The Dark Knight Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Katsuro]

But the cowl never neccessarily had to be solid. It never HAD to be armoured. Its main purpose was always just as a mask, not a helmet.

I'll admit, in the context of this series, going from solid to not solid would be odd, but that wouldn't have been a problem had the cowl not explicitly been shown to be graphite in the film. Besides, it's can be solid in some parts and not in others.

I've said it before... if realism and practicality stop you from doing something visually cool, then bend reality a bit. You don't have to apply "realism" completely rigidly to *everything*. If you did, you'd have to get rid of the cape gliding and grapple gun, for a start.

But the cape glider and grapple gun are at least believable to the average person. while the actual technology for some of Batman's gadgets may not exist, to the average person it's believable that they might, at least someday. However, when we see either a hard, solid cowl, or even a leather cowl of some sort, that moves as if it was a part of his face, people are gonna notice somethings wrong. It's not about realism, it's just about not making any sense.

As for lenses.. I find that whole white eye look explanation about as annoying as the yellow oval explanation (you know, that crap about it being a target and extra protection and what not. That symbol was just easier to copyright than the single black bat.). Look, when Kane originally drew The Bat-Man, he had regular eyes. Finger came along, and suggested he have white slits for eyes. He didn't say "he needs protective lenses!" he just thought it would look cool. It was a comic book, and it looked cool with him in the shadows and you could just see the white eyes and whatnot. For some reason, they couldn't just leave it as a stylistic thing, and had to explain it by calling them white lenses. It's ridiculous. Why explain it? Do all anime characters have to explain how they were exposed to radiation that made their eyes insanely large, dyed their hair odd colors, and caused their legs to grow to 3/4 of their total height? No, it's just the way their drawn. If an anime was adapted to real life, would you see people demanding the actors have surgery to lengthen their legs? Or perhaps use some sort of CGI to give them giant eyes? Of course not! Things that work in forms of drawing/animation do not always translate to live-action.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Dude... the picture SHOWS the lenses!

I mean Batman has never said in the comics his white eyes are lenses

 

[BatScot]

I mean Batman has never said in the comics his white eyes are lenses

Has Batman ever said in the comics that his white eyes are not lenses?

 

[SINISTER SMILE]

this is a great example of seperating the new franchise look to those of the past..take a gander

 

[darknight7]

What comics were these?

In the comics, when Spider-man got angry his eyes...well...those big white things on his mask, would get squinty. Not thin slits, but you could see a change in emotion through the mask. Also, when he would be surprised, or if there was a *spider sense tingling* than his eyes would get REALLY wide. That is what I meant by his eyes moving

--dk7

 

[darknight7]

I don't really see the big deal with lenses, they are such a small thing. Wouldn't they hinder Bale's vision, and decrease his ablility to emote through this eyes? Plus how would they be explained? Just leave the damn suit the way it is.

you might want to try reading the first 8 pages of this thread. You will than realize that Ben Afleck did it. And if Bale is as good as they say he is, than he can do it too. And to answer your question about how they would explain it. Too make 8 pages of discussion SHORT...all they would have to say is PROTECTION and NIGHT VISION.

PS: Read the first 8 pages of this thread.

--dk7

 

[darknight7]

Please, no lenses.I see no practical reason why he would need them. Glowing white eyes are far from practical.

READ: pages 2-8 of this thread You than might have an idea of how they are practical.

--dk7

 

[darknight7]

Also... why is it people who say that not being able to see his eyes will hinder his ability to emote, do not seem to care that his eyebrows are completely static?

Here's a newsflash - eyes don't act - at least not all by themselves. Eyebrows do - a HUGE amount of the expressiveness of the eyes actually comes from the eyebrows.

Eyes blink, squint and look from side to side. Eyebrows make you happy, sad, angry, and everything else. I'd rather have the expressiveness that eyebrows bring than simply being able to see the eyes. Not that you can't have lenses AND eyes, as I've stated before.

Very well said. It is true that the eyebrows are the actors tool, not the eyes. As much as the eyes show character, they need the eyebrows to assist them.

