薔薇語 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 I think the idea of Batman going without armor is as laughable as him in full plate. Neither make sense for the character. That is why he has had nice middleground approach of having high tech, low weight super expensive armor. And the 'dodging gods and men alike' is a terrible status quo. He should be able to either take a hit or dodge it when it comes from the joker, killer croc or even Baine. He should not be dodging Sups, Darkseide, or any of the beings. Armor is what Batman has had for essentially (if not literally) all my life. I think it would be hard to find a popular version of the character in recent times that has had no armor at all. That is out of sync with the times and terribly out of sync with Batman the character. Foreign Orchid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Batman has been wearing at least a bulletproof vest since 1939, if this wiki is accurate. http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/Batsuit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 It is armor in name only. That is to say, it gets described as some handwavey high-tech super-mesh, but it is drawn like spandex. And he has all the flexibility and mobility of a Cirque du Soleil acrobat. There is nothing in the real world that has its characteristics, which is why the movies have to go overboard with it just to sell the notion to viewers. Comic book readers don't (and never have) needed Batman to be wearing armor that is visibly armor; that is a "mainstream non-comic-reading audience member" concession. Which I hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Generally Batman moves fast enough that bad guys don't hit him. He can dive into a room full of thugs and they'll miss every time. Robin is running around with his legs completely uncovered. It's superhero fantasy -- it isn't actually realistic in any way. Batman's costume being armored is a more recent thing. That doesn't mean that they might not have mentioned it once or twice back in the 40s (bulletproof costume or something), but it clearly doesn't behave that way when he moves or when he jumps. I figured that Pre-Crisis, if Batman were really worried about getting shot, he'd just borrow some of Superman's Kryptonian fabric. That stuff can survive a nuclear blast. It's only Post-Crisis that it got retconned so that Supes had a protective skintight force field that kept his costume in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Guess I'm not sure what we are debating here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 That's completely irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 An irrelevant never forgets! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher R Taylor Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Batman's costume being armored is a more recent thing. That doesn't mean that they might not have mentioned it once or twice back in the 40s So what you're saying is that its recent, except when it wasn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrito Boy Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Guess I'm not sure what we are debating here. The topic is bat nipples. Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 So what you're saying is that its recent, except when it wasn't? I'm saying that Batman has always dodged bullets, instead of shrugging them off. Someone said there may have been a mention in 1939 that he had a bulletproof vest. I'm not aware of it, but I'm not an expert on early Batman either. I will say that for the vast majority of his publication history, his costume has neither been described as, nor shown to be, bulletproof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher R Taylor Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 I think there's a lot of confusion over what a "bulletproof vest" works like. Hint: not like this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 More like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 Or this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 Or thi-- wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 I'd like to take the topic in a different direction, if I may, and ask your opinions on whether or not they got her right. I'm speaking here of Wonder Woman, as she appears in the upcoming movie-- Apart from the complete lack of color, I don't have too much of problem with this conception of the character. I do have a problem, however, with the sword she's carrying. I'm afraid I don't understand her need for a sword--or a shield or spear, or any other weapons beyond her Amazonium bracelets and her Golden Lasso Of Truth. Wonder Woman has been described in the comics as being "Beautiful As Aphrodite, Wise As Athena, Strong As Hercules, Swift As Mercury." That means to me she's strong enough that anything that can be cut with a sword or punctured with a spear can be punched through or torn apart with her bare hands, and she's fast enough that anyone swinging a fist or a weapon at her can be dodged or blocked, and anything being shot at her can be dodged or deflected with her bracelets. The only reason I can think of for her to possess any other weapons beyond the lasso, the bracelets is that the author somehow thinks it's cool or edgy--pardon the expression--for her to be able to inflict grievous bodily harm on people. (Which, I reiterate, she is more than capable of doing with her Herculean strength.) To my mind, Wonder Woman needs a sword and shield the same way Superman needs guns. That is to say--Not At All. That's my thought of the subject. What's yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew_A Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 I'd like to take the topic in a different direction, if I may, and ask your opinions on whether or not they got her right. I'm speaking here of Wonder Woman, as she appears in the upcoming movie-- Apart from the complete lack of color, I don't have too much of problem with this conception of the character. I do have a problem, however, with the sword she's carrying. I'm afraid I don't understand her need for a sword--or a shield or spear, or any other weapons beyond her Amazonium bracelets and her Golden Lasso Of Truth. Wonder Woman has been described in the comics as being "Beautiful As Aphrodite, Wise As Athena, Strong As Hercules, Swift As Mercury." That means to me she's strong enough that anything that can be cut with a sword or punctured with a spear can be punched through or torn apart with her bare hands, and she's fast enough that anyone swinging a fist or a weapon at her can be dodged or blocked, and anything being shot at her can be dodged or deflected with her bracelets. The only reason I can think of for her to possess any other weapons beyond the lasso, the bracelets is that the author somehow thinks it's cool or edgy--pardon the expression--for her to be able to inflict grievous bodily harm on people. (Which, I reiterate, she is more than capable of doing with her Herculean strength.) To my mind, Wonder Woman needs a sword and shield the same way Superman needs guns. That is to say--Not At All. That's my thought of the subject. What's yours? Also, it's not true to the character. Diana's defining characteristic is her near-pacifism. She should be carrying a sword as much as Spock should be just punching people or Frank Castle should be using paint ball guns. It's inappropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew_A Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 BTW, could we stop with the comparisons between Wonder Woman and Xena? Wondy could kick Xena's @$$ and beat up Buffy Summers afterward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
薔薇語 Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 Modern Soldiers have no needs for sabers but it is still part of the dress uniform for the Marines. Tradition is a heck of a force. And having a sword and shield on Wonder Woman does the same thing as it does for a marine: convey in a very clear way one's station in life: Soldier / Warrior. And while she may never draw her weapon on Sups, it is a clear way to show a norm is beat by bringing it to their chest. All in All I like the new design. I look forward to seeing it in theaters in five years when it actually comes to Japan... Foreign Orchid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
薔薇語 Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 Wonder Woman is about as much a pacifist as Superman or Batman. That is to say that she is a pacifist in name only. Moreover, just because she and her sister think they are more civilized and advance than man's world doesn't mean that they are. They are a group of warrior women. Not pacifist pushovers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted July 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 I think the first time I saw Wonder Woman whip out the sword and shield was in Kingdom Come. Not that it's necessarily the first time, but that's the first I remember. After Kingdom Come, I've seen her use the sword and shield other times in comics and I think a time or two in animation. So, it's not just the movie taking liberties. In the comics it usually means that the S has hit the F and it's go to war time. Which seems to be the context of the movie: Lex stirring up a war involving the trio. As far as what she'd need to cut, that she can't just pummel with her fists? If she's going up against Superman, then the answer would be Superman's Kryptonian skin. She's not going to do any real damage punching him, despite being nearly in his weight class strength-wise. If she wants to end an alien threat to her planet decisively, a sword forged by Hephaestus is just the ticket. Whether the movies are going with the sword being magic and Supes being vulnerable to magic weapons or just the idea that the sword is really, really sharp, it makes sense in the context that she typically uses the sword and shield when facing a massive threat, which is what Superman is being painted to be. (Or actually may be, given his upbringing. I mean, wtf is up with Ma and Pa Kent and their speeches in these movies?) Anyway, that's my theory. Sword is for chopping the alien menace. Edit: I also happen to think it was stupid to give her a sword in the first place. I was just pointing out that she's had it in the comics for a while now. From some Googling, it seems she's got it in the current universe reboot, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted July 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 As for getting the rest of the character right, I'm cautiously optimistic based on the trailer. I think the look is decent, given that they are fitting WW into their grimdark movieverse, and the actress looks like she can do the part justice. Whether the movie is any good or not remains to be seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmjalund Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 The topic is bat nipples. Discuss. bats ARE mammals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 Shouldn't he have more than 2 bat nipples on his costume? Pretty sure bats have more than two... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.