Dark Knight Tattoo Is Topical...But Is It a Good Idea?

Might be a good idea to wait until AFTER the movie comes out...

boy am i glad i didnt get the "vault boy" from the fallout 1-2 games tattooed across my back, back in the time. fallout 3 is going to suck big time and i would hate to think how bethesda screwed up the franchie every time some console kiddie approached me and asked if my tat was the guy from fallout 3.

Don't knock Fallout 3 until you play it.

After all, it can't be worse than what they did to the Shadowrun liscense. :c

Anyhow, the tatoo is a batman icon. Even if the style is for the newest movie, down the line, it will always be a Batman tatoo. And like superman, that's a pretty safe culture reference.

what he's not showing in that photo is the slightly faded gallagher smashing a watermelon into his butt crack tattoo.....

Considering that Batman has been around since the 1940s, I think it's safe to say he transcends modern pop culture. There are many, many worse things that you could (more or less) immortalize.

it's actually not a terrible tattoo. tattoos referencing comic books, tv and movies aren't something new.. batman is a timeless character regardless of how many dudes (and dudettes) get their tattoos, and how many f-ing movies they end up making. i mean they made what, like 132 rocky movies? i'm sure there are thousands of guys (and gals) with a heterosexual love for their silvester stallone tattoos. and batman and superman and spiderman and the hulk and even "vault boy" from fallout 3. as long as it means something to the person it's permanently scratched into, otherwise it's just a waste of time, money, and resources.

Superheros tend to do well in pop culture, look at Superman, however Batmans symbol has changed a lot over the years (Supes just grows/shrinks) so you probably have to time it right and pick one which will be iconic.

I'm not sure this batman logo is iconic yet (it may become).. it's not even being used in the comics is it?

That said, movie tats tend to suck where as tats based on things that have more of a cult/iconic/legacy status tend to retain their cool.

I have a tattoo thats "related" to the Jim Henson film Labyrinth. I didn't get a character or logo done, just a black inked Labyrinth design. As a result, you wouldn't know that I got it as a result of the film unless I told you.

So even if one day I decide I don't like the movie that much anymore, the tattoo still has some value in it because it's not blatantly from the movie.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, I can see why people like to show their love via a tattoo, but you have to take steps to make sure you'll still like the tattoo in the event that you grow to dislike the fandom (That, or just be damn sure you'll love it for the rest of your life).

There's a big difference between getting the logo of an iconic American legend, and getting a particular cell from one of his comics. If someone has that "I'm the goddamn Batman" cell over his heart, that would be kind of lame. Likewise, any sort of portrait tattoo, either of a fictional character or real person, ages horribly.

it is poorly placed

Is it just me, or does that logo look Photoshopped on? Look at the pointy corners. That doesn't really look like a tattoo to me...

Maybe he just has very pointy shoulders.

"I’m very much looking forward to the film, and desperately hope that it will be remembered as a modern classic,"

No no no no no....should be "hope that it CAN be remembered as a modern classic"

If it sucks I'd really hate for people to call it a classic only because of Ledger's death. It does, however, look frightfully awesome. So I'm not too worried.

Batarang Ninja Stars FTW!

Just speaking as someone with four tattoos, I personally believe that any tattoo of a logo is tacky.

Clearly a shop, and therefore a piece of covert movie publicity. Point of view inconsistent with the angle of the back, and wingtips fail to curve around the sides of his shoulders.

Did you guys who claim it's shopped even look at the larger version at flickr? I hardly think it's shopped, just look at the pores in the skin and how they reflect the flash etc. It would be more bothersome to actually Photoshop that than it would be to get the actual tattoo.

Either way, I see no problem with tattooing just about anything you want, as long as you know what the hell you're doing. There are plenty of people who tattoo things that they haven't thought through. Regardless if there are methods to remove tattoos you can't really go into a tattoo parlor with that in mind, you really have to think that you'll live with that picture the rest of your life and ask yourself if it's the right thing to do. Personally, I think you should live with the "idea" of the motif you want for at least a year before you're getting actually tattooed, because chances are that your opinion will change or the idea evolve during that time.

Best investment for the 2020's:

Tattoo removal clinics.

Gonna be a lot of business over the next 40 years....

Tattoo removal is possible but not easy. For even a small piece you've got to sit through many sessions, and even then certain colours such as red might never fully go away. For something that size, I would guess it'd take years to remove (luckily it's black/grey/white) due to surface area alone.

I've got my left sleeve and right lower leg done and would never have any removed. Pick twice, get inked once. ;)

Hedgecore, indeed full removal isn't easy, but typhically 3-5 sessions lightens most tattooes enough so you can tattoo over them anew with something else, thusly covering it up. More and more people are doing that route because they don't want to take either the money or the pain associated with lasering out the tattoo completely.

Personally, if I ever get tired of any of my tattoos I'll just cover it entirely with black and be done with it. :P

Tattoos can´t be completely removed.

The Symbol of Batman is cool. But the tattoo is a kind of "space invasion", size of tattoo is so BIG. What I see is just a black ink cover almost his back.