SSC Batman 1/6 figure

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Darklord is on a roll :goodpost:

As for new picks, looks good. Same old complaint- that angry face looks bad, looks like he's doing the Bale voice. New complaint- not sure if it's the lighting but his skin looks to dark. Senor Batman.
 
The figure really looks great. If it was black and grey I'd be all over it but I'm passing on the the blue. Really hope they put out a variant costume because the Arkham figure is disappointing.
 
I had to reread the EXCLUSIVE i thought was just the battle damaged face piece but a whole battle damaged cowl also and face piece SWEEEEEEEET! :yess:I have a bad habit of skipping the whole details :slap i do that a lot with the magic card game.I Must start reading all the spec's :lol Glad i grabbed the Exclusive.
 
Last edited:
I've been tempted to cancel my ex. and pick up the regular using one of those $20 off gift cards, since I probably won't pose him with the damaged head. BUT. . .it's pretty cool.
 
I really think SS did a good job with this one. It took long enough but better to get it right. I still wish it was the black and gray version but if this one does well enough maybe that will be next.
 
I've been tempted to cancel my ex. and pick up the regular using one of those $20 off gift cards, since I probably won't pose him with the damaged head. BUT. . .it's pretty cool.

better off selling the exclusive for more then 20 buck's later on ,and may end up liking when get it in hand.
 
If this is true, then that SUCKS majorly.

Classic (tights) versions of these characters should ALWAYS be available. They are a rich part of the history of these characters and they shouldn't be forgotten.

What I find interesting about this " textured, realistic slant..." of the movies is that there is NOTHING "realistic" about it... certainly not over standard spandex or supplex. I can't remember EVER seeing someone walking down the street here in New York City wearing a bodysuit that was textured like the skin on a golf ball.

But I CAN remember (plenty of times) seeing plain tights at virtually every dance performance I've ever gone to or at every night club I've been to.

I truly am sick of this "realistic" crap spoiling what should be a fun fantasy that requires only that the reader / viewer suspend disbelief a bit.

These so-called "realistic" takes on super-heroes in films seem to be so ashamed of the traditional conventions of comic books, that gradually, these heroes are wearing their costumes less and less and less in the films! How many total minutes worth of screen time did The Batman actually have in costume in the nearly 3hrs of "The Dark Knight Rises"? What... 10... 15 minutes? And that last Captain America film (Winter Soldier) featured him almost entirely OUT of costume... even on a bunch of the damn posters for the film! Why even call it "Captain America"?

Bottom line is I LOVE The Batman wearing plain tights. And I LOVE his traditional costume from the comics! It reflects how ordinary he is as a "superhero" (Re: No super-powers), and it reinforces how GOOD he has to be at what he does because he is NOT wearing some space-age, micro-weave, nano-technology, protective whatyoumacallit! It makes him special... better than me.. that he can move that quickly... maybe even take the occasional bullet and get badly injured... but he still keeps coming.

I always laugh at people who tell me that Batman in armor is "more realistic" than Batman in tights. Really? NEWSFLASH!! It's Batman!! It's not supposed to be "realistic"!! A guy who depends on speed, agility, flexibility, dexterity (in the real world)... a guy like THAT is not going to weigh himself down with bulky, constricting armor! Along those same lines of thought, a guy like that (in the real world) is NOT going to run around in a heavy, leathery Bat-cape that (again) weighs him down and slows him down into a better target for bad guys.

My point is Super-hero costumes, whether they be spandex or tights are EQUALLY ridiculous and EQUALLY UN-REALISTIC. A guy walking down my street wearing a cape and a cowl is NOT somehow made less ridiculous and more "realistic" if his body suit were armored versus if it were spandex tights. They are BOTH pretty preposterous.

"Realistic"? Give me a damn break!

And what's with this preoccupation with things being "realistic" anyway?? Last I checked, this is a comic book character. A fantasy, not a documentary.

Have you ever worn a bat-cowl? I have. In the "real world", no one in their right mind would EVER wear something as constrictive as that to go out at night and fight crime. The cowl makes the wearer completely tunnel-visioned by eliminating peripheral vision, it almost completely eliminates hearing, natural head movement... you name it.

