The Dark Knight Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Krug3r]

bad boots... bad weist line

 

[Mr. Socko]

Plus there's the psychological aspect - from a distance the eyes would often appear demonic and inhuman - and up close, when he's staring you in the eye, blank, shining slits would be very un-nerving - you could see only yourself.

That would be awsome

There's nothing wrong with discussing but it's gonna look stupid. And knowing the flip-flop style of people here, I gaurntee half the dudes here who are pushing for the idea will be like sheep if the general audience goes "what the hell?" at the lenses and say "Oh you know Nolan didnt have to do that". It happens but if you wanna dwell on something that aint gonna happen, do it.

Ok, Luda. Sometimes you can be a very good poster. But other times, like now, what you're writing is completely idiotic with no thought put into it. On paper, it might seem corny and silly. But a man dressed in a black rubber costume, long black ears, and a yellow belt ALSO seems very corny and silly. But when you see it, it's completely different.

The bottom line is in the animated series and in the comics, Batman's white eyes can be expressive. He shows emotion with them...narrow for anger or determination, wide for surprise, etc. RIGID LENSES CAN'T DO THIS. White contact lenses will either look bad (see Batman: Dead End) or if they are blended in post will make no sense.

Atleast Ronny makes a very strong point. But did eye lenses affect Daredevil or either Spider-Man movie in anyway because you couldn't see them show emotions with their eyes? And the only emotion Batman will ever need with his eyes is fear.

In my opinion, there are more reasons to ADD the lenses; than there is to not add them. Because the positives outway the negatives.

1.) As much as peopl say it would look stupid, it wouldn't. These guys are professional and know what they are doing, and would make it cool. (or maybe not because they would have gotten the mask right the first time, hehe jokes)

2.) Protection, ya there is his mouth, but that was Bob Kane's doing (the man is a genius). It is how he started Batman's mask. But Batman DID have lenses in the comics, in the cartoons. THIS IS A COMIC BOOK MOVIE PEOPLE

3.) From far distance, his appearance of having no eyes would be horrific. It would make him even more intimidating.

4.) Up close, even scarier. It will scare the crap out of people even more, looking into these blank eyes, where there is nothing, but cold, and darkness.

5.) Obviously the identity factor. It will conceal his identity better. Make him less recognizable as a human being also.

6.) The night vision could be added, which would give him an up on his oponents even more than he already has.

7.) The fact that it would make it even more original than the Burton films.

It all adds up guys. It is more original, more true to the comics, scarier, safe, and helpful. There are so many positives to the lenses if done correctly. They could work, they would work, they SHOULD WORK!

Lenses... ...Dammnit!

--dk7

Very well said.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Atleast Ronny makes a very strong point. But did eye lenses affect Daredevil or either Spider-Man movie in anyway because you couldn't see them show emotions with their eyes? And the only emotion Batman will ever need with his eyes is fear.

Think about Bale's Batman. Emotion is a very strong part of how he functions. That "Swear to me" scene? Wouldn't have worked with lenses. Spider-Man relies on flash and wit to make an impression. Even for the old franchise's Bat-men, it may have worked. They played Batman as a coldly distant and uncaring...which is effective in its own way (That's how Conroy plays him on TAS and I love it) It worked pretty well in DD. Affleck didn't play DD as intensly as Bale plays Batman. If I had to make a comparison, Afflecks DD was was more like the Conroy Batman. But it's not how Bale does it. Bale puts so much raw emotion and anger into the character that he NEEDS his eyes. Eyes are one of an actor's most important tools for expressing emotion. For a badassly emotionless Conroy Batman? The lenses would work. And they would work very well, but they wouldn't work for Bale.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Why the hell are people using Daredevil and Spiderman to support this argument? One was blind and the other one always had his face covered. He dont have eyeholes he got a full on mask and it wasnt intended to give the white eye look (Ninja Turtles, Phantom, Robin, Nightwing, Flash sometimes, Green Arrow etc)

 

[Mr. Socko]

