BorisFishpaw said:

I've seen the movie 3 times now, and have an updated view of the costume.

Pros:

The Cape.
I love this thing. The electrical current, making it capable of being a glider... ingenious.


Cons:

The Cowl.
To bulky on the sides, and the facial opening was to small. It seemed like Bale was struggling to enunciate his words properly due to this restriction.

The cowl should match the color of the cape as well.

I don't understand the need for the black paint around the eyes, they did it in the previous movies too.

And why do they insist on putting a black nose plug? poor guy probably couldn't breathe either.

The Overall Flexibility.
It seems like Bale had to really work his ass off, just to move in this thing. They really need to make it lighter, more comfortable, and way more flexible.

He needs to be able to move his head from side to side/up and down, without moving his whole body.

I hated the first movie when Keaton bent over backwards, just to look up, in the church... it just looks stupid. I thought they would move away from those mistakes with this movie, but nope. They repeated them.

The Bat Emblem.
Why even have it, if they're not going to make it stand out? I don't care for a yellow oval, but they need to make it blacker, or make the body a few shades lighter.

That bat should be huge across his chest. Not a little, pop-up bat, like Kilmer wore at the end of "Forver."

Another mistake being repeated.

The Gloves.
Don't get me wrong, I love how they gave the "gauntlets" a purpose, but the separation between the arm and hand... no point to that.


____

I can live with the all black color, but they seriously need to fix these other problems.

It makes it too similar to the other movies... which I thought they wanted to get away from.





_
[Edited 6/23/05 14:50pm]

TheBatman said:

I noticed the black paint somewhat recently and kind of understand it....it makes Bruce's face harder to make out. Now does anyone remember in "Batman Returns" when he took the mask off in front of Catwoman/Selina and guess what we didn't see for convienance? The black makeup around his eyes!

VinnyM27 said:

I always noticed that when I saw "Batman Returns."

I get what they're trying to do with it, but it would come off as more realistic, IMO, if they left some skin showing around his eyes.

Alex Ross, paints him with the black up to his eyes, and it just bugs me. And I love Alex's work.

They could make the eye slits a tad smaller, and closer around his eye, but I just can't buy someone recognizing him if he didn't have it. That's just me I guess.

When you grow up reading 100's or 1,000's of Batman comics, and watching the old TV show, the other movies, and the Animated Series... you get your own idea of how Batman should be portrayed, and it's dissappointing when they miss the mark on certain things.

TheBatman said:[quote]

VinnyM27 said:

As someone who has also grown up reading thousands of Batman comics I find myself in some agreement with you.

But I just put it down to intentional "teething problems".

Let's not forget Batman Begins is basically Year One of The Batman and that there will be plenty of room for improvement and modifications, not just as far as Batman's costume is concerned but also the design of the Batmobile itself which at this early stage looks like an initial prototype.

I'm pretty certain these so-called problems will be dealt with accordingly and realistically in subsequent movies.

.

TheBatman said:

I agree with that. Didn't look quite right.
But the bat is all over his chest, isn't it ?

giotto said:

And thank god for Cillian Murphy!!

i'm being dragged along to see this again tonight.

calldapplwondery83 said:

Yes, but it's kinda tiny, 3-D, pop-up, looking... it doesn't stand out on his chest.

Being that this is "Year One," I hope to see some major improvements for the next chapter.

One other thing I was totally impressed with was the Batmobile. Just seeing it in pictures, I thought it looked terrible. Seeing it in action... I was pretty impressed with it. If they want to make it somewhat sleeker, maybe some fins, like the new animated version... that would be cool too.

BTW, just read that the movie made $130,000,000 by now. I hope that's enough for the studio to get them all back for the next.

TheBatman said:

I believe production values are leaning towards comic book tradition as opposed to gritty "realism".

Mask wearers in comic books are hardly ever drawn with realistic eyes, whether they be superheroes or villains. Pupils and eye colouration are often left undrawn, giving masked characters a decidedly otherwordly appearance.

.

