The Dark Knight Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Super_Ludacris]

Yea, we know. We all get that. And as soon as you get the idea of Batman’s costume-as-armor being a relatively recent evolution and that this explanation relates back to the idea of white eyelets as lenses the sooner we can all move on.?

Armour is more relative than lenses, these pro-lenses people were trying force the issue by giving the same reasons (history, protection etc.) Why does he need to protect is eyes when there well covered as it is with that cowl. What could possibly be that strong to **** him up?

There’s nothing illogical about wearing body armor, the problem is with your reasoning. You say it is logical for Batman to be protected. I agree, and add that this protection should include some level of eye protection, which is standard issue for military and law enforcement. You say that's illogical, but what you say is a contradiction, and there is nothing particularly logical about that.

Then again… when did I ever say anything about Batman wearing contacts?

But again the eyes dont need to be protected, He's not fighiting in sandstorms in Iraq he's in Gotham fighting the Joker. Again Subjective view.

 

[BatScot]

Ray Charles is not meant to be as scary as Batman...He's Ray Charles. Music Legend.
Daredevil is blind so his eyes are not needed
Spiderman look is individual and subjective to his style. He doesnt have a cut open mouth to speak either. His whole style gears to him

Darth Vader's whole face is ****ed up from the accident and fight with Obi-Wan and hides the mystery (to Luke Skywalker ) of who he is. Hence why he is totally covered

These carpings are wholly irrelevant to the point, which was whether or not an actor could convey certain characteristics without relying on ocular cues, and obviously this is something a skilled actor is more than capable of achieving—It does not matter what those emotives or characteristics are!

Quite frankly, I find it an utterly disingenuous argument to hold the position that protective eyewear is anything other than a legitimate concern for someone such as a ‘Batman’, whether he exist in the comic or hyper-real world.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Not neccessarily, especially if the eyeholes were smaller. I don't think it'd be any sin to show that they eyes aren't painted (it didn't hurt the Necromonger guy in the Chronocles of Riddick)- but people are opposed to doing things differently when it comes to Batsuits. They've seen it one way and don't want to try anything new.

But that's not my point - I'm not saying he shouldn't paint around his eyes, I'm saying that like lenses, the black paint is something they do in order to replicate, in some way the look of Batman's eyes in the comics (in this case the fact that the black goes all the way up to them, rather than the pupil-less look).

BOTH ways are ultimately just for looks, and they're BOTH as forced or contrived as eachother.The MOST forced and contrived method would be contact lenses, because they make the least sense, have the least real-world explanation, and involve the most physical hassle as they would involve the lenses AND the black paint. But I've never been a proponent of those.

Let's call a spade a spade and keep it real: White lenses stand out more than small black make up that blend the eyes against a black cowl backdrop. His eyes are still seen.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

These carpings are wholly irrelevant to the point, which was whether or not an actor could convey certain characteristics without relying on ocular cues, and obviously this is something a skilled actor is more than capable of achieving—It does not matter what those emotives or characteristics are!

Quite frankly, I find it an utterly disingenuous argument to hold the position that protective eyewear is anything other than a legitimate concern for someone such as a ‘Batman’, whether he exist in the comic or hyper-real world.

I get the feeling your saying this because YOU wear glasses/contacts lol

But all jokes aside. My point is an actor conveys skilled charactersitcs to what that character needs . Now if your argument is that Bale could play a blind man or a superhero with lenses or something I'm sure he can but the point is in all the live action movies the eyes are important in showing Batman's intensity. I'm sitting here trying to envison Batman with white lenses and at best I see Cyclops or Daredevil and that's not Batman. You just dont get that same feeling of Batman. And yeah the audiences are gonna use the previous fims as somewhat of a clutch in terms of what they expect Batman to look like. Adding white lenses while subtle is radically different in giving him a look and those eyes that the directors have tried to sell so well when showing Batman's intensity are lost. Suddenly it's just a slight bit animated and seems slightly surreal and odd. It's gonna be one of those things that people will question, you know they will. You can be radical and call for innovation but when you watch the movie it will be different.

 

[BatScot]

Why does he need to protect is eyes when there well covered as it is with that cowl. What could possibly be that strong to **** him up?

Dirt, pepper-spray... a pointed-stick, etc., etc., ect.

Heh, wait a minute... how the hell is the cowl covering his eyes? I'm beginning to think you'll say about anything.

 

[BatScot]

I get the feeling your saying this because YOU wear glasses/contacts lol.

Well of course, but only when I'm out fighting crime... I don't want to get sh*t in my eyes

 

[lujho]

Let's call a spade a spade and keep it real: White lenses stand out more than small black make up that blend the eyes against a black cowl backdrop.

