HOME | DD
rickytherockstar — Movie: Catwoman concept
Published: 2010-05-16 21:32:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 5944; Favourites: 31; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
This is basically what i came up with for a movie costume for Catwoman, you can read my whole, long, explanation here :[link]so the middle pic here, is her full get up, the right one is, goggles up, no back pack, and removed leg and arm pockets. and the left is with the jacket and mask/cowl off
Related content
Comments: 23
sure why not, its whatever the fuck you want it to be
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
her forearms look like mans forearm..Reduce them a bit
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
She isnt all that interesting for the latest movie concept. I did enjoy your art but hope the next movie is the last one for a while and they dont use the cat
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I hope she isnt used in a batman movie. The movie is a bit too real for the ole "cat" burglar trick. I did enjoy your art
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
In which way is it "too real"? I hate when people make those kind of statements, because they usually have no idea what they are talking about. Sure the likes of Poison Ivy and Mr- Freeze are too unrealistic to be in the Nolan films, but if any of the Batman characters are real in terms of "realistic" then it's Catwoman! If Batman is "real" enough to be in a Nolan movie then Catwoman certainly is as well. Both Batman and Catwoman are real people that wear costumes and fight. So if we go by your logic, then Batman shouldn't be in the movie either! LOL!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I suppose time will tell, but I will be surprised if we see a woman in latex, spike heels and catty ears, cracking a whip and saying "meow"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I really don't see why you would be suprised to see that. The movie already has a man in rubber (?), dressed like a bat with pointy ears. Just think about it! Catwoman and Batman are basically the same thing. The only difference is that Catwoman is a woman dressed like a cat while Batman is a man dressed like a bat. Both are normal people without any superpowers that can fight and that dress as animals. That's as real and as realistic as it gets in the world of superheroes! So if Batman is realistic enough to be in the films then Catwoman is too.
PS: Catwoman doesn't usually wear spike heels. Only a few of her designs include high heels.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The last two movies had her in 3 inch and 5 inch heels, did you see them ? Time will tell with the next movie. All we can both do is guess about whats next and one of us will get to say "I told you so"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the information, but I have already noticed that she had high heels in two of the last movies. However, that's irrelevant, because that doesn't mean that Nolan would want her to wear heels. Nolan is all about making things realistic, and it wouldn't be realistic to have Catwoman wear heels. It's impossible to jump buildings, climb, fight or do acrobatic moves weith heels. Anyway, I was refering to her designs in comics and animated series, where she usually doesn't wear heels. When a producer makes a movie that include a superhero/supervillain, they create a design for them based on the comics or their own imagination and not on the previous movies.
No no, my friend! I didn't say that catwoman WILL be in a Nolan film. All I said is that she COULD be in a Nolan film because unlike characters like Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Penguin, she is actually realistic enough to be in those kind of movies. You made a statement that Catwoman isn't "realistic" or "real" enough to be in a Nolan film, and I just wanted to prove you wrong, which I obviously have proven with simple logic and sense. So you don't get to say "I told you so" to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Chill out my friend, time will tell. Foe now lets enjoy the art and agree to disagree. In the end none of this really matters
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why are you telling me to chill out? If you got the impression that I am angry, aggressive or anything like that, I am sorry for giving you that impression, because I am not 
And by the way, things like "time will tell" and "let's agree to disagree" are actually rather meaningless. If anything, they actually show that you are in lack of logical arguments to defend your statement about Catwoman. Besides... if Catwoman doesn't star in a NOlan film, it still doesn't mean that she isn't "realistic" or "real" enough to be in a Nolan film. There are many villains that Nolan can pick out, and NATURALLY some won't make the cut, but that's not because they aren't good enough. It is simply because there can be only 1-2 big villains in one movie. There isn't room for more.
The "knock out argument" has to be the fact that I pointed out that Catwoman and Batman are pretty much the same... only male-female counterparts and dressed like two different animals. So the fact that you think that Catwoman isn't "real" or "realistic" enough to be in a Nolan film doesn't make any sense at all! Because if we go by your logic, which isn't very logical at all, then Batman isn't "realistic" or "real" enough to be in a Nolan film either! Which again is only ridicolous, because he is in the films LOL! So unless you have some really good arguments to give me that are able to knock out this very good point that I have already made, no one will doubt that my opinion clearly makes more sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just have beetter things to do then argue about what movie catwoman may look like, I wish you well
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well... you say that because you obviously lost the debate. All you have been doing is stalling and beating around the bush.
Out of respect for this artist, I will stop commenting. I don't want his artwork to get filled up by our comments, which have little to do with this artwork anyway.
So... bye... I guess XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
actually, I think what's the most appealing about the Batman character and his stories and rogues gallery is the fact that of all comic book heroes I've seen, he's probably the most grounded in reality. This is what Nolan capitalized on.
