The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Mr. Earle]

Those comic pics don't look like a "wraith" or a "monster" though. This is always brought up, that Batman needs to look like that; If Batman ever looks like a wraith or a monster, he won't look much like Batman.

That argument needs to die.

I get what you re saying. What i meant was that he could be as close as possible to being a wraith and the cape plays a big part in that. Whereas Nolan's Batman is an armoured dude with a towel over his shoulders, comics batman is mostly a big cape flowing over rooftops and somewhere under all that there's his body. I hope you get what i mean because i'm having trouble putting it into words.

 

[regwec]

BB uses a lot of dialogue to explore the idea that Batman's costume and persona are designed to intimidate criminals. The theme of "fear" allowed for a sort of contest of intimidation between Batman and The Scarecrow, with both using it for different ends.

But the theme isn't delivered very well visually, and it is almost forgotten in TDK. BB shows us that criminals do find Batman's appearance intimidating- the docks sequence is the best example. But we are rarely shown what exactly they are reacting to. Carmine Falcone takes fright because he sees a troop of his muscle being soundly thrashed- but we don't really see the full picture. Sal Maroni is unimpressed by Batman, even dangling off a rooftop. In neither case are we really shown Batman looking scary while he goes about his business of terrifying ne'er do wells. This seems to run against the careful planning and design that Bruce and Alfred are shown to invest in making the batsuit look frightening.

Batman should swoop from the shadows, using his cape to blur his shape. He should throw a batch of smoke bombs before him, so that he hits the ground in a thick unearthly mist. He should have floored two out of eight goons with batarangs by the time he breaks the third's ribs. Then they would be running.

It seems strange to use the term, but that seems a more realistic concept than Batman simply being a superhuman martial artist who can defeat absolutely any odds by engaging them toe-to-toe on an equal footing.

 

[Godzilla2014]

BB uses a lot of dialogue to explore the idea that Batman's costume and persona are designed to intimidate criminals. The theme of "fear" allowed for a sort of contest of intimidation between Batman and The Scarecrow, with both using it for different ends.

But the theme isn't delivered very well visually, and it is almost forgotten in TDK. BB shows us that criminals do find Batman's appearance intimidating- the docks sequence is the best example. But we are rarely shown what exactly they are reacting to. Carmine Falcone takes fright because he sees a troop of his muscle being soundly thrashed- but we don't really see the full picture. Sal Maroni is unimpressed by Batman, even dangling off a rooftop. In neither case are we really shown Batman looking scary while he goes about his business of terrifying ne'er do wells. This seems to run against the careful planning and design that Bruce and Alfred are shown to invest in making the batsuit look frightening.

Batman should swoop from the shadows, using his cape to blur his shape. He should throw a batch of smoke bombs before him, so that he hits the ground in a thick unearthly mist. He should have floored two out of eight goons with batarangs by the time he breaks the third's ribs. Then they would be running.

It seems strange to use the term, but that seems a more realistic concept than Batman simply being a superhuman martial artist who can defeat absolutely any odds by engaging them toe-to-toe on an equal footing.

When it comes to smoke grenades, Batman would need a chemical mask first, otherwise he would also be affected by them. Also, the Nolan incarnation of the Batarangs wouldn't work very as anti-personnel weapons because they are more like shuriken than boomerangs, so they would embed themselves in the target if Batman throws them at people, which risks fatalities.

 

[Mr. Earle]

BB uses a lot of dialogue to explore the idea that Batman's costume and persona are designed to intimidate criminals. The theme of "fear" allowed for a sort of contest of intimidation between Batman and The Scarecrow, with both using it for different ends.

But the theme isn't delivered very well visually, and it is almost forgotten in TDK. BB shows us that criminals do find Batman's appearance intimidating- the docks sequence is the best example. But we are rarely shown what exactly they are reacting to. Carmine Falcone takes fright because he sees a troop of his muscle being soundly thrashed- but we don't really see the full picture. Sal Maroni is unimpressed by Batman, even dangling off a rooftop. In neither case are we really shown Batman looking scary while he goes about his business of terrifying ne'er do wells. This seems to run against the careful planning and design that Bruce and Alfred are shown to invest in making the batsuit look frightening.

Batman should swoop from the shadows, using his cape to blur his shape. He should throw a batch of smoke bombs before him, so that he hits the ground in a thick unearthly mist. He should have floored two out of eight goons with batarangs by the time he breaks the third's ribs. Then they would be running.

It seems strange to use the term, but that seems a more realistic concept than Batman simply being a superhuman martial artist who can defeat absolutely any odds by engaging them toe-to-toe on an equal footing.

