Anyone seen these Batman designs...?

[Phantasm]

These pretty Batmanseque. Very creepy but perhaps a bit too demonic...?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/Anthropod/Misc/2595d901.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/Anthropod/Misc/f39ab434.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/Anthropod/Misc/278aa168.jpg
Found the pictures at these other forums...:sweat:

[Simpler Simon]

Someone really wanted a classic Bob Kane feel - I'm guessing these were unused concepts from the movies?

Glad they took a slightly more modern approach though.

[DisneyBoy]

Actually, I'm not.

Those Bob Kane-inspired sculpts really scared the bejesus out of me! From what little I've seen of the new Bat-costume (I've been shielding my eyes), it looks like a bigger, more metal version of the Batsuits from the previous films. I distinctly remember everyone saying that if they were going to do a new Batman film post-B+R, that they'd stay away from the rubber, and get the lead actor in good enough shape to place him in a somewhat spandexy suit. And here we are, back at square one, trying to top an outfit that looked best in the original Batman film (if you just mentally switch the batsymbol on his chest for the one used in the second movie).

This would have been a fresher way to go with the character, and not at all silly looking. I wish they'd have used it. I'm seriously freaked out here!

[James]

Actually, I'm not.

Those Bob Kane-inspired sculpts really scared the bejesus out of me! From what little I've seen of the new Bat-costume (I've been shielding my eyes), it looks like a bigger, more metal version of the Batsuits from the previous films.

I distinctly remember everyone saying that if they were going to do a new Batman film post-B+R, that they'd stay away from the rubber, and get the lead actor in good enough shape to place him in a somewhat spandexy suit. And here we are, back at square one, trying to top an outfit that looked best in the original Batman film (if you just mentally switch the batsymbol on his chest for the one used in the second movie).

This would have been a fresher way to go with the character, and not at all silly looking. I wish they'd have used it. I'm seriously freaked out here!
I utterly agree. This would have been the way to go and proof that there was OTHER ways that what they did.

I think this would have been a far more fresh and interesting approach to a new Batman. It takes a while to get used - even with it's infamous historical accuracy - but as I've said many times (and I'll probably annoy Clayface by moaning this point again), if you do a new Batman film, you divert AWAY from the old Batman and do something different. Direction, actors, batmobile, city, style is all different in the new film, except the costume which while flexible, is VERY similar looking to the old franchise. I'm sure it's simply WB wanting to retaining some sort of consistency with their old films....

This would have made the look of the film fresh and truely offered a new start which gives the movie Batman a new exciting look while being even MORE accurate to the comics.

Pity they never went down these lines. Great sculpt.

Nevermind, the film still looks like it will be very good.. a suit like this would have just given it more of it's own identity!

[Simpler Simon]

I think this would have been a far more fresh and interesting approach to a new Batman. It takes a while to get used - even with it's infamous historical accuracy - but as I've said many times (and I'll probably annoy Clayface by moaning this point again), if you do a new Batman film, you divert AWAY from the old Batman and do something different.
I agree with the different, but only in the material used for the costume, not the design. This might have worked better for the Burton movies, which were in a retro world all their own, but Batman Begins is setting itself as being very "modern day, real world", which really leads me to want a modern-looking batsuit like we've had since O'Neil took over the books. When you consider that its also relaunching a franchise (as opposed to being a single film or even an independent art film or such), it becomes more important to get viewers aquainted with a more modern Batman. I completely agree with what you've said in the past about the new costume looking too much like the old one, but only because what they used ended up looking like the rubberized armor we had before.

Besides, this is an artists rendition, not the actual mask which would've been produced. I think the stylistic decision to leave the eyes open instead of using lenses would've also been applied to this design, and that would ruin its dramatic effect.

[BonyT]

I think this would have been a far more fresh and interesting approach to a new Batman. It takes a while to get used - even with it's infamous historical accuracy - but as I've said many times (and I'll probably annoy Clayface by moaning this point again), if you do a new Batman film, you divert AWAY from the old Batman and do something different. Direction, actors, batmobile, city, style is all different in the new film, except the costume which while flexible, is VERY similar looking to the old franchise. I'm sure it's simply WB wanting to retaining some sort of consistency with their old films.... Boy, I couldn't agree more. (... About diverting from the previous films, that is; I'm not sure I'd advocate using this exact original Kane-style cowl per se, but I think it's on a good track.)

