Talk:Batsuit

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: DC Comics / Batman Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by DC Comics work group. This article is supported by Batman work group.

Not impressed with this article. Much of it is copied word for word from the oringal entry for Batman. Either this page needs to be redone, or what little extra information it has should be encorporated into the main entry, and this page deleted.

I've taken the time to reorganize the data and expand the information on the batsuit. Some of the links need fixing, though, and I could use a bit of help on that. -Dallan007

I've done some more reorganisation and added a picture (unfortunately the best one I could find is the same one as in the main Batman article!). I'm tempted to remove the cleanup tag now. Any thoughts? Waggers 10:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the Utility Belt into this article, since both were pretty short and it seemed silly. I think it can be de-tagged. -- Ipstenu 17:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done. (Because it is!) Waggers 11:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah! We rock :) Of course, now I think we could tidy up the list portion of the page. I'll get on that. -- Ipstenu 14:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fixed a type and edited/added some stuff to the list of utility belt gadgets. Page looks good! We do in fact rock. - Dallan007

Batsuit Begins

In reference to the Batman Begins version, I remember hearing (posssibly in the DVD somewhere) that the black coating on the suit was some kind of latex or other material meant to defeat thermal sensors. Can anyone else confirm this? Violet Grey

Man. I never thought this DVD would come in handy. Yeah. Anyway, yes. Lindy Hemming (costume designer) explained it. Quote: "[Bruce] goes into the workshop and decides to stray it with a latex black stray which removes the heat signiture. So if you look with nightglasses which detect bodyheat this refuses to allow you to see it." ACS (Wikipedian) 17:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you stray something? I thought it was a typo until you used it twice.

I'm sorry, but "Unlike most, Batman wears his underwear on the outside; contrasting," is totally not needed. First, a lot of superheroes do that (please don't make me make a list...), secondly, it's not his underwear at all. It's a costume. Maybe it's a reinforced batgroinprotector. Who knows. I also removed the image, since you can see his contrasting shorty-shorts in the other picture. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

man, you guys are hard on the ghetteaux. like bullies on the 4-square court. ghetteaux just wants to help out, but you bulliez are pretty cliqueish. --Ghetteaux 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's becuase your edits don't make any sense (at least not to me, if someone else can explain it, please jump in). The 'underwear' is called 'briefs' and that's about the best, NPOV desc of them you can get. Also, the TV show all but defined campy. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, are Batman's crotch coverings shorts or briefs? Shorts seems the most applicable, as it runs the gamut of the more shorts like version he wore in the 60s strip. Briefs implies underwear, which they are not. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly briefs, as far as i can tell. BTW, "shorts" does not include "briefs." briefs do include outerwear, as in swimsuit. the truth, though, is that BM is rockin a unitard. --Ghetteaux 00:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not shorts. They're acrobatic supporters. --Destron Commander 05:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're neither. Modern Intrepretations state that it is just the black section of his costume and classic interpretations and Jim Lee seem to indicate that they're trunks or a codpiece.86.132.16.123 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

; both Superman and Batman are consistently depicted with skimpy, speedo-type groin coverings hugging, defining, and displaying the genital region, worn over skintight, sheer, opaque catsuits.

You seem to have a nearly obscene and phallic obsession with Batman's crotch. I'm not arguing that the man wears short-shorts, but the way you're presenting it is in an unseemly light, and it implies that Batman wears the crotch-cover just to show off his lower parts. The basic description of what Batman's outfit looks like, including the historically accurate mention that the shorts have at times been tight briefs and also baggier, covers what you're trying to say in a more flattering light. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the above comment clearly demonstrates a bias: if you're seeking to promote a "flattering light" or bat

WP:NPOV. keep it real not fake, homie. besides, the briefs are very flattering. --Ghetteaux 15:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, retract flattering and put in accurate and unbiased. By flattering I meant simply a more pleasing to read, not that the information itself was agreeable to all, but the reading process was clean, accurate and easy to follow. The difference between a flowing sentence and a stilted on. I apologize, it was the wrong word. That said, I don't see how your additions are adding anything to the article? The information is already there, and you're adding a personal spin on things: specifically in this case 'defining, and displaying the genital region' ... They're BRIEFS/SHORTS! Of course they cover the groin. That's the definition of what they do. We don't need to repeat it. People can go to the shorts/briefs link if they need more explanation. Do they display it? No more than his cape displays his shoulders. Simply put, I don't think your additions lately have added any new information, or even any information that expands what we already have, and it puts the outfit in a rather erotic light. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

face the fax, homie: many of the contributorz 2 the batman material on WP are fanboyz (yes, you also), and are certainly trying to protray him in a flattering light. there is no possible way you can accurately call the above the hip-joint, tight, seamless, pocketless bikini on batman "shorts." why on earth one would think "briefs" "speedos" or "bikini" are somehow less accurate (and less flattering) is puzzling. just trying to call a spade a spade, dude. if you have issues with descibing the batsuit objectively, take it up with jim lee and alex ross. word. --Ghetteaux 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm appealing to the Comics Project for a third party intervention -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would agree with Ipstenu. Mention of the briefs is needed, and I would think that the word "briefs" is the right one. As a note, neither calling someone a fanboy nor saying they have an obsession with someone's crotch is particularly conducive to a civil discussion - but I'm not here to argue. The article currently says:

