The Dark Knight AICN: Costume change happens ON camera?

[batman11]

Being that my Uncle worked for a fortune 500 company as an aerospace engineering during the rising days of the Blue 49 and Stealth Programs of the United States Air Force I can tell you...even if he saw someone using the Blue 49 to punch war widows on the side of the road...he legally couldn't say anything even if it would stop a crime from being comitted. You sign confidentiality contracts that pretty much say "Even if it's stolen and put on TV you can't acknowledge it's existence."

Explains some why people from Wayne's company didn't ever come forward to say "I made that!"

Thanks for the info, sounds cool. So you Uncle engineered some of that stuff? Pretty damn neat and a good source of info regarding this info.

 

[regwec]

You know they won't go blue and grey, right? At most you'll get black and grey, which is what the blue in the comics is really supposed to represent anyway. And that damn yellow oval? Fuggeddabouddit.

You are not privy to any information at all that indicates the colour or design the new costume. A pronouncement unsupported by evidence is either a guess or a lie; the former is fine, but let's not pretend it is anything else.

It's true that blue ink was originally used in comics to denote glossy black, but Batman continued to wear blue for many decades after this had become redundant, so it is effectively cannon that he wore a blue and grey costume at certain periods in his history, and still does on occassion.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

That looks too burtonish to me. I like the black bat on the Begins costume. Leave the Burton things in the past.

BURTON THINGS? This anti-Burton thought process seems to have blinded some of you. Don't you know the oval-style logo existed in the comics for years before they even considered Burton as director?

 

[explode7]

So we will be getting bat nipples on the suit, a white batman suit or a batsuit with roller skate boots?

 

[Agent 194]

Then I'd be looking at changing the Tumbler before the suit , in that case.

Have to admit I'd like to see the same. I understand taking chances, new approaches, fresh minds,...all that, but I never really bought that thing as the Bat mobile.

 

[Midnite]

If the new suit could look something similar to this, minus the oval.
http://ca.geocities.com/cfadw_100140412/ultimatebatman.jpg

 

[mcallima]

People will complain no matter what the suit turns out to be, simply because everyone has different preferences. Personally, I'd like a black/dark charcoal grey suit without the oval and without the lenses. That's just my preference. But some people like the oval or the lenses, some even want a traditional blue/grey suit. No idea is better than another because they're all just opinions.

 

[Tojo]

BURTON THINGS? This anti-Burton thought process seems to have blinded some of you. Don't you know the oval-style logo existed in the comics for years before they even considered Burton as director?

Yes, but in movie-land the yellow oval is heavily associated with Burton-Batman. I know, i know, we should all be able to distinguish between Burton-Batman and Nolan-Batman regardless, but i think it is important to distance this series from the old one.

Besides, i can't for the life of me fathom why people want a yellow oval. Yuk.

I just want a dark grey(charcoal) body suit(which has a non-rubber look to it), black boots, gloves, cape and cowl, and the same emblem as in BB.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Yes, but in movie-land the yellow oval is heavily associated with Burton-Batman. I know, i know, we should all be able to distinguish between Burton-Batman and Nolan-Batman regardless, but i think it is important to distance this series from the old one.

Agreed. I don't know why Nolan's series can't be allowed to keep a consistent Bat logo of its own. The Burton/Schumacher series retained the oval logo through all four films (though B&R's was black-on-black), barring Schumacher's "finale" suits.

The oval logo is iconic, yes. But the plain black bat has had just about as much face time in the comics/cartoons. It was the first and it's the current, it's earned its spot. The oval had four movies, let the plain bat thrive for at least three. t: And let it be more visible in TDK.

 

[regwec]

One of the reasons I am in favour of the oval (at some stage) is that it is cannon that Batman wore it for a long period of his career. He wore it for a good decade after Crisis, so it remains a historical fact. In contemporary comics, Batman is nearly always pictured with it in flashbacks to the distant past. It's just part of the character, whether or not it is anyone's current preferance.

 

[Arkard]

Well Batman was also ambigously gay for a long period of time, so should that be included into the creation of the character?
I really think a big yellow oval negates the definition of stealthy. And that seems what they were going for in Begins, what with the whole ninja aspect.

 

[regwec]

Batman was ambiguously gay years ago only in the same way that he is now. It is not as if he was ever intended to be gay, or that his homosexuality was canon. Furthermore, the period in the early 60's to which you are probably referring has long been retconned altogether.

