The Dark Knight Capes and Cowls - New Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Mr. Earle]

I never said they were necessary. I said that the fact they're here does NOT lessen the actor's performance.

Yes it does. Because the more we can make out of his facial expression under the mask, the more expression we can recieve.

Do you really like an expressionless fixed white stare? Do you really think that Bale would make much of a difference in a Power Ranger suit (thats why they were shaking their heads and hands when talking) or a Spiderman suit?
Give me a break! Thank god we got those "inside the helmet" shots of Downey! That movie would have sucked without him!

 

[Mr. Earle]

The production notes (donwloadable on the official site) describe them as "sonar-imaging lenses" that "allow Batman to see sonar images in 3D while masking his eyes behind glowing white shields." If you've seen the bluish-shot of Joker attacking the screen, I believe that's a POV of Batman using the lenses to find Joker in the dark. I suppose it's like Daredevil Vision.

Makes more sense than BF, I suppose, where he needed sonar lenses to throw a batarang a giant mechanical apparatus in plain view(?). Did he need to hit something within it? I was never really clear on that...

I have read the production notes but it seems that i missed this.

It sounds interesting and its a cool gadget, much like the cowl incorporated headset.

But i will argue that besides getting used to batman's lense-less movie look, that an actor cannot just act by moving his body and his mouth which is barely visible. The eyes help us relate to the character and they also help us pinpoint where he is looking at.

For example, batman has his head tilted down but he is looking up (lets say he was crouching and he slowly gets up to face the enemy). If he has lenses it will seem like he is still looking to the ground. His expression will become more sterile and more permanent.

People dont relate to mouths and you cant really portray more than 2-3 emotions through your mouth.

EDIT: and before you start your philosophies, only the first line is directed to you.

 

[magus]

I have read the production notes but it seems that i missed this.

It sounds interesting and its a cool gadget, much like the cowl incorporated headset.

But i will argue that besides getting used to batman's lense-less movie look, that an actor cannot just act by moving his body and his mouth which is barely visible. The eyes help us relate to the character and they also help us pinpoint where he is looking at.

For example, batman has his head tilted down but he is looking up (lets say he was crouching and he slowly gets up to face the enemy). If he has lenses it will seem like he is still looking to the ground. His expression will become more sterile and more permanent.

People dont relate to mouths and you cant really portray more than 2-3 emotions through your mouth.

EDIT: and before you start your philosophies, only the first line is directed to you.

Someone decided to take the lenses out of the Batman '89 script at some point in time, so obviously the premise has been considered by others. This is from a working draft of Batman '89:

BATMAN
You're trespassing, Ratbreath.

Nick looks down. Far, far below, CARS wink silently past.

He looks up. And sees, in the mirrored lenses where
Batman's eyes should be, the twin reflections of his own
stricken face.

NICK
Trespassing? You don't own the
night.

BATMAN
Tell your friends. Tell all your
friends. I AM the night.


The dialogue changed significantly as well. It looks like the script had a couple more comic references than what we got in the final version. I can understand the edit considering the terrible setup for the "I AM the night" line. Who the hell says "you don't own the night"?

 

[Mandalore464]

Let's see what we've got here...

4) Any good actor will tell you that your body language is enough to bring a character to life. I'm not saying that having the most perfect body language and the fakest diction ever will get you an oscar, but just that not seeing his eyes should not be an issue in Bale's general performance.

Yeah, but you cant have batman's face fixed with that empty look. It only works for comics and animation because they move the lenses to express emotion.

No relation to my post.

I think the mere fact that Batman wouldn't be able to squint would kill that idea for me. Unless they go the way of using CGI for facial expressions, which kind of eliminates the point of having a good actor. Full-time lenses are really unnecessary for a Batman film and the minute or two we get of these is just a small nod to fans.

No relation to my post.

He's not wearing them during any "performance." He wears them to use some sonar ability like in Batman Forever and then they go away.

No relation to my post.