--dk7

 

[ragdus]

I don't think i was insinuating his exposed eyes are less vulnerable to fire. I'm saying you need to take into account that this guy is going to get into **** and having glasses on isn't going to help. So if it's not really gonna help, why waste time and budget making lenses in the suit so a couple of babies can see white eyes 3 times in the film? Christ...

As for this whole military aspect of it, let me say this: I could get into a whole dissertation about how wonderful these SPECS are, and I could even scan the letter from my brother who's there right now with a nice little story about how "wonderful" they are, but it's a moot point.

This is all about a couple of people who want to see white eyes. It's ******ed.

Batman is wearing a $300,000 suit. Nolan apparrently decided there wasn't going to be tech in the bottom of Wayne HQ that gave Batman bullletproof white eyes. That, thankfully, will most likely carry over as the series progresses.

 

[darknight7]

Eyes change colour because THAT is night vision but that still doesnt show the white part being lenses. Show me some examples, still aint done that.

Lenses or no lenses, we are all Batman fans here, and I just wanted to butt in on this discussion between you and Lujho, and mention something. You, Luda, and others are saying that they weren't neccessarly lenses in the comic (which they were; in SOME issues.) I have seen multiple issues at my local comic shop, for example, one of them had Batman's mask on the ground, and the eyes were lenses and one of the eyes were cracked. But that is besides the point, because what I am getting at here is. Were the gauntlents made of steal in the comics? Were they seperate from his gloves? Was the suit ALL black? Was his cape charged with some electric pulse through the gloves? Were his ears really short, medium, or really long? (that varies from comic to comic, JUST LIKE THE LENSES). Just like the colours, and just like the gadgets. Therefore, even if they were not lenses in the comic (which they were sometimes) it doesn't mean they couldn't make them lenses in the movie. If they made lenses in the movie, I bet it would get more positive feedback than it would negative. Because Nolan would do it right, and make it cool and believable. There is no negative outcomes for lenses. None at all. Because Bale could see, they would have a purpose, it would be true to the comics, they could look cool if done right, and you don't need to see the actors eyes. Because to me, and actor is an actor. If they are good, they can play the part with their talent. For example, V FOR VENDETTA, couldn't see the guys face. But his movements, and Hugo Weavings voice gave the V such character. Ben Afleck, in DD, when he is pissed off, is it hard to tell? Do you look at him and say, oh he is smashing this guy in the face, yelling and grinding his teeth, but I can't see his eyes so is he angry? Bale is an amazing actor. If his eyes were hidden behind lenses, he could still pull off the character. With his voice, his actions, his mouth.

Lenses dammnit

--dk7

 

[darknight7]

I don't think i was insinuating his exposed eyes are less vulnerable to fire. I'm saying you need to take into account that this guy is going to get into **** and having glasses on isn't going to help. So if it's not really gonna help, why waste time and budget making lenses in the suit so a couple of babies can see white eyes 3 times in the film? Christ...

First off, not glasses. And yes they could actually help. Your eyes are very sensative, go ahead, poke yourself in the eye see how it feels?... Did you try? okay than, well you know it is important to have your eyes protected. Because not only does it suck to fight with something in your eyes, but it is DAMN painful too. As trained as a man is, he is going to have trouble fighting if his eyes are stinging from some sort of toxins. Lenses would be described as bulletproof, but they wouldnt have to be MADE out of bulletproof material.

--dk7

 

[ragdus]

I'll tell you what, I'd throw my weight behind the lens idea IF and ONLY IF it were executed like the picture below.

 

[ragdus]

First off, not glasses. And yes they could actually help. Your eyes are very sensative, go ahead, poke yourself in the eye see how it feels?... Did you try? okay than, well you know it is important to have your eyes protected. Because not only does it suck to fight with something in your eyes, but it is DAMN painful too. As trained as a man is, he is going to have trouble fighting if his eyes are stinging from some sort of toxins. Lenses would be described as bulletproof, but they wouldnt have to be MADE out of bulletproof material.