"The basic foundation of the Batsuit is a tight, revealing unitard (similar to many superheroes). In early depictions, contrasting, tight, briefs are worn over the unitard, similar to early 20th century circus performers (who wore briefs over their circus bodystockings). The inclusion of this feature might have been influenced by Superman's similar costume, which preceded Batman's by a few years. Usually, however, these briefs are depicted as being integrated into the unitard, so that section of the costume constitutes only a seam and color change from the rest of the suit, rather than another piece of clothing worn over the suit. These have varied in color and style as depicted by different artists, from light blue tights with peacock briefs, to all black bodystockings with a black bikini bottom."

I can't find the quote that's causing the trouble in the article, so I would assume it's gone. I don't necessarily speak for the entire Comics Project, but I think that the above passage describes the suit accurately, not trying to skip over details or go into too much detail. Gamesmaster 20:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Batman always carry a Kryptonite ring with him all the time? I doubt such an item would be standard in his utility belt. Given the difficulty of acquiring and even duplicating Kryptonite in post-Crisis continuity, makes more sense he would keep it safe in the Batcave and take it out only in an emergency. There've been several occasions where he lost the belt or is forced to ditch it. If he did claim to always carry one, it's more likely he's bluffing. --Destron Commander 05:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He only carries it when he thinks he might need it. And since he's the Goddamn Batman, he only carries it when the plotline dictates. FWIW, though, I don't think every item on the list is carried every time, otherwise it'd be a Utility Backpack. Should we word something to make that more clear? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should a note be made about it being replaced with a simple worksman utility belt with no locking protection during No Man's Land arc due to having more pockets? Sera404 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agree that there should be mention of the changes that the Utility Belt has undergone over the years in the comics. Key designs are the 'yellow bullets' design from the Infantino 'yellow-oval' costume, and the 'yellow pouches' design that followed 'Cataclysm'. Goalump 08:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, we've got a lot of images here, and I'm thinking we're pushing past the fair-use on some of them. Do we really need all these images? Yes, they're cool and they add color, but ... the ear bugs? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we don't need them. Further, if even if we did, I'd rather see images from the comics (which comprise the vast majority of appearances) rather than an over-reliance on the films. --JackofSpades 01:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Being Bold. I hacked out 99% of the images, and all for the ones of Utility Belt items. I kept in the Utility Belt images, the ones OF the belt, since it's really part of the icon of Batman and I think that they're relavant in their variations. The rest was just way too many images. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put back the bat-belt images, since I think they're appropriate illustrations of the batbelt and very much static to the batsuit. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To quote ChrisGriswold here: "The unitard/catsuit/body armor varies, but the other aspects do not"

I think we're best leaving the Body Suit section titled as is, since it encompases the armor variants as well as the skin tight outfits he also wears. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did the DVD say the nipples were inspired by the Greeks, or just that the suit/style was? There's a difference. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are any other readers taken by the fact that Bob Kane - the designer of the original batsuit is not referenced anywhere in this article? In addition to his acknowledgement of Da Vinci's flying machine, and Zorro's mask, an interesting quotation from Kane might come from his description of the killer in the film 'The Bat'..."he wore a costume that looked a little like my early Batman's, with a black robe and a bat shaped head. This made him look like a bat - very ominous. The film not only helped inspire Batman's costume but also the bat signal".

Also...

Would readers like to know more about the introduction of the 'new-look' batsuit (i.e. the first 'yellow-oval' suit)? For example that it was designed by Carmine Infantino, introduced in a story entitled 'Mystery of the Menacing Mask', in Detective comics #237, May 1964, etc.

Would readers like to know which issue the post-knightfall suit (i.e. the all black suit with yellow-oval but no visible 'briefs') first appeared in (and the fictional reasoning behind its introduction)?

Would readers like to know something about the 'Batman Knight Gallery'? For example that this was a one-shot 'Elseworlds' title - which essentially presented a number of the proposed post-knightfall suit designs (as drawn by many of the 'bat-artists' of the mid 1990s).