Well Ben wasn't blind when he played Daredevil, now was he? And love how you avioded my post quoting you, Luda.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Think about Bale's Batman. Emotion is a very strong part of how he functions. That "Swear to me" scene? Wouldn't have worked with lenses. Spider-Man relies on flash and wit to make an impression. Even for the old franchise's Bat-men, it may have worked. They played Batman as a coldly distant and uncaring...which is effective in its own way (That's how Conroy plays him on TAS and I love it) It worked pretty well in DD. Affleck didn't play DD as intensly as Bale plays Batman. If I had to make a comparison, Afflecks DD was was more like the Conroy Batman. But it's not how Bale does it. Bale puts so much raw emotion and anger into the character that he NEEDS his eyes. Eyes are one of an actor's most important tools for expressing emotion. For a badassly emotionless Conroy Batman? The lenses would work. And they would work very well, but they wouldn't work for Bale.

Very true, can't say much against that

edit: Oh and here's a great pic to manip if anyone wants to:

I hope they match the color of the cape to the costume

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Well Ben wasn't blind when he played Daredevil, now was he? And love how you avioded my post quoting you, Luda.

Go back and read that statement and think about how stupid that is.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Go back and read that statement and think about how stupid that is.

Just how is it stupid? Him being blind is no excuse to wearing lenses as you are using for your piss poor excuse.

Lets refer back to an earlier post of mine.

Ok, Luda. Sometimes you can be a very good poster. But other times, like now, what you're writing is completely idiotic with no thought put into it. On paper, it might seem corny and silly. But a man dressed in a black rubber costume, long black ears, and a yellow belt ALSO seems very corny and silly. But when you see it, it's completely different.

 

[Two-Face]

Think about Bale's Batman. Emotion is a very strong part of how he functions. That "Swear to me" scene? Wouldn't have worked with lenses. Spider-Man relies on flash and wit to make an impression. Even for the old franchise's Bat-men, it may have worked. They played Batman as a coldly distant and uncaring...which is effective in its own way (That's how Conroy plays him on TAS and I love it) It worked pretty well in DD. Affleck didn't play DD as intensly as Bale plays Batman. If I had to make a comparison, Afflecks DD was was more like the Conroy Batman. But it's not how Bale does it. Bale puts so much raw emotion and anger into the character that he NEEDS his eyes. Eyes are one of an actor's most important tools for expressing emotion. For a badassly emotionless Conroy Batman? The lenses would work. And they would work very well, but they wouldn't work for Bale.

Couldn't say much better myself I agree his eyes are his tools for acting.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Just how is it stupid? Him being blind is no excuse to wearing lenses as you are using for your piss poor excuse.

Lets refer back to an earlier post of mine.

He had no eyeholes...........because he's blind.

 

[Mr. Socko]

He had no eyeholes...........because he's blind.

He could have worn goggles for that matter...Or wrapped a rag around his head lol

But back on topic, someone make a manip of that Batman pic I posted!

 

[The Dark Guybrush]

someone with video editing software (and decent skills in using them) should manip a short scene from batman begins- and make his eyes glow white. it's really the only way to see if it's even worth arguing over.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

He could have worn goggles for that matter...Or wrapped a rag around his head lol

But back on topic, someone make a manip of that Batman pic I posted!

Wow your just a bag of ideas aint ya? lol

Ok if that was the case then why didnt he? Because that would be stupid. A dark mask with horns and no eyes isnt a bad.

Besides if you want to take a step further, his blind glazed-over eyes show weakness and how lost he looks, whereas Batman's eyes show his intensity.
And far as your argument that a guy dressed as a Batman would look stupid, that is the essential make of Batman and has been shown in all the live-action adaptions, the eye lense hasnt. They do it in cartoons cause artistically it looks more intimidating but in a live action movie where actors expressions are the best way to show depth beyond words eyes are central.

Creating this whole angle about his eyes is just silly. Why dont more fighters cover there eyes in combat? They dont really. The comics have never implied that when the illustrators drew them like that they had lenses did they? No. So it's a moot point and therefore that's why giving him "Lenses" to make him look more like the comic book/animation versions sounds and feels forced. How can you not see that........are you wearing lenses?

