Support NeoGAF

[Messypandas]

only if they're retractable. I couldn't imagine scenes like this without seeing Bruces eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BVwFKfo56rA#t=183

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Batman has very little body language (typically). I think you're downplaying the importance of eyes. Spiderman always looks like a blank slate because his mask can't emote.

I am downplaying the importance of eyes. They're not that important. Especially not considering the limited emotional range of most superheroes. ESPECIALLY Batman.

If a superhero like Spidey, who actually runs a full range of emotions while in costume, can safely express those emotions in most cases without essentially HAVING A FACE, I don't see why the actor playing Batman would be so handicapped.

Most people who put forth the idea that the actor NEEDS their eyes to remain visible in order to maintain the integrity of their performance have a hard time naming moments in superhero movies where that freedom actually led to a moment that was improved by their eyes being in the shot. Not saying it doesn't happen - just saying most people can't come up with an example off the top of their head. Which says to me that it's just more superhero "conventional wisdom" that is only "conventional" because it sounds good when you say it out loud, but it doesn't really hold up to any poking/prodding.

edit: I was just about to say "it's not like there's any scenes in Dark Knight that are made better because you can see Bale's eyes. Especially the Two-Face stuff at the end" but then Messy went and used that EXACT scene - to state the opposite

and yeah, as y2dvd points out: His cowl is already molded to scowl at you. the top half of his head is already permanently giving you only one expression. Any variation on that isn't coming from the eyes, it's coming from the lower half of his face.

 

[inm8num2]

The white eyes stylistically work well in the comics and animated forms, but on film with live actors there are many more tools for conveying emotions and whatnot. It could work if Snyder's Batman has white eyes, but other than doing something like the sonar vision from TDK what other reason would there be to incorporate them?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

To unsettle people? What's the purpose in hard-molding frown-lines into your special crime-fighty helmet? blank, pupil-less "eyes" always staring straight at you is kinda unnerving, especially when they belong to a big asshole in body-armor dressed like a bat.

Most of the time, with the black makeup around the eyes and the pupils at the center of the eyes, the way the shots are lit, you can't even SEE his eyes anyway.

 

[.GqueB.]

I am downplaying the importance of eyes. They're not that important. Especially not considering the limited emotional range of most superheroes. ESPECIALLY Batman.

If a superhero like Spidey, who actually runs a full range of emotions while in costume, can safely express those emotions in most cases without essentially HAVING A FACE, I don't see why the actor playing Batman would be so handicapped.

Most people who put forth the idea that the actor NEEDS their eyes to remain visible in order to maintain the integrity of their performance have a hard time naming moments in superhero movies where that freedom actually led to a moment that was improved by their eyes being in the shot. Not saying it doesn't happen - just saying most people can't come up with an example off the top of their head. Which says to me that it's just more superhero "conventional wisdom" that is only "conventional" because it sounds good when you say it out loud, but it doesn't really hold up to any poking/prodding.

edit: I was just about to say "it's not like there's any scenes in Dark Knight that are made better because you can see Bale's eyes. Especially the Two-Face stuff at the end" but then Messy went and used that EXACT scene - to state the opposite

and yeah, as y2dvd points out: His cowl is already molded to scowl at you. the top half of his head is already permanently giving you only one expression. Any variation on that isn't coming from the eyes, it's coming from the lower half of his face.

But that's the thing, he cant. Spiderman looks like a blank slate for the most part when he speaks. It's always extremely awkward. That's the one time where I think they should just say fuck it and move those eyes around via CGI and see how it goes. It just doesn't look good.

And I think the interrogation scene would've looked absolutely terrible in TDK if he had two blank white eyes. I needed to see him reaction to the joker. I needed to see how he was looking at him as the joker said what he said. The white eyes would've been distracting and downright terrible. They just don't translate.

Some of you aren't realizing how much flexibility they have in the comics and cartoons with these things. You say they don't need the eyes but then you see them do things like this in comics and cartoons:

Those eyes need to emote so they do. You guys saying that they don't need to aren't actually making any sense when you think about it. If they didn't need to then they wouldn't in comics. They clearly do, otherwise, Batmans' eyes would always look the same which just isn't the case. Seeing the actors eyes in the movies is exactly the same as emoting the eyes in the comics.

