The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR Batsuit Discussion Thread VI

[cryptic name]

If anything it's the opposite. In Year One Batman was drawn as a guy in a suit, and we saw him act like a guy in a suit, which was appropriate since he was just starting out.

In The Long Halloween, in large part due to Tim Sale's art, not only did Batman look inhuman, but he clung to the shadows and acted much more detached from reality.

But he's right about Batman going out of his way to be seen as more than human or simply be theatrical in Year One. There's the whole scene at the Mayor's dinner party where he blows up a wall and backlights himself and gives that "you've eaten well..." speech. And the scene in the penthouse with Adrian Skeevers with the "bullets don't harm me. nothing harms me." line. He doesn't really attempt anything like that in LH, and most people seem to accept him as just a man. Of course, it could be argued that in YO he's trying to establish his reputation while in LH, it's already been established.

 

[JBElliott]

True. Though I don't understand why it wouldn't just be straps if it were.

The trunks would help keep the harness straps in place and keep them from riding up and giving him a bat-wedgie.

 

[JBElliott]

The Tron manips could use work, but already look much better than the TDK suit IMO.

Looks form-fitting and sleeker without sacrificing the illusion of armor. The lines/segments just need to be rearranged.

Anyway, to contribute to the thread/discussion:

*waits for the messenger to be shot*

Not enough armor. And the cape is still unrealistic.

 

[JBElliott]

I disagree. The trunks look bad on Batman and they do not make him look any more like Batman than he does without them.

I disagree. For nearly all of his existence, Batman has worn trunks. By that fact, he looks more like Batman wearing trunks than not.

What? How the hell are they supposed to do that?

Trunks break up the human form by making part of that form a different color. Without that break up, the eye sees all the same color and easily recognizes the human form.

The point is, capes are a different matter from trunks. One of these is essential to Batman's look. The other is not.

Capes and trunks are different, but Batman has nearly always worn both. Given that, they both seem to be essential. Capes are sillier than trunks though. Trunks never trip a person or get snagged or choke a person (unless you're wearing them wrong).

His cape becomes his wings, (at least in these films), and also, Stan Lee's Batman did wear a cape.

Lee's Batman had wings. Later they were drawn more like a cape, but they started as wings.

As far as being scary, the armed criminal might be afraid after he got his ass kicked by the armored badass in the costume, or hear of what he can do to them. Also, the cape evokes images of Dracula, and it signifies how different he is from other superheroes.

The criminal would likely be laughing as he shot the caped man in the face after the man tripped over his cape or the cape blew up in the man's face, blocking his vision and allowing him to get shot, knocking him down and making him an even easier target. That's the more realistic scenario.

As for the face, that is not much of a problem. The head is actually a pretty hard to hit target, especially on a moving person such as Batman, so most schools of shooting will teach you to aim for center-mass. This is why soldiers' helmets don't cover their faces.

That's incorrect. A report on NPR within the last year or two said that criminals had recently begun shooting at the head of police officers because of the prevalence of bullet proof vest being worn by the police. With an automatic weapon, the head is a pretty easy thing to hit. Soldiers cover their faces in battle whenever possible.

This is based on subjective opinion, but I disagree with you. On Batman, they don't, and never have. To me, in most cases, they are, at best, inoffensive, as in they don't detract from the costume, but don't add anything either. Batman is just such a case.

It's true that there's a lot of subjective opinion in these discussions, but over the history of Batman, several very talented artists who know something about what looks good and what doesn't have drawn Batman for comics and animation and other things. Nearly all of those artists have drawn Batman with trunks. If the trunks really looked that bad, they would have gone away a long time ago.

I know they went away in the comics in the 1990's, but that didn't last. I know they've go away in the comics now, but history has shown that it's likely that that won't last and the trunks will return. Already artists drawing the current costume in the comics "shade" the trunks in or just drawn them in.

The fact is that trunks have always been part of the costume and always will be because they look good.

 

[D.P.]

Not enough armor. And the cape is still unrealistic.

 

[Chris Wallace]

If he hadn't had them to begin with, nobody would care. Trunks do not enhance or benefit any costume in any way. That said, much as I hate them, I'd support them as part of a comic-accurate design. But I really don't see how they could be integrated into a suit based on the Nolanverse design.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Not enough armor. And the cape is still unrealistic.

Sad thing is, some will actually feel that way.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I disagree. For nearly all of his existence, Batman has worn trunks. By that fact, he looks more like Batman wearing trunks than not.

No, not really. I really don't need them there to recognize him as Batman.

Trunks break up the human form by making part of that form a different color. Without that break up, the eye sees all the same color and easily recognizes the human form.

Other than possibly blending Bruce's *ahem* "package" into his cape, I don't see it being very effective.

Capes and trunks are different, but Batman has nearly always worn both. Given that, they both seem to be essential. Capes are sillier than trunks though. Trunks never trip a person or get snagged or choke a person (unless you're wearing them wrong).