I agree that a yellow logo is more visible than a black one, which is why I like the concept of the yellow and black symbol denoting increased confidence.

 

[Arkard]

Fine, retconned. I still cannot get over how utterly lame the Crisises were. No matter how well written.

What the hell? Increased confidence? Now that's just stupid. It would make Batman a show off "I am so cool, I dont need to be stealthy anymore". I dont buy it.

 

[Tojo]

One of the reasons I am in favour of the oval (at some stage) is that it is cannon that Batman wore it for a long period of his career. He wore it for a good decade after Crisis, so it remains a historical fact. In contemporary comics, Batman is nearly always pictured with it in flashbacks to the distant past. It's just part of the character, whether or not it is anyone's current preferance.

So what if it was canon in the comics? That is the most irrelevant argument.

 

[COMPO]

i think he should have both suits. The oval one as a spare and the BB type one as his usual one.

 

[Arkard]

What would be the point in that?

 

[Tojo]

What the hell? Increased confidence? Now that's just stupid. It would make Batman a show off "I am so cool, I dont need to be stealthy anymore". I dont buy it.

I know, it's such a stupid argument it defies belief

 

[COMPO]

i think he should have both suits. The oval one as a spare and the BB type one as his usual one. Besides in DKR:

Batman explains that the bright yellow ellipse on an otherwise dark costume provides an attractive target, drawing shooters away from a headshot and to a region of his costume that can better take the blow.

 

[Arkard]

I really dont care for the comic book canon at this point, Nolan's Batman is basically an urban ninja. Ninjas dont wear bright yellow ovals while lurking in the shadows. Might as well go back to the neons...

As for the TDKR refference:
You know, Nolan's Batman doesnt let criminals see him long enough for them to actually think about aiming.

 

[The Guard]

I really think a big yellow oval negates the definition of stealthy.

Let's be honest, so does a gold belt.

So does a massive, loud-ass tankmobile.

I'd say he wants to be seen, myself. He talked about becoming a symbol in BATMAN BEGINS, and clearly isn't going to great lengths to be stealthy when he doesn't have to. And there's the point. Stealth is about guile and patience. Not about being invisible to light itself. If Batman doesn't want to be seen as he approaches, then he won't approach criminals from the front. After they've seen him...then they've seen him. Stealth becomes less important.

After all, Batman's supposed to be becoming a symbol, isn't he? It's not an absurd thought that he'd cement his symbolic nature for the people of Gotham with a symbol on his chest that matches, say, the Bat-Signal (what with it's "oval")? The oval is a part of the mythology, and it need not be yellow. Darren Aronofsky thought it should look more like a moon. It could look like a signal, too.

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.

This is true.

my opinion, you shouldn't have lenses because, unlike the comics or cartoon, they can't change shape. you can't squint or open them wide. contacts ... well, you have no idea where he's looking. Bale, before he exits the train, kinda did a roll back of the eyes, and that was cool. but once you get rid of the pupils or completely mask the eyes, then you're taking away another means of expression.

A good actor can compensate, with body language, or his vocal inflections. Removing the eyes removes just that: the eyes. Eyes by themselves don't say a thing. And since Bale's brows are hidden, the eyes aren't THAT important to his emoting. They might be important for an audience to feel Batman is human...but do you really want that in a series about a man losing himself to an obsession? I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here...

hey, look at Spider-Man. how often is Raimi getting his mask damaged so that you can see at least half of his face or one of his eyes?

Not all that often, actually, considering.

That's crap. Eyes do matter, and they matter a great deal.

They matter visually, yes. So do eyebrows, the forehead, cheeks, mouth muscles, etc. It's not crap to say Bale can overcome something like wearing lenses, and it's not crap to say that lenses will affect his performance (Unless he's not man enough to act through such a handicap). He'll still be giving the same performance. If he's a good, conscious actor, he'll give the performance, regardless of whether or not his eyes are covered, and his emotions will come through. Blocking out eyes will affect what the audience sees, yes. But not Bale's performance, as in, what he puts into the performance itself. Which will also affect what the audience sees.

Even in TAS, Batman's eyes are immensely expressive. How many shots do they do a closeup on his face and you watch his eyes narrow in anger, or widen in shock? The same thing happens a lot in the comics. Neal Adams, Gene Colan, Don Newton, Brian Bolland, Jim Aparo, and Norm Breyfogle are all examples of artists who change the shape of Batman's eyes to show emotion.

So? He does have a mouth and a body, and a voicebox, too. Both immensely important tools for actors.

