BvS The Batsuit Thread - Part 9

[hafizbat]

This is gorgeous. For all the people who complain about the bodybuilder proportions in the Arkham games, this is how good it can really look.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

The briefs look like black pull-ups, though.

 

[hafizbat]

Nah to me it looks like full black pants with the gray armor/padding segments sewed or melded on.

 

[Boom]

Ever hear Grant Morrison's little rant on adult comic book fans?

Thank you, Grant Morrison.

 

[Sub-Zero]

morrison's right, but it is fun to look at batman in some realistic sense since he's one of those rare heroes who doesn't have powers.

honestly if studios understood this we could've had a lazarus pit making raz immortal for realz, and joker would be permawhite, bane would be hulking, and raz would come back in tdkr. also batman wouldn't be out of breath fighting 6 bad guys.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

Ever hear Grant Morrison's little rant on adult comic book fans?



Kind of sums up the fanbase in the post-Nolan world. And I only reference Nolan because I really think he's the spearhead figure for this "reality" obsession of the modern day.

That was great.

 

[Sub-Zero]

even though they are fictional...how old are they all supposed to be? not 75 i would imagine.

 

[BattleAngel]

^ Not really. The TDK trilogy prides itself on the concept of plausibility and realism. Something like, say TA, doesn't have to live up to that idea of believability.

Man, I'm finding myself agreeing with just about everything you say, FlamingCoco.

I think a lot of the Nolan haters (I'm not a hater, but I was massively disappointed with TDKT) would be a lot happier if there hadn't been such a huge emphasis on the realism aspect. When you look down your nose at the fantasy elements of Batman, which Nolan did in a HUGE way, but still have gaping holes there were in TDKR (let alone such eye-rolling **** as Wayne Industries developing cold fusion without considering that it could be weaponized), it is insulting as well as unintelligent. If the faux-realism thing weren't bad enough, Nolan's trilogy also massively contradicts itself on its big themes. Batman won't kill or use guns, yet he kills, over and over and over again (the league of shadows as well as the criminal in BB with an explosion), and in the end, it's with a heavy gun. The "I didn't have to save [them]" excuse wouldn't hold up in court. He's legally guilty of mass murder via arson in the first one, second-degree murder in the cases of Ra's and Talia, and he commits justifiable homicide in the case of Dent. So not only are the films unrealistic when they claim to be, but one of the strongest themes of the series is terminally contradicted at the very same instant it is introduced.

As far as I'm concerned, that completely damns the trilogy... It doesn't mean I hate Nolan, and it doesn't mean that there aren't massively enjoyable aspects of the films, but it's illustrate why some people are entirely justified in thinking TDKT is far from being the best collection of comic book films made to date.

All this to get back to the topic of realism in the suit. I think a degree of realism is appropriate insofar as it reinforces that Batman is thoroughly human, and in BvS, up against a thoroughly alien opponent. But overdoing the realism just for the sake of "being realistic" was injurious to TDKT and I believe it would be injurious to the new ones.

 

[Jekecy]

morrison's right, but it is fun to look at batman in some realistic sense since he's one of those rare heroes who doesn't have powers.

See, that's a limited way of looking at the property though. And is something I'd really just expect from "casual" fans who don't make a hobby of reading the books.

Saying Batman is realistic due to his lack of superpowers is akin to saying Terminator is realistic because Sarah and John Connor are normal human beings. It fails to account for literally everything else that delves into the supernatural, magic, and very loose sci-fi. If one were to open up fifty random Batman books, there's a good chance there will be at least one singular element featured in that story which decidedly takes it from realistic and into the otherworldly.

The realism angle has its merits, insofar as to properly craft and maintain an internal logic. Past that however, I personally think it has genuinely tainted the imaginations of a great deal of fanboys. We're more concerned over making sure something is plausible rather than simply making it work within the universe.

 

[CK_ALL_DAY]

Can't say how excited I am for the first pics of the new suit.

 

[MrsKent26]

Ditto. If this batsuit isn't fantastic, Snyder isn't even living up to his own standard, lol.

 

[Shikamaru]

morrison's right, but it is fun to look at batman in some realistic sense since he's one of those rare heroes who doesn't have powers.

I never understood this. How does Batman stand out just by not having powers? In the world of comics, not having powers means literally nothing. Literally nothing.


