They only made blue and grey live-action Batman once in the 60s. Ever since Tim Burton came out with all black suit everyone always make Batman movies with an all black suit, eventhough blue and grey is still often used in comics / games / cartoons.
Do you want to see how live-action Batman would look like in blue and grey, modernized and updated of course?
I think they can use a really really dark blue combined with matte grey.
Affleck's suit was black and grey. I hear you though, I'd like to see a comic accurate suit on the screen.
shareI just heard they did plan to make this version of Batman blue and grey in the concept phase. They even already designed the suit.
The fact that the plan didn't go through means it must have looked not good enough.
At least they tried.
I've personally never cared for the blue. It got way too light, and stayed so for decades. DC used to use the exact same color blue for Batman's cape, cowl, etc., they used for Superman's costume, and that and the light gray were not a good choice for a hero active by night, sneaking around in the shadows.
And the thing is, I don't think Batman's costume was ever originally intended to have blue in it. Blue was a concession to the primitive color printing technology of comics in the old days. There was a limited array of colors that could be used, and nowhere near the fine gradations of light and shadow possible today. Something black tended to show up as a featureless black blob on the page, so they added a blue to Batman's costume for the highlights, and the rest was left black. But then somewhere along the way, they started using more and more blue, until Batman's cape, cowl, etc. became blue.
But again, I don't think that was the original intent. As further evidence, let me point to a Marvel comic I had in the '70s: "Conan the Barbarian" issue #30 -- it was an adaptation of the story "The Hand of Nergal," which appears in the 1st volume of the old Ace paperback editions, and was finished by Lin Carter from a fragment left behind by Robert E. Howard after his death. The titular Hand of Nergal is an evil magical talisman that houses a demon of utter darkness. Both that demon, and some shadowy bat-like spirits in the story are described as utterly black, like the space between the stars.
On the comics page, it's all pictured in a rather pale blue. Again, there was simply no way with the printing technology of the time to show creatures as all black in appearance. And I think that's how Batman's cape and cowl and the rest turned blue. In time, people assumed they were supposed to be blue. But I don't think they were, and black is better for a nocturnal, stealth character.
That's a pretty perfect answer. Great summary of how the blue Batman came about in the first place and a good reasoning for keeping him darker, more monochrome.
I might add that what works on page doesn't work on-screen. Blue cape/cowl Batman looked plenty intimidating while drawn by Neal Adams (for instance), but it wouldn't translate to screen. Sometimes a carbon-copy isn't as effective because while it translates the literal, it fails to translate the spirit of the thing, and when that "Bat-essence" is lost it won't work even if it's a direct panel-to-shot translation of a '70s Batman comic.
Well, unfortunately, this sort of thing is not unheard of. A behind-the-scenes concession to technological limitations gets accepted as canon, though it's completely wrong, taken at face value. It's a "brain bug" -- it gets stuck in people's heads. Another example is Frankenstein's monster. In countless modern illustrations, the monster is depicted in the classic, Boris Karloff/Universal Pictures version, with the flat head and the neck bolts (which are electrodes, not bolts), and with green skin.
Why green? Well, because some behind-the-scenes color footage was shot for Son of Frankenstein which showed Boris Karloff, made up as the monster, with green skin. That got out in the public, and people thought that was what the monster was meant to look like.
But it wasn't. The green makeup chosen for this black and white movie wasn't picked because the monster was supposed to be green, but because that particular green makeup photographed in B&W film as the best pale, corpse-like gray the film makers meant to depict for a re-animated corpse. How do we know this? Because existing 1930's-colorized Universal Studios publicity photos for both Bride of Frankenstein, and Son of Frankenstein show a monster with pale flesh, not green colored skin. Corpse-like ashen grey pallor, not green, was what the studios meant to portray. But film showing it as green got out there, so people think it was green. But that's wrong.
Still another example: on the early Geo. Reeves Superman series, shot in B&W, the costume Reeves wore was light grey for blue and brown for red, because that was what photographed best in B&W. But Superman's suit was always meant to be red and blue, and they switched to a red & blue costume in 1954, when they started to film the show in color.
holy shit. I never knew that about frankenstein's monster. That's a great fun fact!
shareI think a really dark midnight blue could look good on screen for Batman's cape and cowl, like the color of Bond's dinner jacket / tuxedo in Skyfall. In real life, style aficionados actually recommend wearing midnight blue for formal events instead of actual black because black material tends to have a greenish tinge under artificial light, while the midnight blue will look more black in appearance.
shareInsightful.
shareDaz silly. Next ur gonna tell me Hulk wuz not supposed 2 be green but wuz orig grey
shareIf anyone is gonna wear the blue and grey suit, it should be Dick Grayson when he was Batman. Blue is more his thing anyway, where as Bruce looks better in black and grey, or all black.
share