Would readers like to know which issue the present suit (i.e. with visible 'briefs', without the yellow-oval, with utility belt pockets) first appeared in (and the fictional reasoning behind its introduction)? —The preceding

I agree that a timeline-based list of the main comic book Batsuits is definitely required, including dates and issue # of their first appearance. The 'post-knightfall' suit in all black, but retaining the yellow-oval is a key costume in Bat history. As is the post 'Cataclysm' suit which finally got rid of Infantino's yellow-oval. Fictional reasoning behind their introduction would add some 'meat' to the article. Goalump 08:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expirt when it comes to Batman, and I want to make that clear. Under the basic suit section it says "... ,light blue tights with peacock briefs, all black bodystockings with a black bikini bottom, ect." that just doesn't sound right, especially the latter of the two. As I said, I am no expirt when it comes to Batman so I could be wrong, and I was hoping some one, with more knolege on the subject could choose what to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.2.2 (talk • contribs)

Batman's had a lot of costumes, with color and design variants all over the spectrum for blue/grey. It's not perfect, but the wording was settled after a series of near edit wars on the matter. If you have a better wording, please pitch it here :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should something about the bat-symbol be added? Y'know, how it's seen as a totem/symbol/fear icon, a giant target so villains tend to aim more at the chest than the head (as portrayed in Dark Knight Returns, etc? Sera404 (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that the eye make-up used in all the Batman movies is "used to make him less recognizable." That's not really true, is it? I know of no evidence to that effect. As far as I can tell (and in fact, this is well-known to be the case in many superhero movies), that eye make-up is just there to make the costume look cooler. That is, it would look silly if Batman had a black mask on, and then you could see his skin-tone all around his eyes; ergo, they paint the skin around his eyes black to create the illusion that the mask covers his eyes completely.

As far as I can tell, we the viewers are not even supposed to notice that Batman is wearing make-up at all--I, for one, was surprised to have that pointed out to me. Thus, it has nothing to do with making him "less recognizable," and in fact, for the purposes of the movie, it's not even there, so it shouldn't be considered part of the costume. (That is, it shouldn't be considered part of Batman's costume, though it IS part of Michael Keaton's costume.) If any doubt remained on this matter, it should be laid to rest by watching the climactic scene of Batman Returns, where Batman rips the mask off--In the shot where Michael Keaton actually removes the mask, he isn't wearing any eye make-up, because of course this would look silly without the mask. QED: we're supposed to believe that the black around his eyes is part of the mask, NOT make-up.

As is so often the case, the author seems to have made an effort to explain away an artifact of movie-making trickery by pretending it were part of the story. It's not. The make-up is there for aesthetic reasons, and it has no place in the story. It's a movie. Chalkieperfect (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It states that he no longer has the memory cloth cape. That is incorrect. In the high altitude scene he uses the stabilized form as suggested by Lucius, but he does have a normal cape. It can be seen when he is on the BatPod and in the jail scene with the Joker. MikeSims (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same cape just the memory foam needs an electric current in it make a shape when no current just a regular cape Sean 06:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs)

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at

Personally, I like showing all the different Batsuits as you can then clearly see the difference. But, considering that's not really an option...I would say the Batman Returns and Batman and Robin suit can go, as they're very similar to the suits of the movies preceding them (actually, possibly the Batman Forever one as well, as the only real difference is the nipples and it being slightly more toned). Batman Begins and Dark Knight I feel need to stay, as they are radically different not only from the classic Batman look (something the suit from the first four films doesn't really do) but also from each other, despite being in the same canon. Question, though, are the pictures for the first four films on their respective movie pages? That would be an appriopriate place to put them, and that way the pictures aren't just floating around on the servers, especially considering they are fair-use. All the others seem appropriate to leave on, though if one more were to go, I'd pick the "New Look" suit, though I'd still be hesitant (hesitent?) to take it out. The DCAU picture has all four suits in one picture. One idea that just came to me: possibly putting the Begins and Knight suits as one picture, similar to what was done on the

Joker page for depictions by Cesar Romano, Jack Nicholson, and Heath Ledger. That way both suits can be shown but it's one picture. That would help cut down the number of images as well. Actually, we could probably put the first film suit there as well, so it's the Batsuit from Batman, Begins, and Dark Knight. Or, hey, just for kicks, take all the movie Batsuits and put them in one image. That way they could all stay but have it be one picture. Something like that.Anakinjmt (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have removed the two suggested, but I'll leave up the {{

WP:FAC) has such an image and no-one says a peep, so I don't know what to say/do. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the phrase "a bat-like cowl" out of the lede, because it can be grossly misunderstood. I don't dispute that Batman's mask is called a cowl in canon but, as I understand it, the word cowl usually means a loose hood. I replaced it with "a close-fitting hood (covering the upper half of his face) with ears to suggest a bat's head". —Tamfang (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should a section about the Telltale Series' Bat suit be made and what suits are provided during Chapter 5 as a result of what happened at the end of Chapter 4? Jedi Striker (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]