"Realism" in Super-Hero circumstances? I just don't get it. We're talking about a guy who leaps off of 40-story tall buildings to catch bad guys. There is NOTHING "realistic" about that. There's honestly more "realism" in the average James Bond or Indiana Jones film, and neither of those guys wears any damn armor.

And now, even Superman is wearing a "realistic" textured suit these days (that is drawn with sectioned off "plates" to look like it suggests armor / bullet resistance material). Um... why? THE DARN GUY IS SUPERMAN???? He's bulletproof and faster than a speeding bullet!

Okay. End of rant. :)


I've seen you make this same spandex and trunks, "rant" on a few different forums now, and I'm sorry, but you still haven't proven your point.

You're never going to, because it's all a matter of opinion.

When Darklord Dave said that it wouldn't look right in a real world setting, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong DD) that he meant on FILM. Not so much shooting in Chicago and calling it Gotham.

But since we're on the subject, I have to agree with him. IMO, it doesn't look right.

It didn't look right on Lewis Wilson and Robert Lowery in the 1940's serials (which were in black and white, can't get much more, "noir" than that), and it didn't look right on Adam West in the 66 show. Sorry Batfans, nostalgia notwithstanding, most would agree, it didn't.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but the spandex and trunks is just not a great look on film for Batman. Cartoons and comics, yes, all the way, but not live action.

Just like the all black suit doesn't look right in those mediums.

I've also noticed whenever I read this theory of yours, that you always use Batman-Dead End as an example. Like it's some kind of litmus test or proof, but it doesn't look great in that either (though truth be told, I'm not a fan).

What did Sandy Collera do with the costume in B-DE that was so innovative? Or the high school play that you did for that matter?

You both basically made the same cowl as the one Hollywood has been using since 1989 (black rubber) and put it on top of an Adam West suit, with a different emblem and belt.

That's it. That's all that you both did. Now are you seriously going to compare a 7 minute fan film and a high school play to a multi million dollar movie?

Come on, please.

I will say that I'm in the same boat with you in regards to Keaton, though.

I always liked him, and still do, but to this day I think he was a poor choice for Batman. If anything, I don't think the producers back in 1988 could have done any better if they cast Alec Baldwin instead.

He would have been perfect IMO. He was the right age, the right height (I don't think any of them since AW and now BA were 6'), the right build, and in addition, he had (has) a good voice for BM, and good looking enough to be Bruce Wayne (back then, anyway).

Perfect.

But even saying that MK was the the wrong choice, which is just an opinion, I think anyone they picked for the role would have looked great in that suit. It may not have been your preference, but a LOT of people, including myself, thought it was bad ass. And again, sorry to the 66 fans, but it was the right look to wash the taste of Adam West out of the general audiences' mouths (and he's the Batman I grew up with).


You always say that BM is a,"creature of the night, that blends in to the darkness", so wouldn't an all black suit accomplish that?

Personally I would have liked the 89 suit emblem to have been more like the one that was used in Begins. I never thought that the oval was a good choice either, but I understand why they did it, it practically sold the film, not to mention everything else they slapped that logo on.

Michael Keaton's costume was cool IMO. It still is, and as another poster commented, it was the closest thing to a Neal Adams's version that you're ever going to see on film. And I'm saying that as someone that isn't crazy about NA's Bats. I would have preferred the Year One look.

All in black, of course.

The suit was never going to be entirely true to the comics. They went with what they thought would look best, while still staying close to the book. I think it was a good compromise, and the right choice, but obviously others mileage may vary.

Again, there's no right or wrong answer.

Should they have made it blue and grey? Some would say they should have. You and Sandy Collera didn't.

Should they have made his eyes white? Again, you two didn't. Chris Nolan tried it, and most thought it looked like crap, which it did, IMO.

Should they have made it with the oval, or used the bat? They've done both, a couple of times. You went with the oval, SC went with the bat.