Superheroes with no powers other than Batman and the Bat Family off the top of my head:

-Green Arrow
-Speedy/Red Arrow/Arsenal
-Blue Beetle
-Sandman
-Wildcat
-The Question
-Everyone in Watchmen but Dr. Manhattan
-The entire Green Lantern Corps
-Vigilante
-The Atom
-Steel
-sometimes Captain America (depending on the continuity, his powers vary from superhuman to peak human; when portrayed as peak human, he is physically on par with Batman - he just got there through science instead of natural techniques)
-Black Panther
-Iron Man
-War Machine
-Black Widow
-Hawkeye
-Daredevil
-Hank Pym/Ant-Man/Giant Man/Goliath/Yellowjacket/Wasp
-Janet Pym/Wasp
-Moon Knight
-The Punisher (if you count antiheroes as well)

None of these characters get slammed with the realistic label in the same way Batman does. For the vast majority of them, most people won't even think twice about them not having powers.

 

[Bathead]

See, that's a limited way of looking at the property though. And is something I'd really just expect from "casual" fans who don't make a hobby of reading the books.

Saying Batman is realistic due to his lack of superpowers is akin to saying Terminator is realistic because Sarah and John Connor are normal human beings. It fails to account for literally everything else that delves into the supernatural, magic, and very loose sci-fi. If one were to open up fifty random Batman books, there's a good chance there will be at least one singular element featured in that story which decidedly takes it from realistic and into the otherworldly.

The realism angle has its merits, insofar as to properly craft and maintain an internal logic. Past that however, I personally think it has genuinely tainted the imaginations of a great deal of fanboys. We're more concerned over making sure something is plausible rather than simply making it work within the universe.

And that's where the problem comes in. People who obsess over this "realism" aspect will often want to get rid of the more fantastic of these elements and change everything to the point of unrecognizability. The result is often a watered down and rather mundane version of the rather fantastic worlds in these stories. Some folks seem to forget that's the whole point of this kind of fiction, it's primary reason for being is an escape from reality. Realism is indeed to be desired, but some just carry it way too far.

 

[Jekecy]

I never understood this. How does Batman stand out just by not having powers? In the world of comics, not having powers means literally nothing. Literally nothing.


Superheroes with no powers other than Batman and the Bat Family off the top of my head:

-Green Arrow
-Speedy/Red Arrow/Arsenal
-Blue Beetle
-Sandman
-Wildcat
-The Question
-Everyone in Watchmen but Dr. Manhattan
-The entire Green Lantern Corps
-Vigilante
-The Atom
-Steel
-sometimes Captain America (depending on the continuity, his powers vary from superhuman to peak human; when portrayed as peak human, he is physically on par with Batman - he just got there through science instead of natural techniques)
-Black Panther
-Iron Man
-War Machine
-Black Widow
-Hawkeye
-Daredevil
-Hank Pym/Ant-Man/Giant Man/Goliath/Yellowjacket/Wasp
-Janet Pym/Wasp
-Moon Knight
-The Punisher (if you count antiheroes as well)

None of these characters get slammed with the realistic label in the same way Batman does. For the vast majority of them, most people won't even think twice about them not having powers.

I think it's mostly a label perpetuated by the layman. I've heard it repeated so many times I've come to accept it as the natural go-to response for anyone who doesn't actually know a damn thing about the character but wants to contribute an opinion.

And that's where the problem comes in. People who obsess over this "realism" aspect will often want to get rid of the more fantastic of these elements and change everything to the point of unrecognizability. The result is often a watered down and rather mundane version of the rather fantastic worlds in these stories. Some folks seem to forget that's the whole point of this kind of fiction, it's primary reason for being is an escape from reality. Realism is indeed to be desired, but some just carry it way too far.

In some ways I think it has a lot to do with how the fantastical is what buried the character (and genre) for a number of years. And it took grittier, "realer" approaches (by way of Singer and Nolan) to revitalize the properties. So in the minds of a lot of people, this was now the superior means of adaptation. In a post-Avengers landscape though, I think we should start letting go of that notion.