I disagree. Essential would mean that it's necessary in order to be recognized as a Batman design. If you take the trunks off of Batman, it still looks like Batman. Batman's cloak isn't as silly as you think it is. He uses it to conceal himself, and it invokes the image of Dracula. Plus, in the movies (and the games), it functions as his wings as well. In the books, it also has weights in its ends, allowing it to function as a weapon.

Lee's Batman had wings. Later they were drawn more like a cape, but they started as wings.

It's inconsistent. They are clearly a cape in one of those pages.

The criminal would likely be laughing as he shot the caped man in the face after the man tripped over his cape or the cape blew up in the man's face, blocking his vision and allowing him to get shot, knocking him down and making him an even easier target. That's the more realistic scenario.

I think Batman knows how to handle his cape.

That's incorrect. A report on NPR within the last year or two said that criminals had recently begun shooting at the head of police officers because of the prevalence of bullet proof vest being worn by the police. With an automatic weapon, the head is a pretty easy thing to hit. Soldiers cover their faces in battle whenever possible.

Never heard this report. Anyway, most schools of shooting teach you to aim for center mass.

It's true that there's a lot of subjective opinion in these discussions, but over the history of Batman, several very talented artists who know something about what looks good and what doesn't have drawn Batman for comics and animation and other things. Nearly all of those artists have drawn Batman with trunks. If the trunks really looked that bad, they would have gone away a long time ago.

Or those trunks could be persisting themselves because of tradition. Bottom line, the trunks are best gone.

I know they went away in the comics in the 1990's, but that didn't last. I know they've go away in the comics now, but history has shown that it's likely that that won't last and the trunks will return. Already artists drawing the current costume in the comics "shade" the trunks in or just drawn them in.

Possible, but I hope not. The trunks are dated relics, a symbol whose meaning is lost to the ages. Why do we need them around? Is it because of some ******** "tradition" or is it so that we can tell "underwear on the outside" jokes for all eternity? Why is it Wolverine can get rid of his trunks, but Batman is apparently forever doomed to have them?

The fact is that trunks have always been part of the costume and always will be because they look good.

They have always been a part of the costume because they were ripped off of Superman, and then people didn't question why they were there in the first place.

If he hadn't had them to begin with, nobody would care. Trunks do not enhance or benefit any costume in any way. That said, much as I hate them, I'd support them as part of a comic-accurate design. But I really don't see how they could be integrated into a suit based on the Nolanverse design.

Why would you want them on a comic-accurate Batsuit if you hate them?

 

[BatScot]

So you more or less want an Alex Ross bat

That'd be fine by me.

 

[BatScot]

If he hadn't had them to begin with, nobody would care. Trunks do not enhance or benefit any costume in any way. That said, much as I hate them, I'd support them as part of a comic-accurate design. But I really don't see how they could be integrated into a suit based on the Nolanverse design.

Easy as nothing.

 

[BatScot]

The trunks are dated relics, a symbol whose meaning is lost to the ages. Why do we need them around? Is it because of some ******** "tradition" or is it so that we can tell "underwear on the outside" jokes for all eternity? Why is it Wolverine can get rid of his trunks, but Batman is apparently forever doomed to have them?

I'd rather stick with ******** tradition than have Batman prancing around in ******** unitard.

Oh, and it's because that other fella is Canadian.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Why would you want them on a comic-accurate Batsuit if you hate them?

Because it would be worth it to have a Batman that didn't look like a reject from Halo.

 

[Chris Wallace]

That'd be fine by me.

That's the closest thing to what you described. I agree with you by the way. I even think that if donw right, a bat symbol could stretch out to his shoulders and look cool. (Think Nightwing).

 

[BatScot]

That's the closest thing to what you described.

That wasn't me, just, you know, supporting the team

I agree with you by the way.

Glad we're on the same side!

 

[Godzilla2014]

I'd rather stick with ******** tradition than have Batman prancing around in ******** unitard.

Oh, and it's because that other fella is Canadian.

Well, even if they come back, I am not going to lie and say that I prefer the trunks.

Being Canadian has nothing to do with it.

This works. Wolverine works without his trunks, and so does Batman. It's time for Batman to evolve. I pray to God that the trunkless look sticks. You can do it DC. Just don't go back to having the trunks. The trunks are dated, and it's time to let them go. A black utility belt can do the same task far better.

 

[Mister Meddle]

Cm Punk!!!!!

 

[BatBat]

That's the closest thing to what you described. I agree with you by the way. I even think that if donw right, a bat symbol could stretch out to his shoulders and look cool. (Think Nightwing).

Yeah I thought that too. Did this back in 2003
http://batbat29640.deviantart.com/gallery/#/do35wo

 

[Saint]

Well, even if they come back, I am not going to lie and say that I prefer the trunks.

Being Canadian has nothing to do with it.