 

[Graphics Horse]

You could do it with prosthetics and maybe some cg, but could easily look really weird in live action.

 

[OneEyedKing]

Is it possible Diana isn't even IN costume for this movie? She's just Diana? I've slacked on keeping up with this movie and forgotten a ton of shit.

The costume designer has already talked about working on the WW costume so she'll definitely wear it at some point.

 

[.GqueB.]

You could do it with prosthetics and maybe some cg, but could easily look really weird in live action.

Only way it'll work is if it's suuuuupppeerr subtle.

 

[Platy]

Is it possible Diana isn't even IN costume for this movie? She's just Diana? I've slacked on keeping up with this movie and forgotten a ton of shit.

Confirmed by the costume designer to be a Gladiator style costume even

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Spiderman looks like a blank slate for the most part when he speaks.

That's where the rest of the acting abilities come in. Plus the director knowing where to put the camera, where to move it, the other actors responding accordingly so as to cue you into the emotion you're supposed to be feeling, the music...

It's not like it's an insurmountable obstacle, is all I'm saying. Obviously we disagree on this aesthetic choice, but for me - we're talking about superheroes. This is a genre we're all REALLY used to. And I don't just mean nerds on a gaming forum. I mean PEOPLE. IN GENERAL.

The people most worried about the eyes being taken away are the actors. Not the audience. The audience will roll with it just fine. Audiences can project emotions onto ANYTHING so long as the story makes it a point to allow for that.

Your examples are cheats. Being able to see Ben Affleck's eyeballs aren't the same as Batman's frowny-face mask suddenly being able to reverse itself depending on the emotion. Artists didn't choose to put white eyes on Batman because it made it easier for them to contort the shape of those eyes. Pretty sure they did it because it made him look more intimidating - and then they cheated in the way only sequential artists can when it comes to allowing for extra expression. And again - the extra level of expression you're showing in those examples WON'T be replicated by eye-black and removed lenses alone. Not when the frowny-face is hard-molded into his mask.

Basically, I'm arguing for basic credit to be given to any given audience (as well as the other storytellers and even the actors inhabiting the suits) whereas it feels to me like you're arguing that audiences will be too dumb to get it, and actors are too lame to incorporate these elements into their performance effectively.

We just disagree on how important seeing an actor's eyeballs are when it comes to movies about psychotic leather daddies beating up criminals.

Confirmed by the costume designer to be a Gladiator style costume even

Thanks!

 

[.GqueB.]

That's where the rest of the acting abilities come in. Plus the director knowing where to put the camera, where to move it, the other actors responding accordingly so as to cue you into the emotion you're supposed to be feeling, the music...

It's not like it's an insurmountable knock, is all I'm saying. Obviously we disagree on this aesthetic choice, but for me - we're talking about superheroes. This is a genre we're all REALLY used to. And I don't just mean nerds on a gaming forum. I mean PEOPLE. IN GENERAL.

The people most worried about the eyes being taken away are the actors. Not the audience. The audience will roll with it just fine. Audiences can project emotions onto ANYTHING so long as the story makes it a point to allow for that.

Basically, I'm arguing for basic credit to be given to any given audience (as well as the other storytellers and even the actors inhabiting the suits) whereas it feels to me like you're arguing that audiences will be too dumb to get it, and actors are too lame to incorporate these elements into their performance effectively.

We just disagree on how important seeing an actor's eyeballs are when it comes to movies about psychotic leather daddies beating up criminals.



Thanks!

Fair nuff'

 

[inm8num2]

Some of you aren't realizing how much flexibility they have in the comics and cartoons with these things. You say they don't need the eyes but then you see them do things like this in comics and cartoons:

Those eyes need to emote so they do. You guys saying that they don't need to aren't actually making any sense when you think about it. If they didn't need to then they wouldn't in comics. They clearly do, otherwise, Batmans' eyes would always look the same which just isn't the case. Seeing the actors eyes in the movies is exactly the same as emoting the eyes in the comics.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the white eyes don't work well in the comics or that the eyes don't need to emote - the exact opposite has been said. The emotion is conveyed differently in animation or comic form versus live action.

