The Dark Knight Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Super_Ludacris]

Real Talk. More people know the real deal

 

[Boom]

this is why he shouldn't wear lenses. it creates too much division amongst the believers!

No. It just creates people who have no goddamn clue what they're talking about.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Read the response my friend . No need to look like Kermit

 

[Boom]

No need to look like Kermit

Seriously, what the HELL are you talking about?

 

[Super_Ludacris]

You guys getting upset about someone not feeling the white lense look even if it is in intended to be lenses in the comics. No need to get mad about it.

 

[BatScot]

Again name calling and not considering doesnt help

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones...

God, your slow.

... or did you not say that?

But of course you did, so let's just count that as but one more in a long list of contradictions you have made.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Everybody stop hating on Luda

 

[BatScot]

He made his own bed, now he must sleep in it.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

He made his own bed, now he must sleep in it.

Luda's right, though. I mean, yeah, there were lenses in the comics. But they would SUCK in live-action. If you look at it objectively for just a minute, you would know this.

 

[Saint]

But Saint I just said that my point relates to there use in the movies. Even if they did exist in the comics my reasons were for why they shouldnt be in the movies. I'll be happy to help you out and point this



1)The point we had in the thread was that they mentioned that in recent issues the white eyes in Batmans mask are lenses. But even the person who told this to me (I believe it was Dark Knight7) said in previous decades it could have been interpreted that those eyes were just drawings and animated style. So that was my point: Even if in recent years the illustrators and artists said that was the case, it still feels pointless putting them in the movie.

2) I said in all my posts I believe putting white lenses on Batman in the movie feels forced. Like it's director trying TOO much to look like the comics when really characters wearing masks with white holes have never really had that look crossover to live action (and I gave reasons why DD and Spidey would exception). Legitmate, clam case? I think so my friend





And I think I've explained what I meant above, so really you were shouting for nothing. I have debated this issue with some great posters here on the thread (shout out to ronny shade, Brian and Dark Knight7 and Luhijo) all have stayed in the thread and seen the course of this discussion go. So if you look back and read then you'll see why we said what we said. And if there's anything that upsets you about what I said (because I shattered some belief comic books conveyed to you). Just calmly bring it up and I'll be happy to explain why I said that. But until there is no point getting up over nothing . Remember the main point is: White eyes in the movies? You cant hold a grudge over one thing, which a lot of other people may assume too.


Marinate on that pimpin My debate game is so classy

Okay, I'm finished. I can't be bothered to argue with someone who makes responses that A) are irrelevant to my point, B) don't even address my point), and C) address points I never made.

You have the intelligence of a brick, that much is clear. A brick with severe mental deficiencies. You seem utterly incapable of addressing my statements as I have made them, within the realm of their purpose, so I will try and make this as simple as possible so there is no way for you're brain--packed with dirt and feces as it may be--to confuse it:

Contrary to your beliefs, and not indiciative of any relevance on film, Batman wears lenses in the comics. Your statements to the contrary are wrong. This has nothing to do with the film, and everything to do with you making stupid statements that are incorrect.

 

[Saint]

Now that I'm finished with SL, I can get on to the actual topic...

Lenses can work, of that I'm fairly certain. But I'm also fairly certain it would be infinitely difficult. Supporting this is the fact that most lense manips look absolutely ridiculous. Contacts, as far as I'm concerned, are out of the question. One cannot fight with contacts in. So, while the contact manips look good for the most part, they're not really an option.

In any case, the Nolan and company can find a way to do lenses that look good, I'm all for it. I have one criteria, though: they MUST be retractable. Bale's eyework (and keaton's, also) MADE some awesome moments in their respective films. The look Bale gives that one ninja, before he tackles him off the subway platform? That would have been ruined with lenses.

Bottom line: if they can make them work, great, but they must be retractable.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Okay, I'm finished. I can't be bothered to argue with someone who makes responses that A) are irrelevant to my point, B) don't even address my point), and C) address points I never made.

You have the intelligence of a brick, that much is clear. A brick with severe mental deficiencies. You seem utterly incapable of addressing my statements as I have made them, within the realm of their purpose, so I will try and make this as simple as possible so there is no way for you're brain--packed with dirt and feces as it may be--to confuse it:

Contrary to your beliefs, and not indiciative of any relevance on film, Batman wears lenses in the comics. Your statements to the contrary are wrong. This has nothing to do with the film, and everything to do with you making stupid statements that are incorrect.