Trunks or no trunks? Three versions were made with the trunks, seven were without. No one is right and no one is wrong.

You can't even get a majority to agree what Sideshow should do, what hope is there for a movie?

To be honest, if I were an actor, I wouldn't wear the spandex and trunks. I would rather sweat my boys off in black rubber than wear that. Any day.

Now with BvS, they're trying something new at least. I like the short ears they're going with, and the suit is all grey, so that's something. I have no interest in the film, but I like the suit. There should be some good swag to come from it.

Regardless, Ben Affleck isn't the first guy to play Batman, and he certainly won't be the last. So who knows? Maybe after Hollywood has worked their way through all the variations of the costume, they'll go back to the spandex and trunks.

Keep your fingers crossed.


Oh, and just a P.S., That crack you made about, "knuckleheaded cops" was really uncalled for. These are people who are out there fighting REAL crime in the REAL world, unlike your made-up hero, so you might want to show a little more respect than that.

Wouldn't Batman?
 
BLAUGH , BLAUGH ,BLAUGH THis blue grey version SCREAM'S NOSTALGIA and probably the 1st bats i had from back in the day. We can Agree to disagree underwear on outside is just superhero crazy look :cuckoo: from comics used for years does it look good in real life ? NO ONLY ON HOT CHIC'S at holloween and COMIC BOOKS , ONLY Chris reeve made it work or Wonderwoman ,and few other's again these are comic's lets not get our SUPER undies wound up over a stupid argument and enjoy the old school look.:lol
 
I've seen you make this same spandex and trunks, "rant" on a few different forums now, and I'm sorry, but you still haven't proven your point.

You're never going to, because it's all a matter of opinion.

When Darklord Dave said that it wouldn't look right in a real world setting, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong DD) that he meant on FILM. Not so much shooting in Chicago and calling it Gotham.

But since we're on the subject, I have to agree with him. IMO, it doesn't look right.

It didn't look right on Lewis Wilson and Robert Lowery in the 1940's serials (which were in black and white, can't get much more, "noir" than that), and it didn't look right on Adam West in the 66 show. Sorry Batfans, nostalgia notwithstanding, most would agree, it didn't.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but the spandex and trunks is just not a great look on film for Batman. Cartoons and comics, yes, all the way, but not live action.

Just like the all black suit doesn't look right in those mediums.

I've also noticed whenever I read this theory of yours, that you always use Batman-Dead End as an example. Like it's some kind of litmus test or proof, but it doesn't look great in that either (though truth be told, I'm not a fan).

What did Sandy Collera do with the costume in B-DE that was so innovative? Or the high school play that you did for that matter?

You both basically made the same cowl as the one Hollywood has been using since 1989 (black rubber) and put it on top of an Adam West suit, with a different emblem and belt.

That's it. That's all that you both did. Now are you seriously going to compare a 7 minute fan film and a high school play to a multi million dollar movie?

Come on, please.

I will say that I'm in the same boat with you in regards to Keaton, though.

I always liked him, and still do, but to this day I think he was a poor choice for Batman. If anything, I don't think the producers back in 1988 could have done any better if they cast Alec Baldwin.
He would have been perfect IMO. He was the right age, the right height (I don't think any of them since AW and now BA were 6'), the right build, and in addition, he had (has) a good voice for BM, and good looking enough to be Bruce Wayne (back then, anyway).

Perfect.

But even saying that MK was the the wrong choice, which is just an opinion, I think anyone they picked for the role would have looked great in that suit. It may not have been your preference, but a LOT of people, including myself, thought it was bad ass. And again, sorry to the 66 fans, but it was the right look to wash the taste of Adam West out of the general audiences' mouths (and he's the Batman I grew up with).


You always say that BM is a,"creature of the night, that blends in to the darkness", so wouldn't an all black suit accomplish that?

Personally I would have liked the 89 suit emblem to have been more like the one that was used in Begins. I never thought that the oval was a good choice either, but I understand why they did it, it practically sold the film, not to mention everything else they slapped that logo on.

