The Dark Knight Rises The BB3 Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Saint]

The suit ruined the interrogation scene for me, simply because he wasnt a monster beating a man up. He was a swat beating a man up.

Yes, I understand why you did not like the interrogation in The Dark Knight. I have only been saying that comparing them in that manner is unfair.

It wasnt apparent on the Begins suit. His abs were the only thing giving it away.

And his chest, his gauntlets, his boots... Hell, even his arms and legs had armour plating, though admittedly it was designed in a less conspicuous way. As I explained, that Batman is wearing an armoured costume is certainly more obvious on the TDK suit, since it was also obvious on the BB suit, the difference does not seem as significant as you suggest.

You said that Batman isnt always big. And i responded that DC has defined his size precisely.

DC has published statistics, yes, I know--but they are completely meaningless when compared to Batman as he is actually visually interpreted. Bruce Wayne's official weight is 210 pounds--but there's no chance in hell Jim Lee's Batman weighs a mere 210 pounds. Neal Adam's lean Batman, perhaps, but Jim Lee's? Ed Benes? No chance. So no, I do not agree that the DC statistics represent any real truth with regards to Batman's build.

Its not just the neck. The whole suit ruined his image.
I think that McLeod, Marx and others agree with this. IMHO, he did look like a creature in Begins. As much as he can while still looking like Batman.
Its the design mostly. The size is an added bonus.

Well, it was really only the bulk that I was talking about, because you were giving me the impression that bulk was the significant factor.

 

[Mr. Earle]

And his chest, his gauntlets, his boots... Hell, even his arms and legs had armour plating, though admittedly it was designed in a less conspicuous way. As I explained, that Batman is wearing an armoured costume is certainly more obvious on the TDK suit, since it was also obvious on the BB suit, the difference does not seem as significant as you suggest.

The suit was supposedly armoured everywhere, but how can you say that it was obvious in the arms and chest? They looked... reasonable. To be completely realistic they would have to be cast from a man's body, with some chest hair for added realism. The chest in Forever looked like it was cast from a real man and it looked... homosexual.

 

[Saint]

The suit was supposedly armoured everywhere, but how can you say that it was obvious in the arms and chest? They looked... reasonable.

They looked reasonable, yes, but it was also apparent that they were armoured.

To be completely realistic they would have to be cast from a man's body, with some chest hair for added realism.

Well, we're not talking about something that looks realistically human, we're talking about something that looks supernatural and frightening. That opens up all kinds of avenues for batsuit design.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes, I understand that you think that. I have explained more than once why I feel this is not the case, so I fail to see how I am "missing your point." Furthermore, since all you've said in your response on the matter is "The TDK suit is worse, the TDK suit is worse, the TDK suit is worse," well, I'm not deeply compelled to change my position on the matter.


I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter if you were "talking specifics" or not (and I don't recall suggesting that you were). You claimed that TDK "tearing Batman down" was "nothing new." I explained that since what TDK did, while it can be broadly defined as "tearing Batman down," was completely different from what Batman Returns did, that claim is dubious, at best.


I have explained my disagreements. If you feel that my responses are somehow unreasonable, well, I'm not sorry. Perhaps if you had better arguments, I might start agreeing with you.

Better arguments, that's funny, I could have had the same for you but I went with the mature approach of actually trying to explain things. I've read everything you've said to everyone here over the past couple of pages and you're always missing what the person is saying which is why they always have to say it again to you. Almost every post I made stated examples of what I thought was wrong and what I thought would make it better. So where you only saw me say the TDK sucks I actually gave reasons that you were too busy overlooking or focusing on semantics to comprehend. Other than giving a blue print of how TDK failed I can't see the point of trying to explain what I, and others, have already explained many times over.

Now with that said, I will try to explain how this should, in a mature world, continue. There are others on here that are a pleasure to post with and add on to, it would be beneficial if you and I were one of them. However, if you respond to this in a negative way like you have done so in the past I will be, from this moment on, done trying to convince you of something that I and others have already stated various times. If you would like to respond to this, or anything else I post in a non-argumentative manner I'll be happy to reply.

 

[BatScot]

OK, since you guys are asking for a cloth suit and not a rubber one, let me do a little analysis.

