movie costumes without trunks.

 

[RAE072]

I think it all boils down to this:

Snyder's Superman didn't have them, Snyder's Batman probably won't either.

In fact, a film Batman hasn't had trunks on his costume since the 1960s. That's probably a trend that will continue through this new iteration of Batman.

I say we throw him in a suit that resembles either a slightly darker tone and no oval Earth One suit or a trunkless version of the Bermejo Design suit and be freaking done with it.

 

[Bathead]

But that's just it, Maybe you two haven't, but there's been at least few that have said exactly that, that there's no practical reason for the trunks, that they must have a purpose, and that's their whole reason for not wanting the trunks. At least Spidey's response that he just prefers that the movie suits don't have trunks is an honest response without a lot of bogus rationalization. I can respect that.

 

[regwec]

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.

Knowing a few British soldiers as I do, I suspect the real reason they wear silk underwear is to sooth their genitals from the venereal diseases they have contracted from Afghan prostitutes.

And I declare this to be terminus of the trunks debate. Please?

 

[Alex_Spider]

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

OMG the HORROR Now I realize he is wearing 2 trunks over his grey tights. The standard blue ones and on top of that the swim trunk. It's a nightmare if you think about it. It's one thing to wear a trunk, and another to wear two at once t: Poor West he got to do all kinds of campy things compared to the other Batmen. But hey it's the 60's lol

 

[Afrobean]

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.

No, I agree. The chest emblem isn't really necessary for Batman. Some fans might be mad, but as long as the suit looked good regardless, I'd be on board with them dropping it. I mean, look at what they gave us with Nite Owl; it totally works without any emblem on the chest. It is entirely possible to have a costume like that with no emblem on the chest. Now imagine if Batman's front is also almost always covered with his mantle anyway. I mean, I'm actually kind of surprised Nolan didn't drop it completely, since it looks like he kind of wanted to with the way he did implement it (i.e., barely). That symbol on his chest really doesn't do anything or add any necessary value. I'm OK with them using it, since it's not a laughable idea like briefs on the outside, but having or not having the chest emblem doesn't really matter. In short: things which are easy to be made fun of or laugh at are under more scrutiny than those which are not as humorous in concept.

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.

There are many ways to rationalize capes and cowls. Primarily, they're for intimidation, to be dramatic, otherworldly. Shorts over top of his grey suit do none of those things. They serve no purpose. Nolan came up with FUNCTIONAL purposes too, the cape is a glider, the ears hide listening antenae, the gauntlets are defensive ninja equipment he got from the League. The cape is also explained in the comics as being offensive (the tips are weighted), and one of the Schumaker films had Batman activate fire protection through his cape. Reasons can be rationalized or invented for many of the questionable elements of the batsuit, even outside of theatricality.

This is not a question of "LOL ITS A COMIC ITS ALL NONSENSE". Much of it is quite insane, but reasons can be applied to much of it. But not the trunks. The ONLY reason Batman EVER wears trunks is because it is a trope of superheroes, especially older ones. There is no reason for Bruce Wayne to put trunks on the outside of his suit, EXCEPT if he's thinking "I want to look like a superhero." Do you think Bruce would ever think that? Does that sound true to the intentions of that character? Of any modern interpretation of the character?

I don't mind the briefs when they're thematically appropriate. For example, anything campy. I'd even say Schumaker's could have had trunks. But a Batman in the world of Man of Steel? How campy do you expect that to be? How campy do you WANT that to be?

 

[SpideyFan866]

Why is is it that trunks = campy?

 

[regwec]

Because thirteen year old boys think they're "gay".

 

[SpideyFan866]

Sigh..... thats probably truer than I'd like to consider.

Honestly, there is nothing wrong with the trunks. Literally, there isn't really anything wrong with them outside of the fact that its a dated concept.

However, that doesn't mean that they have to be removed, or that they can't be brought back.

The trunks, just like the traditional hero symbols on the chest, are just a part of the look. Plain and simple.

There really is no reason to get rid of them.


And as far as them appearing in BVS, I'd say there is a VERY good chance they'll return in this film.


At Snyder's own admittance, he only got rid of them because it didn't make sense for a Kryptonian bodysuit to carry such an earthly concept, from both a visual and story standpoint. However, it is VERY much open for them to reinterpret the suit, and include the trunks on it, as well as on the Batman suit.

And for those who say there needs to be a story reason for it, I can give you one for Batman and Superman right now:

Superman (with Ma Kent) changes the suit to a more earthly and costume like design, with the trunks featured, because his old appearance was deemed to alien, by various external sources. Including, possibly, Ma Kent herself.

Batman wears a suit featuring trunks because he modeled the suit after those worn by the stage performers that frightened him as a child .

Boom, that simple.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Snyder isn't retconing his well reviewed Superman suit to that degree. I'm sure their will be tweaks but you have to deal with the fact that the trunks are gone.

