MR

I know this film will probably be killer, but the stuff they've put out so far has yet to get me excited in the least, and that sucks. First of all, a weak teaser trailer, and a really weak follow-up trailer that has almost no Batman in it at all. Then there is the Batsuit... good lord.

As much as I loved Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, one of the biggest disappointments to me was with the Batsuit. They had such a good chance to come up with something a little more faithful to the comics, and yet what they produced wasn't that much different than the earlier films - black rubber with a gold belt. The flimsy-looking cape and the way it attaches suck too when it's not being used for something cool like gliding or parachuting.

I didn't really care for the helmet (the way it grips his face around the jaw take away from the classic look) or other modifications in the 2nd film, and the Batsuit in the new film is similar but takes the crappiness even a bit further. I HATE it...



Some of the detail is way too distracting, but it could be semi-redeemed with one simple modification. It almost looks grey, but they placed the black bat symbol right on top of another black area so you can barely make it out... WTF? It's almost like they are ashamed of the logo. If they did away with the black background and made the symbol larger again, it would be 100% better - still not great, but acceptable.

I've seen plenty of photos of daytime action shots on the steps of what looks like a courthouse, and the suit just looks stupid. I guess we'll see when it comes out.

Here's what they COULD have done to make fans happy...

http://io9.com/5853261/amazing-real+lif ... ys-batsuit



They even got the textures from the "Arkham City" suit dead-on! Get the right actor in that suit, and it would simply kick ass...

The first suit looks better.

conversationpc wrote:The first suit looks better.

Then you hate Batman...



I could see people arguing that the Arkham City Batsuit may not be perfect for film, but at least it's simple and honors a good classic look. Take the helmet away from the Nolan suit and it would look much better on Snake Eyes from G.I. Joe.

Rip Rokken wrote:

conversationpc wrote:The first suit looks better.

Then you hate Batman...



I could see people arguing that the Arkham City Batsuit may not be perfect for film, but at least it's simple and honors a good classic look. Take the helmet away from the Nolan suit and it would look much better on Snake Eyes from G.I. Joe.

The belt on the first pic looks much more "Batman-ish", in my opinion. The other one looks like a cheap artillery belt from some ancient movie, not to mention that it looks like a pair of blue underwear is being worn outside the suit.

Rip Rokken wrote:I know this film will probably be killer, but the stuff they've put out so far has yet to get me excited in the least, and that sucks. First of all, a weak teaser trailer, and a really weak follow-up trailer that has almost no Batman in it at all.

Nolan doesn't want to give too much away. I'm pretty sure I've figured out where he's going with this third film, but I read the comics he's sourced his trilogy from years ago. I liked the full trailer. You'll like the second trailer better.

Rip Rokken wrote:Then there is the Batsuit... good lord.

As much as I loved Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, one of the biggest disappointments to me was with the Batsuit. They had such a good chance to come up with something a little more faithful to the comics, and yet what they produced wasn't that much different than the earlier films - black rubber with a gold belt. The flimsy-looking cape and the way it attaches suck too when it's not being used for something cool like gliding or parachuting.

I didn't really care for the helmet (the way it grips his face around the jaw take away from the classic look) or other modifications in the 2nd film, and the Batsuit in the new film is similar but takes the crappiness even a bit further. I HATE it...



Some of the detail is way too distracting, but it could be semi-redeemed with one simple modification. It almost looks grey, but they placed the black bat symbol right on top of another black area so you can barely make it out... WTF? It's almost like they are ashamed of the logo. If they did away with the black background and made the symbol larger again, it would be 100% better - still not great, but acceptable.

The suits used in Begins and TDK are by far the best to be put onscreen. Nolan tries to balance the look of the comics suit with ergonomics and functionality. Again, it's pretty clear (to me) what's up with the new suit (the one on the magazine cover) — to tell you would yield a serious spoiler.

About the helmet: well, that's what it is, a helmet. Hence it's molded to wrap around the jaw. Like he told Lucius Fox, "I need to be able to turn my head."

Rip Rokken wrote:I've seen plenty of photos of daytime action shots on the steps of what looks like a courthouse, and the suit just looks stupid. I guess we'll see when it comes out.

Most things "look stupid" when they're being filmed. Then when you see the final edited print, they look "proppa."

Rip Rokken wrote:Here's what they COULD have done to make fans happy...

http://io9.com/5853261/amazing-real+lif ... ys-batsuit



They even got the textures from the "Arkham City" suit dead-on! Get the right actor in that suit, and it would simply kick ass...

