The BATSUIT Thread

[FunkMiller]

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

So he’d have an in-universe reason for having an animatronic cowl? What would that be? Can you think of anything that would sound silly?

 

[Jekecy]

So he’d have an in-universe reason for having an animatronic cowl? What would that be? Can you think of anything that would sound silly?

Do we need explanations for a skintight cowl? It's an all-black headpiece and it's not like he's gonna be Jim Carrey'ing it up under there. It'd all likely be very subtle motions which doesn't draw strong attention.

If we as an audience can buy the "muscles" on Spider-Man and Supes are showing through their suits, I don't see why brows would have some sort of exclusion for a similar benefit of the doubt.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

It doesn't make any sense to me that Bruce Wayne (one of the most famous men in the DC universe) would be okay with allowing criminals to look at his eyes and possibly identify him. Lenses make sense from a character prospective, and he obviously has the money to create them if he can create all of the other stuff that Batman has.

For me, a Batman cowl without lenses is a relic of the previous live action Batman movies that has never really made sense for me from a character perspective (why would Bruce Wayne want people to look at his eyes while he's Batman?) but was done that way in earlier incarnations because we didn't have the technology we have now. Now that we do have CGI good enough to make it look good (like Deadpool and MCU Spider-Man) there is no reason to keep doing things the old way. I think its time for live action Batman to get with the times.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Eh, I doubt Reeves goes with the lenses.

 

[Lencho01]

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.

This is certainly something I've believed for years. If can actor can't properly convey emotion without his eyes being shown, then I don't why he was even hired.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

View attachment 20897

Beautiful.

 

[FunkMiller]

Beautiful.

I could dig something along those lines. Very utilitarian, without sacrificing aesthetics like the TDK suit did.

 

[Infinity9999x]

So he’d have an in-universe reason for having an animatronic cowl? What would that be? Can you think of anything that would sound silly?

Read back over the past few pages, multiple people already have.

Plus, you don’t need one. It’s a comic book film, even with “explanations” most of Batman’s gear is ridiculous, or just straight up unrealistic.

Suspension of disbelief. A talking raccoon is one of the most popular supehereo characters in pop culture right now. I think people will accept a moving cowl.

But I agree that animatronic would be too much. Prosthetics would be more than enough.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I still don't want lenses. Batman with normal eyes has much more personality.

 

[Vaibow]

So he’d have an in-universe reason for having an animatronic cowl? What would that be? Can you think of anything that would sound silly?

But it's not an animatronic cowl in-universe tho is it? It's a thin, fire/knife resistant material over his face - perhaps with added reinforcements around the nose and cheeks, it's tight against his face, so that when Bruce makes specific facial movements, the material moves with it. No one is expecting deadpool effects.

Let's say bruce does make it animatronic, around the eyes.... it's al part of the theatrics... it would not be hard for production to show us Bruce and Alfred talking about the cowl, how the touch sensitive pad over the brow is working well and we have bruce run his finger up the inside of the cowl behind the brow and we see it react and tweak... Alfred can say something like 'eerie indeed...' then if it works, a joke like 'just don't sneeze in front of them master bruce'.

That's not too much of a stretch when you think of the cape Nolan had that turned rigid and allowed him to fly, the brace he made himself that basically repaired his knee or the BvS suit Snyder had.

Imagine the scene - raining pouring down over the face of a pissed Bruce, his teeth glaring and bloodied as he holds a perp close to him, to intimidate him - the light glistens off the cowl and the perp is like 'you're just a man in a mask' and then Bruce frowns giving a growl and the mask moves in time with his frown and suddenly the perp is lost in theatrics and screams into the night.

 

[Lencho01]

This is certainly something I've believed for years. If can actor can't properly convey emotion without his eyes being shown, then I don't why he was even hired.

Just to add to this... people often mistake the need for eyes to express emotions. It's not the eyes themselves that are the concern. We have things called the muscles of facial expression for a reason. Not eyes of facial expression. Eyes are just for seeing. So, there are other ways to emote.

 

[Vaibow]

Just to add to this... people often mistake the need for eyes to express emotions. It's not the eyes themselves that are the concern. We have things called the muscles of facial expression for a reason. Not eyes of facial expression. Eyes are just for seeing. So, there are other ways to emote.

That’s kinda the same thing surely? (don’t call me Shirley).

