The Dark Knight Capes and Cowls - New Batsuit Discussion Thread

[batman_1982]

I gotta be honest my first reaction to lenses was that they don't work, more or less because of the clip of bats with them on in the tv spot. But after thinking and talking about it. Honestly, given the right treatment, and maybe a little cgi they could be a very effective element to the character in the movie.

 

[Mandalore464]

I think this

looks badass. Even the black trunks don't look silly when you put them on this suit. I don't think the gold lenses would work though. I'm not a fan of gold anyway.

Actually talking about CGI, and although I really am NOT a fan of CGI, I think just a little CGI on the lenses would allow to get the exact same effect than it does in the comics. Even better, make the cowl in material that will allow Bale's frowns and other eyebrows movement to slightly alter the shape of the lenses. I think this would be a good compromise between those who think that Batman's eyes should be part of his acting and those (or the only one?) who think white lenses would look cool as hell.

 

[batman_1982]

Why aren't you Nolan's right hand man?!

LOL, I'm still waiting for him to call back I guess. I also added the idea of a scene in Begins to my original post as well.

 

[magus]

N


I agree that movies are meant to give something visual to audiences. My point was just that your voice is enough to convey an emotion, and that is true for radio, movie and real life as well.

I would agree with that if Batman didn't operate in two modes: Clint Eastwood and really pissed off Clint Eastwood. Honestly, I am not saying that it couldn't be done, but I believe most viewers would find it disconcerting and make him harder to empathize.

"just enough" implies that it's a bit on the down side. I'm just saying that it's enough, as in... It could very well be ann award-winning performance. It's not just "alright". It can be good if the actor's good. Again, it all comes down to the talent of the actor (and director). I'm not saying everyone can do it, nor am I saying that it's easy.

That is still admitting that there would/could be something lost and that the performance could be better without them, even if it was stellar already.

But I agree with that completely. If you're saying that if an actor is in full control of his body, facial features, and that they are all exposed to us, it will be a) easier for the actor to convey emotions and b) easier for a lot of people to understand what he wants to convey, then I say yes.

That is the main point that I, and I assume others, are operating from. Batman is already limited in the film medium. He can pose, he can gesture, he can move his mouth, and he can use is eyes/brow. Take away one of those and there isn't a whole lot left for him to do, especially considering we don't get his internal monologue like in the comics.

Again, my point is not that eyes are irrelevant to a performance but just that they are not necessary, and again, many good performances show that. The fact that Ray Charles was blind does not mean that people watching Ray were expecting less emotions out of him. Just that he had to find other ways to convey those emotions to us than through his eyes. And he did it brilliantly, didn't he?

I can agree with that but the important part about eyes isn't just the cornea/iris/pupil: it is the muscles around the eyes and face that do most of the emoting. A lens covering the entirety of the eye socket prevents all of those. Character that are blind or wear sunglasses still have the rest of their face expose, as opposed to being in a cowl that covers the majority of their faces. Ray may not have been able to look people in the eyes but his eyebrows go way the hell up when he is excited and he can still cry.

Not that Batman needs to cry, and as Crook said, Batman doesn't have a huge array of emotions to display, but the lenses in the comic books and cartoons are animated the way they are for a reason: to mimic the movements of real eyes (blinking, squinting, raised brow) so that the character can still emote.

 

[Hole Shot]

I gotta be honest my first reaction to lenses was that they don't work, more or less because of the clip of bats with them on in the tv spot. But after thinking and talking about it. Honestly, given the right treatment, and maybe a little cgi they could be a very effective element to the character in the movie.

As tired a statement on this board as "trust in Nolan" is, I think it might be appropriate in this situation. By overall look of the suit and look of Ledger we know he has no problem taking liberties with the source material to fit into his Batworld. So I'm going to have faith that the lenses work in the movie because there is no way he'd just throw them in there as an easter egg to the fans calling for a more faithful comic book suit.

 

[Hole Shot]

EDIT: how come we can't delete our own posts?

 

[Crook]

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.

I don't think it really matters what the reasons are in the real-world context. Batman's entire garb was originally created simply because it gave him a bat-like appearance, but that has eventually evolved into each part having a purpose.

Artists also avoid drawing Batman, or any other hero for that matter, with any noticeable material. Most times, it looks like a naked body painted with the design. It's just plain easier than drawing different textures and bothering with clothing wrinkles. But again, none of this matters when translating to live-action.

They are simply not necessary for a live-action Batman

Sure, but the addition of them shouldn't be abolished like nipples are.

and would definitely inhibit our connection to him.

Which is why we have a Bruce Wayne.

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.

And in not being so flamboyant or talkative, so in limits the need for him to emote. Batman is simply not a character that needs to display a myriad of expressive range.

NOTE: I'm arguing for lenses, as in contact lenses. I'm not so sure on the Spiderman-like lenses, or the quick glimpse we saw in that TDK spot. Not feeling it at all.

 

[DSET]

we havent even seen a proper shot of the lenses yet
I think they look bigger than they are because they are radiating light around it
as it is used a nightvision sonar type thing for batman

I highly doubt it will be onscreen for more than a minute

 

[batman_1982]

As tired a statement on this board as "trust in Nolan" is, I think it might be appropriate in this situation. By overall look of the suit and look of Ledger we know he has no problem taking liberties with the source material to fit into his Batworld. So I'm going to have faith that the lenses work in the movie because there is no way he'd just throw them in there as an easter egg to the fans calling for a more faithful comic book suit.

You have to admit though they do look a little funny on him in the clip. I understand they won't be used often, and are piece of technology more so than anything else. Heck even after I finally see this movie I'll proably find that they were really cool. But if a movie director or even Nolan still for that matter, would decide to give batman the white out look in the eyes like as nod to the cartoon, or the comics, I would prefer it if they used contact lenses instead. Just so that he can still use his eyelids to convey things like him glaring at enemies and other emotions, like in the comics or in the cartoon. With these lenses they give him a zombie or robot looking effect which makes him look funny, more than eerie or scary.