1) You cant make a good cowl out of cloth. Even if they somehow make a structure and coat it with cloth, do you want to see the seams and the weave of the cloth on Batman's face? Therefore we'll always have a rubber cowl or at least something that resembles that.

2) If you make a suit out of cloth, then the only thing out of rubber will be his cowl, and maybe his gloves and boots. Wont the cloth, with its seams and weave look inferior next to rubber? Less resistant, less waterproof, less organic?

3) If you use neoprene over the pads, then the suit will look rubbery again. It will look like thin rubber, but rubber nonetheless.

Therefore, i say they keep the rubber suit. Or maybe coat the pads with a thin layer of rubber or neoprene for mobility. To me, its the kind of material Batman would use for his suits. Not rubber you silly buns , but something that looks as waterproof, bulletproof and organic.

Now people are gonna start screaming that it looks like rubber, but clearly cloth looks like cloth, neoprene feels exactly like rubber and as for leather... well lets just say that he will look like an actual bat, but an S&M one.

What i got for the first time in Begins, was a Batman that actually tries to look like a bat and somewhat succeeds. We got a very sculpted cowl, with actual ears and not dolphin fins on his head, his suit looking bulky making him look like a monster and not like a greek statue, etc, etc. For the first time i felt that the suit and Bruce were one, while every other time it was just a suit.

What i am trying to say is that if the batsuit has a visible weave on it, then it will look like a superhero suit. And i've said this before, but i really like the JL and how everyone is everybody else's foil. Well, placed next to the other's, Batman's suit should look otherworldly, barely looking like a suit, and more like a second skin. I got that in Begins, if you dont count the cape which didnt match the material of the rest of the suit and the abs which felt robotic.

tl;dr make the suit from whatever material you want, but the moment it gets a weave, it becomes another superhero suit sewn up by Martha (oh **** i forgot... Sorry Bruce )

This may be the most schizophrenic post ever posted on the Hype... and that's saying something.

 

[Saint]

Better arguments, that's funny, I could have had the same for you but I went with the mature approach of actually trying to explain things. I've read everything you've said to everyone here over the past couple of pages and you're always missing what the person is saying which is why they always have to say it again to you. Almost every post I made stated examples of what I thought was wrong and what I thought would make it better. So where you only saw me say the TDK sucks I actually gave reasons that you were too busy overlooking or focusing on semantics to comprehend. Other than giving a blue print of how TDK failed I can't see the point of trying to explain what I, and others, have already explained many times over.

Now with that said, I will try to explain how this should, in a mature world, continue. There are others on here that are a pleasure to post with and add on to, it would be beneficial if you and I were one of them. However, if you respond to this in a negative way like you have done so in the past I will be, from this moment on, done trying to convince you of something that I and others have already stated various times. If you would like to respond to this, or anything else I post in a non-argumentative manner I'll be happy to reply.

This is tired: all you're doing--for the second post in a row--is avoiding the actual discussion by complaining about me. "Missing the point," indeed.

Let's review:

You argued that the panther suit, unlike the TDK suit, tried to portray a dark, mythical figure.

I responded, indicating that I did not agree that the shiny boy-toy costume portrayed anything dark or mythical, and furthermore that Batman is not mythical in all interpretations, and that, accordingly, the fact that the TDK suit does not make him appear as such is not necessarily a flaw.

You argued that tearing Batman down was "nothing new," as it was done in Batman Returns.

I responded that what TDK did was sufficiently different as to make such comparison flawed.

What "point" am I missing? You made your arguments, I responded, and then you started whining about how you don't like how I responded. Well, I'm sorry, but that really isn't my problem. If you think I've missed some critical "point" you've hidden somewhere, tell me what it is, and stop wasting my time with the old "Here is a list of all the reason that you're bad and I'm not playing with you anymore, Saint" routine. I assure you, it didn't work for the first hundred forumers who tried it, and it sure isn't going to work for you.

I would like to review our exchange, and reevaluate your opinion of what has happened here. As you do this, consider something. Above, you made the following claim:

Almost every post I made stated examples of what I thought was wrong and what I thought would make it better.

Now, please review the following posts, which are every reply you have made to me in this thread: 1, 2, 3.