 

[SpideyFan866]

I don't expect him to do a radical revamp of the suit.

However, I wouldn't be shocked if the suits were closer to these concepts from MOS:

Spoiler

They still have that Kryptonian flare, but it is greatly toned down from the original suit.

 

[Lencho01]

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

Well, if you look at it from the amusing point of view of fanboys(girls) in arrested development arguing about a character for children, it's not so bad.

 

[WoodyROM]

Lencho, where is your avy from?

 

[Bathead]

Spideyfan866- Thanks for the story reason you gave. I find it's as good a reason for the trunks as any reason the others have come up with to rationalize any other parts of the costume that they find acceptable. Of course it won't be a good enough reason to satisfy these people, they'll come up with yet more rationalization as to why your reason doesn't work.

 

[Bathead]

Snyder isn't retconing his well reviewed Superman suit to that degree. I'm sure their will be tweaks but you have to deal with the fact that the trunks are gone.

You're probably right. I actually like the suit. About the only thing in my mind that would make it look better might be to brighten up the colors a little.

 

[Lencho01]

Lencho, where is your avy from?

It's from this...

[YT]6FcspYEOo1I[/YT]

 

[WoodyROM]

Thanks

 

[Bathead]

At Snyder's own admittance, he only got rid of them because it didn't make sense for a Kryptonian bodysuit to carry such an earthly concept, from both a visual and story standpoint. However, it is VERY much open for them to reinterpret the suit, and include the trunks on it, as well as on the Batman suit.

This the reason I don't buy the often touted " If Superman isn't wearing trunks, then Batman won't/shouldn't either" idea.
Why should a suit done in the style of an alien world be the almost exactly the same as a suit made by a human based on Earthly design concepts. As there is precedence on Earth for such a concept as the trunks over the leggings, there's no reason for them not to be there simply because Superman doesn't have them.

 

[regwec]

If the trunks need a reason, then either the harness thing or covering up a groin box serve well enough. I'd rather Snyder doesn't bore us rigid with a detailed yet implausible reason for every little thing, though.

 

[InJustice]

Sigh..... thats probably truer than I'd like to consider.

Honestly, there is nothing wrong with the trunks. Literally, there isn't really anything wrong with them outside of the fact that its a dated concept.

However, that doesn't mean that they have to be removed, or that they can't be brought back.

The trunks, just like the traditional hero symbols on the chest, are just a part of the look. Plain and simple.

There really is no reason to get rid of them.


And as far as them appearing in BVS, I'd say there is a VERY good chance they'll return in this film.


At Snyder's own admittance, he only got rid of them because it didn't make sense for a Kryptonian bodysuit to carry such an earthly concept, from both a visual and story standpoint. However, it is VERY much open for them to reinterpret the suit, and include the trunks on it, as well as on the Batman suit.

For it to be tweaked, one would have to provide a good reason why. Snyder himself also said that the metaphorical value of the trunks is that it references Victorian Strongmen. Seeing as how the DCCU will apparently be based on a modern world, I can't see how Clark Kent would be aware that such an old concept existed (especially since Strongmen are essentially "dead" in the modern world), let alone use that to tweak his suit (as that would imply negation of his alien heritage, which is non-sensical).

The New 52 continuity proved that you can have iconic heroes without the the trunks. And eliminating them didn't make them any less recognizable. So the argument that the trunks are part of the look doesn't really hold up (at least not to the extent of the superhero logo, which is significant in terms of recognition as a signifier).

As for earthly concept, that brings me to my next point.

And for those who say there needs to be a story reason for it, I can give you one for Batman and Superman right now:

Superman (with Ma Kent) changes the suit to a more earthly and costume like design, with the trunks featured, because his old appearance was deemed to alien, by various external sources. Including, possibly, Ma Kent herself.

Batman wears a suit featuring trunks because he modeled the suit after those worn by the stage performers that frightened him as a child .

Boom, that simple.

That contradicts Superman's story arc. He was meant to be a bridge between Kryptonians and Earthlings, and having him tweak the suit to that extent implies a rejection of his alien heritage (aka for the sake of humanizing his suit). Hence, The Superman side should be kept alien (especially since the suit is a major part of family, namely of the House of El), while Clark can remain the human side. It just doesn't make sense in that regard to add trunks just because people in that world think "it's too alien."

As for Batman, if it's based on a modern stage performance, chances are you won't see many trunk-wearing actors/actresses. So it's highly unlikely that Batman would draw inspiration from that.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

You're probably right. I actually like the suit. About the only thing in my mind that would make it look better might be to brighten up the colors a little.

The shade of blue is something that I thought I'd have more of a problem with than I actually did.
I think the shininess of the suit kind of makes up for the color in a way.

I feel like if the blue were a brighter shade AND it had that shine to it,it might come off as a bit much.
Hard to say though.

 

[Bathead]

Well, it doesn't have to brightened up too much, just noticeable would be fine.