Michael Keaton's costume was cool IMO. It still is, and as another poster commented, it was the closest thing to a Neal Adams's version that you're ever going to see on film. And I'm saying that as someone that isn't crazy about NA's Bats. I would have preferred the Year One look.

All in black, of course.

The suit was never going to be entirely true to the comics. They went with what they thought would look best, while still staying close to the book. I think it was a good compromise, and the right choice, but obviously others mileage may vary.

Again, there's no right or wrong answer.

Should they have made it blue and grey? Some would say they should have. You and Sandy Collera didn't.

Should they have made his eyes white? Again, you two didn't. Chris Nolan tried it, and most thought it looked like crap, which it did, IMO.

Should they have made it with the oval, or used the bat? They've done both, a couple of times. You went with the oval, SC went with the bat.

Trunks or no trunks? Three versions were made with the trunks, seven were without. No one is right and no one is wrong.

You can't even get a majority to agree what Sideshow should do, what hope is there for a movie?

To be honest, if I were an actor, I wouldn't wear the spandex and trunks. I would rather sweat my boys off in black rubber than wear that. Any day.

Now with BvS, they're trying something new at least. I like the short ears they're going with, and the suit is all grey, so that's something. I have no interest in the film, but I like the suit. There should be some good swag to come from it.

But regardless, Ben Affleck isn't the first guy to play Batman, and he certainly won't be the last. So who knows? Maybe after Hollywood has worked their way through all the variations of the costume, they'll go back to the spandex and trunks.

Keep your fingers crossed.


Oh, and just a P.S., That crack you made about, "knuckleheaded cops" was really uncalled for. These are people who are out there fighting REAL crime in the REAL world, unlike your made-up hero, so you might want to show a little more respect than that.

Wouldn't Batman?

Again, a matter of opinion.:wink1:
 
I've seen you make this same spandex and trunks, "rant" on a few different forums now, and I'm sorry, but you still haven't proven your point.

You're never going to, because it's all a matter of opinion.

Just like YOUR opinion that I didn't prove my point. I thought I proved it beautifully.


When Darklord Dave said that it wouldn't look right in a real world setting, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong DD) that he meant on FILM. Not so much shooting in Chicago and calling it Gotham.

And since we're on the subject, I have to agree with him. IMO, it doesn't look right.


Regardless of what he meant, and regardless of the fact that you agree with him (with all due respect), I simply do not agree that tights don't work. That is why I said, "We shall have to agree to disagree" when I responded to that one point... because it IS a matter of opinion.


It didn't look right on Lewis Wilson and Robert Lowery in the 1940's serials (which were in black and white, can't get much more, "noir" than that)...

Those were not tights. They looked more like bulky pajamas worn by an out of shape actor, (again) in a production with low production value... even by Bob Kane's standards at the time. He actually said so in his autobiography "Batman and Me".



... it didn't look right on Adam West in the 66 show. Sorry Batfans, nostalgia notwithstanding, most would agree, it didn't.

Hmmm... the '66 Adam West TV show... you mean the one that's currently experiencing a resurgence wave of popularity in comic books, toys, DVDs, merchandising of all kinds? You mean THAT show?



I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but the spandex and trunks is just not a great look on film for Batman. Cartoons and comics, yes, all the way, but not live action.

You're not offending ME. It IS after all only your opinion. Just like my opinion is only that, and should not offend anyone.




I've also noticed whenever I read this theory of yours, that you always use Batman:Dead End as an example. Like it's some kind of litmus test or proof, but it doesn't look great in that either (though truth be told, I'm not a fan).
What did Sandy Collera do with the costume in B:DE that was so innovative? Or the high school play that you did for that matter?


Again your opinion... which is fine. But MANY Batman fans think Batman: Dead End was very well done... myself included. We use it as the "litmus test" (as you say) only to demonstrate what a live action Batman would look like if he were played by a very physically fit actor, shot in an appropriate circumstance, and wearing a traditional costume. My opinion was never that the costume was "innovative"... only that it was well done and nicely faithful to the comics.

As for my stage play (thanks for the generous plug :wink1:), I there too, never made any claims of "innovation", only effective faithfulness to the comic book material.