Vigilantes existed. In the chaos following the civil war, vigilantes would seek out justice in the west. Granted, they wore bandanas as masks and shot to kill with six-shooters. Batman's a tad different, but here you have a child witnessing his parents' murders scarred for life and wanting to make crime pay for hurting the innocent. Without powers, he needed something that would scare his foes... so he picked an icon that scares him... the bat. That fear would give him the edge he needed in a fight.
Now consider the rogue's gallery:
Catwoman, glorified cat-burglar.
Joker, fell in a vat of acid. (not likely, but entirely possible.)
Two-face - half of his face destroyed by fire. Entirely possible.
Zasz - Serial killer that marks his skin with cuts showing how many people he's killed.
Killer Croc - appearance changed in a chemical accident, not unlike the joker.
Bane - Steroid Junkie with a brain.
Riddler - insanity got a grip on him.
Scarecrow - chemical engineer that uses fear to his advantage.
Mad Hatter - just a madman.
Mr. Freeze - a cryogenic's experiment gone wrong... not very likely, but believable enough.
Poison Ivy - chemically altered to commune with plants... also not likely, but believable to some.
Ras Al'Ghoul - Mystic Madman and once trusted friend of Batman's. "Mystic" could be described as nearly anything not generally known.
Talia Al'Ghoul - Ras' daughter and former lover of Batman's.
ManBat - now you're getting into werewolf and Jeckyl & Hyde syndrome, however, some believe these two fantastic tales to be true!
the list goes on. My point is, any one of these could eventually be in a Nolan film and still be believable. It all depends on the script's interpretation. hell, he could even do a ManBat by putting a "copycat" of batman out there. Why not? the cops copied him to strike fear into the criminals in order to be more effective in the second film. So maybe a copycat could be out there, with eyewitness accounts just calling him a giant bat... hell, criminals called Batman that in the first film after his first appearance! See? Damn near anything in Batman's world could be made believeable. And I think that's part of the appeal. Probably also why Batman was a tv series so early after Batman's conception. Think about it... no need for grand special effects
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well... even though much of the things that you said make sense, I still can't say that I agree with you. Yes, you did manage to make almost every character "realistic". However, you had to go too far and change some of the characters too much in order to make them somewhat "realistic". What I am trying to say is that if we go by your way of thinking then we would be able to make ANYTHING and ANYONE "realistic". Let's be honest here; we both know that Nolan doesn't go that far. It's simply too far-fetched.
Killer Croc: If we do as you say and simply turn him into a normal man with a skin-desease, he won't really be Killer Croc anymore. He will lose most almost all of his characteristics.
Man-Bat: It doesn't matter if people believe that werewolves and vampires, because the common and "official" opinion is that these are only myths. So you won't make them more realistic with such a poor excuse.
I could go on on the rest of the characters you mentioned as well, but it's uneccesary to waste time on that. I think you get the point. My point is that in order to make these highly unrealistic and unatural characters seem more realistic, you would have to change them almost completely into characters that hardly even resemble them anymore. However, characters that already are pretty realistic (Catwoman, Harley Quinn, Riddler, Mad Hatter, Two-Face (somehow) and Joker (somehow)), you don't have to change much about them. That's why these characters fit into the Nolan-universe.
PS: I'm not really a Nolan-fan. Most people love his Batman movies, but I have my fair share of dislikes about how he does things. I am personally not such a big fan of everything being realistic. The world of superheroes aren't supposed to be completely realistic. All I tried to do here was to prove that Catwoman fits into the Nolan-series, which are all about things being as realistic as possible. That's all...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
realism isn't generally important in comic books, but, at least to me, feasibility is. Probably my favorite Batman villain would have to be one that didn't get much face time to my knowledge, and that's Black Mask. Gangster turned cult leader (I guess the false face society could be considered a cult) with two purposes: Take over Gotham and bring down the bat in doing so.
For me, this is what Nolan brought to Batman. Feasibility. Not necessarily Realism. Let's face it, it's not really all that realistic to assume that Bruce trained with ninjas led by Ras Al'Ghoul, now is it? But it's feasible. It's not really realistic to assume that the ninja clan is responsible for every fall of major civilizations in history, is it? But, it's feasible.
The whole idea of movies is to get the viewers to believe what they see, to entertain them. This is what Nolan does. He makes the Batman movies more believable than I think most of the directors who have handled the bat has. Tim Burton's 1989 Michael Keaton Batman I think is still the best, and Ledger's Joker is even more maniacal than Nicholson's. But consider the time periods these two movies were made in and it's not fair to compare the two. Both Ledger and Nicholson were at the top of their game when they each played Joker, but their portrayals of the character were completely different. Just sad that Nicholson came to his prime so late in his life.
honestly? I'm not really a Nolan fan either... I've not seen any of his other movies, to my knowledge. If I have, I didn't realize they were his. But you don't have to be to enjoy his portrayal of Batman. The only thing I didn't really agree with was Batman loosing his cool at the cop hanging upside-down in the first one. Other than that, they were really well executed. I think Maggie Gyllenhall seemed like she didn't want to be involved at all and it came through in her performance, but that's my personal preference. Having worked at video stores, when I watch movies, I watch them very comprehensively.
