The Dark Knight Batsuit Discussion Thread

[lujho]

That image doesnt say his white eye look is lenses. He's clearly wearing nightshades there that's something else.

Forget it. You're impossible. The 3rd panel clearly shows lenses, it's clear from the rest of the book that that is Pat Lee's rationalization for Batman's traditional white-eyed look and that they're there all the time... and it looks totally cool. And you won't admit it, so it's abviously not worth arguing this with you any longer.

 

[ragdus]

alright but they're clear lenses in that shot, so do we want clear lenses or white now?

either way, lenses = bad because you're just asking to get shrapnel in your eyeball when they bust.

 

[lujho]

if we really wanted to keep it faithful he'd be wearing light grey tights and bright blue undies.

That would be faithful to one particular look. He doesn't always have a bright blue cape, he doesn't always have light grey tights.

Anyway, I want mirrored lenses, not white. The point is that they can reflect light or not reflect it as and how the director and cinematorapger choose to light their shots. If you don't think talented film-makers could make that look really, really good, then you're not giving them due credit.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

They show night lenses not white lenses lol

 

[ragdus]

That would be faithful to one particular look. He doesn't always have a bright blue cape, he doesn't always have light grey tights.

Anyway, I want mirrored lenses, not white. The point is that they can reflect light or not reflect it as and how the director and cinematorapger choose to light their shots. If you don't think talented film-makers could make that look really, really good, then you're not giving them due credit.

I'm certain it could be done to look very cool.

I'm also certain that when looking cool becomes your primary impetus for doing things on film, you end up with Joel Schumacher's Batman films.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Hence why I said he sounded like Joel. I understand what's he's saying and I've campaigned for some extreme stuff or explain unfaithful stuff in other adaptations but it just sound forced.

 

[lujho]

alright but they're clear lenses in that shot, so do we want clear lenses or white now?

either way, lenses = bad because you're just asking to get shrapnel in your eyeball when they bust.

They're partially reflective - at other point in the comic they reflect a lot of light and look white, at others you can see through them. As I've said many times I want mirrored lenses, either opaque or partially tarnsparent (many sunglasses are like this). I NEVER said I wanted opaque *white* lenses. Mirrored lenses (partly transparent or not) will look like white points exactly when the film-makers wish... and won't when they don't. And if they ARE partly transparent they'll show the actor's actual eyes.. again, as the film-makers choose or not choose.

Anyway, no lenses = bad because you're just asking to get a handful of dirt thrown in your eyes when a criminal realizes your eyes are your one major unprotected vital area.

Besides, you never heard of safety glasses? They're impoact-resistant designed precisely so you *don't* get shrapnel in your eyes. I'd rather use a pair of those when operating power-tools than not use them in the off chance something will hit them hard enough to break them (in which case you're probably ****ed anyway).

See, there's pros and cons to either argument... the choice should just boil down to what looks best and presents the most cinematic possibilities.

 

[lujho]

I'm certain it could be done to look very cool.

I'm also certain that when looking cool becomes your primary impetus for doing things on film, you end up with Joel Schumacher's Batman films.

It shouldn't be the primary impetus, but then I and others have also given plenty of valid, real-life reasons for lenses as well. People are dismissing the idea out of had as having no merit whatsoever - that's what bugs me. It's fine to say "I'd prefer just the eyes", because I think they're BOTH perfectly valid choices and it just comes down to preference. I just think it's stupid to say one idea is exactly right and the other simply should never be done at all.

 

[ragdus]

Well look if they're mirrored then it's hardly ever going to reflect anything but darkness since batman tends not to fight at night.

If they're mirrored, it's going to look more like a blinking light which will just get annoying and be a nightmare for the editing room.

 

[BatScot]

...the comics STILL dont say the white look was lenses...

Batman's modern white eye 'look' unequivocally equals lenses in the comic book canon:

from
Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight
Author(s): Beatty, Scott
DK Feb 2005
ISBN 0756611210

 

[ragdus]

And I never said it didn't have merit, I'm just wondering what the POINT is? IF it's mirrored, he fights in the dark and they'll mostly be black anyway, unless you meticulously design scene after scene to properly light his eyes, which makes no sense if your whole movie has the guy fighting in dark and foreboding places. Nobody wants to set up scene after scene and have to take into account how his eyes are going to reflect the maximum amount of light every time. It's a waste of time and budget.

You could make them white, but at that point you're doing it just to make them white, and the best reason given for that so far is that it might look scary to some guy holding a gun. I'm not buying into that so much.

Or, you could leave it as is, which worked just fine and is also completely practical.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Batman's modern white eye 'look' unequivocally equals lenses in the comic book canon:

from
Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight
Author(s): Beatty, Scott
DK Feb 2005
ISBN 0756611210

But has he said it was lenses?

 

[BatScot]

lenses = bad because you're just asking to get shrapnel in your eyeball when they bust.

Since the mid-1990s, the Army and the Marine Corps have used Special Protective Eyewear Cylindrical System (SPECS). SPEC lenses offer ballistic protection and are capable of defeating a 5.8 grain, T-37 shaped fragment simulating projectile at 650 feet per second.

They do not burst.

And the point is, SPECS provide optimum peripheral vision, and ballistic, laser, and solar protection. In other words, they protect your eyes, and that is not only essential, but extremely practical. So the bottom line is this: Lenses, whether you like them or not—and I'm not particularly keen on them myself—make absolutely perfect sense within the ‘realistic’ Batman argument.

 

[BatScot]

But has he said it was lenses?