You both basically made the same cowl as the one Hollywood has been using since 1989 (black rubber) and put it on top of an Adam West suit (with a different emblem and belt).

A GROSS over-simplification of BOTH our Batman suits. Neither one resembles the Adam West costume at all. The ONLY similarities between the three suits are that all three utilize tights. That's LITERALLY the ONLY common denominator.



That's it. That's all that you both did. Now are you seriously going to compare a 7 min fan film and a high school play to a multi million dollar movie?

Come on, please.


Um... the only comparison I made was in the costumes. And in my opinion (and in the opinions of MANY people who have seen B:DE... and my stage play, by the way), the traditional bat costume of the comics (with some texture and color interpretations) is preferred... especially when presented in a gothic, noir light.



I will say that I'm in the same boat with you in regards to Keaton, though.

See? miracles DO happen.



I always liked him, and still do, but to this day I think he was a poor choice for Batman. If anything, I don't think the producers back in 1988 could have done any better than if they cast Alec Baldwin.
He would have been perfect IMO. He was the right age, the right height (I don't think any of them since AW and now BA were 6'), the right build, and in addition, he had (has) a good voice for BM, and good looking enough to be Bruce Wayne (back then, anyway).

Perfect.


Agreed.


But even saying that MK was the the wrong choice, which is just an opinion, I think anyone they picked for the role would have looked great in that suit. It may not have been your preference, but a LOT of people, including myself, thought it was bad ass. And again, sorry to the 66 fans, but it was the right look to wash the taste of Adam West out of the general audiences' mouths (and he's the Batman I grew up with).

You always say that BM is a,"creature of the night, that blends in to the darkness", so wouldn't an all black suit accomplish that?

Well... I'm not the only one who says that. His creators Bob Kane Bill Finger said the same thing as I recall. And yes, an all black suit does accomplish that, but again, it IS a departure from the character's established uniform up until that point. As a Batman fan (for me) seeing Batman's costume loose most of its iconic visual contrasts was like seeing Superman's costume if it had all been changed into all red.


Michael Keaton's costume was cool IMO. It still is, and as another poster commented, it was the closest thing to a Neal Adams's version that you're ever going to see on film. And I'm saying that as someone that isn't crazy about NA's Bats. I would have preferred the Year One look.

Yes well Keaton's costume (from the first film) done in contrasting colors (Re: charcoal grey for the body suit, Black for the cape, cowl, gloves, boots, and cod piece, and the yellow belt and chest emblem) would have been the best thing I've seen in big budget Batman movies ironically.



The suit was never going to be entirely true to the comics. They went with what they thought would look best, while still staying close to the book. I think it was a good compromise, and the right choice, but obviously others mileage may vary.

Again, there's no right or wrong answer.

Agreed.


Should they have made it blue and grey? Some would say they should have. You and Sandy Collera didn't.

This is true. We did not.


Should they have made his eyes white? Again, you two didn't.

Actually, we both DID. White contact lenses, wouldn't ya know...

BLANKEYESCOMPARE_zpse2bbd18f.jpg



To be honest, if I were an actor, I wouldn't wear the spandex and trunks. I would rather sweat my boys off in black rubber than wear that. Any day.

Wow. Really? Even if the producers said "pretty please"?


Now with BvS, they're trying something new at least. I like the short ears they're going with, and the suit is all grey, so that's something. I have no interest in the film, but I like the suit.

I'm cautiously optimistic.


But regardless, Ben Affleck isn't the first to play Batman, and he certainly won't be the last. So who knows? Maybe after Hollywood has worked their way through all the variations of the costume, they'll go back to the spandex and trunks.

I should BE so lucky!


Oh, and just a P.S., That crack you made about, "knuckleheaded cops" was really uncalled for. These are people who are out there fighting REAL crime in the REAL world, unlike your made-up hero, so you might want to show a little more respect than that.

Wouldn't Batman?