--dk7

Yeah, and he'd also probably find it cumbersome to fight his way through the fog that develops on the inside of the lenses (which incidently would be impossible to wipe off without taking his mask off) as he generates massive amounts of contained heat and moisture while fighing inside that suit.

But hey, I mean why worry about that?

 

[GoldGoblin]

White lens might be to campy looking,but it would make sense for Batman to have lens to protect his eyes.The lens should be a tint of black,where you could still see his eyes just with a shadow over them.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Lenses or no lenses, we are all Batman fans here, and I just wanted to butt in on this discussion between you and Lujho, and mention something. You, Luda, and others are saying that they weren't neccessarly lenses in the comic (which they were; in SOME issues.) I have seen multiple issues at my local comic shop, for example, one of them had Batman's mask on the ground, and the eyes were lenses and one of the eyes were cracked. But that is besides the point, because what I am getting at here is. Were the gauntlents made of steal in the comics? Were they seperate from his gloves? Was the suit ALL black? Was his cape charged with some electric pulse through the gloves? Were his ears really short, medium, or really long? (that varies from comic to comic, JUST LIKE THE LENSES). Just like the colours, and just like the gadgets. Therefore, even if they were not lenses in the comic (which they were sometimes) it doesn't mean they couldn't make them lenses in the movie. If they made lenses in the movie, I bet it would get more positive feedback than it would negative. Because Nolan would do it right, and make it cool and believable. There is no negative outcomes for lenses. None at all. Because Bale could see, they would have a purpose, it would be true to the comics, they could look cool if done right, and you don't need to see the actors eyes. Because to me, and actor is an actor. If they are good, they can play the part with their talent. For example, V FOR VENDETTA, couldn't see the guys face. But his movements, and Hugo Weavings voice gave the V such character. Ben Afleck, in DD, when he is pissed off, is it hard to tell? Do you look at him and say, oh he is smashing this guy in the face, yelling and grinding his teeth, but I can't see his eyes so is he angry? Bale is an amazing actor. If his eyes were hidden behind lenses, he could still pull off the character. With his voice, his actions, his mouth.

Lenses dammnit

--dk7

Scan these issues in or log off

 

[Saint]

Just look at that Matt Wagner cover from the end of War Gmes (where Batman is using his cape as a flag). There's a bigass cracked white lense on it. Lenses in the comics aren't a matter of debate; they're fact. Hell, in Hush, Batman's lenses even had a freaking heads-up display.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Any guesses why it wasnt used in previous Batman adaptions?

go on I'll give you three guesses.

 

[Saint]

I'm sorry, where did I say anything about the movies? You were ranting about how the white eyes aren't lenses, and I was proving you wrong. It has nothing to do with the movie, just you being dumb.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Oooh sounds like an upset fanboy

See, the beauty of my argument is it's a win-win. I can say a) It was never popularised in the comics to assume they were lenses save for a few examples you guys have mentioned and even then one can argue that's an example of "Diagetic art" (look it up, if youve done media studies you know what I mean) like the example of Spidey squinting his eyes or B) the fact that its never been used in adaptations of live action but even if it did one could say that even Nolan gave a realistic explination the look is so outthere and (again to my orginal point) feels forced in the backdrop of the reality driven story where only a few parameters can exist logically.

So nah Lenses aint gonna happen and again the point the non-lenses fans here are saying is it feels forced and out of place, something that you guys are only justifying by pleading for it to happen. I feel what your saying but nah, we dont need no bug eyed Batman

 

[darknight7]

Yeah, and he'd also probably find it cumbersome to fight his way through the fog that develops on the inside of the lenses (which incidently would be impossible to wipe off without taking his mask off) as he generates massive amounts of contained heat and moisture while fighing inside that suit.

But hey, I mean why worry about that?

That is probably the only valid point that has been brought up in this thread. That is true that the inside of the mask gets very hot, and he would sweat, and there would be moisture on the lense...but if they could get around that, than there is nothing else stopping the lense idea. But I applaud you on that, it does make perfect sense.

--dk7

 

[Super_Ludacris]

You gonna give Bat-windshield wipers for his eyes?