TheBatman said:

Hell, in the comic he's suppossed to have mirrored lenses to hide his eyes (the animated series actually is the only non-comic depiction to have done this). Why can't they just do that? It worked for Spider-Man!

JediMaster said:[quote]

TheBatman said:

Jedi, I think the mirrored lenses theory falls flat when Batman takes off his cowl in the comics and only two perforations are in evidence where the eye slits should be. No mirrored lenses to be seen.

Perhaps I should start reading the more recent comics, but I don't recall mirrored lenses being a feature of Batman's habitual costume during the Golden Era and beyond.

The animated series is probably instigating a push towards mirrored lenses a la Spider-man, which might or might not work on film.

.

giotto said:[quote]

JediMaster said:

Depends on the artist, but a few have depicted his cowl with the lenses. There was even a cover a few years back that showed it with a shattered lens.
[Edited 6/27/05 11:18am]

JediMaster said:

I must have missed that depiction. I stopped at Frank Miller's very last Dark Knight series. Even then there were no mirrored lenses to be seen in Miller's depiction. And Frank could be said to be one of the more revisionist Batman artists around.

Like I said I guess it could work on celluloid, but I wouldn't be happy with the Spidey comparisons I am sure this is bound to encourage. In fact I believe the production team ought to take it further and experiment with body paint as a visual strategy in order to drive attention away from the bulkier aspects of Batman's "Year One" costume.

I should stress that body paint could be an effective visual device, nothing more. I just feel it could work very well in some shots where the actor struggles to achieve natural mobility. Like with the '89 Batman movie, this surprisingly is still proving to be a problem for the new production team.


.
[Edited 6/27/05 10:06am]

giotto said:

Co-Sign!

He needs to look and move like an athelete... more fluidly, and yet Bale seems to struggle at times with this. I understand they want to seem relaistic with body armor, but I think they can fake it. What I mean is, make it look like body armor, but allow Bale to look comfortable, and move more easily in it.

I must've missed the mirrored lenses in the cowl as well... I don't remember that. I've never seen a better artist's representation of the Batman besides Alex Ross. The fact that he even told DC he wouldn't paint him unless he could have eyes... he makes the character more real.

Yet he too, puts the black up to the eyes... I don't get it.

I just couldn't imagine Bruce Wayne sitting in a make-up chair, fussing with black camoflauge around his eyes, as opposed to just jumping in the Batmobile and taking off to the emergency at hand, that's all.

The black eye make-up is not realistic, nor necessary to the character.

TheBatman said:

This is precisely what I was driving at.

A few judicious touches of spray paint can work wonders in the production department, especially during the more demanding action sequences.

I am sure the audience wouldn't bat an eyelid (no pun intended).

.

TheBatman said:

Unfortunately, it doesn't look right without it. A friend of mine does kids parties as Batman, and he has the full costume from the first film. He once showed me what the cowl looks like without the eye makeup, and it's damned goofy looking. I don't like it, but I don't see an alternative

Note the eyes on the cowl:

JediMaster said:

I guess I would have to see comparison pics, to make a proper judgement... with Bale, not just anyone in a Batman cowl.

Never seen that comic cover before. What year was that?

TheBatman said:

Not sure exactly. I think it was mid-90s.

Good Lord, I thought Spiderman comparisons were going to be a problem with a mask featuring lenses, but that cowl with the visors on that cover actually recalls Hawkman's helmet.

Not a good look if you want to hang on to your anonymity or remain undetected in some dark alley, unless you are wearing non-reflective visors which I think would be too much of a palaver to start with.

.

JediMaster said:

I actually don't have too much of an issue with dark eye makeup myself and agree that it's probably a necessary evil. The slits on the cowl would have to be very narrow indeed for the look to work without makeup.

Commando units and SAS operatives are always using makeup of all kinds in order to avoid detection in the dark in rural areas as well as in the jungle.

I suppose it's kind of fitting that the Batman would also spray his eyes black before emerging to beat the crap out of shifty creeps at 2am.

.