Dude... the picture SHOWS the lenses!

 

[The Dark Guybrush]

To make a long story short:

if Nolan were going to give Batman lenses, he would have had them in Begins.

thank you all, goodnight!

 

[BatScot]

... the best reason given for that so far is that it might look scary to some guy holding a gun.

No, the best reason given is that lenses offer eye protection, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to have. On the other hand, the best reason given for “not having lenses” is so that you can see Batman’s eyes—so it might look scary to some guy holding a gun—which is a rather nonsensical way of looking at things.

 

[ragdus]

No, the best reason given is that lenses offer eye protection, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to have. On the other hand, the best reason given for “not having lenses” is so that you can see Batman’s eyes—so it might look scary to some guy holding a gun—which is a rather nonsensical way of looking at things.

No, the best reasons for not having lenses is that they're horribly impractical. Those little lenses aren't going to protect his eyes from anything other than allergens. More likely, they're going to cause problems with condensation, light refractions, and the aforementioned shrapnel.

Again, if you're going to make clear lenses, why make any at all? if you're going to have them mirrored, why? it's 90% in the dark anyway and a waste of time and budget to light them or add the reflection in post.

If you're going to white them out, great, but unless they're backlit it's still going to look dark for every shot except the tight face vogue shots.

It's just calling for suit alterations and tons of time spent lighting him on set for what'll amount to less than 1 minute total of eye white. What is the point?

 

[ragdus]

Since the mid-1990s, the Army and the Marine Corps have used Special Protective Eyewear Cylindrical System (SPECS). SPEC lenses offer ballistic protection and are capable of defeating a 5.8 grain, T-37 shaped fragment simulating projectile at 650 feet per second.

They do not burst.

And the point is, SPECS provide optimum peripheral vision, and ballistic, laser, and solar protection. In other words, they protect your eyes, and that is not only essential, but extremely practical. So the bottom line is this: Lenses, whether you like them or not—and I'm not particularly keen on them myself—make absolutely perfect sense within the ‘realistic’ Batman argument.

You've got to be ****ting me. Post a picture of SPECS please. They're size, thickness and design are integral to their functionality and protective characteristics. You can't simply take the lens in SPECS, cut them to shape and stick them in the cowl's eye sockets and expect them to grant you the same level of protection. It's an invalid argument.

 

[BatScot]

No, the best reasons for not having lenses is that they're horribly impractical.

Military and tactical law enforcement wear protective eyewear on a routine basis—for both day and night operations—are you to have us believe that people who put their life on the line are going to wear something that is “horribly impratical”?

Battle-Tested Ballistic Eyewear for Tactical Situations
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/personal/revision/press6.html

Go ahead, refute the ARMY.

I dare you.

Oh, but if you try... be so kind as to provide some supporting evidence to support your position.

 

[Boom]

Christ, we're talking about a goddamn FICTIONAL character here. Anyone who needs every ****ing thing explained down to the most miscule detail needs to be reminded as to what Batman is.

My God.

 

[ragdus]

I think I already did.

The design characteristics of the eyewear is equally if not more important than the materials used to make them. You can't simply cut triangular lenses out of the materials, stick them in the cowl, and expect any type of similar results.

secondly, saying that the lenses used by these tactical teams means they'll work in a batman world is simply wrong. kevlar stops bullets, so it MUST stop a piddly old knife too, right? Also, despite the very impressive specifications you kindly posted earlier, how many times have SPECS been tested in situations like we saw in Begins? What is their heat tolerance? Will they melt when you're set on fire?

 

[BatScot]

You can't simply take the lens in SPECS, cut them to shape and stick them in the cowl's eye sockets and expect them to grant you the same level of protection.

You absolutely could cut them to shape—with relatively minor alteration—and place them in the cowl in such a manner as to offer eye protection. In fact, it would be no more difficult to explain this than Nolan's idea of a protective graphite cowl itself. You see it doesn’t matter what is cut away, it only matters what is left behind.

 

[Boom]

secondly, saying that the lenses used by these tactical teams means they'll work in a batman world is simply wrong. kevlar stops bullets, so it MUST stop a piddly old knife too, right? Also, despite the very impressive specifications you kindly posted earlier, how many times have SPECS been tested in situations like we saw in Begins? What is their heat tolerance? Will they melt when you're set on fire?

Batman wears a "kevlar biweave nomex survival suit," which stops a knife and repels anything but a straight shot. Did Batman get shot or stabbed even once in Batman Begins?

It's quite simple really. Don't put the lenses in fire. Then the question wouldn't have to be raised, now would it?

 

[BatScot]

... despite the very impressive specifications you kindly posted earlier, how many times have SPECS been tested in situations like we saw in Begins? What is their heat tolerance? Will they melt when you're set on fire?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the military gets into worse situations than 'Batman'.

But lets take your argument at face value... do you really believe that Batman's unprotected pupils give him better fire protection than had been wearing some sort of goggle?

Or to put it another way: What is the heat tolerance of Batman’s exposed eyes? Will they melt when set on fire?

Or to put it another another way: If I poked you in the eye with a match would you be better off with or without SPECS?

 

[Boom]

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the military gets into worse situations than 'Batman'.

But lets take your argument at face value... do you really believe that Batman's unprotected pupils give him better fire protection than had been wearing some sort of goggle?

Or to put it another way: What is the heat tolerance of Batman’s exposed eyes? Will they melt when set on fire?

Or to put it another another way: If I poked you in the eye with a match would you be better off with or without SPECS?

THANK YOU.

Seriously.