I like it, too. Since Nolan's done with Batman after this movie, it may happen. The studio wants yet another reboot that will result in a version of Batman that blurs the lines between the Burton and Nolan Batmans, one who can "hang with the Justice League." They took so long to get around to a team film, now (of course) they want one because The Avengers has been completed.

conversationpc wrote:The belt on the first pic looks much more "Batman-ish", in my opinion. The other one looks like a cheap artillery belt from some ancient movie, not to mention that it looks like a pair of blue underwear is being worn outside the suit.

Say what?! They look charcoal-grey to me.

verslibre wrote:

conversationpc wrote:The belt on the first pic looks much more "Batman-ish", in my opinion. The other one looks like a cheap artillery belt from some ancient movie, not to mention that it looks like a pair of blue underwear is being worn outside the suit.

Say what?! They look charcoal-grey to me.

At first glance, they looked dark blue. Could've just been the angle of the LCD screen on my laptop. Regardless of the color, it looks like a pair of Fruit-of-the-Looms.

conversationpc wrote:The belt on the first pic looks much more "Batman-ish", in my opinion. The other one looks like a cheap artillery belt from some ancient movie...

Kinda like these?





It's a very popular look for the more PG13-themed Batman comics. You're probably used to this:

verslibre wrote:Nolan doesn't want to give too much away. I'm pretty sure I've figured out where he's going with this third film, but I read the comics he's sourced his trilogy from years ago. I liked the full trailer. You'll like the second trailer better.

When does the 2nd trailer come out?

verslibre wrote:About the helmet: well, that's what it is, a helmet. Hence it's molded to wrap around the jaw. Like he told Lucius Fox, "I need to be able to turn my head."

I got that part - it takes away from the look, though.

verslibre wrote:Again, it's pretty clear (to me) what's up with the new suit (the one on the magazine cover) — to tell you would yield a serious spoiler.

I can imagine with his history with Bane, and obviously he's going to royally get his ass kicked in an early encounter with him. The suit is either designed to help out when he goes after Bane again, or make up for some residual weakness from his earlier injuries.

I'm fine with the entire technical outlook of the visual images I've seen thus far of the Dark Knight Rises. I think the 3rd and final installment could be the best yet and propel the Bat Nolan-verse series in one of THEE best trilogy's ever. Problems are coming to the surface though with the film and I'm worried about the little things that are underrated in the film and that's editing and pre-tool. I seen the second Bat trailer on-line (sneak peek) and Bane's voice is HIGHLY intolerable. You think Bale's Bat-voice was wrongfully executed? Wait to you hear Bane. Imagine someone trying to talk with 3 pillow's covering your face with a person sitting on top of them. That's what Bane sounded like. MUFFLED at BEST.

I hope they can go in and enhance and fix Bane's voice or that (hopefully Bale works on his Bat voice) will stop this trilogy from being the greatest of ALL TIME.

Rip Rokken wrote:

conversationpc wrote:The belt on the first pic looks much more "Batman-ish", in my opinion. The other one looks like a cheap artillery belt from some ancient movie...

Kinda like these?

I don't like Jim Lee's artistic portrayal of Batman. I never have. Look at those arms and legs. Ridiculous. Is that Bat-Hulk?

Jim Aparo (R.I.P.), Gene Colan (R.I.P.), Paul Gulacy, and Brian Finch are among the best Batman artists.

Just a question, albeit a serious one. Please read it through before trashing it, ok?

Superman is much more populare than Batman, yes? Do you think this is because of the fact he doesn't wear a lid? I compare this to popularity of NBA players vs NHL players. NBA players are a bit more popular because fans can actually see their faces and hair. NHL players, to most women, are better looking but you can't can't see their faces and hair(much to chicks dismay), unless there is a fight and they get into a scrap, their bucket gets ripped off their dome. Meanwhile, when there is NO fight going on, the helmet stays on and chicks stay close legged. I know this is a far fetched argument, or seems to be, but in the world of comics, don't women like Supermam better? Isn't Batman primarily a dude's character?

Did I make a point or did I just shit the bed aka Steve from Appalachia?

Rockindeano wrote:Just a question, albeit a serious one. Please read it through before trashing it, ok?