This works. Wolverine works without his trunks, and so does Batman. It's time for Batman to evolve. I pray to God that the trunkless look sticks. You can do it DC. Just don't go back to having the trunks. The trunks are dated, and it's time to let them go. A black utility belt can do the same task far better.

In point of fact, the reason Wolverine works without his trunks is because they redesigned the rest of the bodysuit; they didn't leave him as a big yellow blob.

By the same token, if you're going to remove Batman's trunks, the costume has to be redesigned to compensate, such that it is not simply a grey blob. Whenever they've removed the trunks in the comics, they've failed to do this, and the look has suffered--which is why the trunks keep coming back. That, and because they look good in the first place.

The bottom line is that DC is too afraid to do a drastic redesign, which is what is needed if you want to rebalance the costume by removing the trunks. That being said, they should leave them there--because the current look is simply inferior.

 

[Godzilla2014]

In point of fact, the reason Wolverine works without his trunks is because they redesigned the rest of the bodysuit; they didn't leave him as a big yellow blob.

By the same token, if you're going to remove Batman's trunks, the costume has to be redesigned to compensate, such that it is not simply a grey blob. Whenever they've removed the trunks in the comics, they've failed to do this, and the look has suffered--which is why the trunks keep coming back. That, and because they look good in the first place.

Which I would be fine with. I am just so tired of things like "underwear on the outside" jokes and what not. Go ahead with a redesign if you want, but I really don't want the trunks coming back. They're dated and unnecessary. I wonder what they could do to replace the trunks on the costume.

I do understand the "looks like an undefined blob" issue, it's an issue I have with Sentry's design:

 

[Saint]

I am just so tired of things like "underwear on the outside" jokes and what not.

If I was concerned about the jokes of dumb people, I wouldn't have gotten into comics.

They're dated and unnecessary.

In the absence of a more significant redesign, they are completely necessary. We can see this if we give Wolverine a plain yellow bodysuit, the way Batman would have a plain grey one (acknowledging, of course, that Batman's cape does serve the break things up a little more than just plain yellow Wolverine):

I don't know, maybe you think big yellow Wolverine looks totally modern and badass.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Yeah I thought that too. Did this back in 2003
http://batbat29640.deviantart.com/gallery/#/do35wo

Not bad.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I may not be a fan of the trunks but, we had him with trunks for the better part of what, 60 years and about 5 years without them. So obviously tradition is on the side of the trunks.

 

[Godzilla2014]

If I was concerned about the jokes of dumb people, I wouldn't have gotten into comics.

Good point. I guess I should say, hearing these dumb jokes, and realizing that the meaning of the trunks is lost to the ages.

In the absence of a more significant redesign, they are completely necessary. We can see this if we give Wolverine a plain yellow bodysuit, the way Batman would have a plain grey one (acknowledging, of course, that Batman's cape does serve the break things up a little more than just plain yellow Wolverine):

I don't know, maybe you think big yellow Wolverine looks totally modern and badass.

Good point. What should be done to replace the trunks? (Though I don't really mind the simple dark gray bodysuit with symbol look. It looks kind of sleek and badass to me.)

Speaking of Wolverine:

"I can't believe I thought that looked good. I must have been high."-Wolverine, on his original costume.

I may not be a fan of the trunks but, we had him with trunks for the better part of what, 60 years and about 5 years without them. So obviously tradition is on the side of the trunks.

If you want to get rid of the trunks you have to throw them to the wind. Tradition is self-perpetuating dynamo. So Batman's had trunks for 60 years as opposed to 5 without, about a 12:1 ratio. Assuming you allowed tradition to keep the trunks, then in 10 years it would be 70 years with trunks to 5 without, a 14:1 ratio. Thus, as time goes on, the excuse of tradition only grows stronger.

 

[Chris Wallace]

THat was actually my point. It's like those who prefer Spider-Man's black costume over his red an dblues. Even though the black suit's come back a couple of times, the red and blues have about 50 years of tradition on their side.

 

[Saint]

Good point. What should be done to replace the trunks?

Any number of things, I imagine. The real question is how far you're willing to go away from the classic look to ditch the trunks--and since I think the trunks look good, it's much ado about nothing. There's no need.

That said, the obvious option is to make the whole costume black. That's not better than the traditional look, but it solves the problem. Slap the oval and a gold belt on there (and in my opinion, gold lenses instead of white), and you're done. Put some subtle seams on it for visual depth.

The other thing you can do is make the torso grey and the legs black--but I think to make that work, the grey has to look like a separate layer, differentiated by texture or something.

A while back I made this to illustrate a possible movie costume, and it's an example of what that might look like (though certainly not the only way it could look, and not necessarily a costume I'd want in the comics):

Spoiler

The issue though, is that if you're going to change it, you have to make it better. Because if it's not better than the costume with trunks, why go through all this trouble to remove the trunks at all? And honestly, I've never seen a costume that I could wholeheartedly say I liked more the classic Batman.