The Dark Knight AICN: Costume change happens ON camera?

[Ibn]

Maybe they're changing the CAPE!!!t: t: Make the memory cloth like, memory leather or something, that is flame ******ent. CONNECT IT TO THE COWLt: ... or....... *gasp*..... have jagged edges at the end?!?!?! t: t:

 

[Crooklyn]

It's a cyclic argument. The major point being discussed is the loss of emotion and personal connection with the character. To some, that's a detraction, but to others, it actually adds to the image.

 

[Mr. Socko]

You talking 'bout the eyes?

 

[Crooklyn]

No, I'm talking about making Batman an angry black man.

 

[Darkest Knight]

It's a cyclic argument. The major point being discussed is the loss of emotion and personal connection with the character. To some, that's a detraction, but to others, it actually adds to the image.

That it adds by making less available emotion and personal connection with Batman?

To me, I just don't see it working. Batman doesn't lack emotion. To me, one of the essential parts of Bruce Wayne / Batman is that deep fire burning in his eyes. That can come off as many times more threatning than blank lenses. And as Keyser said, all characters that use lenses on screen have them taken off for pivitol scenes. It's better to just not have them. Batman has to at times show remorse, etc. and alot of that is done through the eyes. Christian Bale's eyes was one of the selling points of him as an actor potraying this character. Why would you want to take away such a strength as that and handicap his performance? The juice isn't worth the squeeze with the whole lense situation.

 

[kenellard]

As it was intended, though I do like the big neck look.



I think it's obvious that the lenses would hamper the ability to show emotion. Let's look at some examples.

1.) RoboCop. Okay, so he doesn't have much emotion anyway. But look at the end battle, where he took the helmet off for his big showdown with Clarence Boddicker. Why do that? Cinematically, it's more powerful when you can see Peter Weller's face, the expressiveness in his freakishly large eyes. It gives him the ability to communicate pain better, and it makes his up-close and personal fight scenes with Kurtwood Smith play much more dramatically than the earlier one, when he threw him through several plate-glass windows (which is still an awesome scene).

How about 1989's BATMAN, where Michael Keaton effectively used his eyes to make you believe he would peel your ribcage open and eat your heart.

LeVar Burton in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Geordi LaForge was blind, and wore something like a girl's hair clip wrapped around his eyes. Did it hinder his expressiveness? Maybe a little, but he had the rest of his face exposed so you could see him furrow his brow in frustration, and it pretty well made up for the fact that his eyes were covered. Like a man wearing sunglasses.

How about Willem Defoe in Spider-Man? He wore that full-face mask, but in order to keep the expressiveness in place, they made the lenses retractable and the mouth hole filled with a thin fabric screen that allowed you to see his teeth flashing inside. Because the eyes and mouth were necessary if nothing else was to be seen.

So, my conclusion is that with Batman, the cowl being rigid (unlike in the comics) necessitates something else being visible. His mouth is a given; the only other option is eyes. It worked brilliantly for Keaton. Bale was pretty effective with it too, I thought, if not quite as scary as Keaton.

With his eyes covered he's left in Ben Affleck territory - Daredevil, of course - and that just... looked cool but didn't really work too well. Of course with DD you have to cover his eyes; he's blind. LOL. So that's a lose-lose situation. With Batman you have the option to leave the eyes visible.

you make a good point about the eyes thing, however I think a more human sized neck would be much more impressive, i wish I could think of a more appropriate adjective to describe how I feel about the neck in BB, but "weird" is the only one that springs to mind, plus it just folds and bulges all over the place, it looks pretty terrible in some shots, so I'd see absolutely no reason to keep it in any way like it is

 

[kenellard]

i wonder if it'd work to do without the lenses and simply make the eye holes smaller? I don't suppose anyone ever manipped that?

 

[Darkest Knight]

It looks terrible in a few shots, but on the other hand makes him look totally cool looking in a vast majority of the shots.

 

[Mr. Socko]

As for the lenses:

Make them retractable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[kenellard]

we should be aiming for 100% total coolness here people!

 

[Crooklyn]

That it adds by making less available emotion and personal connection with Batman?

Yes, it just adds to the whole idea that Bruce becomes a totally different being when he's under that suit. Which I believe, even Bale, has mentioned in regards to his performance.

The connection could still be there....through Bruce.

To me, I just don't see it working. Batman doesn't lack emotion.

Not on the inside, but he certainly is on the out. What's THE most used expression people identify with Bats?

Imagine that without the pupils, and you still get the same exact image. The eye thing is nothing but a ruse imo. It's the "brows" and stoic face that really make it look like Bats is pissed.

To me, one of the essential parts of Bruce Wayne / Batman is that deep fire burning in his eyes. That can come off as many times more threatning than blank lenses. And as Keyser said, all characters that use lenses on screen have them taken off for pivitol scenes. It's better to just not have them. Batman has to at times show remorse, etc. and alot of that is done through the eyes.

Batman is one of those rare instances where the opposite works though. As I said before, Bats is usually seen as this emotionless figure. Lenses/contacts works just as well in showing the scary side imo, while also making it difficult for the viewer to really know what's going on inside this character's head (debatable in whether this is good or bad).