But there is something to be said of how TDK is probably the one singular film which even the high-brow elites have conceded to being a great movie. Past the confines of a genre film. I've lost count how many respected writers and directors who have cited it. It's probably going to take a mature film, deeply set within the fantastical, to offset those opinions again.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I think it's mostly a label perpetuated by the layman. I've heard it repeated so many times I've come to accept it as the natural go-to response for anyone who doesn't actually know a damn thing about the character but wants to contribute an opinion.



In some ways I think it has a lot to do with how the fantastical is what buried the character (and genre) for a number of years. And it took grittier, "realer" approaches (by way of Singer and Nolan) to revitalize the properties. So in the minds of a lot of people, this was now the superior means of adaptation. In a post-Avengers landscape though, I think we should start letting go of that notion.

But there is something to be said of how TDK is probably the one singular film which even the high-brow elites have conceded to being a great movie. Past the confines of a genre film. I've lost count how many respected writers and directors who have cited it. It's probably going to take a mature film, deeply set within the fantastical, to offset those opinions again.

I hope it's the JL movie, but it'll probably be Avengers 2.

And then when a really mature/dramatic fantastical superhero movie comes out, people will slam TDK as being dated.

But that's kind of the process with superhero movies.

 

[Sub-Zero]

I never understood this. How does Batman stand out just by not having powers? In the world of comics, not having powers means literally nothing. Literally nothing.


Superheroes with no powers other than Batman and the Bat Family off the top of my head:

-Green Arrow
-Speedy/Red Arrow/Arsenal
-Blue Beetle
-Sandman
-Wildcat
-The Question
-Everyone in Watchmen but Dr. Manhattan
-The entire Green Lantern Corps
-Vigilante
-The Atom
-Steel
-sometimes Captain America (depending on the continuity, his powers vary from superhuman to peak human; when portrayed as peak human, he is physically on par with Batman - he just got there through science instead of natural techniques)
-Black Panther
-Iron Man
-War Machine
-Black Widow
-Hawkeye
-Daredevil
-Hank Pym/Ant-Man/Giant Man/Goliath/Yellowjacket/Wasp
-Janet Pym/Wasp
-Moon Knight
-The Punisher (if you count antiheroes as well)

None of these characters get slammed with the realistic label in the same way Batman does. For the vast majority of them, most people won't even think twice about them not having powers.

none of those characters are as widely known as batman, and they never will be. that is why they will never get "slammed" with a realistic label. name all the obscure and slightly known characters you want, but none of them will ever hold a candle to batman.

half of this list is full of characters with some kind of "power" or a "power suit" or some kind of weapon that gives them their niche. batman doesn't need that. he doesn't need batarangs or grapple guns. he uses his strength and wits to bring justice to gotham. it's relatable to the "layman" because people could possily do that if they train their mind and body. he just does it in an extremely theatrical sense.

and no it's not real. a real batman would be picked up off the streets and sent to jail for obstruction, and the police could easily figure out who he is. people know that. it's cool to see how a character such as batman, and even superman, could fit in our real world. that's where the "realism" that that "hack" nolan came up with.

 

[MrsKent26]

I hope it's the JL movie, but it'll probably be Avengers 2.

And then when a really mature/dramatic fantastical superhero movie comes out, people will slam TDK as being dated.

But that's kind of the process with superhero movies.

Someone needs to create a fantastical world in which there are still rules and actual stakes. Although, much of that has to do with how serious the characters take the world. The Avengers acted as if there were no stake at all sometimes, which creates that whole "nothing bad will happen in this wonderland" vibe. They need to realize that combining fantasy with feather-light, quippy dialogue deflates the whole thing. I eagerly await the day a CBM does this successfully as well.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Someone needs to create a fantastical world in which there are still rules and actual stakes. Although, much of that has to do with how serious the characters take the world. The Avengers acted as if there were no stake at all sometimes, which creates that whole "nothing bad will happen in this wonderland" vibe. They need to realize that combining fantasy with feather-light, quippy dialogue deflates the whole thing. I eagerly await the day a CBM does this successfully as well.

you're right, but in the case of iron man 3 it'll make a billion dollars. it's all that matters in the end to the studios. that's why they'll make more movies.

 

[MrsKent26]

you're right, but in the case of iron man 3 it'll make a billion dollars. it's all that matters in the end to the studios. that's why they'll make more movies.