Apparently, I have to make it clear once more, right? My statement was arguing that a good actor would deliver a good performance, whether his eyes are visible or not, as eyes only make up a small fraction of body language which is itself a part of acting.

You all went with your:"But in BTAS and the comics the lenses work because they change size to express emotion" and "full-time lenses are unnecessary" and "he's not wearing the lenses while performing". This has nothing to do with what I said. Just nothing.

Now..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalore464
Do I really have to repeat myself once more? I mean, really... Read my posts.

Ok, one last time:

The fact that an actor's eyes are visible or not does not affect the general performance of said-actor.

Says who? You? We can argue all day about whether or not seeing Bale's eyes make a significant difference in his performance. Do lenses completely invalidate it? No. Do they lessen it? Maybe.

Wrong. A good actor can be good while performing anything and in any conditions. How many times have we seen characters in movies that were portrayed brilliantly and yet wore sunglasses the whole time? Yes, eyes do convey emotions. But thankfully acting is not just about showing emotions through your eyes. A performance is based on a lot more than eyes. And eyes are not necessary to a good performance. "Says who?" Says my acting coach.

There is no proof one way or the other that lenses would affect his performance. You can't simply say, "lenses have no effect" and it becomes true.

My vision of a good actor is someone who just becomes the character he's playing. If a good actor can do that, it doesn't EVER matter that his eyes are hidden behind lenses or not. He will BE the character anyway. Check out Ray with Jamie Foxx.

That is true except when previous posters have argued that lenses would affect his "performance" they specifically referred to scenes displaying emotions: drama.

I didn't, so the relevance of this point in your answer to my statement is next to null.

Nobody cares if you can see Bale's eyes while he is in sonar mode; they care that you can see his expressions when he needs to emote.

Well I don't. A character could be shot from the back in every single scenes he appears in, if the actor is good, it will show.

If you want to argue that Batman will be displaying a breadth of emotions in sonar mode then go ahead

Mmmm... No I don't.

but it is pretty obvious to see that when someone mentions the lenses hampering his performance they aren't talking about every single second spent on screen.

Making their argument meaningless since he only wears them in this one scene inwhich he "doesn't need to emote".

Yes it does. Because the more we can make out of his facial expression under the mask, the more expression we can recieve.

Well yeah that's logic. I still don't see how the fact that we receive more than enough expressions from the actor makes his performance more believable. If he's good, he's good, that's all. The fact that you can't pick up every single detail from the performance does not make it any less good. You probably won't pick up all the slightest details in Heath Ledger's performance, but it won't matter, cause the focus will be put on what details will convey enough emotions for you to pick up.

Do you really like an expressionless fixed white stare? Do you really think that Bale would make much of a difference in a Power Ranger suit (thats why they were shaking their heads and hands when talking) or a Spiderman suit?
Give me a break! Thank god we got those "inside the helmet" shots of Downey! That movie would have sucked without him!

It's not so much that I like an expressionless fixed white stare but more that I don't mind it, because, and that's been my point for the last two hours or so, it does not affect the actor's performance. Robert deNiro or say Marlon Brando could have portrayed characters wearing sunglasses and receive a high amount of praise for it, right or wrong? Well, that applies to any actor who's not a fake.

If an actor's eyes are not visible, he'll find a way around it. Body language. Intonations. That's what acting is about. Why do you bring up the Power Rangers? What does it have to do with acting? As for Spider-Man, as much as I hated the movies, a lot of people didn't. They were even pleased to see that the suit was so close to the comics version (lenses included), right? Then why could we not have it for Batman? What exactly makes you think it would ruin the performance?

 

[Mr. Earle]

You all went with your:"But in BTAS and the comics the lenses work because they change size to express emotion" and "full-time lenses are unnecessary" and "he's not wearing the lenses while performing". This has nothing to do with what I said. Just nothing.

Sunglasses =/= a cowl that allows only your mouth to be visible. No cheek movement, no eyebrows, no scowling (visible with glasses), no nothing. Just a mouth. GREAT!

I still don't see how the fact that we receive more than enough expressions from the actor makes his performance more believable.