"Saint":

1.) Luda admitted that the lenses have been in the comics.
2.) You've crossed a line there, podna, in making personal insults against a guy. I'd stop that if I were you.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Now that I'm finished with SL, I can get on to the actual topic...

Lenses can work, of that I'm fairly certain. But I'm also fairly certain it would be infinitely difficult. Supporting this is the fact that most lense manips look absolutely ridiculous. Contacts, as far as I'm concerned, are out of the question. One cannot fight with contacts in. So, while the contact manips look good for the most part, they're not really an option.

In any case, the Nolan and company can find a way to do lenses that look good, I'm all for it. I have one criteria, though: they MUST be retractable. Bale's eyework (and keaton's, also) MADE some awesome moments in their respective films. The look Bale gives that one ninja, before he tackles him off the subway platform? That would have been ruined with lenses.

Bottom line: if they can make them work, great, but they must be retractable.

If the lenses were retractable, what purpose would they serve? The only one I can think of night vision. I don't think anybody could argue that it wouldn't make sense for him to have those. But it would mean they'd be in maybe one brief scene, and that's it.

At that point, is it really worth it?

 

[Saint]

"Saint":

1.) Luda admitted that the lenses have been in the comics.
2.) You've crossed a line there, podna, in making personal insults against a guy. I'd stop that if I were you.

No.

If the lenses were retractable, what purpose would they serve? The only one I can think of night vision. I don't think anybody could argue that it wouldn't make sense for him to have those. But it would mean they'd be in maybe one brief scene, and that's it.

At that point, is it really worth it?

Absolutely. The lenses can serve the same purpose as the ears, cape, and so on: intimidation. And if that isn't enough--though it is for me--they work well for vision enhancment, like you mentioned (though not limited to nightvision), eye-protection, and probably some other things as well.

My position is that if it makes sense, then I have no problem adding something cool for the sake of having something cool. For example, it's obvious that the main reason the forearm blades were on the costume was because that's part of Batman's look. They came up with an explaination for them after the fact. The same could go for lenses.

But as I said, I only want to see them if they don't look dumb, which would be a major challenge. And either way, I won't miss them if they don't show up in this franchise. I am on record, though, as saying the next franchise should be heavily stylized and more fantastical, as opposed to Nolan's realistic approach, and I think lenses would definitely work in a film like that. I'm talking about the same level of stylization you see in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and similar films (though not the same TYPE of stylization). However, as I always say when I mention this (because if I don't, people immediately assume that I don't like Begins), the reason I want to see this approach next is because I want to see as many interpretations of Batman on film as p[ossible, not because I odn't like Begins (to the contrary, Begins is my favourite film of all time, and I love the approach). i don't prefer one way or another; I want both.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

No.

A body could report you for that behavior, I think. I won't, because I believe in settling things peacefully and leaving the mods out of it whenever possible, but... if I was you I'd cool it, podjo. I mean that.

Absolutely. The lenses can serve the same purpose as the ears, cape, and so on: intimidation. And if that isn't enough--though it is for me--they work well for vision enhancment, like you mentioned (though not limited to nightvision), eye-protection, and probably some other things as well.

I think his eyes are far more intimidating than lenses could EVER be. The eyes are the most expressive part of the body. When I was a kid I had a life-sized poster of Bat-Keaton on my door. If I looked at the eyes for more than thirty seconds it scared me. True story.

 

[StorminNorman]

A body could report you for that behavior, I think. I won't, because I believe in settling things peacefully and leaving the mods out of it whenever possible, but... if I was you I'd cool it, podjo. I mean that.



I think his eyes are far more intimidating than lenses could EVER be. The eyes are the most expressive part of the body. When I was a kid I had a life-sized poster of Bat-Keaton on my door. If I looked at the eyes for more than thirty seconds it scared me. True story.

LOL, my thoughts exactly - and Bale is so much more powerful than Keaton in so many ways. The lenses could of worked for Kilmer, and Cloney - but please, not Bale. It would be like putting his arms in casts.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

LOL, my thoughts exactly - and Bale is so much more powerful than Keaton in so many ways. The lenses could of worked for Kilmer, and Cloney - but please, not Bale. It would be like putting his arms in casts.