The point is, how do they translate the white eye movements and expressions to film? That means the cowl's shape around the eyes has to be adaptable or not completely solid. Or, the glass lenses for the white eyes black out different pixels to show different expressions based on readings from Bruce's eyebrows. See all the considerations to make it practical? Much different than animating the different white eye expressions.

Nobody's saying it can't work in film. But, given that live actors use their eyes to emote, the white eyes do become less necessary for that purpose. However, as someone else said if they wanted to use the eyes and emphasize different things (like purely intimidation), then that's another matter.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

Nobody's saying it can't work in film.

Well I kinda did until I thought of a way it could possibly be done.

 

[b&jy77VjiKn$#F]

Well I kinda did until I thought of a way it could possibly be done.

Please expand.

 

[roflwaffles]

For Superman yeah, Batman still needs it though if he hasa standard gray bodysuit.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Is it possible Diana isn't even IN costume for this movie? She's just Diana? I've slacked on keeping up with this movie and forgotten a ton of shit.

The costume designer for the movie talked about designing her costume so she'll definitely be wearing it atleast once in this movie.

EDIT: Beaten

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

Please expand.

said it on the last page.
neutral cowl expession, Returns style eye holes.
Then sculpted filler pieces that bridge the entire hole but are sculpted to look like the cowl seamlessly flows into a few pre sets expessions like a standard stare, narrow glare etc.

In the comics

Looks great

What it would look like without comic Inking/shading

If they go much darker and keep it in the shadows the entire time whats the point of doing that suit.
They could airbrush it to break up the gray but that doesn't look too good.
Also black boots to the knee could also help provide color balance.

I think they will find a work around similar to Arkham Origins though if they go for that look.

 

[Shaanyboi]

said it on the last page.
neutral cowl expession, Returns style eye holes.
Then sculpted filler pieces that bridge the entire hole but are sculpted to look like the cowl seamlessly flows into a few pre sets expessions like a standard stare, narrow glare etc.


In the comics

Looks great

What it woul look like without comic Inking/shading

If they go much darker and keep it in the shadows the entire time whats the point of doing that suit.
They could airbrush it to break up the gray but that doesn't look too good.

Then go with a far darker shade of grey? This is where professional lighting and composition comes in. I doubt Batman will be standing out in broad daylight like that a whole lot.

And I'm not understanding your complaint of "what's the point of doing that suit". Because... design and function still matters in darker settings?

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

And I'm not understanding your complaint of "what's the point of doing that suit". Because... design and function still matters in darker settings?

Im asking what is the point of the gray suit without underwear if you have to hide it behind a very dark gray or with the lighting?
Why would they not just go black if they were planning on hiding the suit.

Though I trust in Snyder, so we shall see.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Im asking what is the point of the gray suit without underwear if you have to hide it behind a very dark gray or with the lighting?
Why would they not just go black if they were planning on hiding the suit.

Though I trust in Snyder, so we shall see.

I feel like you're underestimating how much thought is put into costume design, regardless of how it is intended on being portrayed on-film.

I mean yes, I agree, why not just go with black, but maybe they just want to go with very dark grey because they like how it looks better in general. Maybe they will go with all black. I don't know. But they're probably asking 1000x more questions in actually putting this thing together than we are talking about it.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

I feel like you're underestimating how much thought is put into costume design, regardless of how it is intended on being portrayed on-film.

I mean yes, I agree, why not just go with black, but maybe they just want to go with very dark grey because they like how it looks better in general. Maybe they will go with all black. I don't know. But they're probably asking 1000x more questions in actually putting this thing together than we are talking about it.

I agree.

And really I will be fine with anything as long as it doesn't look like low end cosplay.
Heck I even liked the TDK suit in TDKR.