Superman is much more populare than Batman, yes? Do you think this is because of the fact he doesn't wear a lid? I compare this to popularity of NBA players vs NHL players. NBA players are a bit more popular because fans can actually see their faces and hair. NHL players, to most women, are better looking but you can't can't see their faces and hair(much to chicks dismay), unless there is a fight and they get into a scrap, their bucket gets ripped off their dome. Meanwhile, when there is NO fight going on, the helmet stays on and chicks stay close legged. I know this is a far fetched argument, or seems to be, but in the world of comics, don't women like Supermam better? Isn't Batman primarily a dude's character?

Definitely.

Let's see........red and blue tights vs. black leather? I'll go with Batman.

Rockindeano wrote:Just a question, albeit a serious one. Please read it through before trashing it, ok?

Superman is much more populare than Batman, yes? Do you think this is because of the fact he doesn't wear a lid? I compare this to popularity of NBA players vs NHL players. NBA players are a bit more popular because fans can actually see their faces and hair. NHL players, to most women, are better looking but you can't can't see their faces and hair(much to chicks dismay), unless there is a fight and they get into a scrap, their bucket gets ripped off their dome. Meanwhile, when there is NO fight going on, the helmet stays on and chicks stay close legged. I know this is a far fetched argument, or seems to be, but in the world of comics, don't women like Supermam better? Isn't Batman primarily a dude's character?

Did I make a point or did I just shit the bed aka Steve from Appalachia?

Most readers always viewed the character of Superman as being more "trustworthy" because of the fact he doesn't hide his identity and he puts the faith in the people's hands into trusting him via showing his identity and not hiding anything from the public OR to the world. Batman, at the moment, is more popular than Superman in comic book sales (has been this decade but the "Batman Begins" series in Hollywood helps that as well) but that's not to say he's more popular than Superman, just that he's had some fantastic story arcs and great writers doing more with him than Superman, but Supes will always have his loyal fans and that trumps any other character when it comes to fanbase out there.

As far as women with Batman, that's a good point, Dean. Women could be more attracted to Superman (if you actually READ both characters) because the fact that he is WAY more human than Bruce EVER will be, and that's ironic since Bruce is an Earthling and Clark is an "Kryptonian."

Superman is more emotional, was Clark Kent first before Superman, had relationships, was brought up on good morals, had a childhood before his powers and loves and adores one woman, Lois Lane. Batman on the other hand, turned dark once he witnessed his parents death, thrusting into the shadows and trusting nobody. He's also a PIMP, a PLAYBOY and a womanizer-billionaire so the Supes character is much, much more likable than Batman from a woman's standpoint.

Rip Rokken wrote:

conversationpc wrote:The belt on the first pic looks much more "Batman-ish", in my opinion. The other one looks like a cheap artillery belt from some ancient movie...

Kinda like these?





It's a very popular look for the more PG13-themed Batman comics. You're probably used to this:

When I say "Batman-ish", it doesn't have anything to do with what the belt looks/looked like in the comics. I'm talking when I picture what Batman's belt should look like, the belt in the first pic at the top of this thread looks more "Batman-ish" to me. Obviously the second one looks closer to what the one in the comics does. It just doesn't look good, in my opinion.

Rockindeano wrote:Superman is much more populare than Batman, yes?

Not a chance. Batman took the crown decades ago. Continued evidence can be found in the sales figures of the Bat-titles versus Super-titles published in DC 52 sales starting last fall, and long before that. In January (last month), there were no fewer than four Batman titles in DC's Top 10, though Batman #5 (No. 2) and Action Comics #5 (No. 3) were neck-in-neck (Justice League, a team book — duh — took No. 1). Still, Batman, Detective Comics and Batman: The Dark Knight were all higher than Superman (No. 7). In ninth place was Batman and Robin.

However, industrywide (all publishers), the top ten graphic novels/trade editions sold included no fewer than three Batman books: Through The Looking Glass [HC] (No. 1, $22.99), The Return Of Bruce Wayne [TPB] (No. 6, 19.99), and The Dark Knight Volume 1: Golden Dawn [Deluxe Edition HC] (No. 10, 24.99).

There were no other DC character titles in the GN/trade Top 10, nor any Marvel titles. Two slots, #3 and #7, went to two trade volumes of The Walking Dead.

This has nothing to do with "chicks dig Superman." Chicks dig Bruce Wayne/Batman, too.

Deb wrote:Let's see........red and blue tights vs. black leather? I'll go with Batman.

There you go.

YoungJRNY wrote:Superman is more emotional, was Clark Kent first before Superman, had relationships, was brought up on good morals, had a childhood before his powers and loves and adores one woman, Lois Lane.

