The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR Batsuit Discussion Thread

[RustyCage]

no dialouge is needed... i hate when they have people talk to graves... just the act of being there is enough...

Agreed. Just make the name on the headstone clear and set the mood.

 

[craigaat]

Its so good that i have to repost it.

But it's a cartoon

 

[the dmg]

I still love Bunk's design (with tweaks of course):

 

[ALP]

I like it but the leg harness is so completely unnecessary. We've already established in this universe that Batman can grapple up using just the belt so there's absolutely no point for him to wear a harness.

 

[Travesty]

I like it but the leg harness is so completely unnecessary. We've already established in this universe that Batman can grapple up using just the belt so there's absolutely no point for him to wear a harness.

Well, not only that, but the original belt in BB had a harness on it, and Bruce cut it off.

As for that drawing: I think it's ok. Like ALP said, I'm not a fan of that harness, I would prefer a gold/yellow belt, and I HATE the sharp nails. I hate when artists give Batman claws/nails.

 

[the dmg]

Like I said, needs some tweaks, but I love the idea overall.

 

[Secret Fawful]

The leg harness draws my attention to his junk, and like all Batfans I'm traumatized by too much emphasis on human anatomy.

 

[BatScot]

He's sitting there, in his wheelchair talking to them both. Trying to figure out if he was cut out for this kind of thing. If he's at all capable of keeping the promise he made to them.

Did [Nolan's] Wayne make a promise to his parents?

 

[BatScot]

I like it but the leg harness is so completely unnecessary. We've already established in this universe that Batman can grapple up using just the belt so there's absolutely no point for him to wear a harness.

Which is completely nonsensical—even within the internal logic of the film—given that the harness was in fact an original and, presumably necessary,component of the belt as a harness device.

This is one of those instances when Nolan's realism is conveniently set aside. I don't really have a problem with that, but if one were to apply the same 'realistic' explanation to the belt that seems to be required of other Nolan Batmanisms then one would have to concede that the belt is going to end up under Batman's armpits at best or rip his arms off at worst.

 

[Yurka]

I've come to terms with the fact that I wont get the batsuit I want in this franchise, but what frustrates me is that such minor tweaks to the Dark Knight suit could make it perfect.( i.e. straighten ears, fix mouth, strengthen eyes) The suit itself from DK was great, the cowl is just

 

[Mr. Earle]

Did [Nolan's] Wayne make a promise to his parents?

No he didnt. He became Batman not because of vengeance, a promise, or the feeling of some obligation, but because he wanted to seek justice. I think that's one of the good things Nolan brought to the franchise.

I also like how they didnt go see Zorro, so Bruce didnt have the idea "oh i'll become a superhero like my childhood hero", but he slowly progressed to the point that it was inevitable that he would become one himself.

 

[Lencho01]

Its so good that i have to repost it.

I love that suit.

 

[BatScot]

No he didnt. He became Batman not because of vengeance, a promise, or the feeling of some obligation, but because he wanted to seek justice. I think that's one of the good things Nolan brought to the franchise.

Would a young boy in the depth of life changing trauma really have thought of anything but vengeance. And even if he had, could he not have made a promise to bring his parent's murder to justice. And there is no reason Wayne could not have thought both—the vengeful anger of the traumatized boy becoming the justice seeking of the matured man—without any detriment to these "good things Nolan brought to the franchise". And surely you recall that Nolan's Wayne intended to kill Joe Chill and—as Rachel chastised—his intentions were vengeance not justice.

There is no reason why a promise to his parents could not have been made in some way. And that is one of the good things Nolan omitted.

 

[regwec]

no dialouge is needed... i hate when they have people talk to graves... just the act of being there is enough...

I think Bruce should stagger from his house, as if walking into gale force winds, with tears wetting his cheeks, before collapsing onto his knees, then tearing his shirt open and beating his bared chest while screaming "Mommy, Daddy, why did you leave me?", while tooth-chipping violin music wails in the background, snow flakes fall into his hair, and Alfred reassuringly pats him on the ass.

 

[itsthebatman]

I think Bruce should stagger from his house, as if walking into gale force winds, with tears wetting his cheeks, before collapsing onto his knees, then tearing his shirt open and beating his bared chest while screaming "Mommy, Daddy, why did you leave me?", while tooth-chipping violin music wails in the background, snow flakes fall into his hair, and Alfred reassuringly pats him on the ass.

Alfred then has to say 'I thought I might prepare a little suppah'.

 

[Gianakin_]

Lunch. In TDKR it has to be lunch. t:

 

[Mr. Earle]

I think Bruce should stagger from his house, as if walking into gale force winds, with tears wetting his cheeks, before collapsing onto his knees, then tearing his shirt open and beating his bared chest while screaming "Mommy, Daddy, why did you leave me?", while tooth-chipping violin music wails in the background, snow flakes fall into his hair, and Alfred reassuringly pats him on the ass.