I thought that was the point of acting. Acting isnt just waking and punching in a batsuit. Its showing batman sad and brooding on a ledge, or angry, worried, etc.

If an actor's eyes are not visible, he'll find a way around it. Body language. Intonations. That's what acting is about. Why do you bring up the Power Rangers? What does it have to do with acting? As for Spider-Man, as much as I hated the movies, a lot of people didn't. They were even pleased to see that the suit was so close to the comics version (lenses included), right? Then why could we not have it for Batman? What exactly makes you think it would ruin the performance?

You start typing in your angry tone without reading carefully first. I presented those arguements as characters than need to express themselves but their faces are covered. Thats why the Power Rangers shake their heads and hands, and thats why SM's mask was more on the floor than on him.

 

[CaptainClown]

batmans acting is typically not eccentric or happy which is why SM is able to convey his emotions easier as they use more body postures and stuff. Same with V and power rangers.

 

[magus]

Wrong. A good actor can be good while performing anything and in any conditions. How many times have we seen characters in movies that were portrayed brilliantly and yet wore sunglasses the whole time? Yes, eyes do convey emotions. But thankfully acting is not just about showing emotions through your eyes. A performance is based on a lot more than eyes. And eyes are not necessary to a good performance. "Says who?" Says my acting coach.

Claiming you're an actor make absolutely zero difference: you have no credibility that any of us can confirm. I do agree that a performance is more than just eyes but eyes can only add to any performance of a character that is supposed to have them.

My vision of a good actor is someone who just becomes the character he's playing. If a good actor can do that, it doesn't EVER matter that his eyes are hidden behind lenses or not. He will BE the character anyway. Check out Ray with Jamie Foxx.

Of course a blind character isn't going to emote through his eyes, but with Batman he is already limited in many other factors: his whole body is encased in rubber and he is forced to disguise his voice with his Clint Eastwood impression. He isn't working with a full array of acting tools here.

I didn't, so the relevance of this point in your answer to my statement is next to null.

Absolutely ridiculous statement. You made your statement in response to those OTHER PEOPLE that I mentioned; unless you are discussing the topic completely by yourself. You can't completely ignore someone the criteria posed by someone else in a discussion; otherwise it isn't a discussion at all.

Making their argument meaningless since he only wears them in this one scene inwhich he "doesn't need to emote".

We are all obviously discussing a hypothetical situation. You can't logically negate the situation where others claim Bale's performance will be hampered and then use that same situation as the basis for your argument.

Well yeah that's logic. I still don't see how the fact that we receive more than enough expressions from the actor makes his performance more believable. If he's good, he's good, that's all. The fact that you can't pick up every single detail from the performance does not make it any less good. You probably won't pick up all the slightest details in Heath Ledger's performance, but it won't matter, cause the focus will be put on what details will convey enough emotions for you to pick up.

The performance is the synergy of all the minor details of a performance. I can agree with the idea that it is the sum, not the parts, that constitutes a good performance but you have to consider just how many parts Batman has while in costume, which is not that many.

If an actor's eyes are not visible, he'll find a way around it. Body language. Intonations. That's what acting is about. Why do you bring up the Power Rangers? What does it have to do with acting? As for Spider-Man, as much as I hated the movies, a lot of people didn't. They were even pleased to see that the suit was so close to the comics version (lenses included), right? Then why could we not have it for Batman? What exactly makes you think it would ruin the performance?

If you noticed, in the Spiderman movies Tobey had his mask off half the time (to emote) AND they used CGI to produce the comic "big eyes" effect that happens in the comics all the time (see Spiderman fighting Sandman in the bank truck). The lack of a visible face was a huge concern and the reason why he had his mask off and CGI was used to animate the mask at times. Batman and Spiderman comics both feature a great deal of internal dialogue and narration, lacking from the films. They are afforded modes of transmission that the films are not and part of equaling the playing field is providing alternate ways for the characters to emote.