Prince Valiant-with-a-cape doesn't translate well outside of fairy tales and Disney flicks, IMO.

YoungJRNY wrote:Batman on the other hand, turned dark once he witnessed his parents death, thrusting into the shadows and trusting nobody. He's also a PIMP, a PLAYBOY and a womanizer-billionaire so the Supes character is much, much more likable than Batman from a woman's standpoint.

You point out Wayne's flaws, yet argue Kent/Supes is "more human." Come again?

Btw, Wayne trusts Alfred.

verslibre wrote:

YoungJRNY wrote:Superman is more emotional, was Clark Kent first before Superman, had relationships, was brought up on good morals, had a childhood before his powers and loves and adores one woman, Lois Lane.

Prince Valiant-with-a-cape doesn't translate well outside of fairy tales and Disney flicks, IMO.

YoungJRNY wrote:Batman on the other hand, turned dark once he witnessed his parents death, thrusting into the shadows and trusting nobody. He's also a PIMP, a PLAYBOY and a womanizer-billionaire so the Supes character is much, much more likable than Batman from a woman's standpoint.

You point out Wayne's flaws, yet argue Kent/Supes is "more human." Come again?

Btw, Wayne trusts Alfred.

Read between the lines. I'm not talking as if Supes is more human from a biological standpoint (hence my "which is quite ironic since Bruce is an Earthling and Supes is a Kryptonian" line I said above) but from a personality standpoint. Batman rarely gets close to anyone and is as mysterious as it comes to his peers. The Justice League always looked to their leader, Superman from being the voice for them as Bruce is more of a rebel, vigilante who doesn't let too much of his human-side out and buy into anyone. He keeps his distance from pretty much everyone he comes into contact with outside of Alfred. Him and Supes even but-heads on many standpoints of their history of how Justice should be served.

As I said, Bruce went into the shadows after his parents death, pretty much EXCLUDING himself from the world as he built his Bat-empire and led the secret life of the Bat-cave & he was a Pimp as being the wealthiest owner of Wayne Enterprise's as their Playboy by day. Clark grew up on the farm, was raised, went to school, had relationships with friends during his childhood (first crush Lana Lang, best friend Pete Ross) and his adult life (Jimmy Olsen) before falling in love with his love interest, Lois Lane. Superman leads a more human life than Bruce ever did, which is again, ironic to how both characters are written and who they are. Batman acts more of the "strange visitor from another planet who doesn't belong" than Clark ever did.

Rip Rokken wrote:I know this film will probably be killer, but the stuff they've put out so far has yet to get me excited in the least, and that sucks. First of all, a weak teaser trailer, and a really weak follow-up trailer that has almost no Batman in it at all. Then there is the Batsuit... good lord.

Forget about all that noise Rip, and decide which pair of glasses you're gonna buy!!!


http://www.superherohype.com/news/artic ... s-revealed

RedWingFan wrote:

Rip Rokken wrote:I know this film will probably be killer, but the stuff they've put out so far has yet to get me excited in the least, and that sucks. First of all, a weak teaser trailer, and a really weak follow-up trailer that has almost no Batman in it at all. Then there is the Batsuit... good lord.

Forget about all that noise Rip, and decide which pair of glasses you're gonna buy!!!


http://www.superherohype.com/news/artic ... s-revealed

Date night/dinner: $40.00
Gas: $50.00
Large Pop Corn: $8.50
Large Coke: $7.00
Twizzlers: $5.00

Paying $20.00 for two movie tickets and purchasing Avengers 3D glass's for another $25.00 and spending a total of $155.00 for diner and a movie? PRICELESS.

YoungJRNY wrote:

verslibre wrote:

YoungJRNY wrote:Superman is more emotional, was Clark Kent first before Superman, had relationships, was brought up on good morals, had a childhood before his powers and loves and adores one woman, Lois Lane.

Prince Valiant-with-a-cape doesn't translate well outside of fairy tales and Disney flicks, IMO.

YoungJRNY wrote:Batman on the other hand, turned dark once he witnessed his parents death, thrusting into the shadows and trusting nobody. He's also a PIMP, a PLAYBOY and a womanizer-billionaire so the Supes character is much, much more likable than Batman from a woman's standpoint.

You point out Wayne's flaws, yet argue Kent/Supes is "more human." Come again?

Btw, Wayne trusts Alfred.