Enough to make a single lick of difference in a bloody superhero movie? Besides, part of the reason for the lenes is tha they DO stick out - from a film-maker/audience perspective at least.

In the context of the film's world it doesn't matter that 2 tiny mirrors are going to be more visible than 2 eyes. If you're discounting them because they'd somehow make his eyes much easier to shoot at then it's another case of applying "realism" too far. In movies, reality is flexible, which is why Batman can have a cape-glider and a grappling gun... and can fight 600(!) men by himself.

It's a bloody movie.

 

[BatScot]

... the audiences are gonna use the previous fims as somewhat of a clutch in terms of what they expect Batman to look like. Adding white lenses while subtle is radically different in giving him a look and those eyes that the directors have tried to sell so well when showing Batman's intensity are lost.

Well, that may be a valid dramatic consideration—relevant to a cinematic experience—but in terms of what is ‘realistic’, a ‘Batman’ is more likely to protect his eyes than not… and isn’t that the whole idea of the Begins Bat-suit?

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Dirt, pepper-spray... a pointed-stick, etc., etc., ect.

Heh, wait a minute... how the hell is the cowl covering his eyes? I'm beginning to think you'll say about anything.

If a fight scene in a Batman Begins 2 is reduced to pepper sprays and him and the Joker rolling around poking each other in eye like some 5 year olds tanked up on Kool Aid and Mars bars then the game is over lol.
By then we would have all "Lost" as comic book fans lol. The image of this happening on a big screen as fans watch in cinemaplexes all over the world is surreal. And "Pointed Sticks?". Your a Batman fan. You've seen 5 movies, countless great graphic novels and a classic animated series going against the most famous rouges, DC Villians and even Superman himself and your worried about dirt?
And Pointed sticks? The all mighty Batman gets powered by a "stick"?

You one low-expectation having fan lol


Besides his eyeholes arent that big.

 

[darknight7]

One thing... I don't know if it's been brought up, but actors generally need their eyes to work. Covering up their eyes makes it that much harder to emote. Look at Spider-Man. The stuff where he's in costume, he has to overexaggerate his body language just to convey any emotion.

We have one of the best actors around as Batman. Let's not take away one of his tools when the method they use now works just fine.

That actually has been brought up already


But in Spiderm-man's case, he always did over react. His senses tingled and you saw hiw head spin all the way around in the comics. That is his character. If you go a few pages back, you will see the discussion about the eyes being used. Because it is not just the eye, it is the eyebrow, and the eyebrows do not move, which has already killed the actors ability, if you are basing it on his eyes alone. Christian Bale is a lot more than just eyes. It wouldn't neccessarly take away from him. anyways...yadda yadda, I keep repeating myself, just go back and read

--dk7

 

[Super_Ludacris]

That actually has been brought up already


But in Spiderm-man's case, he always did over react. His senses tingled and you saw hiw head spin all the way around in the comics. That is his character. If you go a few pages back, you will see the discussion about the eyes being used. Because it is not just the eye, it is the eyebrow, and the eyebrows do not move, which has already killed the actors ability, if you are basing it on his eyes alone. Christian Bale is a lot more than just eyes. It wouldn't neccessarly take away from him. anyways...yadda yadda, I keep repeating myself, just go back and read

--dk7

That part sounds like your writing a love letter to Bale

 

[darknight7]

HAHAHA! Luda, your howls. It's funny how things can be interperutted on these boards. Something that simple, (obviously you know I didn't mean it like that), but it just goes to show how easy it is to miscommunicate on here. Miscommunication is the main reason for a lot of the arguements on here. Anyways, time to take on some Math. : Homework sucks, *REMEMBER KIDS, STAY OUT OF SCHOOL*

--dk7

 

[Super_Ludacris]

well....obviously (?)

 

[darknight7]

Ya, to be honest...I was reading about the eye makeup vs. lenses. Technically, if this guy is rushing out to fight crime, is he really going to have time to stand there in the mirror and put makeup perfectly on his eyes..Talk about realism here!...lol. Whatever happens, happens. I will think it is cool, because it is Batman. Although I am in vote for lenses, I doubt they will happen in the movie: but it is no big deal. AS long as the story, actors and characters are wicked. than that is all that matters. JOKER DAMMNIT!

--dk7

 

[Ronny Shade]

As for the makeup, it was painfully obvious in the Burton films that it was makeup. In Begins? Everything was so intense, dark and fast you could hardly even tell. Besides Batman has never been the type to pull off his shirt and have the Batsuit on underneath as Superman and Spider-Man have always done. Batman's crime frighting relies heavily on preparation and planning, so yeah, he's gonna take the time to put make-up on.

 

[BatScot]

And Pointed sticks?