Lenses may or may not "ruin" a performance but it is certainly plausible that the lack of visible eyes would greatly hamper it. You keep saying that a "good actor" could pull off a role with any limitation but that really doesn't hold up. I could suggest a ludicrous limitation that no actor would ever face, but I won't. Instead I will just say that there is very obviously an area between complete freedom and the ultimate limitation (being catatonic or something equally ludicrous) where an actor can perform to the best of his ability. The question then becomes are lenses--and not just lenses but the entire cowl, costume, disguised voice--within the part of the gradient conducive to an actor's work.

 

[Mandalore464]

Sunglasses =/= a cowl that allows only your mouth to be visible. No cheek movement, no eyebrows, no scowling (visible with glasses), no nothing. Just a mouth. GREAT!

Yeah but you're limiting the performance to the face. Not only can you convey a lot with your mouth (the range from grinning to teeth clenched with rage is very very large), but also with your body.

It's like saying that Batman's frown hinders the actor's performance because the fact he always wears that frown-shaped mask makes it look like he does it all the time. You can definitely say that this is not the case.

I thought that was the point of acting. Acting isnt just waking and punching in a batsuit.

Really, where exactly in my posts do you read anything that makes it look like I think this? I've taken acting classes from the age of 12 to 22, what made you think I don't like acting or I limit it to punching in a Batsuit?

Its showing batman sad and brooding on a ledge

Cool example. The shot from the trailer where you see Batman from the side standing within the ruins of an explosion clearly shows him "brooding", and yet you can't see a single feature. It's all in his posture.

angry, worried, etc.

You can show all that without eyes.

You start typing in your angry tone without reading carefully first. I presented those arguements as characters than need to express themselves but their faces are covered. Thats why the Power Rangers shake their heads and hands, and thats why SM's mask was more on the floor than on him.

First of all, there was no anger in my reply to you(Although there was exasperation in my reply to magus), but maybe you need to see my eyes to be able to tell (just kidding, seriously, I'm not angry)...

Now, you brought up the argument of the Power Rangers saying that Bale probably wouldn't make much in this kind of suit. I said that Power Rangers was not about acting. It was meant to look "cartoony" and silly, hence all the moves and the sounds that accompanied said-moves. you could go for a totally different performance and make it something else entirely. Now of course, trying to not look silly in one of those horrible suits is gonna take a really good actor...

You are right with Spider-Man though, that his mask was very often taken off for scenes where a lot of emotional display was involved. To be quite fair, I'd agree that when NOTHING of your face shows, it's hard to convey emotions if you're not a master of body language, and even more if you don't have any line to convey emotion through your voice.

 

[The Shape]

The white lenses are commonly used for masked characters within the antimated universe (see Batman, Robin, Flash, Wolverine, etc) for various reasons, but I'd say the main reason is that it's difficult to draw eyes within a mask for each panel. The eys are one of the hardest aspects of a human for an artist to draw, and in the days before computer coloring, it was easier to leaves eyes white when they were masked, giving the effect of lenses.

They are simply not necessary for a live-action Batman and would definitely inhibit our connection to him. People say that Bale should be able to act without his eyes, but Batman is not a flamboyant, talkative character like "V". Half the time, he's only acting with his eyes.

 

[Mr. Earle]

AND they used CGI to produce the comic "big eyes" effect that happens in the comics all the time (see Spiderman fighting Sandman in the bank truck).

What do you mean? What did they do with his eyes?

Really, where exactly in my posts do you read anything that makes it look like I think this? I've taken acting classes from the age of 12 to 22, what made you think I don't like acting or I limit it to punching in a Batsuit?

You are limiting it in body language and mouth expressions. When someone dies and batman feels guilt, what would you have him do? Kick a wall or something? No, you do a closeup on his sad face, but oh wait, his face is covered, so he can only show his mouth.....mmm....tricky...What should we do with Batman's mouth to make it distinct that he feels sad and sorry?

