The BATSUIT Thread

[AndrewGilkison]

I don't even know why you want a live action version. You don't really want one.

This is what live action Batman used to look like.

Should we go back to this too?

 

[Marvel united]

Pattinson just mentioned in an interview wearing eye makeup, so that pretty well debunks having lenses.

Pattinson said Nolan gave him tips whilst filming Tenet about the Batsuit. Tips that applied to *Nolan's version of Batman & what which have been useful for Bale in the past. This says nothing about Pattinson's own suit, that which he said he hasn't even seen the final version.

The strongest indicator is that Reeves wanted to see the actor's eyes through the cowl in the screentest (all of which were likely using previous Batsuits) this also doesn't debunk lenses being in the movie in some shape or form. But it does mean that Reeves wants the eyes to be visible during the most perfomance-heavy scenes.

So retractable lenses are still a possibility

And yes, having the actor's eyes obscured limits their performance. I can't even believe you would argue this. The use of the eyes has been a focal point of every acting technique since the rise of film. Watch DiCaprio, Bale, DeNiro, Pacino, Streep, Denzel, Phoenix, etc. etc. and tell me they're not using their eyes. Hell, Reeves himself made a point to focus in on the eyes of his cgi protagonist. For what reason do you think that is?

The eyes are a tool. Just like the mouth, the brow and the body. All of which go into an actor's craft and are utilized in a myriad of different ways. I'm not saying that the pupils do not play a role in a perfomance, it does. But what I'm saying is that they are not a necessity to give a good performance.

Rob Pattinson is a character actor, he disappears into his roles. Knowing that his eyes will be edited out in post will allow him to explore new avenues to convey emotion. Body language and the lower face are also vital proponents to any good perfomance. It's like when a person loses their sight, their sense of hearing increases to make up for it.

And it makes sense for the reasons many have already stated. And it adds to the inhuman, uncanny valley nature that the Batman is SUPPOSED to be evocative of. Somebody mentioned the idea that Batman is meant to be an obvious guy in a suit? And I couldn't disagree more with that. No criminal is afraid of that. Especially now, where technology has made leaps and bounds over what was possible 30 years ago. A dude in war paint under a thick piece of sculpted rubber ain't gonna cut it for today's criminal

 

[rockandrollsoul]

So retractable lenses are still a possibility The eyes are a tool. Just like the mouth, the brow and the body. All of which go into an actor's craft and are utilized in a myriad of different ways. I'm not saying that the pupils do not play a role in a perfomance, it does. But what I'm saying is that they are not a necessity to give a good performance.

Rob Pattinson is a character actor, he disappears into his roles. Knowing that his eyes will be edited out in post will allow him to explore new avenues to convey emotion. Body language and the lower face are also vital proponents to any good perfomance. It's like when a person loses their sight, their sense of hearing increases to make up for it.

And it makes sense for the reasons many have already stated. And it adds to the inhuman, uncanny valley nature that the Batman is SUPPOSED to be evocative of. Somebody mentioned the idea that Batman is meant to be an obvious guy in a suit? And I couldn't disagree more with that. No criminal is afraid of that. Especially now, where technology has made leaps and bounds over what was possible 30 years ago. A dude in war paint under a thick piece of sculpted rubber ain't gonna cut it for today's criminal

I never said it wasn't possible to give a good performance without the use of the eyes, just that it is less than ideal to obscure them.

 

[Marvel united]

I never said it wasn't possible to give a good performance without the use of the eyes, just that it is less than ideal to obscure them.

It depends on the role. You don't see any filmmakers making the argument for Spider-Man's lenses to be see-through because to cover his eyes would make it harder for an actor to act. The MCU found a way around this by giving Spider-Man emotive lenses. And now the mask never comes off in battle scenes like it used to in the Raimi/Webb films.

Batman could also have emotive lenses. He could blink and move his lower eyelids with CG lenses.

A prosthetic cowl for brow movement could work too

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Which is why Feige and Coogler found every excuse possible to have his mask disappear or come off during major dramatic scenes in Black Panther. Not having lens allowed Burton and Nolan the opportunity to use all of Keaton and Bale's gifts in their suits and to set major dramatic scenes with them fully costumed. At most they should be temporary like in TDK and only used in major action scenes.

Why would it be a bad thing to have more Bruce Wayne scenes or scenes with his mask off, if it allowed me to have Batman with lenses on his cowl? That seems like a fair trade off to me. I don't see a problem with that.

As @BattleAngel pointed out in his excellent post, the idea of Bruce Wayne not having lenses on his cowl to hide his eyes is becoming more and more silly when we take into account how rapid iris and face scanning technology is being used to identify people in photos and video footage (more so than voice identification). At some point a Batman movie with his eyes exposed will be as comical and out of date as the Adam West Batsuit is today.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

It depends on the role. You don't see any filmmakers making the argument for Spider-Man's lenses to be see-through because to cover his eyes would make it harder for an actor to act. The MCU found a way around this by giving Spider-Man emotive lenses. And now the mask never comes off in battle scenes like it used to in the Raimi/Webb films.

Batman could also have emotive lenses. He could blink and move his lower eyelids with CG lenses.