Now, try to find one instance where you "stated" these phantom "examples." You will not find any, because none exist. Now, perhaps you meant that these "examples" existed in other posts you have made to other individuals in this thread. I have not read them. I was having a discussion with Earle, and you quoted one of my posts--so I responded. I have only read and responded to the posts you have directed at me, because my primary concern here has been my discussion with Earle. I have only read your posts because you saw fit to disagree with me specifically.

Now, perhaps the "point" I am missing, or the heart of the argument you think you've made to me exists in another post that I did not read, as it was not directed at me. It certainly does not exist in the three posts you have directed at me. Sadly, I can not be held responsible for the incompleteness of the arguments you have presented to me.

I will be, from this moment on, done trying to convince you of something that I and others have already stated various times. If you would like to respond to this, or anything else I post in a non-argumentative manner I'll be happy to reply.

This is very much the embodiment of your approach: you make a point, and you expect me to cease all disagreement. Sorry, no dice. I will cease my disagreement when you make a point that is actually convincing. If that means you no longer respond to me, well, I will not consider this a huge loss.

 

[Mr. Earle]

This may be the most schizophrenic post ever posted on the Hype... and that's saying something.

I was making an analysis on the materials and at the same time i tried to preemptively answer opposing arguements. Clearly it isnt the greatest post, but you obviously dont know what schizophrenia is.

 

[BatScot]

I was making an analysis on the materials and at the same time i tried to preemptively answer opposing arguements. Clearly it isnt the greatest post, but you obviously dont know what schizophrenia is.

Hmm...

schiz⋅o⋅phre⋅ni⋅a
–noun

Related forms:

schiz⋅o⋅phren⋅ic
–adjective, noun

2. a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.

... well, what d'ya know I knew what schizophrenic meant after all

 

[Mr. Earle]

Gee and i thought it was a mental disease. Whatever, the point is that i went through the various materials, analysed each ones good and bad points (imho of course) and finally gave my preferences. All black neoprene/rubber suit.

 

[MacLeod]

This is tired: all you're doing--for the second post in a row--is avoiding the actual discussion by complaining about me. "Missing the point," indeed.

Let's review:

You argued that the panther suit, unlike the TDK suit, tried to portray a dark, mythical figure.

I responded, indicating that I did not agree that the shiny boy-toy costume portrayed anything dark or mythical, and furthermore that Batman is not mythical in all interpretations, and that, accordingly, the fact that the TDK suit does not make him appear as such is not necessarily a flaw.

You argued that tearing Batman down was "nothing new," as it was done in Batman Returns.

I responded that what TDK did was sufficiently different as to make such comparison flawed.

What "point" am I missing? You made your arguments, I responded, and then you started whining about how you don't like how I responded. Well, I'm sorry, but that really isn't my problem. If you think I've missed some critical "point" you've hidden somewhere, tell me what it is, and stop wasting my time with the old "Here is a list of all the reason that you're bad and I'm not playing with you anymore, Saint" routine. I assure you, it didn't work for the first hundred forumers who tried it, and it sure isn't going to work for you.

I would like to review our exchange, and reevaluate your opinion of what has happened here. As you do this, consider something. Above, you made the following claim:



Now, please review the following posts, which are every reply you have made to me in this thread: 1, 2, 3.

Now, try to find one instance where you "stated" these phantom "examples." You will not find any, because none exist. Now, perhaps you meant that these "examples" existed in other posts you have made to other individuals in this thread. I have not read them. I was having a discussion with Earle, and you quoted one of my posts--so I responded. I have only read and responded to the posts you have directed at me, because my primary concern here has been my discussion with Earle. I have only read your posts because you saw fit to disagree with me specifically.

Now, perhaps the "point" I am missing, or the heart of the argument you think you've made to me exists in another post that I did not read, as it was not directed at me. It certainly does not exist in the three posts you have directed at me. Sadly, I can not be held responsible for the incompleteness of the arguments you have presented to me.


This is very much the embodiment of your approach: you make a point, and you expect me to cease all disagreement. Sorry, no dice. I will cease my disagreement when you make a point that is actually convincing. If that means you no longer respond to me, well, I will not consider this a huge loss.