 

[darknight7]

Oooh sounds like an upset fanboy

See, the beauty of my argument is it's a win-win. I can say a) It was never popularised in the comics to assume they were lenses save for a few examples you guys have mentioned and even then one can argue that's an example of "Diagetic art" (look it up, if youve done media studies you know what I mean) like the example of Spidey squinting his eyes or B) the fact that its never been used in adaptations of live action but even if it did one could say that even Nolan gave a realistic explination the look is so outthere and (again to my orginal point) feels forced in the backdrop of the reality driven story where only a few parameters can exist logically.

So nah Lenses aint gonna happen and again the point the non-lenses fans here are saying is it feels forced and out of place, something that you guys are only justifying by pleading for it to happen. I feel what your saying but nah, we dont need no bug eyed Batman

Who are you calling a fanboy? Are you on the Hype? Are you taking the time out of your day to argue a point? yes, and yes. lol. We are all "fans", and that is why we all have opinions. We never said it is going to happen. We are just stating reasons that it would be cool (hense the name of the thread: A NEW LOOK FOR THE BATS). And the fact that they weren't popularized in the comic has nothing to do with it, because did they ever say in the comics that his forearms are covered by steal gauntlets? no. So really, as good as you think your arguement is, it's not. Because, Lenses have been used in the comics, (I have seen them in comics and so have others - there were even pics posted), and it was clearly stated in the Ultimate Guide. They have been used in the comics, and they COULD be used in the movie. No one is right or wrong in these boards.

--dk7

 

[darknight7]

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.

**BULLETPROOOOOOOF**

--dk7

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Who are you calling a fanboy? Are you on the Hype? Are you taking the time out of your day to argue a point? yes, and yes. lol. We are all "fans", and that is why we all have opinions. We never said it is going to happen. We are just stating reasons that it would be cool (hense the name of the thread: A NEW LOOK FOR THE BATS). And the fact that they weren't popularized in the comic has nothing to do with it, because did they ever say in the comics that his forearms are covered by steal gauntlets? no. So really, as good as you think your arguement is, it's not. Because, Lenses have been used in the comics, (I have seen them in comics and so have others - there were even pics posted), and it was clearly stated in the Ultimate Guide. They have been used in the comics, and they COULD be used in the movie. No one is right or wrong in these boards.

--dk7

Fanboy-someone who gets upset easily or has gotta be grouchy about it.
A fan-Keeps it chill and considers all sides.

Like I said in my posts, the whole debate over the white eye look is something that goes beyond Batman, because it seems like a lot of animated characters have it but never really bothered to explain whether they were lenses or an artistic touch to show intimidation (early TMNT anyone?) but even with the explination when you weigh up both sides it just. feels. forced. You argued your point well but putting an animated look on a live action character seems forced, hence why we've see there's road block on every reason for it.

Fair?

 

[Saint]

Oooh sounds like an upset fanboy

A fanboy, surely, but upset? Hardly.

See, the beauty of my argument is it's a win-win. I can say a) It was never popularised in the comics to assume they were lenses save for a few examples you guys have mentioned and even then one can argue that's an example of "Diagetic art" (look it up, if youve done media studies you know what I mean) like the example of Spidey squinting his eyes

This is dumb. You are literally the only person I have ever met who has tried to argue batman does not wear lenses (contact or otherwise), noting of course that I haven't read htis entire topic and some other poor soul may have made the same ridiculous argument. In any case, continuity facts + common sense = Batman wears lenses. The saddest thing is that you dismiss our "few examples" even though they vastly outweigh your zero examples.

or B) the fact that its never been used in adaptations of live action but even if it did one could say that even Nolan gave a realistic explination the look is so outthere and (again to my orginal point) feels forced in the backdrop of the reality driven story where only a few parameters can exist logically.

So nah Lenses aint gonna happen and again the point the non-lenses fans here are saying is it feels forced and out of place, something that you guys are only justifying by pleading for it to happen. I feel what your saying but nah, we dont need no bug eyed Batman

I never said I want lenses on film. Ninety percent of the lense manips look dumb.