A prosthetic cowl for brow movement could work too

Personally, I'm not a fan of an emotive cowl, but to each their own.

 

[Omegabat]

Sometimes I feel that some fans just want to watch a cartoon or video game cut scene on cinema as opposed to an actual film. So much emphasis on the utterly irrelevant here. Even if one dislikes Bale/Nolan then remember that Keaton's suit also showed his eyes. Heck, the Arkham games showed his eyes.
I dont mind the eyes or the black suit or the tactical look. Not everything has to look like a cartoon or MCU.

 

[Invader Joker]

Retractable lenses.

This literally has a very simple and obvious solution.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Sometimes I feel that some fans just want to watch a cartoon or video game cut scene on cinema as opposed to an actual film. So much emphasis on the utterly irrelevant here. Even if one dislikes Bale/Nolan then remember that Keaton's suit also showed his eyes. Heck, the Arkham games showed his eyes.
I dont mind the eyes or the black suit or the tactical look. Not everything has to look like a cartoon or MCU.

And the actors who played Batman in the 40s matinee serials wore ill-fitting spandex. Filmmaking evolves with the times as technology advances.

I wouldn't accept or take seriously a live action Batman today that looked like Adam West did in the 60s show. At some point a Batman with his eyes exposed is going to be just as out of date.

 

[FatRobin]

Why do you guys always use the Arkham games as a point of reference? He has lenses that can be turned on and off there.

 

[FatRobin]

Sometimes I feel that some fans just want to watch a cartoon or video game cut scene on cinema as opposed to an actual film. So much emphasis on the utterly irrelevant here. Even if one dislikes Bale/Nolan then remember that Keaton's suit also showed his eyes. Heck, the Arkham games showed his eyes.
I dont mind the eyes or the black suit or the tactical look. Not everything has to look like a cartoon or MCU.

But why does it have to be the other way and look nothing like the comics aka its source material? I mean, if the lenses or the grey/black suit hinders the actors' performance then yeah. But we're talking about lenses that will only be used in appropriate times here, which is when he's fighting, or investigating crime scenes, or putting on a nightmarish and bestial appearance to intimidate criminals.

Personally, I'm totally fine without the lenses, but I just don't see the problem in incorporating them into the suit.

 

[hafizbat]

Which is why Feige and Coogler found every excuse possible to have his mask disappear or come off during major dramatic scenes in Black Panther. Not having lens allowed Burton and Nolan the opportunity to use all of Keaton and Bale's gifts in their suits and to set major dramatic scenes with them fully costumed. At most they should be temporary like in TDK and only used in major action scenes.

Batman's face is only half as covered as Black Panther's though, even if he had lenses. But yeah, the lenses or even cowl can and likely would come off for deeply emotional scenes anyway.

 

[hafizbat]

Sometimes I feel that some fans just want to watch a cartoon or video game cut scene on cinema as opposed to an actual film. So much emphasis on the utterly irrelevant here. Even if one dislikes Bale/Nolan then remember that Keaton's suit also showed his eyes. Heck, the Arkham games showed his eyes.
I dont mind the eyes or the black suit or the tactical look. Not everything has to look like a cartoon or MCU.

You're complaining about Batman fans discussing Batman's looks in the Batsuit thread on Superherohype?

 

[craigaat]

'Smart' contact lenses that turn white, zoom in etc.

 

[BattleAngel]

'Smart' contact lenses that turn white, zoom in etc.

This makes sense if Batman doesn’t care about getting his eyes blown out by shrapnel, but if it’s a “go ahead and blind me” Batman, iris obscuring lenses would be the *bare minimum* security he’d use, so yes, contact lenses passes the sanity test.

Not related to contacts (which I’m ok with), but going back to “emoting” with the “eyes”:

And how many times does it have to be said? Actors aren’t emoting with their EYES. They are doing it with their EYEBROWS and EYELIDS. Full stop. Actors don’t have cybernetic control of their pupil dilation and pupil dilation doesn’t carry meaningful information.

If you’re not arguing for an articulating cowl with a flexible brow, you are simply not arguing for an actor using their eyes.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

This makes sense if Batman doesn’t care about getting his eyes blown out by shrapnel, but if it’s a “go ahead and blind me” Batman, iris obscuring lenses would be the *bare minimum* security he’d use, so yes, contact lenses passes the sanity test.

Not related to contacts (which I’m ok with), but going back to “emoting” with the “eyes”:

And how many times does it have to be said? Actors aren’t emoting with their EYES. They are doing it with their EYEBROWS and EYELIDS. Full stop. Actors don’t have cybernetic control of their pupil dilation and pupil dilation doesn’t carry meaningful information.

If you’re not arguing for an articulating cowl with a flexible brow, you are simply not arguing for an actor using their eyes.

Your Eyes Really Are the Window to Your Soul

 

[hafizbat]

Your Eyes Really Are the Window to Your Soul

This is straight from the article, and is what some of us have been saying - it's the area surrounding the eyes that convey emotion.