 

[Mr. Socko]

The comics have never implied that when the illustrators drew them like that they had lenses did they? No.

The comics have never implied that when the illustrators drew them like that they had rubber suits did they? No.

And I have plenty ideas, ofcourse the best being Daredevil wearing a rag on his head

 

[Two-Face]

Why are you two talking about DD?

 

[Mr. Socko]

Because he should be wearing a red rag around his head


ok back on topic, someone post more manips!

 

[Super_Ludacris]

The comics have never implied that when the illustrators drew them like that they had rubber suits did they? No.

And I have plenty ideas, ofcourse the best being Daredevil wearing a rag on his head

Because no one can just naturally have a "Comic Book physique" they mold it.

and there's a reason why your the only one who came up with the idea and not the writers of the comic and the filmmakers.

 

[darknight7]

here's why you don't have huge white lenses:

when fighting in the dark, which batman does A TON of, you can't easily pick out his eyes, thus can't easily go after them. He might as well paint huge bulls-eyes so every jag thug goes straight for them.

You don't do the white lenses for the same reason thousands of critters on this planet have spots that look like eyes... so you don't draw attention to your REAL eyes.

Lenses don't neccessarly have to be white, and you are not going to see them in the dark? Because if it is in the dark, then there will be no LIGHT! It takes light to reflect off something in order for you to see it. Plus his movements and hiding/stealth techniques would help. THINK! Yes Batman is dressed in all black, but he is still a 6'2, 210lbs man. So you think just because he has 2 small little lenses on his face, they are going to see him now? Think about it.

--dk7

 

[darknight7]

Go back and read that statement and think about how stupid that is.

It actually wasn't stupid. (no need for name calling here). You guys are mixed up. YOU Luda, are talking about THE CHARACTER, the COMIC, how it looks and why. Mr. Socko is talking about the actor, and how it is possible, because Afleck COULD see out of his mask. Get your head straight, it is a discussion forum. Everyone has there own opinion. (obviously yuo are going to get harped on if you don't state your opinion properly. OR if you don't make any sense)

So how about everyone stops acting like a bunch of 5 year olds and actually discuss the ifs, ands or buts about the lenses. There are (+) and there are also (-). Everyone has there own opinion. In my opinion it can go either way, I just think it would be cooler to do it more like the comics. Because they CAN, and because it will be even more different than the original Batman movies.

--dk7

 

[Keyser Sushi]

It actually wasn't stupid. (no need for name calling here). You guys are mixed up. YOU Luda, are talking about THE CHARACTER, the COMIC, how it looks and why. Mr. Socko is talking about the actor, and how it is possible, because Afleck COULD see out of his mask. Get your head straight, it is a discussion forum. Everyone has there own opinion. (obviously yuo are going to get harped on if you don't state your opinion properly. OR if you don't make any sense)

So how about everyone stops acting like a bunch of 5 year olds and actually discuss the ifs, ands or buts about the lenses. There are (+) and there are also (-). Everyone has there own opinion. In my opinion it can go either way, I just think it would be cooler to do it more like the comics. Because they CAN, and because it will be even more different than the original Batman movies.

--dk7

I think you've oversimplified things a little.

What Super Ludacris is saying is that, because Daredevil is a blind character, he doesn't emote with his eyes. Because he doesn't emote with his eyes, Ben Affleck could have his eyes covered and it woudln't hurt his performance as Daredevil.

Likewise, Spider-Man always has a covered face in the comics, so we're not accustomed to seeing his face. They wind up having to do things, cinematically, that the comics have also historically done - subtle camera work and physical acting on the part of Tobey (and the stuntmen, real and CGI) in order to convey emotion on the part of Spider-Man.

But, Batman in the comics has a full range of emotion in his mask. His eyes change shape to show surprise, fear, anger, intensity, etc. In practice, the mask does not move with the actor's face as it does in the comics. So the only way to keep Batman from looking like a mannequin is to allow the actor's eyes to show through.

