Oi vey, guys. The eyes thing again? I think it's time to put this to bed, folks, so I'm going to take you to school.
If you are a person who wants to have a serious debate about Batman's lenses, whatever your initial stance is, please give this lengthy and very well researched post a read. If you're still arguing afterwards, it's because you like to argue or because you don't like to read.
We will look at this first from Batman's perspective - 1) Biometric scanning and its risks for a vigilante who is also a celebrity 2) Technology available to protect the eyes of a person who doesn't want to get shot in the face or go blind from shrapnel. Then we will look at it from a film perspective - 1) How do we give this character maximum ability to emote? 2) Can we do that in a way that looks great?
1. Biometric Considerations:
Here's how incredibly risky it is for ANYONE participating in any kind of illegal activity (such as a hyper violent vigilante who is also a celebrity) to show their eyes while committing a crime.
1) Iris recognition technology used to identify an individual from a crowd is accurate 90 percent to 99 percent of the time.
Source.
2) A person's iris can be scanned from 40 feet away, even from a photograph.
Source.
3) Law enforcement, one subgroup of people that Batman regularly interacts with and sometimes fights, is increasingly investing in iris scanning technology.
Source.
4) An enormous database of iris scans is a simple thing to create, and as of 2016, the FBI quietly amassed a database of 430,000 irises, and this is simply a pilot program.
Source.
5) There is already an enormous demand and increasing supply for cheap consumer products that successfully block iris, IR, and facial scans.
Source.
6) Iris scanning algorithms were patented in 1994. Scientific documents indicating that this technology would one day exist, and that photographs of irises could be even more effective forensic evidence than fingerprints date back to 1949, not even a decade later than Batman's first appearance.
Source.
7) Relatedly, iris scans are far more accurate than voice identification and if you had to choose which thing you'd want to obscure while committing a crime (such as a hyper violent act of vigilantism), you'd obscure your eyes before your obscure your voice.
Here's how this all effects Batman specifically:
1) Bruce Wayne is a celebrity. The idea that a photograph of Bruce Wayne has never been taken from 40 feet away or closer is absolutely absurd. As a result, there is a 100% certainty that Bruce Wayne's irises could be scanned.
2) Batman gets up and close with all types of combatants, and we have already covered the fact that law enforcement (which Batman routinely tangos with) are all about iris scanning technology. An opponent such as The Riddler, who we assume Batman is going up against in the next film, or The Penguin, who has been imagined as an arms dealer, are both people who would certainly have access to cutting edge iris scanning technology.
3) Batman himself would
undoubtedly have iris scanning technology and use it
all the time given what a data fiend he is. If we are to believe that Batman is in possession of technology that rivals or surpasses that of the United States Government, law enforcement, and arms manufacturers, you can be sure that Batman will be one of the world's foremost experts on iris scanning and all kinds of biometrics.
Conclusion 1: After protecting his literal life, the priority for Batman's suit would be to protect his biometric data. So just from a tactical perspective, there is no way that Batman would ever expose his iris. Full stop. A realistic Batman would likely use a voice modulator, although he almost certainly could fool most voice recognition algorithms by using a rehearsed vocal timbre that is tested and proven not to be identifiable as Bruce Wayne's (like it or not folks, the Christian Bale growl would probably be enough to work). Batman would have access to the technology needed to obsessively rehearse an organic voice that would almost certainly fool a test, but being obsessive, there's no reason to think he wouldn't modulate it at least somewhat in order to be sure.
2. Not wanting to go blind or be shot in the face
Despite his affinity for bats, Batman does not want to be blinded or killed.
I'm going to make a wild assumption that Batman doesn't want to get shot in the face. I know there are takes, and many that people like, that Batman just goes into battle with some basic gear and is "such a ninja" that he practically dodges bullets. I'm going to go ahead and call that ridiculous (as did Deadpool 2). Let's continue to assume that Batman is operating in the real world, and that he doesn't want to get shot in the face, blinded by shrapnel, or overcome by tear gas. Batman might even want to swim through water, who knows?
Have a gander at
these testimonials from real US servicemen who invested in PPE (personal protective equipment) that saved their eyesight. These guys were up close and personal with IEDs exploding literally in their face, but kept their eyesight because of the protective eyewear they were using. That gear became available to servicemen in 1998, and we can assume that Batman would have it at least as soon as then, and likely earlier.
Batman might be a ninja, but given how many bombs tend to blow up around him, I don't think he's going to want less protection than US servicemen.
Conclusion 2: Batman is going to want to protect his eyes. Batman has better gear than the US army. Batman will have a way to protect his eyes while maintaining the look of the rest of his gear that he is going for, full stop. Forget detective mode or retractable lenses. There is literally no reason to retract his lenses unless he himself is using iris-triggered protection of his gear (which he probably would, because it's the most accurate biometric short of blood).
To recap so far: Almost every incarnation of Batman indicates that he's at the cutting edge of technological research and cautious as hell. We can conclude, definitively, that a Batman operating from the 90s onward is almost certainly going to be protecting his eyes and his biometric identity.
3. But what about dat emotion?
1) As many other people in this thread, who use evidence to make their cases instead of "nope ur wrong" type arguments, have pointed out... and sigh, I can't believe we're still doing this... most of the "emotion" we read in a person's "eyes" is actually in their eyeBROWS, eyelids, and surrounding facial muscles. Eyebrow position and the width (horizontal and vertical openness of the eye) are vastly more important than pupils.
Source.
2) The emotional information you CAN get from pupils is exactly the kind of stuff Batman would not want you to get. Namely, if he's lying, or if he's scared.
Well, let's assume Batman wants to emote... AND he wants to look like an animalistic being... AND he doesn't want to go blind and get shot in the face.
With current technology, he can do all that stuff!
As others have said long ago, before Sadfleck posed with his ugly tank, the cowl could be constructed as follows (from outtermost to innermost):
(4) - a "second skin" like exterior that covers
(3) - mechanical devices which move underneath the skin, providing brow movement, eye widening, and everything anyone wants from the emotional side.
(2) - Bullet/ballistic proof mask and lenses
(1) - Some padding for comfort and concussions (such as the technology used in the best bike helmets) and the sensors on his skin which correspond to the mechanical devices in layer 3.
SO... Conclusion 4: Batman is not a real character, but if he was and lived in our world and operated from the 90s on forward, he could very realistically have a mask that protected his life and identity while allowing him to emote while scaring the crap out of people because he looked like a demon bat. I'm not sure he'd care so much about the emoting thing, but I am 100% certain he'd care about the protecting his life and identity thing.
Now... Can they do it on film? Obviously, yes. Majorly so, yes. Did any of you guys see Gemini Man? The uncanny valley has been crossed (at least in the scenes where they had the time to make the shots look right - my friend worked on that film and there are a number of scenes, such as the daylight scene at the end, that were rushed). CGI can really do a lot, especially when blended in with practical reality (as in the case of Deadpool's mask). And you know who is probably the best practitioner of movies with emotive CGI in the entire world?
Matt. Reeves.
So, the facts support that: A) Batman would and could do it. B) Matt Reeves CAN do it.
Lenses would NOT look silly. Lenses ARE more realistic. You can emote *just fine* with lenses, and if you don't have an articulated mask, it doesn't even matter if you can see the actor's pupils.
So why in the world would you possibly argue for Batman to put his precious eyeballs at risk, let alone put on silly raccoon paint, all so that he can't really even emote anything worth emoting?
Why? Because you like it. It's a look that you like. And that's FINE. But stop trying to lean on any other excuse except for your own personal taste. There just isn't any justification for it in 2020.