It would appear that your are stuck in fantasy land (and have obviously never been in a street fight), but worse than that, you’ve failed to recognize a classic Monty Python reference and that simply cannot be forgiven. Oh well, so much for subtly… and to be honest, I’ve lost track of whatever point it was you were trying to make (if there ever really was one) so let’s summarize your position:

• If I throw dirt in your eyes
• If I spray you with pepper spray
• If I poke you in the eye with a screwdriver

… you’re saying you would be better off having your eyes exposed than if they were protected. Think about that, because that is the sum basis of your argument.

And keep in mind that I’m not talking about ‘white’ eyelets; I’m talking about the validity of eye protection 'in general'. But what the hell, as long as the bad guy can see your baby blues it’s all good because god knows it’s really, really important that the criminal see your eyes when you’re trying to apprehend him (though I’d rather he be looking at the heel of my boot as it approaches his face).

And don’t even get me started on pupils being more intimidating than a soulless orbital void!

Oh, and just for the record… that soulless void would not be white if it were up to me (though under certain lighting conditions they might be reflective enough so that they would appear to glow, which might give the illusion of being white). And if you don’t think that sort of thing would be intimidating, go tell Nolan, who used the glowing eyes motif for his ‘fear-toxin’ Bat-Man.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

lol@ people in Scotland fighting with sticks

 

[Ronny Shade]

And don’t even get me started on pupils being more intimidating than a soulless orbital void!

Oh, and just for the record… that soulless void would not be white if it were up to me (though under certain lighting conditions they might be reflective enough so that they would appear to glow, which might give the illusion of being white). And if you don’t think that sort of thing would be intimidating, go tell Nolan, who used the glowing eyes motif for his ‘fear-toxin’ Bat-Man.

GODDAMMIT! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS??

SOULLESS VOID IS NOT HOW BALE'S BATMAN OPERATES! IT'S JUST NOT!
If this was Tim/Dini/Conroy Batman, white eyes would rule, but it's not! This is BALE DAMMIT! He's effective because you think he's actually going to kill you. He's effective because he seems emotionally unstable. He's effective by the way he GETS UP IN YOU FACE AND HOWLS IN YOUR EAR MAKING YOU THINK YOUR TIME HAS COME. That's Bale's Batman. And BALE'S BATMAN NEEDS HIS GODDAMN EYES!

DAMMIT!

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Batscot my point is: Why would Batman get hit with dirt, pepper spray and sticks in a movie?Monty Python reference or not. What kinda movie is that? lol What? is he fighting 5 year olds, girls or you? lol

 

[BatScot]

As for the makeup, it was painfully obvious in the Burton films that it was makeup.

Hmm... I seem to recall a scene near the end of Burton’s Batman Returns where Batman takes off his mask to reveal no eye makeup whatsoever, the implication being that the ‘makeup’ was theatrical in nature and was intended to be part of the mask within the context of the film.

But perhaps I'm remembering that wrong...

... perhaps not.

 

[Ronny Shade]

It was still painfully obvious.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Hmm... I seem to recall a scene near the end of Burton’s Batman Returns where Batman takes off his mask to reveal no eye makeup whatsoever, the implication being that the ‘makeup’ was theatrical in nature and was intended to be part of the mask within the context of the film.

But perhaps I'm remembering that wrong...

... perhaps not.

Yeah I think you right cause Ive never seen a "TRIPOD" image logo in a Batman movie

Step your uploading and link skills up willy!


The point is within the storyline it was never implied Bruce wore make-up (hence in the scene in Batman Returns when he pulls his mask off his eyes have no paint around them). That's like saying Two-Face wears prostetic make-up. For the film yeah but under the story his face is ****ed up from acid and what not.

 

[darknight7]

As for the makeup, it was painfully obvious in the Burton films that it was makeup. In Begins? Everything was so intense, dark and fast you could hardly even tell. Besides Batman has never been the type to pull off his shirt and have the Batsuit on underneath as Superman and Spider-Man have always done. Batman's crime frighting relies heavily on preparation and planning, so yeah, he's gonna take the time to put make-up on.

Ya, I guess you are right. Still kind of bugs me that he puts makeup on. Trust me, I tried dressing up like Batman once for Halloween with my Keaton Replica mask. And the makeup around my eyes started to run into my eyes because I was sweating in the mask. And my eyes were stinging. So Batman has to be putting on some sort of non washable makeup. BLA BLA!! WHATEVERE! lol...I just do not like the make-up

--dk7

 

[BatScot]

It was still painfully obvious.

Oh really?

 

[El Payaso]

As for the makeup, it was painfully obvious in the Burton films that it was makeup. In Begins? Everything was so intense, dark and fast you could hardly even tell.

Best defense of a bad edition ever.