I've been saying that for ages.

When it comes to smoke grenades, Batman would need a chemical mask first, otherwise he would also be affected by them. Also, the Nolan incarnation of the Batarangs wouldn't work very as anti-personnel weapons because they are more like shuriken than boomerangs, so they would embed themselves in the target if Batman throws them at people, which risks fatalities.

Now you re being overly pedantic. He's batman, he can breath in smoke, space and can disarm any thug by hitting his hand with a batarang.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I've been saying that for ages.
Now you re being overly pedantic. He's batman, he can breath in smoke, space and can disarm any thug by hitting his hand with a batarang.

If it doesn't affect Batman, it won't affect his enemies either. The Batarangs in these movies do not work like that. I have never liked the idea of Batman throwing Batarangs into people's hand like shuriken. If you want to introduce a new type of Batarang for that purpose, that's fine.

 

[regwec]

I am so darn tired of every potentially cool thing about Batman being over-analyzed and prohibited by this tediously grey, bland and lifeless brand of pseudo-realism.

Why couldn't the cult of bland choose a less visually exciting and iconic character for its experiment in boredom? If only Nolan could have made an adaptation of "The Question", in which he doesn't wear a hat, because that would be unrealistic. Everyone would be happy.

 

[Mr. Earle]

If it doesn't affect Batman, it won't affect his enemies either. The Batarangs in these movies do not work like that. I have never liked the idea of Batman throwing Batarangs into people's hand like shuriken. If you want to introduce a new type of Batarang for that purpose, that's fine.

I'm sure Nolan tested his Batarangs in a wind tunnel to evaluate their aerodynamic qualities. He then threw them at steaks and scarecrows to see how well they penetrate targets. Only then did he approve them for the film.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I am so darn tired of every potentially cool thing about Batman being over-analyzed and prohibited by this tediously grey, bland and lifeless brand of pseudo-realism.

Why couldn't the cult of bland choose a less visually exciting and iconic character for its experiment in boredom? If only Nolan could have made an adaptation of "The Question", in which he doesn't wear a hat, because that would be unrealistic. Everyone would be happy.

I just don't want Batman to throw Bat-shuriken into people. Is that "too bland" for you?

 

[Travesty]

I'm sure Nolan tested his Batarangs in a wind tunnel to evaluate their aerodynamic qualities. He then threw them at steaks and scarecrows to see how well they penetrate targets. Only then did he approve them for the film.

Whoa, Earle, in real life, batarangs can cause serious damage. No joke, bro, you may even need to use a bandaid if struck by one. Don't joke around about 'em.

Batarangs= Serious ouchies.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I'm sure Nolan tested his Batarangs in a wind tunnel to evaluate their aerodynamic qualities. He then threw them at steaks and scarecrows to see how well they penetrate targets. Only then did he approve them for the film.

I am talking about in the context of the film. Seeing as to how one of the Batarangs is shown embedding itself into steel in BATMAN BEGINS, they would certainly penetrate human tissue.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I am talking about in the context of the film. Seeing as to how one of the Batarangs is shown embedding itself into steel in BATMAN BEGINS, they would certainly penetrate human tissue.

That's the point. He stabs you in the hands with them and you drop your gun. Its not a big deal.

 

[Godzilla2014]

That's the point. He stabs you in the hands with them and you drop your gun. Its not a big deal.

I just don't think it makes sense for Batman, who is trying to not kill people. So do you want the grapple to not look like a gun, but stabbing people's hands with Batarangs is perfectly OK? Can you explain that to me?

 

[Travesty]

I just don't think it makes sense for Batman, who is trying to not kill people.

Does it make sense that Batman uses his machine gun and missile launcher on the Tumbler/Bat-pod in public, when he's not trying to kill people?

 

[Godzilla2014]

Does it make sense that Batman uses his machine gun and missile launcher on the Tumbler/Bat-pod in public, when he's not trying to kill people?

That's different, for the most part. He uses the guns and missiles on materiel or obstacles like walls and so forth. I do not recall Batman using the guns on people in Nolan films. Batarangs, as this idea implies, would be.

 

[Mr. Earle]

A batarang to the hand isnt lethal, it just hurts a lot.

 

[Travesty]

That's different, for the most part. He uses the guns and missiles on materiel or obstacles like walls and so forth. I do not recall Batman using the guns on people in Nolan films. Batarangs, as this idea implies, would be.

Ok, that makes perfect sense.

You do know that these are just stories, and whatever is written into the story, is what happens. Christian Bale isn't really Batman, and he isn't actually throwing real batarangs at people in real-time.

