The BATSUIT Thread

[hafizbat]

To each their own. I find seeing the actors eyes convey emotions as Batman much more exciting. Probably because I care about the character as human being more than i care about the "OMG! Like ze drawingzz"

No need to be condescending man.

 

[hafizbat]

Dude, OF COURSE do the eyes convey emotions. That's not even an opinion.

P.S.: I don't fear the lenses not being done well, I just don't think that's the way to go outside of artwork/animation.

And that's what I disagree with. I think it's certainly something up for debate.

EDIT: At least when it comes to the little eye holes in the cowl. I agree eyes convey emotion, but I don't think the little eye holes in the cowl make a huge difference. You'd need the brows and surrounding facial muscles to make the eyes convey emotion to a significant degree.

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

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.

 

[-JKR-]

In comics and animation the lenses work as stand in for the eyes. The eyes do convey emotion in the movies, just watch how they're used by the actors in the movies. There are some wonderful scenes in which the impact of the actors' performances would be lessened if it weren't for the actors' eyes.

And I don't think animated lenses would work for Batman as much as they do for Deadpool.

 

[TheGuy]

Many complained about muffled Bane. How much more if Batman is entirely lensed? For a character like Batman who has to emote through the eyes and mouth, the lenses would take away half of the performance. Lenses should be used sporadically like in cases of actual detective work, not in drama scenes.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

It's one thing to have a preference, and another thing to make claims about the exposes eyes being superior for conveying emotion. The latter point is definitely open for debate. It's not whining about others not sharing preferences to argue about that claim.

It's fine that you have a preference for lenses, but the claim that it is debatable that the eyes convey emotion directly contradicts the film-making / acting community."The eyes are the windows to the soul" is a phrase commonly used in that world for good reason. Sure, you can still give a good performance with the eyes obscured, but you sacrifice a connection with the audience. (Sunglasses, for example, are used all the time in film to intentionally make a character seem mysterious, distant, cold, etc.). When you want the viewer to experience what the character is going through, the eyes are essential.

 

[-JKR-]

It's fine that you have a preference for lenses, but the claim that it is debatable that the eyes convey emotion directly contradicts the film-making / acting community."The eyes are the windows to the soul" is a phrase commonly used in that world for good reason. Sure, you can still give a good performance with the eyes obscured, but you sacrifice a connection with the audience. (Sunglasses, for example, are used all the time in film to intentionally make a character seem mysterious, distant, cold, etc.). When you want the viewer to experience what the character is going through, the eyes are essential.

This.

You want lenses? That's fine. The eyes not conveying emotions? That's just false.

 

[hafizbat]

In comics and animation the lenses work as stand in for the eyes. The eyes do convey emotion in the movies, just watch how they're used by the actors in the movies. There are some wonderful scenes in which the impact of the actors' performances would be lessened if it weren't for the actors' eyes.

And I don't think animated lenses would work for Batman as much as they do for Deadpool.

Fair enough.

I fully expect Reeves is going to go for exposed eyes again anyway, so it's a moot point. I still like the idea of lenses though, and will hold out hope. Even retractable lenses for action scenes or a detective mode would be a welcome addition.

 

[hafizbat]

It's fine that you have a preference for lenses, but the claim that it is debatable that the eyes convey emotion directly contradicts the film-making / acting community."The eyes are the windows to the soul" is a phrase commonly used in that world for good reason. Sure, you can still give a good performance with the eyes obscured, but you sacrifice a connection with the audience. (Sunglasses, for example, are used all the time in film to intentionally make a character seem mysterious, distant, cold, etc.). When you want the viewer to experience what the character is going through, the eyes are essential.

I respect that, I just think it's overrated for a character like Batman while in the suit. Especially when considering that there are plenty of opportunities for the actor to use his eyes as Bruce Wayne, and that most scenes in the Batsuit are likely to be action sequences.

Just looking at the TDKT, almost every moving scene was with Bruce out of the suit, or with his cowl off.

I just feel that if it's a deeply emotional scene, the cowl will probably come off anyway. I don't think the little eye holes are ever going to match a fully uncovered face, and that lenses offer advantages as well. Like you said, it can make the character seem mysterious, distant, and cold which is exactly what Bruce in the cowl should be.

 

[Boom]

I dunno. Between interrogating suspects, questioning witnesses, and investigating clues and crime scenes, I think I'd want to see his eyes.

 

[Boy Scout]

Many complained about muffled Bane. How much more if Batman is entirely lensed? For a character like Batman who has to emote through the eyes and mouth, the lenses would take away half of the performance. Lenses should be used sporadically like in cases of actual detective work, not in drama scenes.

What you presented is a case of poor execution. Spider-Man wears a mask and you can understand what he’s saying just fine.

 

[Marvel united]

It's fine that you have a preference for lenses, but the claim that it is debatable that the eyes convey emotion directly contradicts the film-making / acting community."The eyes are the windows to the soul" is a phrase commonly used in that world for good reason. Sure, you can still give a good performance with the eyes obscured, but you sacrifice a connection with the audience. (Sunglasses, for example, are used all the time in film to intentionally make a character seem mysterious, distant, cold, etc.). When you want the viewer to experience what the character is going through, the eyes are essential.

Batman is not supposed to be emotional in the first place. Isn't the entire point that he's cold and distanced? The lenses would work really well in that regard and further enhance the idea that he is something "more" than just a guy in a suit.

This argument is gonna keep happening until a filmmaker dismantles it one day. Daredevil is considered one of the greatest CB shows of all time with Cox's performance praised. He had his eyes covered for 90% of the show and gave a deeply riveting, emotionally sincere perfomance.

