The BATSUIT Thread

[Whatupman]

I'd also argue in the case of Daredevil, we're not meant to be drawn to his eyes while he's in costume - just by virtue of him being blind. The character is animalistic and relies almost entirely on brute force to get the job done. It makes him quite scary to watch when he's taking down an entire group of thugs, but I can't say I was ever particularly focused on what his eyes were doing.

From all accounts, Reeves' Batman is going to be the more cerebral type. Doing detective work, reading people. You'll want to follow his eyes and see the gears turning. The idea of him interrogating a suspect and us not being able to see what his eyes are doing isn't a particularly appealing one to me.

I see your point, but I would argue that Daredevil didn't rely on brute force as much as you make it seem. He did plenty of detective work and reading people. But I can understand that you want to see Batman's eyes. I'm not exactly sure what I want.

 

[Boom]

I see your point, but I would argue that Daredevil didn't rely on brute force as much as you make it seem. He did plenty of detective work and reading people. But I can understand that you want to see Batman's eyes. I'm not exactly sure what I want.

Granted, I have not seen Season 3 of Daredevil (full disclosure), and it's been a while since I've seen the show in general. Refresh my memory. Was Matt completely blind, or did he still have some type of vision where he could discern shapes and stuff like that? I legitimately cannot remember.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

Retractable lenses are definitely the best way to go.
I don’t know why anyone would be against that.
Batman doesn’t need to have the theatrics turned all the way up constantly.
It’s not like he only comes into contact with criminals. He wouldn’t want to appear as a creature of the night to victims or children.

 

[Whatupman]

Granted, I have not seen Season 3 of Daredevil (full disclosure), and it's been a while since I've seen the show in general. Refresh my memory. Was Matt completely blind, or did he still have some type of vision where he could discern shapes and stuff like that? I legitimately cannot remember.

Oh, I see! He did quite a bit of detective work in season 3. Probably more than he did in previous seasons. Haha, well, that's ... complicated. He's completely blind, but his other senses are extremely heightened. He has a sort of radar sense.
Also, you should really see season 3. It's the best one.

 

[Boom]

Oh, I see! He did quite a bit of detective work in season 3. Probably more than he did in previous seasons. Haha, well, that's ... complicated. He's completely blind, but his other senses are extremely heightened. He has a sort of radar sense.
Also, you should really see season 3. It's the best one.

Thank you for clarifying.

Daredevil is an interesting case. I'm not quite sure how to explain it. I guess at the end of the day, I don't think to focus on his eyes all that much because I know that he is blind. He reads people through their voices and their heartbeats. He's not reading them visually. He's looking at them in the most literal sense, but he's not seeing them. So when Cox performs, his eyes don't react the same way. For that reason, I can forgive the use of lenses here. I don't think to look at his eyes, therefore I'm not bothered by them being covered up.

With Batman, I'd like to be able to look into his eyes and see where his head is at. That moment when a suspect says something and he puts two-and-two together. The calculation in his eyes as he studies a clue. Those little nuances and intricacies are lost when you're staring at a blank white lens.

 

[Whatupman]

Thank you for clarifying.

Daredevil is an interesting case. I'm not quite sure how to explain it. I guess at the end of the day, I don't think to focus on his eyes all that much because I know that he is blind. He reads people through their voices and their heartbeats. He's not reading them visually. He's looking at them in the most literal sense, but he's not seeing them. So when Cox performs, his eyes don't react the same way. For that reason, I can forgive the use of lenses here. I don't think to look at his eyes, therefore I'm not bothered by them being covered up.

With Batman, I'd like to be able to look into his eyes and see where his head is at. That moment when a suspect says something and he puts two-and-two together. The calculation in his eyes as he studies a clue. Those little nuances and intricacies are lost when you're staring at a blank white lens.

All good points. Cox did a lot of subtle work to, well, work around that. Like he used subtle head movements when he was figuring stuff out and things like that, but I can see how that is more appropriate for Daredevil than Batman. At the same time, I don't think Batman would like that the suspect he's interrogating can see when he's figuring things out. If it was up to me, I would probably have it so Batman uses lenses when he's interrogating suspects and wants to look as intimidating as possible, and then when he studies a clue or is talking to Gordon, he wouldn't use lenses.

 

[Invader Joker]

I'm sure it's been brought up in here before but I'd actually like to see contacts on the actors eyes as opposed to lenses attached to the cowl.

If it needs to be explained, they help him see in darker areas.

And give Pattinson Twilight flashbacks of how uncomfortable contacts are? Nah. Use old fashioned CGI to make the eyes white.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

Personally, I feel that his actual eyes would be way more intimidating, especially in an up-close-and-personal, interrogation scenario, but to each their own.