However, as I recall reading (maybe from BatKid), you're exactly right about why the costume's being done as it is: WB's one dictate to the Batman Begins filmmakers was (sadly) that the Batsuit had to be in the style of the previous films. :sad:

I distinctly remember everyone saying that if they were going to do a new Batman film post-B+R, that they'd stay away from the rubber, and get the lead actor in good enough shape to place him in a somewhat spandexy suit.That's certainly what I would've loved to see. For my money, the best Batman has ever looked in live-action film is in Sandy Collora's Batman: Dead End.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying Dead End was perfect by any means. The look there wasn't completely my personal ideal, but it was the closest thing yet. The Henry Alvarez cowl sculpt was by far the finest take I've ever seen, very menacing & tight to the face, allowing for much better head movement than anything ever done in the big budget feature films. (And the more Kane-inspired sculpt here, though quite distinct from the Dead End cowl, nevertheless shares some of the fundamental characteristics that made the Alvarez cowl so good.) And Clark Bartram certainly doesn't seem to be an actor capable of doing justice to the depths of Batman & carrying a feature-length film; but he sure evoked the authentic comicbook Batman look more than anyone else has, simply because he's in "Batman" shape, & he has a square, strong jaw. (His voice isn't quite deep enough, though; but it may be that the "voice" bar has been forever raised too high by the incomparable Kevin Conroy for anyone else to ever fully measure up. :) )

I've said this before, but I've only ever seen one actor who truly seemed like he was born to play Batman, and that's Patrick Warburton. (At least in his prime years, he would've been ideal; I have no idea how old the guy is now.) My perception is largely derived from Alex Ross' depiction of Bruce Wayne, which actually looks like it might've been based on Warburton, they're so similar. (Ross' take was also, of course, the major influence on the Dead End Batman costume.) Warburton is 6'2" or 6'3" with a natural athlete's build (thick bones, & he no doubt is one of those people who adds muscle quite easily). He has the perfect big, square jaw, and his brow has a kind of built-in Batmanesque scowl that gives him the right intense stare. His voice is as naturally deep as Kevin Conroy's. And, while he's known as a comic actor, his style is dry humor, which requires an excellent sense of timing; and I've always felt that anyone who can pull off that timing so easily must have decent acting ability, so I think he could handle the acting end of the role.

However, having said all of that, I think Bale is a good choice, maybe the best in the correct age range (depending on Warburton's age). His jaw may be a little pointy, and his voice isn't quite as rich a bass as one would prefer; but he is in terrific shape. And perhaps more importantly, he really seems to get the character.

Nevermind, the film still looks like it will be very good.. a suit like this would have just given it more of it's own identity!I agree -- I'm optimistic about this film. Costume reservations aside (and I can certainly overlook the costume "flaws" if this film "gets it right" in more important ways), it looks like this movie is shaping up to be the only Batman feature film that I'll actually want to own on DVD. :)

[James]

I agree with the different, but only in the material used for the costume, not the design. This might have worked better for the Burton movies, which were in a retro world all their own, but Batman Begins is setting itself as being very "modern day, real world", which really leads me to want a modern-looking batsuit like we've had since O'Neil took over the books. When you consider that its also relaunching a franchise (as opposed to being a single film or even an independent art film or such), it becomes more important to get viewers aquainted with a more modern Batman.
Depends on your definition of a "modern" Batman. Batman in the comics is very much to his roots these days. Very little gadgets and a strong emphasis on his martial arts and stealth skills - eg; his more natural and human elements of the Batman. The armour runs against that ethos somewhat. Batman in as much a martial arts detective in a cape than a lean mean fighting machine that Burton's myth began.

I know where you are coming from, you are referring to making him "real" to mainstream perception than fans, but I would like to hope as soon as you have a man dressed up as a bat - in rubber or otherwise, you've already broken the reality barrier somewhat! :D


Besides, this is an artists rendition, not the actual mask which would've been produced. I think the stylistic decision to leave the eyes open instead of using lenses would've also been applied to this design, and that would ruin its dramatic effect.
I'm not sure on the eye thing. I would say - as a designer, the eye thing would have been the first thing they'd have looked into. Batman looks far more foboding without human eye contact, plus it's a leap away from the old design, I think designers for the film - with a free reign - would have done more in the cowl - maybe/maybe not like this, I certainly don't think any excited new design group who are working on a new costume would use such similar design specs (open eye holes, black eye makeup, rubber armour, similar cowl) out of choice. As a designer, you want to make your mark, so does the director. As BonyT said (or Batkid earlier) I think it was something WB wanted.