Read between the lines. I'm not talking as if Supes is more human from a biological standpoint (hence my "which is quite ironic since Bruce is an Earthling and Supes is a Kryptonian" line I said above) but from a personality standpoint. Batman rarely gets close to anyone and is as mysterious as it comes to his peers. The Justice League always looked to their leader, Superman from being the voice for them as Bruce is more of a rebel, vigilante who doesn't let too much of his human-side out and buy into anyone. He keeps his distance from pretty much everyone he comes into contact with outside of Alfred. Him and Supes even but-heads on many standpoints of their history of how Justice should be served.

As I said, Bruce went into the shadows after his parents death, pretty much EXCLUDING himself from the world as he built his Bat-empire and led the secret life of the Bat-cave & he was a Pimp as being the wealthiest owner of Wayne Enterprise's as their Playboy by day. Clark grew up on the farm, was raised, went to school, had relationships with friends during his childhood (first crush Lana Lang, best friend Pete Ross) and his adult life (Jimmy Olsen) before falling in love with his love interest, Lois Lane. Superman leads a more human life than Bruce ever did, which is again, ironic to how both characters are written and who they are. Batman acts more of the "strange visitor from another planet who doesn't belong" than Clark ever did.

I'm not talking biology, either. Trauma affects people to varying degrees. Wayne experienced his firsthand, and the eventual result was Batman. Supes learned of his origin and his extraplanetary credentials after the fact. Seriously, if you were Batman or another superhero, would you be quick to trust anybody with your secrets or civilian identity, particularly with so many assholes growing on trees in the real world?

Two of the best depictions of Batman entrusting somebody to do something for him, by priority or moral choice, were depicted in Begins/TDK: when he held up the key to the Tumbler in front of Gordon and asked "Can you drive 'stick'?"; and giving Lucius the means to dismantle/destroy the Bat-sonar command console after the Joker had been apprehended.

RedWingFan wrote:

Rip Rokken wrote:I know this film will probably be killer, but the stuff they've put out so far has yet to get me excited in the least, and that sucks. First of all, a weak teaser trailer, and a really weak follow-up trailer that has almost no Batman in it at all. Then there is the Batsuit... good lord.

Forget about all that noise Rip, and decide which pair of glasses you're gonna buy!!!


http://www.superherohype.com/news/artic ... s-revealed

I didn't see Thor in 3-D and I won't see Avengers in 3-D, either.

3-D has become the biggest ripoff around, and I'm perfectly fine without it. IMAX, I can go for.

Rip Rokken wrote:3-D has become the biggest ripoff around, and I'm perfectly fine without it. IMAX, I can go for.

I hear ya. I go to the movies so infrequently that when a movie like this comes out, I have no problem layin out a couple more bucks.

Rip Rokken wrote:I know this film will probably be killer, but the stuff they've put out so far has yet to get me excited in the least, and that sucks.

Your Dark Knight is not rising?

A movie should be done on "The Dark Night Returns"

An old crazy Batman trying to get back in the game.



Not much of a comic guy at all, but a friend of mine is and sent it to me. Pretty cool premise.

the second suit is MUCH more true to the comics. They should've done that. I only hope that "the voice" is better this time.
Huge Batman fan, but that voice... ugh.

AR wrote:A movie should be done on "The Dark Night Returns"

An old crazy Batman trying to get back in the game.



Not much of a comic guy at all, but a friend of mine is and sent it to me. Pretty cool premise.

That Frank Miller comic is one of the high watermarks in graphic novels. Absolutely loved the first one, then only about 7-8 years ago ran into the follow up, which was also very good (except for some extremely confusingly sketchy art in places - for god's sake, let us at least be able to make out what's going on in the panel). The 2nd one had the great scene of Superman screwing Wonder Woman in the air, and I think they did a lot of damage to the surrounding area in the process.



P.S. - the idea for the tank-like "Tumbler" in the Nolan films came from the same Batmobile idea used in Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns".

Rip Rokken wrote:That Frank Miller comic is one of the high watermarks in graphic novels. Absolutely loved the first one, then only about 7-8 years ago ran into the follow up, which was also very good (except for some extremely confusingly sketchy art in places

No. The art SUCKED. Miller phoned that in, bigtime. His art on the original was plenty experimental, but the crap he turned in for the sequel was exactly that. It made his Sin City art look like Gil Kane.

Rip Rokken wrote:3-D has become the biggest ripoff around, and I'm perfectly fine without it. IMAX, I can go for.

Agreed!