That's true. Not all people want what I want from movies. The stuff I want doesn't sell as well, I guess.

 

[Shikamaru]

none of those characters are as widely known as batman, and they never will be. that is why they will never get "slammed" with a realistic label. name all the obscure and slightly known characters you want, but none of them will ever hold a candle to batman.

Iron Man and Green Lantern (minus the movie) are also pretty popular and iconic yet they still never get that label. Cap is also pretty iconic and popular yet still doesn't get that label despite being "peak human". Sure that they're not on par with Batman, but they're not unknowns either.

half of this list is full of characters with some kind of "power" or a "power suit" or some kind of weapon that gives them their niche. batman doesn't need that. he doesn't need batarangs or grapple guns. he uses his strength and wits to bring justice to gotham. it's relatable to the "layman" because people could possily do that if they train their mind and body. he just does it in an extremely theatrical sense.

and no it's not real. a real batman would be picked up off the streets and sent to jail for obstruction, and the police could easily figure out who he is. people know that. it's cool to see how a character such as batman, and even superman, could fit in our real world. that's where the "realism" that that "hack" nolan came up with.

And this is where the misconception that Batman is realistic comes from. Nothing Batman does is possible in real life any more than having a suit like Iron Man's or having the scientific knowledge Hank Pym/Ray Palmer have. Batman is just as much of a larger-than-life character as they are.

If anything, Batman is more of a larger-than-life character than they are. The biggest irony about Batman is that he is one of the least human and least relatable superheroes around. He is cold, calculative, obsessed, mentally unstable, lacks the most social life, has seen the worst the world has to offer, etc. - I often describe him as a monster in human form. That is what makes his dynamic with Superman so ironic. You would expect this guy to have the strongest connection with normal human beings, but the demigod (Superman) is actually the more human and more normal of the two.

 

[regwec]

It's easy to blame Nolan for the mundane, compromised, "teh realistic" approach; but in a roundabout way, it is probably equally the fault of Joel Schumacher.

The need for verisimilitude is, I think, entirely low brow. It appeals to children who want to make believe, which is only natural. The art is in not offending against verisimilitude too much, while exploring all the mystery, weirdness and fun which is inherent in Batman. The way to do that is to tell a story that seems natural in its own right. By analogy, Star Wars never leads you to object to the physically impossible lightsaber.

What Schumacher did, however, was to dispense with verisimilitude so fully, and to depict a fictional world that crumbled so completely under its narrative complacency and lurid visuals, that Nolan's grey and muted reaction was probably inevitable. It briefly felt welcome. But now opinion has become polarised: you supposedly have to support a dull, reductive and rather immature "realistic" approach, because the alternate path leads straight back to Joel. The result is that you see purported Bat fans dosclaiming the appeal of everything cool about Batman.

And, somehow, when I see it claimed that Batman's costume must be adjusted to incorporate knee pads in case he falls on and hurts his knees, I know something has gone wrong.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ The people saying more comic-bookish means Joel Shumucker probably aren't comic fans.

But aside from Richard Donner/Lester, the darker DC movies are usually the ones that worked better with critics and audiences alike. I think it's just how things turn out.

 

[regwec]

But darkness isn't synonymous with "realism", is it? Batman is not "darker" for wearing knee pads.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Well, If he has an armored suit, he has to have knee pads. Who makes an armored suit for protection but forgets to add extra padding to knees, elbows, shoulders. This has nothing to do with realism per sé but just with common sense.

If you don't want kneepads then it's best to go full spandex. It's not like they have to be as bulky and in your face as the Arkham games. It doesn't even have be visible, I just need to believe there is some kind of protection there. Like I believe there was protection there in the Burton films.

But if you're dropping knee pads, drop all armor/protective gear.

I'm can easily be made to believe him going out there in spandex, but I draw the line at believing he would go out there in 'protective gear' with nothing extra on the joints. But again, none of it has to actually show. I just need to get the sense that it's there.

IMO of course.

 

[MrsKent26]

Since this batman has to be different than Nolan's, I think some people who don't like Nolan's approach will be happier this time. Perhaps Snyder will pick up on things that Nolan didn't or chose not to use. And he is much more visual. He will create something that looks stunning and at least attempt to be faithful to the comics that fit his vision, not just create something practical.