Now, you brought up the argument of the Power Rangers saying that Bale probably wouldn't make much in this kind of suit. I said that Power Rangers was not about acting. It was meant to look "cartoony" and silly, hence all the moves and the sounds that accompanied said-moves. you could go for a totally different performance and make it something else entirely. Now of course, trying to not look silly in one of those horrible suits is gonna take a really good actor...

You are missing the point.
I will try once more. Those dudes in the suits were discussing amongst themselves sometimes. Had they not moved their heads so wildly when talking, it would seem like the trees were talking. Thats why they did it. Not to look silly.

You are right with Spider-Man though, that his mask was very often taken off for scenes where a lot of emotional display was involved. To be quite fair, I'd agree that when NOTHING of your face shows, it's hard to convey emotions if you're not a master of body language, and even more if you don't have any line to convey emotion through your voice.

Even if there is a way to convey every emotion with body language i simply want more. I want to look at his face and see what he feels. I want to see where he is looking at, not a stupid helmet on his face.

So i ll just leave it at that.

 

[Mr. Earle]

The white lenses are commonly used for masked characters within the antimated universe (see Batman, Robin, Flash, Wolverine, etc) for various reasons, but I'd say the main reason is that it's difficult to draw eyes within a mask for each panel. The eys are one of the hardest aspects of a human for an artist to draw, and in the days before computer coloring, it was easier to leaves eyes white when they were masked, giving the effect of lenses.

They are simply not necessary for a live-action Batman and would definitely inhibit our connection to him. People say that Bale should be able to act without his eyes, but Batman is not a flamboyant, talkative character like "V". Half the time, he's only acting with his eyes.

SECONDED!

 

[The Guard]

The production notes (donwloadable on the official site) describe them as "sonar-imaging lenses" that "allow Batman to see sonar images in 3D while masking his eyes behind glowing white shields." If you've seen the bluish-shot of Joker attacking the screen, I believe that's a POV of Batman using the lenses to find Joker in the dark. I suppose it's like Daredevil Vision.

Makes more sense than BF, I suppose, where he needed sonar lenses to throw a batarang a giant mechanical apparatus in plain view(?). Did he need to hit something within it? I was never really clear on that...

Something got lost in the transition from script to screen. The sonar lenses were supposed to help Batman see the "phantom/holographic floor" that the Riddler had projected over all those girders and that massive death drop for what it is. That's where the "This island is all one giant death trap" line came from. But then, I believe they became a sort of night vision lens after he destroys the power source, which was, I think, supposed to plunge the place into darkness.

 

[Mandalore464]

Claiming you're an actor make absolutely zero difference: you have no credibility that any of us can confirm. I do agree that a performance is more than just eyes but eyes can only add to any performance of a character that is supposed to have them.

I am not an actor, although I did take acting classes as a hobby because I like it so much. My point was that we were taught to convey emotions with our whole bodies' moves, postures, and that even if your face is concealed there are still a lot of different things you can do.

Of course a blind character isn't going to emote through his eyes, but with Batman he is already limited in many other factors: his whole body is encased in rubber and he is forced to disguise his voice with his Clint Eastwood impression. He isn't working with a full array of acting tools here.

First of all, the mobility is (almost) no longer an issue with the Batsuit, so he still has his full body to perform. Second, his mouth is showing. And if you see my teeth clenched, you can probably guess that my eyes do not have the little shiny lights of love in them.

Absolutely ridiculous statement. You made your statement in response to those OTHER PEOPLE that I mentioned; unless you are discussing the topic completely by yourself.

My initial statement was that you were wrong when you said he didn't wear the lenses while performing, since obviously he is, as it is a scene from the movie. You then went on about the fact people were talking about lenses outside of that scene. I just didn't see a correlation there. And there obviously isn't.

We are all obviously discussing a hypothetical situation.

Yes, but I have yet to see the argument that will convince me that Bale needs his eyes to portray a believable Batman, whether in a scene in which he has to "emote", or not. Of course, it's all hypothetical, and just like you have your opinion on this hypothetical situation, I have mine.

