The BATSUIT Thread

[Whatupman]

On the topic of an actor needing his eyes visible to be able to emote properly, well, Charlie Cox didn't have his eyes visible as Daredevil for four years, and he managed brilliantly. Can anyone see the argument scene between Daredevil and Punisher in season 2,

or the scene in season 3 when Daredevil delivers the

Spoiler

"I beat you speech"

and say that it's really necessary to have the eyes visible in order to emote properly? Just find an actor as good as Cox and you´re all set.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Yes... but he is a dude dressed up as a bat. He's not an actual bat monster (a la Crane's hallucination in BB).

If you had a moving, expressive cowl, you'd have to come up with an in universe reason for it. Otherwise, the audience will sit there wondering why the hell Batman's cowl is moving around, copying his own expressions underneath. That's why it'd look goofy.

​

Nah. Look, I love the Nolan trilogy to pieces, but we have to get out of this mindset that every tiny aspect of Batman has to be explained. It doesn’t. It’s a comic book film, there is a level of escapism accepted within the world. A moving cowl and a more creepy look don’t have to be explained, people will just accept that this is how this Batman looks. As others have said, when a movie about a purple alien fighting for brightly colored jems is one of the highest grossing films of all time, I think people will accept a more expressive cowl.

And if you want to explain it, it’s easy. Advanced skin tight body armor that provides protection and allows for movement. The contact lenses are protective and computerized to display info to him while he works. Added bonus of all these things making him look creepy.

But, again, we don’t need to explain this stuff. If anything, just show how each piece does it’s job (we see the tech view of the lenses, we see the cowl is able to deflect bullets), but even if you don’t, people will have no issue accepting this. It’s a comic book film, and we shouldn’t need to feel like we have to explain away why he has the suit. Because as cool as it was the Nolan came up with reasons for it, thinking about those reasons a tiny bit makes the logic fall apart. It still makes no sense to wear a cape, it makes no sense to put on a big costume, it makes no sense to be Batman.

But we don’t need to explain this because the audience has already accepted the fantasy that is Batman, and they’ve accepted that he will look like Batman. I doubt anyone is going to go “Y’know, I bought that this guy was a genius, billionaire-detective-ninja dressed up as bat, but the expressive cowl and white eyes? Too much!”​

 

[Enriquespy]

Lenses are Ok.
No lenses are Ok.

 

[Boom]

Yes... but he is a dude dressed up as a bat. He's not an actual bat monster (a la Crane's hallucination in BB).

If you had a moving, expressive cowl, you'd have to come up with an in universe reason for it. Otherwise, the audience will sit there wondering why the hell Batman's cowl is moving around, copying his own expressions underneath. That's why it'd look goofy.

I wouldn't be asking that, and I sincerely doubt most people would. It's a superhero movie with a billionaire having access to all sorts of fictional technology. I'm willing to accept just about anything as long as it looks tangible.

The cowl could be made from a "second skin" material or something like that, if you absolutely have to have an in-universe explanation for the technology. It doesn't matter. It's science fiction. You can make up just about anything you want. Even still, I seem to recall a lot of people giving Nolan grief for taking the time to explain where Batman's equipment came from in his films. Sometimes, it's better to just roll with things.

 

[Invader Joker]

If people can accept that Peter's Pijama suit in Homecoming has expressive eyes, people can accept that Batman has expressive eyes. Marvel already opened that door.

 

[Eddie Dean]

There’s a reason why Homecoming STILL has Peter unmasked for the most dramatic scenes.

 

[Boom]

That's why retractable lenses are the perfect compromise. Lenses up during the more dramatic scenes, lenses down during the ass-kickery.

 

[Marvel united]

There’s a reason why Homecoming STILL has Peter unmasked for the most dramatic scenes.

It only came off when it made sense. All of the action scenes minus the final fight on Long island had the mask on. The problem of Maguire/Garfield's mask was clearly rectified.

The lenses on the cowl should be the default look. And they only retract when he's talking to civilians or allies. If he's fighting a criminal or standing on a rooftop, he should have them on. Not only can a practical explanation be given but the simple fact of the matter is -- it goes hand in hand with the theme of theatricality and fear. From that standpoint, It makes perfect sense that Batman would want to appear as "more" than just a dude in a rubber cowl with black war paint smeared across his eyes.

Also, Daredevil is a great example. Cox gave on of the most critically acclaimed performances in all of comic book movie/TV literature, all without the use of his EYES. The idea that the actor can't emote without pupils Is a lazy excuse that can easily be disproven by other works and performances.

 

[Tasogare Sebei]

Yes... but he is a dude dressed up as a bat. He's not an actual bat monster (a la Crane's hallucination in BB).

If you had a moving, expressive cowl, you'd have to come up with an in universe reason for it. Otherwise, the audience will sit there wondering why the hell Batman's cowl is moving around, copying his own expressions underneath. That's why it'd look goofy.

​

Not seen Captain Marvel obviously, but am assuming she only has her white lenses for short periods - something the trailer seems to suggest. That's what they did in TDK.

No one's arguing it can't be done. But should it? That's another story. The white eyes I'm fine with, but the moving cowl thing just sounds weird and would completely take me out of the movie. I'd just be sat there wondering why the hell he'd have an animatronic cowl on his head.

