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?
I have a bad habit of skipping the whole details 
i do that a lot with the magic card game.I Must start reading all the spec's 
Glad i grabbed the Exclusive.
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.
), I there too, never made any claims of "innovation", only effective faithfulness to the comic book material. 
