If JMS is right, why does Batman wear a cape?

[brettc1]

JMS has said of the costume that form follows function. Which seems a fair comment.

But why does Batman wear a cape?

Think about it. The guy stalks around the urban landscape like a ninja. How does that thing [and it is pretty huge depending on who draws it] not get snagged on rootop antennae, fire-escape ladders, gargoyles...?

How do you fight in it. Beating up street thugs is probably not that challenging anyway, but what about Killer Croc? Or Bane? I think you would have a lot easier time using martial arts techniques in a "Ms America bathing suit" than a Count Dracula costume.

And speaking of martial arts, dont its practioners usually dress in loose fitting clotes to give them greater freedom of movement. Skin tight pants would seem like the opposite of that. I guess Trinity in the Matrix got it wrong - which is kind of the point.

That's the thing with super-heroes. Once you start picking stuff apart for practicality or realism the whole genre just unravels. I mean, is it in any way realistic to think that Peter Parker just invented those web-shooters and the the formulae for his webbing out in the garage? That webbing concoction alone would probably win him a nobel prize.

I liked Gloria Steinhams point that the ancient Greeks fought in skirts. I dont remember anyone sitting in 300 watching the Spartans unleashing hell commenting that they looked like panzies.

The costume change is there, fine. But just tell us it was to get media attention and booste sales. Don't make up explanations about practicality or realism while Batman performs olympic gold medal acrobatics with a kite sail on his back.

[T.O.M.]

All but too true. Once you start with a little logic all superheros fall apart. It's getting lost in that kind of conversation is the trap you want to avoid.
Batman's still considered the biggest baddest boogieman of them all.
And you have legion upon legion of devoted followers that will defend him to the death as the greatest superhero of all time.
But to each his own, don't flame on message boards or forums. Just respectful disagree and move on.
Batman's cape is the same as Superman's cape.
A design element to convey motion.
Neither of them need it.

[burr787]

Bruce Wayne wore a cape to deflect bullets and hide in the darkness while Dick Grayson wears a cape to glide. Dick Grayson's cape is also detachable not to mention that both capes are flame resistant.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Three simple words:

Rule of Cool

[Gaelforce]

[T.O.M.]

Bruce Wayne wore a cape to deflect bullets and hide in the darkness while Dick Grayson wears a cape to glide. Dick Grayson's cape is also detachable not to mention that both capes are flame resistant.

Early golden age Batman(before Dick Grayson) had two stiff wings on his back at first. It gradually became a cape or cloak in the first few months.
And it owns a debt to the Shadow,who owns a debt to Zorro, and the list can go on and on.
But Shadowy men in black is an old story idea.
And there was an old pulp character called the BAT, very similar. Hmm.

[zryson]

Well a cape is part of the scary bat costume to strike fear into criminals. I mean if you look at some aspects of the mythos it can fall into the ? category. Like Bruce seeing a Bat fly through the window -- and going thats it! I will become a Batman! I mean hes rich right and lives in a fancy mansion -- and he has bats that fly in through windows?

Also I have seen issues where Batman uses his cape to protect himself as well as glide to safety after his trusty batarangs fail.

[The Amazing Mike]

Bruce Wayne wore a cape to deflect bullets and hide in the darkness while Dick Grayson wears a cape to glide. Dick Grayson's cape is also detachable not to mention that both capes are flame resistant.

Exactly. It is practical.

[T.O.M.]

Yes,Yes this is all true. And that cape has come in handy in those instances.
Depending on the writer or artist it was up to them to see just how far it broke his fall or allowed him flight.
And "Rule of Cool" definitely applies to it.
Batman practically owns it!
And in a old Superfriends cartoon he broke his fall and kind of flipped and floated to the ground. But it may have been a part of the opening montage.

[americanwonder]

I don't mind so much if JMS wants to talk practicality while Batman wears a cape. For starters, JMS isn't writing Batman.

What gets me is that the redesign of the character that they are talking about still isn't practical.

Give it a try. Go get yourself one of those short jackets - they often fit a bit snug as that's the design. Now roll up the sleeves. And add shoulder pads. Then pick a fight and discover just how "practical" these new duds are with your arm movement.

Oh, but they have pockets. Because we all know that JMS would never write a character *cough*Spider-Man*cough*Superman*cough* whose costume was so impractical to not have pockets.

But, it allows her to blend in. This new world must love bling to not notice that gal in the golden tiara, the golden, stylized wrist guards, the golden belt, and the golden spur straps. Maybe she keeps all that in those pockets.

[Vakanai]

Capes and practicality depends entirely on the cape and the situation.
Does it detach? Does it blend in with shadowy backgrounds? Is it flame resistant?
There are ways to make capes practical. Least, depending on what's going on and what kind of cape works.

But yeah, WW's costume change certainly isn't practical. Then again, she's Wonder Woman. She doesn't need protection. The only thing concerning her various costumes to keep in mind as regards to practicality is to not give her high heels.
Or that belt that makes it look like it'll stab her if she bends forward at all.

[brettc1]

The points about the practical value of the cape are all well made, but they also serve to hightlight my first point.

If a guy with no super-powers can enjoy all the benefits and none of the draw backs of heroing in a cape, why cant a woman imbued with the powers of gods - or even the just the same extraordinary human development as Batman - do the same in a one-piece and boots?

[brettc1]

Three simple words:

Rule of Cool

Exactly.

If it looks good, nothing else need matter.

[Free-Man]

The points about the practical value of the cape are all well made, but they also serve to hightlight my first point.

If a guy with no super-powers can enjoy all the benefits and none of the draw backs of heroing in a cape, why cant a woman imbued with the powers of gods - or even the just the same extraordinary human development as Batman - do the same in a one-piece and boots?

If I'm remembering correctly, the initial interview from when the costume was first announced mentioned that there was a stealth aspect to it, particularly that the jacket could be used to hide the top with her symbols and such.

They briefly introduced a similar idea in Amazing Spider-Man a few years back (ironically, I think it may have even been JMS's run) where a tailor offers to make Spidey a reversable outfit that can turn into an unassuming jacket and pants combo.

[Alatheus]

I don't think JMS has any control over what Batman wears. You might have a point if he did and then didn't change his costume.

JMS has said of the costume that form follows function. Which seems a fair comment.

But why does Batman wear a cape?

Think about it. The guy stalks around the urban landscape like a ninja. How does that thing [and it is pretty huge depending on who draws it] not get snagged on rootop antennae, fire-escape ladders, gargoyles...?

How do you fight in it. Beating up street thugs is probably not that challenging anyway, but what about Killer Croc? Or Bane? I think you would have a lot easier time using martial arts techniques in a "Ms America bathing suit" than a Count Dracula costume.

And speaking of martial arts, dont its practioners usually dress in loose fitting clotes to give them greater freedom of movement. Skin tight pants would seem like the opposite of that. I guess Trinity in the Matrix got it wrong - which is kind of the point.

That's the thing with super-heroes. Once you start picking stuff apart for practicality or realism the whole genre just unravels. I mean, is it in any way realistic to think that Peter Parker just invented those web-shooters and the the formulae for his webbing out in the garage? That webbing concoction alone would probably win him a nobel prize.

I liked Gloria Steinhams point that the ancient Greeks fought in skirts. I dont remember anyone sitting in 300 watching the Spartans unleashing hell commenting that they looked like panzies.

The costume change is there, fine. But just tell us it was to get media attention and booste sales. Don't make up explanations about practicality or realism while Batman performs olympic gold medal acrobatics with a kite sail on his back.