Worked for Deadpool and MCU Spider-Man.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Matt Reeves on his take of Batman
- Thread starter FreshCakes
- Start date
Worked for Deadpool and MCU Spider-Man.
Pretty sure you know both of those cases are completely different.
because....?
The real reason is because it looks dumb, and films aren't a visual medium that has to rely on the viewer 'filling in the blanks' like comic books do. Actors will wear what's put in front of them.
Deadpool benefits from the innate ridiculousness - Batman wouldn't.
Because in Deadpool the whole mask moves because it's Deadpool and who cares, while the same can't happen with Batman. Spider-Man's huge eyes are also a much more important part of Spidey's look than Batman's eyes.
What about Spidey?
He doesn't have eye-sized white eyes - he has giant eyes that are the main visual element of his mask.
The first is just bad reasoning. Everything is itself, it's not a distinction of any kind. Batman is Batman, so he should have white eyes. I'm not sure why his mask needs to move to justify it. It won't be the literal exact same technique used as in Deadpool, but that's not a big deal since Batman's mouth is open to help emote as well.
As for your Spider-man reasoning, as this thread clearly demonstrates, the white eyes are an important part to their conceptualization of Batman that live action features had to forgo because the tech wasn't there yet to make it possible. Now it is and people want it.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
"It'd look dumb"
Guess what
so does Batman.
He's a rich psychotic sadomasochistic leather-daddy in a cape for fuck's sake.
If we can suspend disbelief enough to buy the notion that a fictional billionaire would actually do any of this I have a hard time believing making his costume even more comics accurate is going to somehow bring the whole illusion crumbling down.
(honestly, just from a tactical standpoint, having his eyes uncovered doesn't really make much sense as it is. Why wouldn't he have protection built in, as well as the option to have a heads-up-display/readout available at all times?)
Those productions just found their own internally logical way for emotive white eyes to work. Pool is a cartoon and Spiderman has mechanical eye lenses. You could easily find a way to make it work for Batman as well.
I don't really think it would look dumb if it's done right. I'm with you in the camp of suspension of disbelief.
Discotheque
Banned
Don't really want Batman to have the white lens eyes when he's in brightly lit settings. Would look stupid tbh. They should do a compromise where his eyes whiten up when he's hiding in the shadows or in complete darkness. That would look cool
Also I want him to have the cape draped over his body when he's standing still.
Also I want him to have the cape draped over his body when he's standing still.
How is the first bad reasoning? Deadpool is a ridiculous character who constantly breaks the 4th wall, so they just gave him white eyes and a mask that is able to emote, like if it was skin, but no one thinks it looks weird because Deadpool isn't taken seriously.
Batman with dead white eyes would look really silly, and if they had his mask moving around and emoting like Deadpool's, that would also look silly as fuck.
The Burton movies were mostly good about making sure the cape draped over him when he was stationary
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's bad reasoning because that's not the reasoning you gave. You just said "it's deadpool". And in any case, Batman as a character wouldn't be making the silly faces deadpool does in the first place. The eyes would be used for intimidation purposes, if anything. The same tool can be used for multiple things, so the argument that just because Deadpool used it to be silly doesn't mean that's what Batman is going to do doesn't really hold water.
So unless the argument is that whited out eyes are inherently silly (which is an absurd argument, as Spiderman isn't like that), it's a matter of them pulling off a difficult special effect that has already been pulled off to different goals.
Because it just does, obviously.
You're not going to get better reasoning than that, Bobby. Bat ears, cape, Bat symbol on chest, growly voice are all fine, but some people just draw the line at white eyes.
Baleman did it too until he changed suits.
The clasps ruined it though. Looked like he was wrapping himself in a blanket.
"The costume is already stupid" isn't a great argument for "Let's make it more stupid".
The white eyes are meaningless to Batman's visual design - they're a trope of the comic-book medium. Deadpool has them, Wolverine has them, Nightwing has them. "So it's a tight fitting mask? I wonder if we can get away with not having to draw the eyes...".
A live action Batman would gain next to nothing in his 'Batman-ness' by having white eyes, but it'd boost his 'that's ridiculous' factor up by at least 20%.
The white eyes are meaningless to Batman's visual design - they're a trope of the comic-book medium. Deadpool has them, Wolverine has them, Nightwing has them. "So it's a tight fitting mask? I wonder if we can get away with not having to draw the eyes...".
A live action Batman would gain next to nothing in his 'Batman-ness' by having white eyes, but it'd boost his 'that's ridiculous' factor up by at least 20%.
I didn't say Deadpool used it to be silly, it's just a ridiculous look that really only plays well with Deadpool because they're able to also have his mask move like a face, without having to explain why that's happening. If Batman used it, it wouldn't be used for silliness purposes, but it would end up making him look pretty ridiculous and I definitely don't want them making up some in-universe explanation for why his mask can now move for him to be able to emote, like he does in the comics and cartoons.
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
If they wanted the white eyes, they'd have to use white contact lenses like in that photoshop. The full slits wouldn't look good in live-action.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
But it doesn't make it any more stupid. It's all the same stupid that is already highly celebrated for how cool it is.
And the idea the white eyes are meaningless to that stupid-cool is just wrong. Artists could, if they wanted, draw eyeballs in the holes of his mask. It's not hard. Some artist interpretations actually do this.
Most don't. You know why?
because the lenses fucking look good.
I don't understand the mentality that says making these characters as comics-accurate as possible is the ideal to strive for but when it comes to one of the cooler visual elements of Batman suddenly it's "too silly"
I just don't get why that's where the maturity schism opens up beneath your feet.