 

[Wilbur]

This is the best the Batsuit's ever looked, for me. Doesn't actually look as good in the film, but I just fucking LOVE it here.

 

[Ahasverus]

Rises' Batman shots were the best in the trilogy.

 

[inm8num2]

Rises' Batman shots were the best in the trilogy.

I love the shot from the ground of Batman walking up to Bane's thug on the street after knocking him off the motorcycle.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Rises' Batman shots were the best in the trilogy.

the sewer fight against Bane still looks awesome

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

Rises' Batman shots were the best in the trilogy.

I don't know what they did to the suit in TDKR but it looked terrible in TDK but worked in 90% of Rises.
I love the shot of Batman standing there after catching the guy on the motorcycle as the cops close in.

This is the best the Batsuit's ever looked, for me.

For me unless we ever get a perfect Jim Lee cowl or the TAS black with blue highlights,
Returns will always remain my absolute favorite.

So sleek and not overly designed. Also looks alot more natural than 89's.
RIP Oval

 

[Shaanyboi]

I don't know what they did to the suit in TDKR but it looked terrible in TDK but worked in 90% of Rises.
I love the shot of Batman standing there after catching the guy on the motorcycle as the cops close in.


For me unless we ever get a perfect Jim Lee cowl or the TAS black with blue highlights,
Returns will always remain my absolute favorite.

Speaking of which, I rewatched Returns recently. That movie is actually kinda terrible... lol

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Returns is a Tim Burton movie wearing Batman cosplay. It's absolutely NOT a Batman movie.

I really like it, in the same way I like some of the more out-there Elseworld stories.

And yeah, the Returns suit is probably my favorite, aesthetically.

 

[MartyStu]

This is the best the Batsuit's ever looked, for me. Doesn't actually look as good in the film, but I just fucking LOVE it here.

The cowl looks so bad though.

And to be honest, the suit itself lacks character. It just reinforces the fact that Batman has always been the worst aspect of the Nolan films.

 

[LaNaranja]

I just don't want to see more solid black. He can still be a badass even while wearing blue.

Actually, I would love it if Lex Luthor was trying to reveal to everyone that Clark was Superman (because it is pretty obvious) and so Batman uses colorful costumes to distract the media so that no one pays attention to anything else. Use of the rainbow costume would net Snyder bonus respect points.

 

[Shaanyboi]

The Returns suit is certainly more statuesque. Especially when you look back at how rough the 89 version looks, awkwardly fitting on Keaton's face, etc.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

Especially when you look back at how rough the 89 version looks, awkwardly fitting on Keaton's face, etc.

Some people don't even notice the difference but its huge imo.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Some people don't even notice the difference but its huge imo.

oh it's kinda hilarious how awkward it looks on him.

 

[lovely ladies]

The moment near the end of the movie when Keaton rips off the mask in Returns is hilarious because he doesn't have the eyeblack on.

 

[Poofynamanama]

the sewer fight against Bane still looks awesome

wut? the fight choreography was complete ass and bane and batmans hits don't look like they connect. one of the worst scenes in the movie

 

[Marion Cobretti]

I fully expect this to be the best Batsuit ever put on screen regardless of whether that pic is real or not

but yeah...do want

This sums up how I feel. Snyder will for sure end up making the most stylish, and possibly most acrobatic batman ever put on screen.

Snyder Batman will make Nolan Batman look outdated very fast.

 

[Loxley]

This sums up how I feel. Snyder will for sure end up making the most stylish, and possibly most acrobatic batman ever put on screen.

Snyder Batman will make Nolan Batman look outdated very fast.

Yeah, I have a feeling this may very well be the most Batman-y Batman that we've gotten yet. Snyder likes to pull stuff straight from the comics, so I wouldn't be surprised if we got a Batman that was more akin to the JLU animated series depiction of the character - the ultra badass.

And as many have already said, at least we'll very likely get to see a well-choreographed Batman fight for once. None of that dull elbow-fighting from the Nolan films.

 

[richiek]

Marvel will premiere its film on the same day as Batman/Superman, won't back down on date.