Overall, I did get your point and I was trying to back it up. Of course, I haven't read a Batman book in almost 10 years, so my idea of the characters I named are probably outdated. But ten years ago, those were the characters I described. I didn't change what I knew of them when I listed them, save ManBat. That was an example of how the character could be made more feasible.
Anyway, it's always been my belief that the best science fiction is still rooted in reality. Most comic books are easily considered science fiction and the movies made from them can therefore be assumed the same. This is probably why directors such as Jon Favreau, Chris Nolan, and Bryan Singer attempt to bring realism to the characters. (I'm not referring to Singer's farce of Superman, but rather his X-Men concept.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But Movies ALWAYS manage to explain why things are the way they are no matter how unrealistic they are. Alien vs. Predator explained their story in an believable or "feasable" way. The movie about The Hulk explained why he becomes a giant, red bodybuilder in an believable and "feasable" way. I could go on with several examples. The point is that almost EVERY movie manages to explain why the things are the way they are. And that is exactly why you have to differ between several levels of "realism". You take EVERYTHING and put it in the same box. You take EVERY character from Batman and you try to put them on the same level when it comes to realism. That is a "relative" view on realism. That is a "relative" way of thinking (a way of thinking that includes everything, and that in the end connects everything to one and the same thing). If we start thinking in that way, then we can't really have this discussion LOL! Then we will be in some deep philosophical way of thinking where there is no final answer. That way of thinking doesn't really work in these kind of discussions XD
Yes, you make a good point about Batman. He isn't that realistic either, and believe me: I have thought about the same thing. However, this is exactly what I mean about you ignoring the different levels of realism when it comes to the characters from the Batman universe. True, a superhero-movie can NEVER be completely realistic, and no character from Batman is completely realistic, but some characters can be much more realistic than others. There are different levels of realism here.
Furthemore, Nolan has stated himself what characters he is not planing on brininging into his movies because they are too unrealistic. He mentioned Penguin amoungs others. I personally don't think that Penguin is that unrealistic. He is a short, fat man with an ugly face that happens to love birds. He is, in my mind, completely "feasable" (as you put it). Hoever, it doesn't matter what I think. Only what Nolan thinks matters, because he is the one making the movies! This is exactly what I am trying to explain. You see; It doesn't matter how YOU see the Nolan-movies... or I for that matter. It doesn't matter if you see them as "feasable" and not as neccesarily "realistic", becuase you are not the one who gets to decide which characters will be in the movie and which will not. Nolan is the one who does that. So if we try to think the way nolan thinks for a second, I think we both will realize that there is a much greater chance that characters like Catwoman, Harley Quinn, Riddler and Mad Hatter will be in future movies than characters like Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Killer Croc and Man-Bat.
Oh, don't get me wrong! I loved Nolan's Batman movies. They are great. However, there are also some things I dislike about them. I won't go on summing those up now though because I have already written way too much XD Anyway, they are still not my favourite movies. My favourite Batman movie is probably Batman Returns. And yes, I do agree on what you said: We can't compare movies today with older movies. Different times require different ways of shooting a movie. When I watch Batman Returns today, I see why so many people think it is cheezy, but I didn't find it cheezy back in the 90s. Don't get me wrong! I still love it. Probably because I am able to put myself into the 90s mentality and not judge it based on the movies and way of thinking today. But at the same time I perfectly realize why it is considered as "cheezy" and stuff like that by many people today. However, people will probably say the same thing about Nolan's movies in 10-20 years from now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
We can talk further if you wish. I didnt really read your last post I will today. I dont care if I win or lose as long as I learn something. I will shoot you a note. This forum should be more about the art. We may agree to disagree but if catwoman is in a movie perhaps we can see it together
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Amen. I totally agree with you.
If Catwoman is so unrealistic to be in the movie, then we would been very limited in our villains for batman. he would be fighting the mob in every movie.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Eaxctly! Besides... Catwoman is one of the most realistic villians in the Batman universe alongside Riddler and Harley Quinn. Unlike Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy, there is nothing supernatural about her. She is just a regular woman who can fight and is dresses like a cat. If you think about it, Batman and Catwoman are the same thing. Both are regular humans without any superpowers that dress as animals and that can fight. That's as realistic as it gets in the world of superheroes.
PS: I have seen all of your Catwoman concepts and I think they are cool
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
once again i agree with you!
and thanks im glad you liked them
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
thank you.
if she was used, like alot of Bat villains, she'd need to be toned down, its what i tried to do. no whip and crazy back-flips. just a more realistic thief.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0