It is possible

 

[TheGuy]

What you presented is a case of poor execution. Spider-Man wears a mask and you can understand what he’s saying just fine.

Understanding his speech/talk is one thing, conveying the emotion is another.

 

[Travesty]

This argument is gonna keep happening until a filmmaker dismantles it one day. Daredevil is considered one of the greatest CB shows of all time with Cox's performance praised. He had his eyes covered for 90% of the show and gave a deeply riveting, emotionally sincere perfomance.

I just don't see this DD point? DD is blind, so he's not supposed to emote with eyes.

I get what you guys are trying to say, but DD isn't Batman. If DD wasn't supposed to be blind, maybe I could see the point.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

Vader. That's all I'm going to say.

 

[-JKR-]

The point of Batman is that underneath the theatrics and beat-like attitude there's a human being. Those two sides often clash, implode and explode, and the character wouldn't be as multi-faceted if he didn't end up to convey emotions even with the mask on. You should really take a good look at the actors' eyes under the mask next time you watch the movies. In comics the eyes are simply replaced by a more stylized stand-in, because they're comics. Doesn't differ from the cape working differently in live action than they do in comics, where they take on the most surreal shapes and forms and dramatically change in lenght and width.

P.S.: Batman isn't Darth Vader. And Daredevil's blind. His lenses convey the lack of eyes and eyesight. Deadpool is more comedic in tone, and the lenses contribute to the humorous nature of his design and character.

 

[TheGuy]

The best Vader scene is his death (without the helmet).

 

[Enriquespy]

The best Vader scene is his death (without the helmet).

My favourite one is the ending of TESB.

My humble opinion is that the lenses *can* work. Not necessarily that the will work, but that a good director, actor and costume designer can pull them off.

 

[Marvel united]

I just don't see this DD point? DD is blind, so he's not supposed to emote with eyes.

I get what you guys are trying to say, but DD isn't Batman. If DD wasn't supposed to be blind, maybe I could see the point.

The point is, Cox was not limited in any way by which the emotional range he was able to convey as Daredevil- both in and out of the costume.

Murdock being blind has nothing to do with my point - which is that great performances without pupils are wholly possible. The "Eyes are the window" philosophy isn't supposed to be used as a blanket statement because it doesn't always apply.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

Fair enough.

I fully expect Reeves is going to go for exposed eyes again anyway, so it's a moot point. I still like the idea of lenses though, and will hold out hope. Even retractable lenses for action scenes or a detective mode would be a welcome addition.

I could live with retractable lenses, but I'd still prefer see the wheels turning in his head when he's doing detective work (especially, since this is supposed to be the first true detective take on Batman). Btw, the manip you posted is a great example of how lenses can be done well; I just feel it would ultimately be style over substance.

 

[Travesty]

The point is, Cox was not limited in any way by which the emotional range he was able to convey as Daredevil- both in and out of the costume.

Murdock being blind has nothing to do with my point - which is that great performances without pupils are wholly possible. The "Eyes are the window" philosophy isn't supposed to be used as a blanket statement because it doesn't always apply.

But he was limited, and purposefully so, because his character is blind. You don't see his character emote with his eyes both inside and outside the cowl, because he has the dead eye stare of a blind person. He's supposed to be like that....which was my point.

 

[Marvel united]

But he was limited, and purposefully so, because his character is blind. You don't see his character emote with his eyes both inside and outside the cowl, because he has the dead eye stare of a blind person. He's supposed to be like that....which was my point.

Matt Murdock himself was limited- in the story. Cox was not stunted by the lack of eyes to perform. The "nuances' that many argue would be lost through the lenses, were able to nevertheless shine through in Cox's masterful performance.

And Batman is an emotionally reclusive, distanced individual. He is not supposed to be this wholly emotional person that NEEDS his eyes to convey raw emotion.

Either way, Reeves is likely going with pupils again but I just hope we can get the eyes in some fashion in the movie. Retractable lenses is the most logical solution

 

[AndrewGilkison]

"We have to see Batman's eyes"

Batman is supposed to be a spooky and mysterious character. Bruce Wayne is also the most famous man in Gotham. Why would he want anyone in Gotham to see Batman's eyes?

Why would he also not use lenses in today's world when he can do so many high tech things with them?

It was one thing when they were making Batman 1989 and they didn't have the tech to pull off the comic book look for Batman (which was in Sam Hamm's original script for 89, he put lenses in that script) but now we do.

Why keep Batman stuck in the 80s and 90s when it comes to how he's brought to life in live action? Why can't we move forward?

 

[BMCAABY]

For some reason I feel like we might be getting something on the lines of this as it's Batman's early years

 

[BMCAABY]

I think doing it like Deadpool also would give you the chance to get rid of the black makeup around the eyes thing.
I do think that could be done either way but i take any way to get rid of the eye makeup.

But when it comes to white lenses vs Eyes im unsure.
On one hand i want to see the human behind it, but i dont see any reason why he cant have the white lenses at least in action scenes or so.
It makes him look less human, which is the purpose of the costume to begin with.

expressive Batman white eyes are something I need to see in live action. It's do-able! Look at Spiderman's hightech version of it.. There's so many ways to go about it.

 

[-JKR-]

So Batman's stuck in the 1980/90s because you can see his eyes? So the Arkham Games are retro, as well? Batman Damned? Which makes Batman V Superman kind of like a Stranger Things-esque 1980s throwback movie.