On May 6, 2016, Marvel and DC are going head to head at the box office. In one corner is DC’s highly anticipated Man of Steel sequel Batman vs. Superman. In the other corner, an untitled Marvel Phase Three film. Marvel planted their flag on the day in June 2013. Six months later, DC all but challenged them by bumping Zack Snyder’s film to the same date. Many believed Marvel, which have yet to reveal what film will be released that day, would move off the date, scared at competing against two of the biggest superheroes in the world. But, according to Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige, Marvel has no plans to move, which would result in for an epic box office showdown.

Speaking to us at the Captain America: The Winter Soldier junket, Feige laughed at the thought of fanboys getting excited at a potential Marvel vs. DC box office showdown:

"We’re certainly keeping the date there and we’ll announce what that movie is, I assume, in the next few months."

Given Marvel & DC's track records, Feige has every reason in the world to be confident.

 

[SuperAndroid17]

mmm DC is going to rack in the cash here...sorry mahvel.

 

[ReiGun]

Interesting. Now the two will be competing in a way that's actually meaningful and not just the normal way they compete in fanboys' heads.

It depends on what the Marvel movie is, I say. Going against Batman and Superman on opening weekend is going to rough regardless, but an established franchise will have an easier go of it. If it's not a new franchise, I'd bet on it being Captain America.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Probably gonna be Cap 3.

Jesus please, now that Goyer's gone, announce that the title is World's Finest.

What makes this more interesting to me is that, off the top of my head, I can't think of two superhero movies competing, period. Has it ever happened before?

 

[Gleethor]

Anything not called Avengers 3 is going to lose that box office battle, unless the previews for BvS look god awful.

 

[Mariolee]

Usually GAF predictions on box office are wrong, so Imma go against the grain here and say that Marvel will actually win.

 

[Prompto]

Do people seriously believe Batman/Superman wont be a huge financial success regardless of quality? If that Marvel movie isn't Iron Man 4 or Avengers 3, it's getting beat.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Anything not called Avengers 3 is going to lose that box office battle, unless the previews for BvS look god awful.

I disagree. I think WB have cornered themselves now. It's going to be hilarious, but a Marvel film might very well now make more money and be more successful than the Batman vs Superman movie.
WB pushing this thing back a year is the worst thing they could have done for the franchise.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

I disagree. I think WB have cornered themselves now. It's going to be hilarious, but a Marvel film might very well now make more money and be more successful than the Batman vs Superman movie.WB pushing this thing back a year is the worst thing they could have done for the franchise.

because.....?

 

[odiin]

Do people seriously believe Batman/Superman wont be a huge financial success regardless of quality? If that Marvel movie isn't Iron Man 4 or Avengers 3, it's getting beat.

It's going to be Squirrel Girl. DC won't even know what hit them.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

because.....?

Because Thor 2 made just as much money as WB's Superman movie and Iron Man 3 made about twice as much.

 

[Penguin]

I disagree. I think WB have cornered themselves now. It's going to be hilarious, but a Marvel film might very well now make more money and be more successful than the Batman vs Superman movie.
WB pushing this thing back a year is the worst thing they could have done for the franchise.

If I'm not mistaken hasn't Man of Steel outgrossed all Marvel films with the exception of The Avengers and Iron Man 3?

Add in Batman, and unless Marvel has a quick turnaround with Avengers 3, it won't be much of a battle

 

[Loxley]

I disagree. I think WB have cornered themselves now. It's going to be hilarious, but a Marvel film might very well now make more money and be more successful than the Batman vs Superman movie.
WB pushing this thing back a year is the worst thing they could have done for the franchise.

I can't think of a single character in Marvel's current film roster that could theoretically out-gross Superman/Batman other than Iron Man, and we're obviously not getting a new Iron Man standalone film for a long time. Batman is an enormous box office draw by himself, combine it with the fact that this will be the first time the two characters have been on the big screen together in their 75 year history and you have the makings for some serious $$$.

Sure, Marvel has successfully made Thor and Captain America popular with film-going audiences, but Batman levels? I seriously doubt it.