The Dark Knight Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Super_Ludacris]

Except, of course, for the fact that white eyelets have been part of the ‘Batman’ archetype—in one form or another—since his inception in 1939! Superman’s heat vision, on the other hand, was a later addition that did not become a distinct trait until the 1960's, some twenty years after that character’s origin.

But again like the other guy mentioned its only in a recent (and a few) comics it's implied that his white eye look was lenses and not general animation. Ya get me?

 

[BatScot]

But again like the other guy mentioned its only in a recent (and a few) comics it's implied that his white eye look was lenses and not general animation. Ya get me?

Batman's costume as body armor is only a recent implication also, but few people fail to accept that Batman does now in fact wear body armor in the comics, same thing with white eyelets=lenses. Ya get me?

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Batman's costume as body armor is only a recent implication also, but few people fail to accept that Batman does now in fact wear body armor in the comics, same thing with white eyelets=lenses. Ya get me?

But as I before, body armour is logical in a live action movie because even if he didnt have that in the comics, its hard to have that comic book physique or believe realistically he can survive in live action without body armour. That;s why he;s had costumes that look like armour before but no lenses. It's more logical of the two. ya giddity get me?

 

[lujho]

Batman's costume as body armor is only a recent implication also,

Well *actually* (and I you know I don't do this to hurt your argument because of course our views happen to co-incide on most matters costume related), but I have to point out that a couple of the very earliest stories from the first year of Batman him wearing a bulletproof vest under his suit, with the implication that this is a usual thing and not just a one-off. This was probably abandoned for a long, long time, (or basically just forgotten about) but it was an idea that existed very early on.

 

[BatScot]

body armour is logical in a live action movie because even if he didnt have that in the comics, its hard to have that comic book physique or believe realistically he can survive in live action without body armour. That;s why he;s had costumes that look like armour before but no lenses. It's more logical of the two. ya giddity get me?

Hmmm, so Batman is given protective armor in the movies because that level of protection is not apparent in the comics, but the protective eyewear that is part of his costume in the comics is removed from the Bat-suit he wears in the movies... sorry, no, that's simply NOT logical!

 

[lujho]

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.

Argh. You wouldn't do it for every scene. Certainly not for fights. but when Batman's stationary, or talking to Gordon in his office or a villain or in a close-up or whatever, you would do it. When it would make a dramatic impact, you'd do it. Those scenes are meticulously lit anyway.

They did just this thing in Lord of the Rings - Galadriel had special lights reflected in her eyes in every shot. Christ, they do it for normal scenes in normal movies.

It's called cinematography, for heaven's sake. Setting up any scene in movie takes ages, much more time that the acting itself, lighting a character's eyes specifically for certain shots isn't going to take up significantly more time (or any).

People are always thinking about this in terms of Batman hypothetically existing in some real world, which is fine, but you've also go to think of it in terms of being a movie filmed on a set with lights and cameras and directors and DPs etc. They're not the same thing, unless you want to make a DOGME 95 style (or "documentary style") Batman movie.

 

[BatScot]

Well *actually* (and I you know I don't do this to hurt your argument because of course our views happen to co-incide on most matters costume related), but I have to point out that a couple of the very earliest stories from the first year of Batman him wearing a bulletproof vest under his suit, with the implication that this is a usual thing and not just a one-off. This was probably abandoned for a long, long time, (or basically just forgotten about) but it was an idea that existed very early on.

The idea of under-armor is perfectly consistent with my thinking; I was speaking more to the idea of the outer-costume having evolved into the Kevlar/bi-weave/memory-fabric thingy-ma-jigger that it is implied to be in the modern era and how that costume evolution relates to the idea of the 1939 white eyelets now being optical lenses.

 

[Gold Samurai]

Here is another version..

this one really looks great! a bit of TAS look. if the sky line was finished on the right that would make a killer wallpaper

 

[Brian2887]

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.

 

[lujho]

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?

Uh, because it's a movie. You don't need to worry about it. I mean, Bale's cowl was really hot and sweaty and gave him a headache... in fact the whole suit was hot and sweaty - if you were really Batman, you wouldn't want that, would you? It would put you at a serious disadvantage.

But in the movie, the suit itself was NOT hot and sweaty, because the suit in real life and the suit in the film are not the same thing.

The Darth vader mask in the Star Wars flicks gave almost no visibilty for stuntwork. There was a mask used in some of the swordfights that actually had part of the lower face made in clear perspex, just so he could see well enough to fight. Did we even notice this or even consider that the mask would hinder his (the stuntman's) vision? No, of course not, because it's just not an obvious thing.

I doubt anyone watching Daredevil even had the thought of fog occur to them either.

If they say the lenses don't fog up, then they don't. Again, not that you couldn't fix the issue if there was one with a few carefully concealed pinholes for ventilation.

 

[BatScot]

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.

Did the Spider-Man movies fail at the box-office? Were those films rejected by the audience or panned by the critics? Was Darth Vader a non-threatening villain? Oh, and didn't Jamie Foxx recently win an Academy Award for Best Actor for portraying a character whose eyes were hidden for the majority of the film? Hell, even Affleck was relatively successful in this regard.

 

[lujho]

The idea of under-armor is perfectly consistent with my thinking; I was speaking more to the idea of the outer-costume having evolved into the Kevlar/bi-weave/memory-fabric thingy-ma-jigger that it is implied to be in the modern era and how that costume evolution relates to the idea of the 1939 white eyelets now being optical lenses.

