BvS The Batsuit Thread - - - - Part 13

[BattleAngel]

This.

And the lenses have had a real purpose in the comics since the early 90's.

They're "Starlite" lenses. They serve to conceal his eyes, shield them, and they function as night vision, infrared, etc.

And they can be made retractable. It's a concept so obvious, I don't know how no one has used it yet on film. I just we kind of saw it in THE DARK KNIGHT. Kind of.

Double this.

 

[BatScot]

This.

And the lenses have had a real purpose in the comics since the early 90's.

They're "Starlite" lenses. They serve to conceal his eyes, shield them, and they function as night vision, infrared, etc.

And they can be made retractable. It's a concept so obvious, I don't know how no one has used it yet on film. I just we kind of saw it in THE DARK KNIGHT. Kind of.

Triple dat

 

[Jekecy]

^ I'd always like to see just the beads of light. It'd be creepy as all get out.

I'd argue imagery like this alone is enough for me to want its inclusion. You simply cannot get this effect in live-action without the aid of actual glow-in-the-dark lenses.

 

[Bruce Malone]

This.

And the lenses have had a real purpose in the comics since the early 90's.

They're "Starlite" lenses. They serve to conceal his eyes, shield them, and they function as night vision, infrared, etc.

And they can be made retractable. It's a concept so obvious, I don't know how no one has used it yet on film. I just we kind of saw it in THE DARK KNIGHT. Kind of.

The reason we haven't seen it on film yet is precisely because the makers want as much of their stars face to be visible as possible.

Casting Ben Affleck I don't think is going to change that sentiment.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

It depends whether it is supposed to be a helmet thing of just a mask and cowl, I suppose.

I'm not somebody who usually worries too much about "teh realisms" but batman's cowl is absolutely a part of his suit that needs to be armored.
I doesn't need to look as much like a helmet as it did in TDK,but he needs more than just a layer of rubber between his noggin and all the things he faces every night..

 

[Mindreaper21]

You may have a point about the eyebrows.

I just like two eyes staring out of the darkness.

 

[Jekecy]

That's why I've always said that lenses aren't the right approach...it should be an overall stylistic approach to the film and some new approach to CG/animation to be an artistic expression like it is in comics/animation. Something that could also involve the cowl itself being flexible and moving with expressions, etc. But if in development it is too distracting or fake-looking, or can't really be done without lenses of some sort, then better to leave them out altogether as they're not really intended as lenses originally.

Why should that figure into the equation? As long as there are feasible explanations for it stylistically as well as logically within the context of the film, shouldn't that be enough?

It's not unlike how Nolan's glider-cape came to fruition.

 

[Jekecy]

I'm not somebody who usually worries too much about "teh realisms" but batman's cowl is absolutely a part of his suit that needs to be armored.
I doesn't need to look as much like a helmet as it did in TDK,but he needs more than just a layer of rubber between his noggin and all the things he faces every night..

Impact-hardened bulletproof material already exists, so I don't think filmmakers have to be restricted to the rigid form of the past.

 

[BatFan1979]

The reason we haven't seen it on film yet is precisely because the makers want as much of their stars face to be visible as possible.

Casting Ben Affleck I don't think is going to change that sentiment.

Can anyone honestly say that they could just look at a pair of black paint rimmed eyes and know who the actor was? The mouth/chin area is much more telling of the actor inside the cowl IMO. Seeing the actors pupils isnt even part of the success equation for me.

 

[BatScot]

I'd argue imagery like this alone is enough for me to want its inclusion. You simply cannot get this effect in live-action without the aid of actual glow-in-the-dark lenses.

If we only see the white slits when Batman is in the shadows, that'd be fine with me... when the face is lighted, you see the eyes; when in the shadow you see the slits. It's a total conceit I know but I don't care and I don't care if it's explained. In fact explaining it would rather defeat the purpose - it's an abstraction, like Rorschach's shifting visage.

 

[BatFan1979]

If we only see the white slits when Batman is in the shadows, that'd be fine with me... when the face is lighted, you see the eyes; when in the shadow you see the slits. It's a total conceit I know but I don't care and I don't care if it's explained. In fact explaining it would rather defeat the purpose - it's an abstraction, like Rorschach's shifting visage.

I could get behind that! Kind of like animal eye shine almost. That would be creepy, especially if they dont explain it!

 

[Sawyer]

What is this, a David Lynch movie?

 

[Jekecy]

I could get behind that! Kind of like animal eye shine almost. That would be creepy, especially if they dont explain it!

People have criticized it, but it was always one of my favorite aspects of the original Burton film. The audiences were kept in the dark of the inner-workings of Bruce and Batman as much as the actual film characters were. Lent itself well to pushing the mystical nature behind the identity.

 

[B:TAS]

If we only see the white slits when Batman is in the shadows, that'd be fine with me... when the face is lighted, you see the eyes; when in the shadow you see the slits. It's a total conceit I know but I don't care and I don't care if it's explained. In fact explaining it would rather defeat the purpose - it's an abstraction, like Rorschach's shifting visage.

I like this. Best of both worlds.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Hate to hurt anyone's childhood here.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

 

[Mr. Finger]

^ nice one...

 

[Travesty]

Hate to hurt anyone's childhood here.

Looks worse.

 

[BattleAngel]

Hate to hurt anyone's childhood here.

No childhood hurt here! I haven't seen a picture of Batman yet that I don't think is improved by the white eyes, except for certain ones where he really needs to convey his humanity.

 

[Boom]

God. This is getting bad.

I would take a silhouetted teaser photo at this point.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Yeah, I'm not the best manipper. I'm practically taunting BattleAngel to blow us away

 

[Bruce Malone]

Can anyone honestly say that they could just look at a pair of black paint rimmed eyes and know who the actor was? The mouth/chin area is much more telling of the actor inside the cowl IMO. Seeing the actors pupils isnt even part of the success equation for me.

The eyes still play an important role, you can get a sense of emotion and intensity from them that is unique to the actor.

 

[craigdbfan]

I like the white eyes but I would prefer if for the majority of the film we get to see his eyes.

During fights and conversations in the middle of said fights then it'd be cool if he kept the lenses on and I honestly think doing them via CGI is the way to go. In the same vein as Doctor Manhattan and for Batman it can be explained that he has a Google glass type of contacts tech that allows him to maneuver across a battlefield a lot easier by using that "detective mode" to see through walls and whatnot.

 

[AnneFan]

The white eyes works fine in animation, games etc. But I'm not convinced it works in live action. It's hard to beat an actor's eyes.

 

[BattleAngel]

The eyes still play an important role, you can get a sense of emotion and intensity from them that is unique to the actor.

I gotta say that Keaton is the only Bat actor who I feel was really able to do something with his eyes. I love Christian Bale, really I do, but I never saw any emotion in his eyes. Ditto kilmer, clooney, etc.