No, but Jimmy Marsden, like LeVar Burton in TNG, had the entire rest of his face uncovered, including his forehead, which to me matters a great deal. If your eyes are covered but your forehead is exposed, it helps convey some things because movement of your forehead is integral to registering anger or surprise, for instance. Batman's forehead is perpetually furrowed on that cowl, and he's not going to have a cowl with lenses but no forehead, so we better go forehead but no lenses. It's the only option that makes sense. Although I know your response to this is going to have a lot of fun with that.

I'll give you that Georgie and Cyclops have more to work with, but that doesn't change what I'm talking about: that not having the eyes showing can be compensated for with other things.

Bale's got a mouth to work with, too, which is also very important. Removing the eyes and the forehead is a step back...but the mouth makes up for a lot. Try it. Go to a mirror, cover the top half of your face (well, at least as much as you need to in order to still be able to see...and do some subtle emoting with your mouth. And there's the body language.

Those are all important, but Batman doesn't have his entire face, because most of his face is covered by a rigid cowl. He's got his jaw, and his eyes, if they're not hidden. And I think with most of his face hidden, he can't afford to cover his eyes, or it will just be too much hidden face.

Honestly, the jaw and mouth should be enough to convey emotion.

And yet, Batman's brows don't move, which is the point. His brows don't move because it's a rigid cowl, and if his eyes were covered, they couldn't move either. All you'd have is his mouth. And since, as you so aptly pointed out, you can't tear Batman's cowl... how do you convey emotion in the climactic battle? Ditch the lenses.

How do you convey emotion? Use the jaw and the mouth. Add the proper voice work to that, and he should have no problems.

If we're talking about DD-type lenses, then you'd have a point. However, I'm in favor of contacts. And my point was, whether you use contacts or not, you still have the same problem of a rigid cowl. There is no difference between the 2 besides seeing some pupils.

See, I think Daredevil conveyed plenty of emotion when he had to. How? His jaw and mouth, and his body language.

Question for some of you: Exactly which emotions is he supposed to convey by just having eyes? As in, he happens to have eyes, because he's a human being.

Eyes by themselves do not convey emotion. Actors do.

 

[The Only Woj]

maybe this is why Batman has Robin wear red and yellow? that way people shoot at Robin instead of Batman.

 

[Arkard]

Let's be honest, so does a gold belt.

Actually it's pretty bland colour, like dirty gold, or whatever. It's nothing like a bright yellow logo on his chest.

So does a massive, loud-ass tankmobile.

I like to think he uses it in Crush and Break situations.

After all, Batman's supposed to be becoming a symbol, isn't he? It's not an absurd thought that he'd cement his symbolic nature for the people of Gotham with a symbol on his chest that matches, say, the Bat-Signal (what with it's "oval")? The oval is a part of the mythology, and it need not be yellow. Darren Aronofsky thought it should look more like a moon. It could look like a signal, too.

Now this is something that speaks to me.
Not "it's part of him".

 

[itsthebatman]

maybe this is why Batman has Robin wear red and yellow? that way people shoot at Robin instead of Batman.

And he gets Robin to scope out dodgy areas first.
'Right, Robin, I'm goona go after those terrorists. From a distance.'
'And I'll stay in this warehouse and wait for the Joker to show up with his henchmen?'
'That's the plan, Jason!'
Batman leaves. Come s back hours later to find Jason's battered body.
'Whew! Dodged a bullet there! Now, ring 1800-SIDEKICK and get myself a replacement!'
Someone should report him. Callous, callous man.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

You are not privy to any information at all that indicates the colour or design the new costume. A pronouncement unsupported by evidence is either a guess or a lie; the former is fine, but let's not pretend it is anything else.

Of course. Call it an informed guess. I obviously am not privy to any information outside of what Nolan established in BB, which is that Batman hides in shadows and wants to be stealthy and dark. I think that regardless of how they change the costume it's fair to say that it will stay, if not all black, very very dark, and I wouldn't give odds on that yellow oval.

It's true that blue ink was originally used in comics to denote glossy black, but Batman continued to wear blue for many decades after this had become redundant, so it is effectively cannon that he wore a blue and grey costume at certain periods in his history, and still does on occassion.

Yes, but again - Nolan's visual style in BB? I think it's clear he's not going to have Batman in blue.

 

[awhellzno]

If they do the oval bat-symbol they should do it in the same color as the belt, which is more of an old gold color.