Oh, for the love of... Look, maybe I wasn't clear about this (and for that, I sincerely apologize), but I was referring to MOVIE COPS (particularly in Batman films)... you know... so inept that they need a pet vigilante dispensing justice on their streets and so forth. I have tremendous respect for real law enforcement officers and in fact worked as one of them (as a federal linguist investigator) for 10 YEARS prior to teaching.
 
Last edited:
BLAUGH , BLAUGH ,BLAUGH THis blue grey version SCREAM'S NOSTALGIA and probably the 1st bats i had from back in the day. We can Agree to disagree underwear on outside is just superhero crazy look :cuckoo: from comics used for years does it look good in real life ? NO ONLY ON HOT CHIC'S at holloween and COMIC BOOKS , ONLY Chris reeve made it work or Wonderwoman ,and few other's again these are comic's lets not get our SUPER undies wound up over a stupid argument and enjoy the old school look.:lol


Never. I'll NEVER agree to that!!!!!! Never do you hear?!!!! I'll DIE first!!

SPANDEX FOREVER!!!!



:yess::lol
 
...aaaaaaand the bottomline is THIS IS A COMIC-BOOK INSPIRED BATMAN FIGURE WEARING SPANDEX!

So, YEY!

People need to get this now Sideshow, so people can start POSTING PICTURES!
 
...aaaaaaand the bottomline is THIS IS A COMIC-BOOK INSPIRED BATMAN FIGURE WEARING SPANDEX!

So, YEY!

People need to get this now Sideshow, so people can start POSTING PICTURES!
This board wouldn't exist without people writing essay long rants about anything from material choice to the scale of a nostril. But yeah, what you said!
 
But you really didn't prove anything. All you stated were reasons you thought the tights would be better than armor. You tried to say the same things on other forums as well. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Don't policemen and soldiers wear some sort of protection when they go out on patrol? Why wouldn't Bruce Wayne? Especially considering that BW has Wayne Industries at his disposal? It would be suicide otherwise. I know you describe Batman as this supernatural force, but he's not. he's a human being. Bullets and knives are going to hurt him, kill him, just like everyone else. Just because he's committed, doesn't make him crazy, or stupid.

But you think the armor is dumb, I get it. Take Lewis Wilson's costume (and I'm not even talking about the mask), it was cotton (maybe even wool, either way, spandex wasn't invented yet) and he wasn't in the best shape, but put that same suit on someone with a better build, it still wouldn't look good. Better perhaps, but put Michael Keaton's on pretty much anyone, and it would still look great, because it's made to.

Don't get me wrong, I love the serials for what they are, but I would never expect them to do it the same way today. Mostly because Studios are willing to put bank on them. Back then, they wouldn't even think of it.


Yes, Dead End (and your play) did have the traditional costume. But Batman isn't just about playing Batman, the actor also has to be believable as Bruce Wayne as well. Neither showed that.
Also, I never compared them to Adam West, I said you both used the same kind of masks that Hollywood has been using since 1989, and gave them the same SUITS as Adam West, and you both did.

But seriously, do you really believe either would work in a film?

Maybe if every scene had the cape draped around him, but that would get pretty boring in a 2 hour movie.

One of the reasons Tim Burton thought that Keaton was a good choice was because he wasn't big. If he was, why bother with a costume? Which I agree with.

Alec Baldwin wasn't big either back in '88, so I think that the reasoning would have applied to him as well. If Bruce Wayne is the richest and biggest guy in Gotham, you wouldn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out he's Batman. Even if he put on an act that was Oscar worthy.

Also, if you read the earliest stories, he wasn't at ALL big. He was pretty much a normal guy. **** Sprang was the first one who made him extra large. Which I like too, in the comics.


So I guess the question now would be, would MK's costume look better with spandex and trunks?

Maybe Tony Mei could help here.

Tony, would it be possible to take the same body as Michael Keaton, and put a grey suit and trunks on it (provided you have spares), and use the Keaton head, cape, gloves and boots (and maybe a different belt, his might not fit).

I would be curious to see how that looks.

I actually think it might look good as a custom, but no way on film.

Still, it would be cool to see.
 
Back
Top