You have to wonder whether this would have been more what would have happened minus WB involvement. With such radical redesigns elsewhere (and not just Alfred suddenly being a lower class butler, we're talking Batmobiles and everything! :D) that they would go so retro on the main costume without studio input.

I would liked to have seen how this would have looked in the more expensive flexi rubber they used on the BB suit. I reckon it would have been so cool.

[Style]

I don't know. It's just that-Whenever I see the Batman costume translated into live action LITTERALLY, the affect always seems kind of goofy. I think the Batman costume is the sort of conciet you can only get away with in rendering, not as an actual functioning costume.


Say what you will about movement issues with the rubber suit, Batman looked GOOD in the Burton films. If the new one can retain that look but free up the movement, well, I like it!:)

[langden alger]

ahhh man, i hate seeing early concepts...almost always better than the final product lol...this one just jumped right off of bob kanes drawing table..i love the ears. it lookes like he could do damage with just them alone. the eyes are a little too alien looking though...i think the final translation would have ended up making the actor look more like halle berry's catwoman...and i think wb would've wanted a look that was more like the old batman franchise than the recent catwoman. ;)

[BonyT]

Say what you will about movement issues with the rubber suit, Batman looked GOOD in the Burton films. If the new one can retain that look but free up the movement, well, I like it!:)Well, it's a matter of tastes, I suppose. Honestly, all of the feature film Batsuits (Burton's included) just make me cringe. And it's not just the movement issues; it's the look. Which leads to the other part of your post:
I don't know. It's just that-Whenever I see the Batman costume translated into live action LITTERALLY, the affect always seems kind of goofy. I think the Batman costume is the sort of conciet you can only get away with in rendering, not as an actual functioning costume.I'm curious, did the Dead End costume strike you that way (since it's an attempt to translate the more "literal" comic book costume)? Because I agree with you about the Batman costume generally coming off as goofy when translated into live action -- but to be truthful, I would tend to cite the feature film Batsuits as prime examples of that goofiness; indeed, I think they're actually much to blame for why the costume translates so poorly. Let me explain.

It seems to me that one real issue with superhero costumes in general is that, when pushed off of the comic book page and into the "real" world of live action film, they just come off looking ... How should I put this? ... They don't exactly ooze machismo. I mean, let's face it -- you've got Superman and Spider-Man bounding around in blue tights with bright red boots; now honestly, where would you likely see such attire choices on a man outside of a parade in San Francisco? (MTV did a short vignette/skit film a few years back as part of their movie awards show, with Jack Black as Spidey, that poked fun at that very aspect of live action versions of superhero costumes.)

Batman's costume is however is a bit different (at least potentially), and thus has some chance of avoiding that pitfall I think, for several reasons. For one, unlike Superman's duds, the different elements of the Batman costume -- even including things like the cape & the Bat symbol -- are often perceived as having functional (and not merely aesthetic) dimensions, with some practical survival value; and this sense of the costume's largely utilitarian character makes it a bit easier to accept. And the fact that a nice masculine dark-gray-and-black palette is natural to the costume helps out as well. As long as the stylistic elements are kept somewhat in check (i.e. no reeeeally long Bat ears), the Batman costume has a chance to come off as reasonably masculine.

It would have a chance to come off as reasonably masculine, that is, if Tim Burton hadn't saddled Batman with rubber and leather as his signature look in most of the world's eyes. Let me say that again, in case the unfortunate connotations didn't come across clearly enough: RUBBER, and LEATHER. Add in Schumacher's "nipple" innovation, and I don't even like to think about the implications.

So to me, the feature film Batsuits actually seem to be somewhat at the root of the problem with achieving a non-silly translation of the Batman costume into live action.