 

[Gothamsknight]

honestly, I'd be fine with whichever. I feel like the normal eyes are more likely but who knows

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Why do we need to see Batman's eyes? Are we just so used to seeing live action Batman with his eyes exposed and thus the concept of lenses is "weird" (even though the technology now exists to make it look cool on screen, like it does with Black Panther and Deadpool) because we are just not used to seeing Batman like that in live action?

There is no real practical reason why Batman would ever want his eyes exposed. To anyone. Regardless of who he is talking to. Hell, logically, he would cover EVERY bit of his face up like Black Panther and Deadpool and Spider-Man do. But for me that would change Batman's iconic look up too much so I am by no means advocating for that.

But I don't need to see the eyes of the actor playing Batman peeking through his mask. I am ready to lose that, along with the black panda bear makeup the actors wore around their eyes in order to make the mask look seamless while also having the slits big enough for them to see out of (unlike Adam West, who couldn't see **** out of his cowl).

For me, Batman with his eyes exposed is an antiquated product of the 66 TV show and the previous live action movies that needs to die. It made sense when we didn't have the technology to pull off true comic book Batman. But now we do.

"But Batman needs to be human and relatable!" Isn't that what the Bruce Wayne scenes are for?

"But what about expression? How will I be able to know what Batman is thinking?!" That would've been a valid concern back in the 80s and 90s and in 2008, but the technology behind making superhero movies has advanced leaps and bounds since then (hell, we can CGI masks and capes onto costumes now, and manipulate them in post-production). And actors can express themselves in other ways besides their eyes (body language, clinched jaw, etc).

 

[hafizbat]

Not only do the lenses make a lot more sense thematically, the argument that seeing his eyes adds value is grossly exaggerated.

Three reasons.

1) It's not the eyes themselves that lend expression...it's the brow and facial muscles surrounding the eyes. In order for those expressions to come through, the eye holes would have to be as big as Captain America's in the MCU. And that's certainly not what most people who support eyes over lenses have in mind. No, the previous live-action Batmen have only showed their eyeballs. This is a hugely important distinction. Showing the eyeballs can show you what direction the actor is looking in, but that's it. This idea that having the eyeballs exposes allows much greater acting, or some sort of nuance, is quite silly. It's literally just eyeballs.

2) Having lenses that can move, like Spider-Man in the MCU or Deadpool, allows greater expression and acting than a static cowl with the eyeballs exposed. If Spider-Man can have mechanical eyes, so can Batman. Even the animated series showed far more expression than the live action Batmen have...the expression is always a serious scowl, because that's the only thing a static cowl affords.

3) Like Matt Damon said, playing Batman is not exactly playing King Lear. Pattinson can chew up the scenery all he wants when the cowl is off. When it's on, I think it's about damn time to get the classic look on screen. Not to mention it would be a fresh change that would make this iteration unique from the previous FIVE.

 

[Invader Joker]

I think Batman can be an incredibly difficult performance to really pull off if the script/direction really aims to portray him like he's in the comics. You have to express gravitas, subtletly, emotion, humanity, mystery, etc all while wearing a mask. However, none of the Batmen we've had on live action have really aimed for that type of performance, I hope Pattinson breaks the mold.

 

[Vaibow]

Have it so that inside the cowl are sensors that mimic his facial expression, so when his eye brows are raised, the cowl does so.... he can explain to alfred that he wants to 'eff with the criminal' as much as he can... then just use cgi

 

[Blade Hoarder]

I think Batman can be an incredibly difficult performance to really pull off if the script/direction really aims to portray him like he's in the comics. You have to express gravitas, subtletly, emotion, humanity, mystery, etc all while wearing a mask. However, none of the Batmen we've had on live action have really aimed for that type of performance, I hope Pattinson breaks the mold.

Not really. Batman is rather easy to pull off. All you need is a certain presence. How else do you think a limited actor like Ben Affleck was so solid as Batman?

We are not talking Tony leung in The Mood for Love here. It's Batman. A character for children.

 

[Invader Joker]

Not really. Batman is rather easy to pull off. All you need is a certain presence. How else do you think a limited actor like Ben Affleck was so solid as Batman?

We are not talking Tony leung in The Mood for Love here. It's Batman. A character for children.

I bet children had a blast reading Arkham Asylum A Serious House on a Serious Earth or The Killing Joke.

I don't mean to sound rude here but it's extremely condescending to suggest that just because some versions of Batman are for children the character as a whole isn't incredibly complex. He is. And yes, I do maintain that if a movie were to try to portray all the multiple layers and dimensions of him like he is in the comics it'd be a damn hard performance to pull off.