Do you "sit there wondering why the hell Batman's cowl is moving around" while reading the comic book or watching an animated version of the character? You base your "goofiness" opinion on an assumption that the audience watches the movie for analysis rather than entertainment. Audience members react to horror movies despite the fact that they do not exist in reality. You answer your own concern of "wondering why the hell he'd have an animatronic cowl on his head" by mentioning Crane's hallucination. The theatricality of an expressive cowl makes an irrational appeal to the emotion of fear comparable to Jason Voorhees' hockey mask or Michael Myers' mask.

 

[Tasogare Sebei]

I wouldn't be asking that, and I sincerely doubt most people would. It's a superhero movie with a billionaire having access to all sorts of fictional technology. I'm willing to accept just about anything as long as it looks tangible.

The cowl could be made from a "second skin" material or something like that, if you absolutely have to have an in-universe explanation for the technology. It doesn't matter. It's science fiction. You can make up just about anything you want. Even still, I seem to recall a lot of people giving Nolan grief for taking the time to explain where Batman's equipment came from in his films. Sometimes, it's better to just roll with things.

The "second skin" concept demonstrates command of your imagination; it renders the current design paradigm of bulky, plated, pseudo muscle type armor obsolete.

 

[batman_1989_]

 

[Boom]

View attachment 20897

 

[Infinity9999x]

I wouldn't be asking that, and I sincerely doubt most people would. It's a superhero movie with a billionaire having access to all sorts of fictional technology. I'm willing to accept just about anything as long as it looks tangible.

The cowl could be made from a "second skin" material or something like that, if you absolutely have to have an in-universe explanation for the technology. It doesn't matter. It's science fiction. You can make up just about anything you want. Even still, I seem to recall a lot of people giving Nolan grief for taking the time to explain where Batman's equipment came from in his films. Sometimes, it's better to just roll with things.

This^^

The "we need explanations for everything" is a bit of a hold over from the early 00's Superhero films. At the time, studios (wrongly) assumed superhero films weren't popular because they were "too kiddy" and the films needed to be more grounded. That's why we got leather clad X-men. Of course, this line of reasoning was flawed to begin with, and studios didn't realize that previous big superhero films weren't popular because they simply weren't good films (Batman and Robin).

The Marvel Universe has shown us that audiences are fine with pretty much any number of ridiculous characters/looks. Hell, a talking racoon is one of the most popular superheroes in today's film landscape.

You can easily make and expressive cowled, white eyed Batman and the audiences won't give two craps about it if the film is good. And as long as the design team doesn't majorly mess it up. But, honestly, that's not a look that would be hard to do well on a major studio budget.

 

[Enriquespy]

Hey, remember the old argument "Hugo Weaving in V for Vendetta could emote just fine?"


Good times.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Hey, remember the old argument "Hugo Weaving in V for Vendetta could emote just fine?"


Good times.

I do indeed. And, to be honest, he could. Guy did wonders with voice work and movement. Class Actor that man.

 

[Vaibow]

The "second skin" concept demonstrates command of your imagination; it renders the current design paradigm of bulky, plated, pseudo muscle type armor obsolete.

It is not too much of a stretch to imagine the front of the cowl is a type of fire resistant material that clings to his face - it can be seen as fabric with plates attached to it and the movement will be so subtle, it will work perfectly.

View attachment 20897

I like this idea a lot.... it works for me, with a few tweaks - the actor needs to be built tho.. like Josh Brolin, he needs thighs and needs to look bulky when dressed in normal attire as bruce - that's what let me down in JL, Bruce just looked out of shape with too much make up in the reshoots, i feel the actor if in a naturally bigger, more bulky suit, needs to wear a subtle muscle/body suit else where, just to give the illusion he is big.

 

[Invader Joker]

Retractable white lenses + expressive cowl with the use of CGI and prosthetics = Most badass looking Batman in live action.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

Could also be the most jarring live action batman

 

[Marvel united]

Could also be the most jarring live action batman

Which adds the theatrical nature of the character.

These are the same arguments people were having in 2015-2016 when it came to Spider-Man's animated eyes. "It can't work, it'll look ridiculous" until Marvel proved them wrong. And they didn't even have to have a long, drawn out explanation. "They just kinda help me focus" and that was it and he's had them ever since.

I hope the same happens for Batman

 

[Gamma Goliath]

Idk spidermans eye have a reason to make sense. Deadpool is a satire in itself. My whole thing with CGI eyes and expressive brows on batman is that he has a human mouth just right underneath. It would have to be perfectly executed to not look out of place. It's just something I've been wary of for a long time, it could easily get into uncanny valley and not look appealing.

 

[Invader Joker]

I could believe that a billionaire could make a expressive cowl like that. I'm fact, if you told me that Elon Musk has one on his basement Id believe you.

 

[BattleAngel]

 

[Aximili86]

I could believe that a billionaire could make a expressive cowl like that. I'm fact, if you told me that Elon Musk has one on his basement Id believe you.

Elon Musk's would have an exploding battery in it somewhere and spontaneously catch on fire. And cost 80 000 bucks.

 

[Invader Joker]

Elon Musk's would have an exploding battery in it somewhere and spontaneously catch on fire. And cost 80 000 bucks.

I said Elon Musk, not the CEO of Samsung

 

[Aximili86]

Err. Google Tesla.