[James]

It seems to me that one real issue with superhero costumes in general is that, when pushed off of the comic book page and into the "real" world of live action film, they just come off looking ... How should I put this? ... They don't exactly ooze machismo. I mean, let's face it -- you've got Superman and Spider-Man bounding around in blue tights with bright red boots; now honestly, where would you likely see such attire choices on a man outside of a parade in San Francisco? (MTV did a short vignette/skit film a few years back as part of their movie awards show, with Jack Black as Spidey, that poked fun at that very aspect of live action versions of superhero costumes.)

Batman's costume is however is a bit different (at least potentially), and thus has some chance of avoiding that pitfall I think, for several reasons. For one, unlike Superman's duds, the different elements of the Batman costume -- even including things like the cape & the Bat symbol -- are often perceived as having functional (and not merely aesthetic) dimensions, with some practical survival value; and this sense of the costume's largely utilitarian character makes it a bit easier to accept. And the fact that a nice masculine dark-gray-and-black palette is natural to the costume helps out as well. As long as the stylistic elements are kept somewhat in check (i.e. no reeeeally long Bat ears), the Batman costume has a chance to come off as reasonably masculine.

It would have a chance to come off as reasonably masculine, that is, if Tim Burton hadn't saddled Batman with rubber and leather as his signature look in most of the world's eyes. Let me say that again, in case the unfortunate connotations didn't come across clearly enough: RUBBER, and LEATHER. Add in Schumacher's "nipple" innovation, and I don't even like to think about the implications.

So to me, the feature film Batsuits actually seem to be somewhat at the root of the problem with achieving a non-silly translation of the Batman costume into live action.
I agree. As viewers, I think we lazily assume that what we see in the final version is the best and only way because it's the only one we know...

The fact that we've seen no other attempts away from rubber at the same budget level doesn't phase the certainty of fans and mainstream audience that what they see is the ONLY way to portray him realistically.

As I've said before, if you can pull of a guy in red and blue costume swinging around NY realistically, I think Batman is doable.

I can appreciate you may need to use some rubber to get the firm hero shape maybe - as with Spidey, but it's how you render the rubber that makes the difference. Batman's rubber is always used to simulate that sort of rubber armour, while Spidey's rubber is treated to look more skin tight, flexible and clothlike.

I don't like the limited idea that the only way to do a character is to emphasise the elements which aren't really him. Batman doesn't really often wear rubber - well since movie lore he has on more occasions - but generally he's a trained martial arts expert, trained in most Eastern practises. Both the mindstate of such arts and the physical practises don't lend them to rubber protection.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a viable direction. It's in the comics lore to some extent and any film is a "Variation On A Theme" to some extent, but it's not the ONLY way, nor is it the closet way to depicted our Dark Knight.

[BonyT]

I can appreciate you may need to use some rubber to get the firm hero shape maybe - as with Spidey, but it's how you render the rubber that makes the difference. Batman's rubber is always used to simulate that sort of rubber armour, while Spidey's rubber is treated to look more skin tight, flexible and clothlike.

I don't like the limited idea that the only way to do a character is to emphasise the elements which aren't really him. Batman doesn't really often wear rubber - well since movie lore he has on more occasions - but generally he's a trained martial arts expert, trained in most Eastern practises. Both the mindstate of such arts and the physical practises don't lend them to rubber protection.Good point about the judicious use of rubber for sculpting in invisible ways in the Spidey costume, SJJ. And I think you're right: people just seem to assume that it wouldn't work or couldn't look good on Batman, for some reason. But the truth is, the tech to pull that off successfully has actually been around for a long time now.

Anybody remember the old short-lived live action Flash TV series? It's been a long time; but as I recall, the Flash's mask, for example, looked as though it was simply a cloth mask. But in reality, there were sculptural elements incorporated within the cloth, hidden below the outer layer of cloth, giving it the correct brow ridge & so forth. But since the mask only had those certain structural parts hidden beneath at key locations, instead of being a cumbersome latex whole (like Batman's), the Flash had full & natural movement of his head. I distinctly remember thinking at the time, "Now, why couldn't they have done something like that with Batman's cowl & costume? Then maybe he wouldn't look so ... kinky."

I think the Batman cowl (which everyone seems to assume has to be all latex) and costume could be done with similar techniques to achieve something that's both much more wearable & flexible for the actor and more evocative of the classic comic book look. And if the actor's in good shape, likely no sculpting in the body of the costume would be needed (as Clark Bartram demonstrated).

It would be a refreshing change of direction.

[Jon Hanson]

That thing's pretty cool looking.