 

[Crook]

we havent even seen a proper shot of the lenses yet
I think they look bigger than they are because they are radiating light around it
as it is used a nightvision sonar type thing for batman

I highly doubt it will be onscreen for more than a minute

Glowing does not produce a solid shaped light. Even from the quick glimpse, it's clear that the lenses take form of the entire eye hole of the cowl.

 

[DSET]

Glowing does not produce a solid shaped light. Even from the quick glimpse, it's clear that the lenses take form of the entire eye hole of the cowl.

do we have an HD vid of that spot
or are we still going on the youtube version?

 

[Crook]

do we have an HD vid of that spot
or are we still going on the youtube version?

There was a newer spot that someone uploaded in better quality on youtube. No HD yet.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I think this

looks badass. Even the black trunks don't look silly when you put them on this suit. I don't think the gold lenses would work though. I'm not a fan of gold anyway.

Actually talking about CGI, and although I really am NOT a fan of CGI, I think just a little CGI on the lenses would allow to get the exact same effect than it does in the comics. Even better, make the cowl in material that will allow Bale's frowns and other eyebrows movement to slightly alter the shape of the lenses. I think this would be a good compromise between those who think that Batman's eyes should be part of his acting and those (or the only one?) who think white lenses would look cool as hell.

Nice Speedo. ehh....

 

[DSET]

There was a newer spot that someone uploaded in better quality on youtube. No HD yet.

thx
I just looked at it again
yeah theres no way its smaller than it looks

 

[CaptainClown]

I think this

looks badass. Even the black trunks don't look silly when you put them on this suit. I don't think the gold lenses would work though. I'm not a fan of gold anyway.

Actually talking about CGI, and although I really am NOT a fan of CGI, I think just a little CGI on the lenses would allow to get the exact same effect than it does in the comics. Even better, make the cowl in material that will allow Bale's frowns and other eyebrows movement to slightly alter the shape of the lenses. I think this would be a good compromise between those who think that Batman's eyes should be part of his acting and those (or the only one?) who think white lenses would look cool as hell.

The lenses just don't seem right at all to me.

As for the trunks ya that just really killed that manip for me.

 

[Caladbolg]

"Trunks" and Batman are antonyms now, thank you Nolan.

 

[bunk]

The lenses just don't seem right at all to me.

As for the trunks ya that just really killed that manip for me.

Actually this was the original.

Someone asked for the trunks to be added and the ears made shorter.

 

[warren_sparta27]

I remember when the first pic of the new batsuit for TDK came out (the one with him on top of the car) in that picture the bat emblem had a gleam to it that made it look like it was metal, or a different colour than the rest of the suit. I got the idea that the emblem would be the same gold colour as the belt. I reckon that it would make the suit look better with a gold emblem, anyone got any manips of this or any thoughts of this slight adjustment?

 

[lujho]

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.

If so, it's a pretty dodgy interpretation of what Sonar means. Why not just have them be nightvision?

I you really had a device that used sound to see, you wouldn't get a lot of visual information. Eh, just seems a bit silly to me - especially that the eyes need to light up too.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

So far I really dont know how to feel about how the lenses look, I wanted to see them in this film really bad, but the shape of them look really bad.

 

[Nightwing1977]

I honestly never thought of the eyes in the comics as lenses. I always just assumed they were just a part of the creative license and to be interpreted as the criminals' perception of him or something.

Yep. That was the reason Kane drew them in the first place. He felt they add a mysterious. Some use lame explanation that they're white later in the comics because they were lenses, when they were never that from the first place. How else you explain Wolverine, Green Arrow, Ninja Turtles, etc. all have white color on their mask & that they never wore lenses? Exactly.

I must be the only one that really does not like the lenses.

Nope. I'm not much fan of lenses onscreen. I can deal with it on the comics & cartoons since they aren't real, when live action is more real.

Lenses complaints make me LOL. Typical that many of the problems with modern Superhero movies is stupid fair weather fan opinions of what is cool and what sucks.

I resent that.

 

[CaptainClown]

ya that is so much better

Actually this was the original.

Someone asked for the trunks to be added and the ears made shorter.

 

[cryptic name]

"Trunks" and Batman are antonyms now, thank you Nolan.

batman hasn't had trunks in film since adam west. not really something you can blame on nolan

 

[bunk]

batman hasn't had trunks in film since adam west. not really something you can blame on nolan

No trunks? I mean what's next? Take away all the "boots", too? Brah ha ha ha!!!1 Comedy!!1!

 

[JamalYIgle]

That seems sort of odd, though, so I imagine it may be an illusion created by the low quality image and the apparent glow of the lenses. I certainly hope that's the case, because that shot looks pretty silly, and it would be nice if it's silliness turned out to be illusory.

What constitutes "silly"? According to you, simply saying it looks silly isn't enough of an explanation. Your statement requires some sort of qualifier.

What does that have to do with anything? I'm not making any argument on whether or not there should or should not be lenses. I don't have strong feelings either way. But, since he has them, I would prefer they not look weird.

And, honestly, the "Why should they do it for a few fanboys?" line is a non-issue. They should do whatever they feel is best, and I'll criticize it if I think it was a mistake or if it doesn't meet my standards. Seems reasonable to me.

Because the argument of whether or not Batman should have the lenses or not is something that is usually brought up by people who are fans of the comics, not fans of the films or unfamiliar with anything other than the live action interpretation of the character. I never referred to anyone as a "fanboy". I also never said you could not nor did you not have the right to make your statements just as I have the right to offer a learned rebuttal.