People say eyes but they (I assume) mean the features around the eyes!! That’s why some actors are called wooden or dull as they don’t have much range in their expressions!

 

[Boom]

Yeah, normally when I talk about an actor's "eye acting," I'm referring to the general eye area (including the muscles). An eye doesn't do much on its own apart from tearing up, dilating, or indicating direction - which certainly play into it but don't cover the whole picture.

 

[BattleAngel]

That’s kinda the same thing surely? (don’t call me Shirley).

People say eyes but they (I assume) mean the features around the eyes!! That’s why some actors are called wooden or dull as they don’t have much range in their expressions!

You would think, but no, particularly the people in this thread seem fine with totally obstructing facial muscle movement, as well as achievable comic accuracy, because of some belief that the actor’s actual eyeballs are the key to conveying emotion.

The eyes are the window to the soul, no doubt, but squinting, raising the brow, etc. is the key to communicating with the eyes.

And why on earth Bruce Wayne would ever want people to see his “windows to the soul” when he’s in the field is completely beyond me.

Case in point - I can tell a manip of Pattinson from one of Oliver Jackson Cohen primarily through their eyes. Cover the eyes and they are nearly indistinguishable. Batman is an anonymous force of justice... If Batman were on this thread, he would say “lenses.”

 

[thebatfan5194]

White contacts or full blown lenses covering the "eye hole"?

 

[Invader Joker]

Batman needs to have his eyes revealed so Selina, Talia and Ivy can see how beautiful they are therefore making the idea of them falling in love with him more believable! /S

 

[Invader Joker]

White contacts or full blown lenses covering the "eye hole"?

I don't want to ever subject an actor to the pain of white lenses. Use CGI.

 

[thebatfan5194]

They already did something like that for Ocean Master's mask in Aquaman. The eyes moved when he furrowed his brow and one point in the movie.

 

[Lencho01]

That’s kinda the same thing surely? (don’t call me Shirley).

People say eyes but they (I assume) mean the features around the eyes!! That’s why some actors are called wooden or dull as they don’t have much range in their expressions!

Based one what I’ve seen over the years, for some people, yeah that’s what they’re saying. For some, no.

Either way, the eyes aren’t so important to express emotion as if they’re the only thing that’s used. That’s how some conversations seem to go about them. It’s like some people forget (or don’t know) there’s other muscles in the face, there’s the voice, there’s the body language, etc. So, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, actors can still express just fine even if we can’t see their eyes.

White eyes or not are just going to come down to what they production teams decides. It’s just like deciding if Batman will be in all black, or gray and black. Either one works or doesn’t depending on how well they’re executed.

I personally would like to see white eyes for an extended period of time. But, I don’t want them glowing like tiny TV screens. I never understand why people make that choice. I also don’t care much for the use of white contacts.

 

[2kt09]

I personally would like to see white eyes for an extended period of time. But, I don’t want them glowing like tiny TV screens. I never understand why people make that choice. I also don’t care much for the use of white contacts.

It was sonar-related in TDK. If it's tiny tv screens...well Google Glass.

 

[Brother Jack]

This might sound weird, but I actually like how unexpressive the cowl is live action. It plays into the dark, monolithic persona, where the expression is limited to the eyes, body language, and voice. It's as though Bruce has complete control over how much he's communicating.

 

[Boom]

My desire to see a prosthetic cowl has less to do with allowing movement in the brow, and more to do with it conforming to the actor's face regardless of angle or motion. We've seen it plenty of times in the past, where an actor tried to turn/nod his head in the cowl and clearly had to fight against it because of how rigid it was. The end result was either the actor looking like his face was being swallowed whole, or his face looking especially bloated.

 

[Lencho01]

It was sonar-related in TDK. If it's tiny tv screens...well Google Glass.

Doesn't matter what it was. Looked like tiny TV screens.

 

[Lencho01]

My desire to see a prosthetic cowl has less to do with allowing movement in the brow, and more to do with it conforming to the actor's face regardless of angle or motion. We've seen it plenty of times in the past, where an actor tried to turn/nod his head in the cowl and clearly had to fight against it because of how rigid it was. The end result was either the actor looking like his face was being swallowed whole, or his face looking especially bloated.

Did you feel that way with the Snyder Batsuits?

 

[Boom]

Did you feel that way with the Snyder Batsuits?

Sometimes, although Affleck had admittedly put on more weight during the JL reshoots so that sort of aggravated the issue.