When people are sad or worried, they furrow their brow, which makes the eyes look smaller. Yet when people are cheerful, we correctly call them “bright-eyed.” That’s because people raise their eyebrows when they’re happy, making the eyes look bigger and brighter.

We can tell a true (or Duchenne) smile from a fake by looking at a person's eyes. The mouth shape of a smile is easy to fake—we do it all the time out of politeness. But the eyes are the giveaway: When we’re truly happy, we not only smile but also crinkle the corners of our eyes in a “crow’s feet” pattern. But when people fake a smile, they usually forget about their eyes.

As far as the rest of the article discussing the pupils, I really don't think it makes a noticeable difference on the big screen, where most shots will be from 3 or more feet away, there's lots of movement going on, etc. Maybe if you went for a zoomed in shot to purposefully emphasize the eyes for dramatic effect.

All in all, I just don't think eyes conveying emotion is a strong enough argument against the lenses. Lenses are more logical for Batman as others have made abundantly clear, and thematically the case for lenses is strong as well (Batman being detached and cold). Then again, realism isn't something to look too much into or lots of things about Batman would be illogical, so it's all moot.

In the end, it really comes down to personal preference. I think I and other lens-supporters just want to make it clear that the idea of lenses isn't a wrong or bad one.

 

[hafizbat]

Speaking of retractable lenses, they were done nearly twenty years ago exactly the way it could work for Batman.

Hell, they even had the tech to make an emotive mask like this back then. If Reeves really wants to push the new suit as far as he can, he could go for retractable lenses and animatronic brows for the cowl. I see no reason to be stuck with the old rubber cowls. I think it could be done in a subtle yet effective way that doesn't look cartoony. Doubt it'll happen though.

 

[BattleAngel]

Speaking of retractable lenses, they were done nearly twenty years ago exactly the way it could work for Batman.

Hell, they even had the tech to make an emotive mask like this back then. If Reeves really wants to push the new suit as far as he can, he could go for retractable lenses and animatronic brows for the cowl. I see no reason to be stuck with the old rubber cowls. I think it could be done in a subtle yet effective way that doesn't look cartoony. Doubt it'll happen though.

Yeah, I’m mean, it *could* be done practically. That test shows a full range of emotion, even with fist sized eyes with no pupils. With normal sized eyes and an actual human mouth, you’ve got the full range. It’s probably easier to do it with CG, but this proves that *Batman* could do this practically. The technology exists to not only make a perfect film suit but an actual fully functional suit that Batman could actually use in our world.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

In the end, it really comes down to personal preference. I think I and other lens-supporters just want to make it clear that the idea of lenses isn't a wrong or bad one.

I never said it was. In fact, I think it could work well for a stylized, Snyder-style take. I just feel the eyes communicate more than lense-shippers give them credit for and I ultimately prefer to see the actor's eyes.

 

[Omegabat]

And the actors who played Batman in the 40s matinee serials wore ill-fitting spandex. Filmmaking evolves with the times as technology advances.

I wouldn't accept or take seriously a live action Batman today that looked like Adam West did in the 60s show. At some point a Batman with his eyes exposed is going to be just as out of date.

He's not going to look like West. Cap America looked fine a few months ago. I'd rather the Bat suit take inspiration from that than Deadpool.

 

[Omegabat]

But why does it have to be the other way and look nothing like the comics aka its source material? I mean, if the lenses or the grey/black suit hinders the actors' performance then yeah. But we're talking about lenses that will only be used in appropriate times here, which is when he's fighting, or investigating crime scenes, or putting on a nightmarish and bestial appearance to intimidate criminals.

Personally, I'm totally fine without the lenses, but I just don't see the problem in incorporating them into the suit.

No one has suggested that Batman should not look close to the source material. But visual accuracy is relative. Adam West, Bale, Keaton etc all looked aesthetically accurate. They all kept the basic design. It would be flatout incorrect to say that previous incarnations were inaccurate and that sudden incorporation of lenses will rectify that. To me this isn't a big deal. I want Reeves to focus on the plot and characterizations first.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Got a feeling that Reeves will go with the oval.

 

[Marvel united]

I never said it was. In fact, I think it could work well for a stylized, Snyder-style take. I just feel the eyes communicate more than lense-shippers give them credit for and I ultimately prefer to see the actor's eyes.

Tech lenses could work for a modern Batman living in 2020. In fact, it makes sense for him not to have them in the world we live in today. I thought the Telltale games did a very good job giving the lenses practical function. Scott Snyder's Batman also had a HUD installed in them and he could see the diagnostics of criminals i.e blood pressure, heartbeat etc

I could easily imagine Batman's lenses flipping down when he's getting ready for a fight scene. It could be so badass and cool

 

[super85]

And the actors who played Batman in the 40s matinee serials wore ill-fitting spandex. Filmmaking evolves with the times as technology advances.

I wouldn't accept or take seriously a live action Batman today that looked like Adam West did in the 60s show. At some point a Batman with his eyes exposed is going to be just as out of date.

I am pretty sure those actors in the 40s wore tights. Spandex was invented much later.

I dont think Batman having his eyes showing with the eye paint look dated at all. I think the best option would be doing it like it has traditionally been done, mixed with him having lenses in some scenes.