Discotheque
Banned
That and begins were almost there but I'm thinking more in line with how we've occasionally seen it in animation and the art. Draped over his entire torso.
Could look silly as hell if not done right but if they nailed that look it would lend to a pretty sweet gothic vibe. Like he's Dracula or something
It shocks me how much people are against the idea and I've yet to hear a good explanation as to why it's bad. Bat-themed costume is inherently stupid in itself, but it's the white eyes that crosses the line.
Nah.
The execution of this has nothing to do with having no pupils.
Does it hinder it?
For one, I already addressed this earlier that it wouldn't be used the same way. There's no necessary need for it to happen like it did in Deadpool.
Second, why do you feel there is need to explain it? Just have this be one of Batmans innumeral gadgets that Batman just has and they work for him. Hell, it's not like they explained why Spiderman's emotive eyes work. It's just a part of the suit that Tony made him, and that's all we get, and no one was sitting there not buying the character because "How can his eyes emote?"
Third, all else failing, you're making definitive statements with no actual evidence to support it. Even if I drop my objections and agree with your criticisms, I just don't see them as reasons why the effect inherently cannot work, just obstacles for the effects team to overcome. So the trick then becomes to overcome them, not to not bother trying.
No, but it is a 5 second snippet. I'd look to see how it looks when Batman is having a conversation with someone - I'd bet he'd look like he's staring blindly into the middle-distance.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
Who has a cowl with lenses that actually works?
Daredevil.
Daredevil.
cr0w
Old Member
They could always just have them flip up into the cowl when he's not using them. Kind of like a tactical lens or some shit.
Yeah, that's another example. Daredevil looks just fine with his red lenses. I feel we have enough examples of it working to atleast dismiss the argument that it's inherently impossible.
Inferno313
Banned
I don't like the idea of lenses in live-action, honestly. Not because they wouldn't look cool, I think they could if done well, but because I feel like the eyes are a pretty important tool for an actor.
Like, think of the interrogation scene in The Dark Knight. A lot of Batman's rage and fear when he realizes Rachel is in peril, is communicated through Bale's eyes. Covering them with lenses would've subtly impacted the drama of that scene, imo.
Like, think of the interrogation scene in The Dark Knight. A lot of Batman's rage and fear when he realizes Rachel is in peril, is communicated through Bale's eyes. Covering them with lenses would've subtly impacted the drama of that scene, imo.
A character who doesn't look at a person when he's talking to them would hardly suffer the consequences of the removed range of expression that a detective would.
And yet, people found Rorschach to be one of the best performances of watchmen despite the entirety of his face being hidden.
I know it's 6 pages in, but I just have to say, I wouldn't want to live in a universe where it's considered good.
Discotheque
Banned
I think it's a hard visual to pull off without looking hilarious tbh. All these other examples all have the benefit of showing no human features. Spider-Man, Deadpool etc. They all got masks covering their whole face. The minute you see a mouth it's too jarring imo
I don't wanna see Batman with white pupils as long as he's in a live action movie. Outside of certain aesthetic decisions like shots of him stalking in the dark and all that.
All I can think of is Raiden in the mortal kombat movies whenever this discussion pops up.
I don't wanna see Batman with white pupils as long as he's in a live action movie. Outside of certain aesthetic decisions like shots of him stalking in the dark and all that.
All I can think of is Raiden in the mortal kombat movies whenever this discussion pops up.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
He looks directly at the people he's talking to. All the time.
He can basically see.
The idea that a) the actor couldn't actually see through them or b) the director would let takes go where the actor is staring into the middle distance instead of directly at the person he's talking to? That doesn't make sense.
And we're far past the days where the conventional wisdom about "needing to see the eyes" has been busted into a million pieces. Like a lens on a cowl damaged and shattered etc etc
Until someone does it and you're like "oh, I guess it would just look like that."
They did give a reason for why Spidey's eyes emote.
And I feel like they need to explain it because after 2 movies where he didn't have a mask that is able to move around to express his emotions, if he got one in the third movie, I'd be wondering why. It's a pretty big change that would be weird as hell if it was never acknowledged.
I mean, we're both saying how we think something would look dumb or not, neither of us have "evidence to support it", it's just our opinions and what we think would or wouldn't look ridiculous.
Which is kind of the problem, thinking that the special effects of a modern superhero flick are going to be identical to those of a 1992 low budget video game adaptation.
Inferno313
Banned
I'd argue that the reason it works for Rorshach is that he's not meant to be a sympathetic figure. Covering his face actually aids in his portrayal, because it keeps a wall up between Jackie Earl Haley and the viewer, like how Rorschach keeps a wall up to everyone around him.
If you're making a Batman film, you probably want your audience on Batman's side, you want him to be a sympathetic character. It helps if you let people look into those peepers.
...I can't believe I didn't think of this.
Yeah, perfect example. Do people actually think the lens would look more silly on Batman than Daredevil or something, despite the characters obvious similarities within a relatively grounded, gritty context?
broncobuster
Banned
Counter point: Batman with shadows covering his eyes > white eyes
Hugo Weaving as V in V for Vendetta put in a pretty good performance and you never saw his face the entire movie either
ROUGE_BLOCK
Member
That sounds so cool but too bad DC execs will want some CGI explosion monster for Batman to shoot all his guns and rockets from the batmobile and batwing at the end, cause that "engages" the audience. Oh and Joker will control it or something