It's hard for me to even consider Affleck really played Batman at this point frankly. He wore the costume, but even the bat voice wasn't even his and there's a plethora of things from the character Affleck could've never been able to pull off. Affleck captured the superficiality of Batman... but the character is much, much more nuanced and layered than that.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

No. Bet they had a blast watching the best version of batman, Batman TAS, though. Bet a lot of older batfans are fans because they watched Adam West.

As for reading comics, the industry is dead. Children don't read comics , they haven't read comics since the 80's. So it's true children haven't read Arkham. Most 'adult' batfans haven't either. It's a medium so niche you can call it a fetish.

And yes, I do maintain that if a movie were to try to portray all the multiple layers and dimensions of him like he is in the comics it'd be a damn hard performance to pull off.

A children's cartoon show already portrayed the most complex version of batman. And he wasn't that complex in it, frankly.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

It’s been awhile since I felt the need to put someone on ignore

 

[titansupes]

So it might look like this, albeit a bit slimmer? I'm cool with that.

 

[hafizbat]

I bet children had a blast reading Arkham Asylum A Serious House on a Serious Earth or The Killing Joke.

I don't mean to sound rude here but it's extremely condescending to suggest that just because some versions of Batman are for children the character as a whole isn't incredibly complex. He is. And yes, I do maintain that if a movie were to try to portray all the multiple layers and dimensions of him like he is in the comics it'd be a damn hard performance to pull off.

It's hard for me to even consider Affleck really played Batman at this point frankly. He wore the costume, but even the bat voice wasn't even his and there's a plethora of things from the character Affleck could've never been able to pull off. Affleck captured the superficiality of Batman... but the character is much, much more nuanced and layered than that.

If anything, Batfleck showed exactly why the depth and complexity is so important. We got all the superficial stuff, yet it was utter garbage that no one cares about.

 

[hafizbat]

The telltale suit is a great base. Here's some concept art.

 

[Travesty]

Well, BvS wasn't a Batman movie, so you're not going to get this ultra layered story that delves into Batman, like you would in a solo movie/story. That's like getting all uppity that Ragnarok didn't go into Hulk's character. Yeah, no ****, it wasn't a Hulk solo movie.

 

[hafizbat]

But we're talking about quality, not quantity. It doesn't take a whole movie to have great characterization. They nailed Peter Parker in just the one scene in Civil War when he talks to Tony. He's had two solo movies since then and his characterization has been lousy. Again, quality over quantity. Even in Ragnarok, Hulk was characterized very well. In just a few scenes, we come to understand that he just wants to be loved but has a hard time controlling his anger, which is why he doesn't want to go back to Earth, why he enjoys being a fan favorite gladiator, and why he becomes attached to Thor and Valkyrie. That's more characterization than he got in The Incredible Hulk..

Anyways, this is the batsuit thread.

 

[Travesty]

That's not what you were saying, though. You just pivoted away. You were talking about depth and complexity. Now you're saying "quality over quantity". Those are two completely different things. Are you trying to tell me there was depth and complexity to Spiderman in Civil War?

I get you don't like Batman in BvS. I'm not trying to persuade you otherwise. I'm just saying, it's not a good example to bring up its failures, due to the lack depth and complexity of Batman, when the movie isn't centered around him.

 

[hafizbat]

That's not what you were saying, though. You just pivoted away. You were talking about depth and complexity. Now you're saying "quality over quantity". Those are two completely different things. Are you trying to tell me there was depth and complexity to Spiderman in Civil War?

I get you don't like Batman in BvS. I'm not trying to persuade you otherwise. I'm just saying, it's not a good example to bring up its failures, due to the lack depth and complexity.

How is that pivoting away?

We were talking about the depth of the character, and how Batfleck (imo) lacked any. You claimed the reason why he didn't have it is because it wasn't his movie. I responded by saying you don't need an entire movie or layered story to get the character right, and gave examples of it.

Please explain how those are two completely different things. And yes, this scene in Civil War nails the depth of Spider-Man, and what makes him Spider-Man, within minutes. That's why it is so highly praised, and a great example of what I'm talking about.

 

[Travesty]

Wow. I think we're just going to have to disagree here, because I don't see how they went into the "depth and complexity" of Spiderman's character in Civil War. It was a glorified cameo, that you're trying to tell me is deep and complex.

I'll agree that the cameo was great. And that there is a "quality over quantity" element to his cameo, but I don't see how it delved into the "depth and complexity" of his character....at all.