 

[regwec]

Fan-bloody-tastic.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Would a young boy in the depth of life changing trauma really have thought of anything but vengeance. And even if he had, could he not have made a promise to bring his parent's murder to justice. And there is no reason Wayne could not have thought both—the vengeful anger of the traumatized boy becoming the justice seeking of the matured man—without any detriment to these "good things Nolan brought to the franchise". And surely you recall that Nolan's Wayne intended to kill Joe Chill and—as Rachel chastised—his intentions were vengeance not justice.

There is no reason why a promise to his parents could not have been made in some way. And that is one of the good things Nolan omitted.

Vengeance was his first and most primal reaction to the loss of his parents. After Chill's death and Rachel's speech he overcomes that for a greater ideal/motive, justice, so when he becomes batman he doesnt do it because he made a promise that he has to keep, he does it because that's who he is now, and i dont mean that as in "he is teh batmanz now", but in a sense that he is now a man looking for justice and he wants to seek that through vigilantism.

In Mask of the Phantasm Bruce wants to quit and he begs his parents to allow him to break his vow to them so that he can marry Andrea. Of course his parents are dead so its he who decides whether they'd let him or not so it still comes down to him, but the difference is that here its an owth, a feeling of responsibility.

In Begins Bruce knows that he cant bring them back or avenge them, and he realizes that its not his fault so he doesnt need to do anything about it. He just channels his rage and trauma for a greater purpose like Ras taught him (but without the killing). You could say that Nolan's Batman is more normal, he isnt so obsessed about his parents but the trauma changed him and made him a better man. Had he not experienced it he'd probably have become a spoilt brat.

Something like that anyway.

Fan-bloody-tastic.

Haha, thanks! t:

 

[Saint]

I think Bruce is his own man who doesn't feel the need to answer to his parents (or their grave) for every failure. Obviously it's important to recognize the importance of the Wayne's, but it's also necessary to accept that Bruce is a grown man who is past their deaths (or as past them as is possible for Batman), and continues his crusade because it's what's right, not because it satisfies his sense of loss or desire for vengeance.

That may have been how his campaign started, it may have been the case when he was an angry young man, but I think we've gotten far enough along (in the comics, and perhaps in the films as well) that we don't need to be talking about the Wayne's all the time now. I wouldn't be adverse to "grave visiting" in the proper context, necessarily, I just think it's important that we recognize that Bruce isn't thinking "Damn, I failed my parents!" He has far truer motivations than that. When weighed against justice and the welfare of Gotham, failing his parents should be the last thing he's concerned with.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I think Bruce is his own man who doesn't feel the need to answer to his parents (or their grave) for every failure. Obviously it's important to recognize the importance of the Wayne's, but it's also necessary to accept that Bruce is a grown man who is past their deaths (or as past them as is possible for Batman), and continues his crusade because it's what's right, not because it satisfies his sense of loss or desire for vengeance.

That may have been how his campaign started, it may have been the case when he was an angry young man, but I think we've gotten far enough along (in the comics, and perhaps in the films as well) that we don't need to be talking about the Wayne's all the time now. I wouldn't be adverse to "grave visiting" in the proper context, necessarily, I just think it's important that we recognize that Bruce isn't thinking "Damn, I failed my parents!" He has far truer motivations than that. When weighed against justice and the welfare of Gotham, failing his parents should be the last thing he's concerned with.

I agree 100%.

Also the following pages (that never cease to give me goosebumps) from Superman/Batman #76:

 

[DaveMoral]

Like I said, needs some tweaks, but I love the idea overall.

The right most two make it readily apparent that the only way the harness straps could work is with them being part of the trunks.

 

[the dmg]

Which is completely nonsensical—even within the internal logic of the film—given that the harness was in fact an original and, presumably necessary,component of the belt as a harness device.

Obviously, the harness was obviously restricting. t:

This is one of those instances when Nolan's realism is conveniently set aside. I don't really have a problem with that, but if one were to apply the same 'realistic' explanation to the belt that seems to be required of other Nolan Batmanisms then one would have to concede that the belt is going to end up under Batman's armpits at best or rip his arms off at worst.

Agreed.

The one thing I hate about the belt, and it's not about the belt itself, but ever since BF, the belts always droop down at the front.

 

[ALP]

I assumed that the belt attaches to his sturdy suit, and thats why he doesn't need the harness.

 

[bunk]

I assumed that the belt attaches to his sturdy suit, and thats why he doesn't need the harness.

Yes, I could imagine his "pants" acting as the harness. Of course that means in BEGINS he must have modified it after the first time he wore the suit out, since it still has the straps at that point.