So in other words, if it's written into the story that Batman throws a batarang at a thugs hand to knock the gun out, then guess what, that's what is going to happen.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Also, its silly to worry about batarangs being lethal when Batman caused about 20 car accidents in Begins when the cops were chasing him. He's batman he knows what he's doing.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Ok, that makes perfect sense.

You do know that these are just stories, and whatever is written into the story, is what happens. Christian Bale isn't really Batman, and he isn't actually throwing real batarangs at people in real-time.

So in other words, if it's written into the story that Batman throws a batarang at a thugs hand to knock the gun out, then guess what, that's what is going to happen.

I know that. If the Batarang knocks the weapon out of his hand, that's fine, I primarily just have a problem with the idea of the Batarang stabbing the guy.

I also want internal logic: When Batman throws a Batarang, what happens to the victim should be consistent with what it did before. A Batarang that cuts a ropes shouldn't knock a gun out of a man's hand without cutting it. See my point?

 

[Travesty]

I know that. If the Batarang knocks the weapon out of his hand, that's fine, I primarily just have a problem with the idea of the Batarang stabbing the guy.

I also want internal logic: When Batman throws a Batarang, what happens to the victim should be consistent with what it did before. A Batarang that cuts a ropes shouldn't knock a gun out of a man's hand without cutting it. See my point?

And shooting a machine gun into a glass door when people are walking all around it, or blowing up random cars without knowing if anybody is in it, is ok? The shots and explosions could have easily killed people. The internal logic doesn't make sense there. It only works, because it was written into the story that Batman didn't kill anybody.

See my point?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

It also makes perfect sense that Batman would stab a person. That is how he incapacitates enemies, in " Lovers and Madmen" he used the grapnel gun and shot Joker through the hand pinning him to the wall. In Batman #650 he stabs his own son in the throat to save Joker. In The Dark Knight #1 he uses his arm gauntlets to slash at Killer Croc. In the "Batman & Son" arc he stabbed many ninjas. I don't see the problem with cutting unnamed thug #2 when HE SHOT A GUY AS BATMAN IN BATMAN BEGINS!!!

 

[regwec]

I just want him to use batarangs and smoke bombs because those are some of the cool things about Batman, and they would look great.

I seem to keep using comparisons with Dracula, but let me make another: shape shifting and mesmerism are two really cool things that Dracula can do. If you wanted to make a fun movie about Dracula, it might be a good idea to use these ideas, maybe in a new and striking way. Or you could self impose a lot of boring and reductive reasoning that would disallow their inclusion.

Why would you want to do that?

 

[Godzilla2014]

I just want him to use batarangs and smoke bombs because those are some of the cool things about Batman, and they would look great.

I seem to keep using comparisons with Dracula, but let me make another: shape shifting and mesmerism are two really cool things that Dracula can do. If you wanted to make a fun movie about Dracula, it might be a good idea to use these ideas, maybe in a new and striking way. Or you could self impose a lot of boring and reductive reasoning that would disallow their inclusion.

Why would you want to do that?

I am not against things like smoke bombs, and with a gas mask, he could use smoke that could have additional effects beyond just concealment to hinder his opponents ability to counterattack as he kicks the crap out of them.

When it comes to batarangs, I would like that if they are used to disarm opponents, that it is a separate type from the shuriken type seen so far. Have the large, folding batarangs from BB been used on film? I know we saw it being put into his belt, some toys had a version of it, and it was listed in a book on the film as a tool he carries, but I don't recall seeing it in either film other than packing them in BB.

 

[Travesty]

When it comes to batarangs, I would like that if they are used to disarm opponents, that it is a separate type from the shuriken type seen so far. Have the large, folding batarangs from BB been used on film? I know we saw it being put into his belt, some toys had a version of it, and it was listed in a book on the film as a tool he carries, but I don't recall seeing it in either film other than packing them in BB.

He shot the lights out on the docks, and he broke the window on the train so he could catch lift, in order to glide on out.

 

[Godzilla2014]

He shot the lights out on the docks, and he broke the window on the train so he could catch lift, in order to glide on out.

In the former, I can confirm those are the smaller, non-folding batarangs when one of the thugs picks up and examines it. In the latter instance, it moves too fast to tell.

 

[Travesty]

In the former, I can confirm those are the smaller, non-folding batarangs when one of the thugs picks up and examines it. In the latter instance, it moves too fast to tell.

I'm not really understanding your point. Are you just saying you want Batman to only use the foldable batarangs? There is no difference in them, other than one is a foldable version. The "larger" version batarangs really aren't that much bigger.