Of course you didn't see my points or examples convincing or not, and it's for more than just the obvious reason of not reading past three pages of posts or the ones directed towards you. You will never cease on a disagreement because you will always fail to see the true discussion. Reading your repsonses to everyone on here, the embodiment of your approach if you will, is actually humorous because of how much you miss and how you are not capable of responding without the use of negative comments or believing your opinion to be factual.

There were various ways you could have handled my previous post, many of them were positive in nature, but alas, you responded in your true form, exactly the way I envisioned. So, congratulations on showing your lack of, well, everything. There is no need to respond to this because you will be who you are and I have better people to post with on here and information that actually relates to the subject matter. You'll do what you want and that is your right, just realize that the huge loss you speak of occurs everytime you write something. Take care, and good luck.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Naturally, a suit atleast as flexible as TDK's but a little less ugly aesthetically.

That should suffice.

 

[lixdexia]

Of course you didn't see my points or examples convincing or not, and it's for more than just the obvious reason of not reading past three pages of posts or the ones directed towards you. You will never cease on a disagreement because you will always fail to see the true discussion. Reading your repsonses to everyone on here, the embodiment of your approach if you will, is actually humorous because of how much you miss and how you are not capable of responding without the use of negative comments or believing your opinion to be factual.

indeed. this is really irritating and true of many posters in this thread. no one here's interpretation of batman is any more correct than anyone else's. pages long arguments of fanatical dogma really detract from what could be an interesting opportunity to see how others would change the suit.

 

[Mr. Earle]

indeed. this is really irritating and true of many posters in this thread. no one here's interpretation of batman is any more correct than anyone else's. pages long arguments of fanatical dogma really detract from what could be an interesting opportunity to see how others would change the suit.

**** you guys! I am right, you are wrong!

Spoiler

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I feel TDK's suit is like a completely reworked entry in a gaming franchise, bearing new positives as well as negatives. But going in the right direction so the sequel should be something.

 

[regwec]

There were various ways you could have handled my previous post, many of them were positive in nature, but alas, you responded in your true form, exactly the way I envisioned. So, congratulations on showing your lack of, well, everything. There is no need to respond to this because you will be who you are and I have better people to post with on here and information that actually relates to the subject matter. You'll do what you want and that is your right, just realize that the huge loss you speak of occurs everytime you write something. Take care, and good luck.

Just drop it. You have chosen to make your argument personal, and you alone seem to be upset by the consequences. It just appears immature.

 

[MrQuinn]

The suit was supposedly armoured everywhere, but how can you say that it was obvious in the arms and chest? They looked... reasonable. To be completely realistic they would have to be cast from a man's body, with some chest hair for added realism. The chest in Forever looked like it was cast from a real man and it looked... homosexual.

I just did that weird thing where you laugh out of your nose.

 

[BatScot]

no one here's interpretation of batman is any more correct than anyone else's.

Well if that's true then the logic must apply in general, for example, such that Schumacher's interpretation of Batman is no more correct that Nolan's. That's nonsense of course and thus the logic fails and therefore the probability exists that some interpretations here are in fact more correct that others.

pages long arguments of fanatical dogma really detract from what could be an interesting opportunity to see how others would change the suit.

If you've been posting in this thread for more that three months then you've seen every variation imagined.... but for the sake of argument, lets assume your theory, i.e. that 'no one's interpretation of Batman is any more correct than anyone else's' is valid.

If so, then the Begins suit is no more correct than something along the lines of the Dead End suit, in which case there really is no point continuing the discussion because there is nothing interesting to talk about since any opinion is the equal of another, which, of course, is utter nonsense because while you may be entitled to your opinion, that by no means ensures your opinion is a correct one.

 

[MacLeod]

Just drop it. You have chosen to make your argument personal, and you alone seem to be upset by the consequences. It just appears immature.

I agree with you, due to the back and forth nature of something that I now see as pointless I can completely agree that it could be perceived as immature. It is difficult to not get personal when the discussion gets stupid for reasons outside of your control. However, there is always the standard that if you don't like something then don't read it, so that kind of holds true too. My posts from now on will gladly be about the suit in this thread.

 

[BatScot]

I agree with you, due to the back and forth nature of something that I now see as pointless I can completely agree that it could be perceived as immature. It is difficult to not get personal when the discussion gets stupid for reasons outside of your control. However, there is always the standard that if you don't like something then don't read it, so that kind of holds true too. My posts from now on will gladly be about the suit in this thread.