Absolutely.

 

[Saint]

A body could report you for that behavior, I think.
I won't, because I believe in settling things peacefully and leaving the mods out of it whenever possible, but... if I was you I'd cool it, podjo. I mean that.

I don't care what your thoughts on the matter are.

I think his eyes are far more intimidating than lenses could EVER be. The eyes are the most expressive part of the body. When I was a kid I had a life-sized poster of Bat-Keaton on my door. If I looked at the eyes for more than thirty seconds it scared me. True story.

I never suggested otherwise. But lenses can be inhuman and in some instances would easily project a more terrifying visage than eyes. For instance, I scene with Bale in sillhouette, with only the lenses visible. That wouldn't be as effective with plain eyes. As I said, though, I only support retactable lenses used sparingly, and this is only under the assumption that they can be done without looking dumb. I full support the notion that Bale needs his eyes to act. I cite again the scene on the subway platform, among many other, under that.

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't care what your thoughts on the matter are.

Dude, theres no reason to be a dick about it....he was trying to help you.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I don't care what your thoughts on the matter are.

That's good to know. Doesn't change the fact that what you said to Ludacris was completely unwarranted.

 

[Azrael13]

Well, i believe that this is what the new batman should look like.

 

[General_Grievous]

Dude, theres no reason to be a dick about it....he was trying to help you.

It's also contradictory to joining a forum in the first place.

Aren't you supposed to engage in sensible discussion and listen to everyone's personal opinions and views?

Just because you have your own point and argue it doesn't make it right, and simply ignoring opposing arguments makes you look afraid of debate.

 

[General_Grievous]

As for my opinion on lenses being used in films - sure, they would be cool to see, maybe just as a test, but ultimately they are flawed.

An actor wearing a practical costume is very different compared to a 2D drawing on a page. The actor needs to emote in what could be a very cumbersome restriction and one of the ways to combat this is to allow the eyes to speak on behalf of the character.

The audience needs to know where Batman is looking, what he is focusing on, in the film medium, which doesn't have the luxury of thought bubbles explaining every single process the character is going through, opposed to the comic book pages.

Sure, they are a key element of the overall Batman design, but these things don't always work out in the realistic world of film. I'd much rather have well-developed and strongly acted performances than simple niggles such as the Bat-cowl.

Why not complain about the Tumbler - that is hardly a direct-from-the-page interpretation of the Batmobile, yet it works on film, it has a logical reason and we believe that it could exist.

If Nolan had decided to go with a costume that utilised lenses, then I wouldn't be having this discussion, it would be accepted as fact, and maybe they would have worked, as in the Spider-Man costume.

But he didn't and I'd rather have decent continuity than a sudden unexplained redesign of the costume, for no reason than to please some annoyed fan-boys.

 

[Azrael13]

One thing i've noticed in all the batman movies, is that the material used in the cowl is rubber. this is not a problem, it's great. However the neck piece is thick rubber as well. this is the problem. When the rubber is too thick batman can't move his neck, so to compensate he usually moves his whole upper body. They have to find a way for him to be able to have articulate motion in his neck. In the comics that is why batman neck part is thin and has no armor, so he can move. This is also mentioned in Batman: Dark Victory. He will only wear neckbrace and other such devices under certain circumstances.

 

[Saint]

That's good to know. Doesn't change the fact that what you said to Ludacris was completely unwarranted.

I disagree, and again, I don't really care what you htink of it. I'm not trying to be a dick (to you, anyway). I've got no problem with you. I just don't care.

It's also contradictory to joining a forum in the first place.

No. Forums are for discussion. Discussion with the word "idiot" added is still discussion. Just because it isn't nice doesn't mean it is valid.

Aren't you supposed to engage in sensible discussion and listen to everyone's personal opinions and views?

Just because you have your own point and argue it doesn't make it right, and simply ignoring opposing arguments makes you look afraid of debate.

It wasn't a matter of opinion, it was a matter of fact. A fact he would not accept (the Batman wear lenses) and in place of conceding, instead decided to attack arguments I never made. I'm sorry if my patience for that sort of ridiculousness is low.