Christian Bale's eyes was one of the selling points of him as an actor potraying this character. Why would you want to take away such a strength as that and handicap his performance? The juice isn't worth the squeeze with the whole lense situation.

If Bale's half the actor everyone knows he is, blocking out his eyes will do absolutely nothing to his performance.

 

[Ibn]

we should be aiming for 100% total coolness here people!

They're gonna have him go throughout the whole movie w/o them, then in a pivitol scene, they'll show up as a tracking mechanism or night vision type thing..........maybe.

 

[Darkest Knight]

But Batman does show emotion at times. He has to be able to show anger. Best way to show anger without talking? Intensity of your eyes. He can show sadness, say Harvey Dent gets scarred. You won't be able to get that sorrow played through his eyes with lenses.

To say Bale is such a good actor that blocking out his eyes won't do anything is just wrong. It doesn't matter who the actor is, eyes are the window to the soul. People do a majority of their acting through them. Don't put Bale in a hole like that. Saying "well, if he's such a good actor, he should be able to put on a great performance with his eyes covered up" ... etc. That isn't working, my bud. That's setting dude up for failure.

 

[Mr. Socko]

RETRACTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Some people just aren't getting it...

 

[Apollo]

well it better not included a pair of nipples

 

[Crooklyn]

But Batman does show emotion at times. He has to be able to show anger. Best way to show anger without talking? Intensity of your eyes. He can show sadness, say Harvey Dent gets scarred. You won't be able to get that sorrow played through his eyes with lenses.

Unless they're gonna take something from BF, Batman wouldn't be at the courtroom. Bruce is most likely.

To say Bale is such a good actor that blocking out his eyes won't do anything is just wrong. It doesn't matter who the actor is, eyes are the window to the soul.

And like I already said, we still have Bruce to do that.

People do a majority of their acting through them. Don't put Bale in a hole like that. Saying "well, if he's such a good actor, he should be able to put on a great performance with his eyes covered up" ... etc. That isn't working, my bud. That's setting dude up for failure.

And why is it not working? Acting encompasses every movement and every expression the actor conveys. Eyes are just a small part of the equation. I don't know how many times it has to be brought up, but Hugo Weaving did a phenomenal job with everything covered up. And I'll even go as far as to say the audience probably felt more for the character of 'V' than they did with Batman.

 

[Darkest Knight]

He did a phenomenal job, but V expresses himself through dialogue. Batman doesn't have that. So he has slim amounts of dialogue, AND you want his eyes covered up? The only expression to then convey is minimal body language and his un-covered mouth.

 

[Crooklyn]

He did a phenomenal job, but V expresses himself through dialogue. Batman doesn't have that.

Bats spoke plenty of times in BB (more than I actually expected no less). And you keep ignoring the fact that there's still Bruce in this whole thing. I don't see Nolan and Goyer ignoring that aspect, so I definitely see a trend continuing in developing Bruce outside the mask.

So he has slim amounts of dialogue, AND you want his eyes covered up? The only expression to then convey is minimal body language and his un-covered mouth.

As said before, Batman doesn't express much in the first place.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Unless they're gonna take something from BF, Batman wouldn't be at the courtroom. Bruce is most likely.

It was so stupid in Batman Forever when they're showing the video of Harvey being scarred. All of a sudden Batman just pops out of the corner! WTF! Like no one saw him hiding in an f'n corner in a brightly lit courtroom!

 

[kenellard]

it'd be nice to see a more "down to business" bats in TDK, ie, not being emotional while he's on the job, lenses or not, I'd like to see that progression

 

[Darkest Knight]

As said before, Batman doesn't express much in the first place.

That's not true at all. Batman expresses alot of the time. All you wanting lenses refer to the comic books as the source of the look, and a reasoning in why you want it. Little do you know, in the comic books his white "lenses" change shape as an eye would to fit whatever emotion he is feelings. If he is mad, they get slimmer, if he is sad they get wider. With real lenses, they don't change shape at all.

 

[The Guard]

James Marsden had no problem emoting without his eyes in 3 X-Men films. Is Marsden any better an actor than Bale?

As others have pointed out...the "intensity of the eyes" (wait, do you all mean the phenomenon of naturally having cool-looking or expressive eyes, or are you all talking about squinting and flexing the muscles around the eye? ) are a small, small part of emoting. The entire face is often involved, as is subtle body language and vocal inflections.

 

[kenellard]

It's all heath ledgers fault, going on about the eyes all the time, it's damned indoctrination I tell you!

 

[Crooklyn]

That's not true at all. Batman expresses alot of the time. All you wanting lenses refer to the comic books as the source of the look, and a reasoning in why you want it. Little do you know, in the comic books his white "lenses" change shape as an eye would to fit whatever emotion he is feelings. If he is mad, they get slimmer, if he is sad they get wider. With real lenses, they don't change shape at all.

And having no lenses still puts you in the same predicament. The cowl is still in a fixed expression due to the slanted eyebrows. You can argue that having the eyes give more expression, but I guarantee you, under that mask, there's no way to tell what he's feeling simply through looking at nothing but his eyes.

I'm the one for contacts that give the eyes a slightly opaque and ghostly look. Not really a fan of the DD-type lenses.

 

[kenellard]

does anyone have a manip including lenses by any chance?