That's one of the more ballsy posts I've seen on threads

 

[MacLeod]

Reasons (in no particular order) why I HATE the TDK suit and think they need to go towards something more comic accurate.

1. The mask still looks too small on Bale's face.
2. The suit is monochromatic
3. Six arm fins
4. No real gloves, just those strap on looking things over his forearms.
5. The map of Europe on his legs
6. The multi-layered plates on his stomach region.
7. The man-bra
8. The symbol on the man-bra and how it's the same color.
9. The visible shoulder pads.
10. The arm straps.
11. The Iron Man neck area.
12. How the cape comes out of shoulders.
13. How the cape does not seem to be able to go over the shoulders.
14. How rubber is supposed to, once again, be believable as armor when
nothing else has been thought of.
15. How the mask is really only held on by a chin strap (shown when he
sitting in the chair after Rachel was blown up).
16. The grappling gun is sometimes worn as a regular gun on his waist.
17. How he now looks much smaller than he could or should.
18. The arm fins in the first movie were explained due to his Ninja training
and that was why he kept them (or at least it made sense that way)
and now they are smaller and have no defensive purpose other than
shooting at people.
19. The Swat Look in general.
20. The seizure it gives me because I'm looking at so many things I can't
focus on the suit as a whole.

There are things I dislike about why the suit was chosen and the movie as a whole but I thought I would just give my examples of the suit to get myself back on track.

 

[MacLeod]

That's one of the more ballsy posts I've seen on threads

In a bad way? Ironically, it's kind of true though, we are all here for personal reasons of liking Batman, but it's tough to express that sometimes due to reasons outside of your own control. I would really love to just get back to discussing Batman related things at this point. For example, I just listed 20 reasons why I hate the TDK suit. Hope that's on topic enough.

 

[BatScot]

In a bad way?

No, no... I meant it as a sincere compliment—accountability and self reflection are rarely seen on these boards!

 

[MacLeod]

No, no... I meant it as a sincere compliment—accountability and self reflection are rarely seen on these boards!

Thank you, and I mean that sincerely. I kind of figured you meant it that way but I just wanted to make sure. Thank you again, and just to make sure we're still talking about the batsuit and not being too personal, in your opinion, would it be good for once to see something on screen that represents Batman a little more than we have seen in the past six movies?

 

[Saint]

Of course you didn't see my points or examples convincing or not,

Because they are not there. I showed you that your posts did not contain what you claim, and this is your response? That it is my fault? I can only repeat what I said in my last post: if you have some argument you feel I am missing, present it.

You will never cease on a disagreement because you will always fail to see the true discussion.

I find this deeply hilarious, considering that in my previous post, I requested that you stop obfuscating the discussion with your personal feelings about me, and simply produce the secret "point" you feel I have missed. Instead, you reply with another post that contains nothing but your complaints against me.

At some point in this discussion, you decided to make the argument personal and start attacking me instead of my arguments. Now you are upset that my response was not to roll over and play nice? If you did not want to play the game this way, you should not have decided to bring my character into the discussion.

There were various ways you could have handled my previous post, many of them were positive in nature,

Why would I respond to you positively? You have done nothing but insult me. As I explained before, your belief that the correct response to your posts is for me to roll over is in error.

So, congratulations on showing your lack of, well, everything.

I'm actually quite pleased that you grasp such a thin concept of my character flaws that you cannot even articulate them properly.

There is no need to respond to this

Oh, I see the problem: you don't know who I am. My name is Saint, and I will respond to every post you direct at me.

I have better people to post with on here and information that actually relates to the subject matter.

Another amusing comment. You decided to make this discussion about me, and despite the fact that I have asked you before to produce the mysterious phantom argument you have alluded to, you continue to write replies that are solely about your personal dislike of me. Yet, it is my fault that this discussion has gone of course?

 

[MacLeod]

[/quote]
Ok, it took me a while to find this in a previous post, but I did. So, without being too literal here, wouldn't this costume look just as good on film compared to what is there now? I don't necessarily need this exact look, but the idea of the armor underneath adds to the reaslism while the "costume" part of it on the outside adds to the Batman look that is I am so desperately missing. Again, this is just a suggestion of how things could be better than the TDK suit.