The performance is the synergy of all the minor details of a performance. I can agree with the idea that it is the sum, not the parts, that constitutes a good performance but you have to consider just how many parts Batman has while in costume, which is not that many.

Well, if you want me to say that portraying Batman is not easy, I will agree with you. It is not. I'm not an actor as I said, so I know I would be a crap Batman. But I'm convinced talented actors could pull it off, eyes or not.

Lenses may or may not "ruin" a performance but it is certainly plausible that the lack of visible eyes would greatly hamper it. You keep saying that a "good actor" could pull off a role with any limitation but that really doesn't hold up. I could suggest a ludicrous limitation that no actor would ever face, but I won't. Instead I will just say that there is very obviously an area between complete freedom and the ultimate limitation (being catatonic or something equally ludicrous) where an actor can perform to the best of his ability. The question then becomes are lenses--and not just lenses but the entire cowl, costume, disguised voice--within the part of the gradient conducive to an actor's work.

I probably went too far or was misinterpreted, but I did not mean that a talented actor could overcome absolutely everything and still portray something right.

The fact is that, really, you only ever need your voice to portray something right. That's why radio drama exists and characters in them can be believable. As such, an actor in a movie whose scenes would all happen in the dark, could still pull off a good performance.

And I am not saying that there isn't "ludicrous" situations that would greatly hamper an actor's ability to act. But really, when it's about showing your face or not, there are ways around it. Even more so when your mouth shows. Even more so when your body is shown. So , in the case of Batman, there are plenty of ways to pull it off in a great way, with or without eyes.

That really is the only thing I want to say.

 

[magus]

What do you mean? What did they do with his eyes?

They reproduced that "big eye" thing he does in the comic book when is surprised (usually when his spidey sense goes off) where the mask's eyes move like his brows would and get bigger. They did this in SM3 during the fight with Sandman in the back of the truck (I think) when Spidey gets his arm stuck in him.

 

[phil]

My god these last couple of pages, LOL

I think the whole lens thing flies right over people's heads. First of all when you see any non-live action medium of Batman with lenses he can blink. If you put lenses on a live action Batman he constantly looks like a "Deer in headlights" which would come off ******ed as hell. It WILL effect the performance and it will effect the audiences view of the performance even more.
I'm a true believer in white contacts that would come off very well and look intimidating as hell. A good example is how Vin Deasel looked in that Sci-fi movie (someone help me out with the name and pics please). White contacts would give him some animal eyes that look very cool when the light hits him. I also think Wolverine would look great in white contacts as well. Here's a drawing I did with Bale in white contacts, it's a huge improvement in the whole cowl.

And this eyes manip:

And this unfinished manip:

 

[Mr. Earle]

My god these last couple of pages, LOL

I think the whole lens thing flies right over people's heads. First of all when you see any non-live action medium of Batman with lenses he can blink. If you put lenses on a live action Batman he constantly looks like a "Deer in headlights" which would come off ******ed as hell. It WILL effect the performance and it will effect the audiences view of the performance even more.
I'm a true believer in white contacts that would come off very well and look intimidating as hell. A good example is how Vin Deasel looked in that Sci-fi movie (someone help me out with the name and pics please). White contacts would give him some animal eyes that look very cool when the light hits him. I also think Wolverine would look great in white contacts as well. Here's a drawing I did with Bale in white contacts, it's a huge improvement in the whole cowl.

And this eyes manip:

And this unfinished manip:

1) i dont see the contacts.
2) the last pic....i cant unsee....

 

[CaptainClown]

the white contacts look like it would be cool

 

[Mandalore464]

They are simply not necessary for a live-action Batman and would definitely inhibit our connection to him.

Just in the case you were referring to me, I didn't say the lenses were necessary or that I wanted them really bad. What I think is that they're a cool addition to TDK, and that there really wouldn't be a problem with them appearing in future incarnations of Batman, even if they stay on for the whole duration of the movies.