Fair enough... the outer suit as armour in the comics probably started with Batman 89 itself. Though a lot of artists nowdays have reverted back to the under-armour concept, funnily enough.

 

[BatScot]

Fair enough... the outer suit as armour in the comics probably started with Batman 89 itself. Though a lot of artists nowdays have reverted back to the under-armour concept, funnily enough.

Well that's the fashion world for ya... it's not old, it's retro chic LOL.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Hmmm, so Batman is given protective armor in the movies because that level of protection is not apparent in the comics, but the protective eyewear that is part of his costume in the comics is removed from the Bat-suit he wears in the movies... sorry, no, that's simply NOT logical!

Like dude said above you, he has had armor in the comics too. We've even seen examples of this in comics of outer body armour and on other Batmen (knightfall, Broken Bat, DKR, Azarel etc.). And it rings back to the realism part I mentioned. Batman cannot look like he has comic book physique in the movies that is protected by a small inner body armour (which by the way is still armour no matter which way you cut the pie, whether it's shown on the front or has an exo-skeleton build it's still armour) So if he's suited and booted from head to toe theres no need for lenses. Again it just sounds stupid even thinking about it.
"Okay, okay I got my weapons, check, the armour is there.....Oh wait I need my contacts because my massive frame and brooding look under the cowl isnt menacing enough ". Do you not see why I say it sounds forced when you put it in this context?

He doesn't need protective eyewear and again as I said before the idea that he wears eyewear has been recent, prior to that it could/would assume his eyes were drawn like that as an animated style. The examples you guys have given of his eyes are recent ones. And speaking of war games in that he states he wears lenses for the night but those are different than the regular look of his eyes (darker) So now the question is are they the same?

I'm sorry even you have to admit having armour is much more logical than having contacts. And at least with the armour it's shown in more adaptations. Whether it's inner or outer it's still armour.
So there's nothing illogical about that, if anything that is more logical.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Did the Spider-Man movies fail at the box-office? Were those films rejected by the audience or panned by the critics? Was Darth Vader a non-threatening villain? Oh, and didn't Jamie Foxx recently win an Academy Award for Best Actor for portraying a character whose eyes were hidden for the majority of the film? Hell, even Affleck was relatively successful in this regard.

Subjective view.

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

Audiences are used to see Batman on screen in a certain way even if this is a re-start/new franchise.

It boils back to my orginal point that one of the reasons the two best Batmen were Micheal Keaton and Christian Bale was they had that indtimidating and tense look in their eyes that captures Batman so well in the movie forum as oppose to the comic book world. Cant really draw eyes like that. So while the movie may not fail much, like the CGI in Hulk and Spidey or in a worse extreme the neon and nipples of Schumacher these like the white lenses are small conventions that may make audiences go huh?

 

[lujho]

"Okay, okay I got my weapons, check, the armour is there.....Oh wait I need my contacts because my massive frame and brooding look under the cowl isnt menacing enough ". Do you not see why I say it sounds forced when you put it in this context?

Absolutely no more forced than taking the time to paint your eyes black. Lenses in the cowl (not contacts) would actually be quicker and easier than the eye paint - you just put on the cowl and that's it.

 

[The Dark Guybrush]

Absolutely no more forced than taking the time to paint your eyes black. Lenses in the cowl (not contacts) would actually be quicker and easier than the eye paint - you just put on the cowl and that's it.

Batman doesn't use eye paint.. haven't you ever seen Batman Returns??

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Absolutely no more forced than taking the time to paint your eyes black. Lenses in the cowl (not contacts) would actually be quicker and easier than the eye paint - you just put on the cowl and that's it.

The paint the outter bit to near his eyes to cover the skin that his eye holes may show but the prevelant point is his eyes must be seen. They never even show Bruce putting on Massacre and in some cases like BR when he rips his mask off it looks like he didnt even put it there.

 

[The Dark Guybrush]

The paint the outter bit to near his eyes to cover the skin that his eye holes may show but the prevelant point is his eyes must be seen. They never even show Bruce putting on Massacre and in some cases like BR when he rips his mask off it looks like he didnt even put it there.

mascara is for eyelashes.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Man I'mma dude I dont know where people be smearing **** on there face lol
Besides I wasnt being literal

 

[lujho]

The paint the outter bit to near his eyes to cover the skin that his eye holes may show but the prevelant point is his eyes must be seen.

But why does he need to do that?

They never even show Bruce putting on Massacre and in some cases like BR when he rips his mask off it looks like he didnt even put it there.

And that's NOT forced?

 

[The Dark Guybrush]

Man I'mma dude I dont know where people be smearing **** on there face lol
Besides I wasnt being literal

Batman's a dude. I don't think mascara would help make him look menacing.

 

[BatScot]

the idea that he wears eyewear has been recent.

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.

having armour is much more logical than having contacts. And at least with the armour it's shown in more adaptations. Whether it's inner or outer it's still armour. So there's nothing illogical about that, if anything that is more logical.

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?

 

[The Dark Guybrush]

But why does he need to do that?

no eye paint = exposed flesh color and eyebrows around the eyes.

it would look insanely ridiculous if he didn't blend his eyes in with the cowl.

 

[lujho]

no eye paint = exposed flesh color and eyebrows around the eyes.

it would look insanely ridiculous if he didn't blend his eyes in with the cowl.

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.