Personally, like Mr. Socko, I have always loved the idea of lenses in the Batman cowl - until the past few months, when I gave it deeper thought than I had before. I understand now how the lenses would severely detract crom Bale's performance.

 

[darknight7]

I think you've oversimplified things a little.

What Super Ludacris is saying is that, because Daredevil is a blind character, he doesn't emote with his eyes. Because he doesn't emote with his eyes, Ben Affleck could have his eyes covered and it woudln't hurt his performance as Daredevil.

Likewise, Spider-Man always has a covered face in the comics, so we're not accustomed to seeing his face. They wind up having to do things, cinematically, that the comics have also historically done - subtle camera work and physical acting on the part of Tobey (and the stuntmen, real and CGI) in order to convey emotion on the part of Spider-Man.

But, Batman in the comics has a full range of emotion in his mask. His eyes change shape to show surprise, fear, anger, intensity, etc. In practice, the mask does not move with the actor's face as it does in the comics. So the only way to keep Batman from looking like a mannequin is to allow the actor's eyes to show through.

Personally, like Mr. Socko, I have always loved the idea of lenses in the Batman cowl - until the past few months, when I gave it deeper thought than I had before. I understand now how the lenses would severely detract crom Bale's performance.

I am not disagreeing with you or trying to be ajerk. But Spiderman's eyes moved in the comics too.

You know what you be sooo cool, a prostetic mask.

Like you would see the cowl in the vault and when he wears it, it will look like a cowl. BUT REALLY, behind the scenes it is applied to his face peice by peice (like the Grinch), than we could get a cool cowl WITH EXPRESSION! It is suuuuuch a long shot, and probably people here would hate it. But in a way, it would be soo cool to see the emotion.

--dk7

 

[Mr. Vice]

I am not disagreeing with you or trying to be ajerk. But Spiderman's eyes moved in the comics too.

You know what you be sooo cool, a prostetic mask.

Like you would see the cowl in the vault and when he wears it, it will look like a cowl. BUT REALLY, behind the scenes it is applied to his face peice by peice (like the Grinch), than we could get a cool cowl WITH EXPRESSION! It is suuuuuch a long shot, and probably people here would hate it. But in a way, it would be soo cool to see the emotion.

--dk7

You mean something kind of like the "fear gas Batman"?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I am not disagreeing with you or trying to be ajerk. But Spiderman's eyes moved in the comics too.

What comics were these?

You know what you be sooo cool, a prostetic mask.

So you've said repeatedly.

Like you would see the cowl in the vault and when he wears it, it will look like a cowl. BUT REALLY, behind the scenes it is applied to his face peice by peice (like the Grinch), than we could get a cool cowl WITH EXPRESSION! It is suuuuuch a long shot, and probably people here would hate it. But in a way, it would be soo cool to see the emotion.

As I think about it, the main thing this would effect is the eye area, since it would mean his eyebrows and stuff could move, like in the comics.

On the other hand, it would totally negate any possibility of lenses. It seems like a lot of trouble to go through when the ony net benefit is him being able to move his eyebrows. The cowl having eyeholes accomplishes nearly the same thing.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Personally, like Mr. Socko, I have always loved the idea of lenses in the Batman cowl - until the past few months, when I gave it deeper thought than I had before. I understand now how the lenses would severely detract crom Bale's performance.

Amen brother.

Now back to killer death homework round seven.

 

[Bathead]

The idea you need to see the pupils for the eyes to show emotion is overrated. It's not the eyes themselves that show emotion, it's the eyebrows. Any actor would be able to show emotion even with lenses (or contacts for that matter). And really, Batman is not known for showing a great range of emotions, it seems to me that he is a supposed to be in a constant state of "pissed-offedness" (!?), which I assume is meant to intimidate the bad guys. However, even though I thoroughly believe that Nolan et al, could convincingly pull off the pupilless look, and as much as I would prefer it, it would not bother me in the least if they didn't. It's not a deal breaker for me.