When someone dies and batman feels guilt, what would you have him do? Kick a wall or something? No, you do a closeup on his sad face, but oh wait, his face is covered, so he can only show his mouth.....mmm....tricky...What should we do with Batman's mouth to make it distinct that he feels sad and sorry?

Can you honestly tell me that your mouth stays still when you feel shocked, sad, angered, suspicious...? Seriously, don't underestimate all the range of emotions that your mouth shows. The mouth very often goes hand in hand with the eyes. There is a correspondance, or better word, an "expectation" of what your mouth looks like when your eyes conveys a certain emotion and vice-versa. As such, if you play with your mouth covered and your eyes uncovered, you can still picture the whole face of the person. Same goes for the other way around.

Those dudes in the suits were discussing amongst themselves sometimes. Had they not moved their heads so wildly when talking, it would seem like the trees were talking. Thats why they did it. Not to look silly.

I said that the show was meant to be silly, and as such they allowed those equally silly moves. Don't think that dramatically waving their arms in the air while saying "Let's call the Megazord" was ever meant to be serious body language acting. My point was: it was not the only way they could have done it.

And again, Power Rangers can't be compared to serious acting. Because it was not.

Even if there is a way to convey every emotion with body language i simply want more. I want to look at his face and see what he feels. I want to see where he is looking at, not a stupid helmet on his face.

So i ll just leave it at that.

Fair enough

 

[MacBoon]

1) i dont see the contacts.
2) the last pic....i cant unsee....

pretty sure he just made the iris of his eyes white or paler and not do full on white eyes. They look pretty good though

 

[MacBoon]

Double

 

[magus]

My initial statement was that you were wrong when you said he didn't wear the lenses while performing, since obviously he is, as it is a scene from the movie. You then went on about the fact people were talking about lenses outside of that scene. I just didn't see a correlation there. And there obviously isn't.

You are completely contorting it. Other people said lenses wouldn't work in the context that it would affect the individual dramatic scenes AND the entirety of the performance. You came in and said they would work. Then I pointed to those previous posters who talked about "performance" in the specific sense and you then tried to bring up the technicality that EVERYTHING in a movie is the performance, which ignores the scenarios the first posters addressed.

Also, you can't talk about the lenses in ONLY the context of that scene (which you are doing if you can't see the correlation between other scenes and the lenses) and say they don't hamper is performance as there is likely to be very little to actually critique.

Yes, but I have yet to see the argument that will convince me that Bale needs his eyes to portray a believable Batman, whether in a scene in which he has to "emote", or not. Of course, it's all hypothetical, and just like you have your opinion on this hypothetical situation, I have mine.

And you haven't put one forth to convince those of us posting in response to you.

The fact is that, really, you only ever need your voice to portray something right. That's why radio drama exists and characters in them can be believable. As such, an actor in a movie whose scenes would all happen in the dark, could still pull off a good performance.

If a film is completely dialogue driven then you would be right. Unfortunately, film is a visual medium and dialogue very rarely (or at least should rarely) be the source of exposition and emotion. But when it all comes down to it all you are arguing is that lenses would leave "just enough" modes of emoting to squeeze out a good performance; ignoring the fact that more ways of emoting could constitute a greater range of expression and a better performance, either in quality or variety.

 

[phil]

the white contacts look like it would be cool

yes, you would still see a pupil but a white pupil like a wolf or some other animals.

 

[Mandalore464]

The white contact lenses look cool.

 

[magus]

I like those manips. The grey works out well.

 

[Crook]

phil, the movie you're referring to is Pitch Black/Chronicles of Riddick:

I too, am for contacts. It gives just as much movement and shape as regular eyes do, but provide an otherwordly and bat-like quality to the character that would be a nice translation from the comics.

There's all this hoopla about "but you can't restrict Bale's emotions!", but I have yet to see people cite specific examples of where they see this magical emotional range that Bale provides solely through his eyes. Moreover, Batman is a man of very few emotions anyway, so I don't see what could possibly be hindered by removing his pupils.

From the comments here, some would you have believe that the audience immediately becomes blind to what Batman might be expressing or feeling just because of this.