The Batman - 2022

[Psyren]

Yeah, lesser characters can't carry major movies. Could you imagine the failure if Marvel tried to make, like, an Iron Man movie, for example?

Wait, you really think Iron Man was on par with Anarky even before 2008?

You didn't mind half the universe dying because one guy didn't even check enough futures to have a 50/50 shot of getting a winning powerball ticket?

It was extremely obvious that was going to get undone in some way. Also, it was a ton of deaths caused by essentially an alien god, not a regular criminal with some C4 vs. "the world's greatest detective."

[Peelee]

Wait, you really think Iron Man was on par with Anarky even before 2008?

I'm not saying they were on the exact same ground, no. What I'm saying is the previously conventional wisdom of "X character can't carry a movie!" has been shown to be wrong - any character can carry a movie if they are given a good story. Hell, Superman-With-The-Serial-Numbers-Filed-Off carries both The Boys and Invincible, both incredibly good and successful, highly rated shows on Prime.

Or, more succinctly, I'm saying that I do not share your beliefs about who can carry a movie.

It was extremely obvious that was going to get undone in some way.

Well, yeah, they showed the Marvel logo at the start of the movie.

Sorry, that joke just won't get old for me.

[Psyren]

Or, more succinctly, I'm saying that I do not share your beliefs about who can carry a movie.

Fair enough, there isn't really anything to discuss on that point.

[Tyndmyr]

It was extremely obvious that was going to get undone in some way. Also, it was a ton of deaths caused by essentially an alien god, not a regular criminal with some C4 vs. "the world's greatest detective."

It was also built up to over the course of many years and about a dozen movies. Yeah, it was an intense film, but it worked because of all of the buildup.

This is the first film for this Batman, and DC largely has not engaged in the same level of buildup Marvel has.

Also of fundamental importance is that Infinity War isn't a Tony Stark movie. It's a Thanos movie. It treats him as the protaganist, and when everyone dies, it isn't because he failed. Villain protagonists are unusual, but the protagonist did win in the end.

[Dienekes]

Watched it last night. It’s pretty good.

But, yeah, there were some points where I kinda thought the worlds greatest detective wasn’t so great. Having a detective miss an important clue until additional information is revealed is fine. But some of the clues are pretty basic. The Spanish but being corrected by The Penguin of all people. The guy who pulls a gun in front of a crowd of cops in an extremely tense situation. Really?

And the whole informant mystery. It gets very obvious.

Movie: The informant’s name gets out it would ruin the city, criminal and otherwise.

Me: Oh, so it’s Falcone. Only name that could do that.

Movie: Everyone involved with busting Maroni reached political power all because of that informant. And now they all stop by Falcone’s club.

Me: So it’s Falcone.

Movie: The rat has wings. Pigeons are rats with wings. Like maybe it’s a bird

Me: So, the informant is Falcone. Come on, say it.

Batman: The Penguin!

Me: Right… the toady, who if he was an informant would get stabbed in the shower and nothing else would happen? That’s your best guess there Bruce?

And on the subject of Falcone, man, I watched the movie and still can’t picture John “the Jesus” Turturro in the role.

[Trafalgar]

I'm not saying they were on the exact same ground, no. What I'm saying is the previously conventional wisdom of "X character can't carry a movie!" has been shown to be wrong - any character can carry a movie if they are given a good story. Hell, Superman-With-The-Serial-Numbers-Filed-Off carries both The Boys and Invincible, both incredibly good and successful, highly rated shows on Prime.

Or, more succinctly, I'm saying that I do not share your beliefs about who can carry a movie.

I 100% agree this. For example, if you asked teenage me which team would have a more successful movie: "Fantastic Four" or "Guardians of the Galaxy", I would have replied "who are the Guardians of the Galaxy?"

I think Directing, Cinematography, Writing, and Acting are far more important to the success of a movie.

[Psyren]

I 100% agree this. For example, if you asked teenage me which team would have a more successful movie: "Fantastic Four" or "Guardians of the Galaxy", I would have replied "who are the Guardians of the Galaxy?"

I think Directing, Cinematography, Writing, and Acting are far more important to the success of a movie.

It's still a bad analogy because the Guardians, while being more obscure than other heroes prior to their movie debut, at least had their own long-running headlined comic. Just like Iron Man did prior to his. Anarky's comic meanwhile lasted a mere 2 years before being shuttered and declared a financial flop.

Regardless, they used most of the ideas I'd have expected for movie Anarky in this movie anyway (I even predicted the Penguin tie-in, albeit this version being much, much more watered-down and barely Penguin in anything but name) so I think it's moot.

Watched it last night. It’s pretty good.

But, yeah, there were some points where I kinda thought the worlds greatest detective wasn’t so great. Having a detective miss an important clue until additional information is revealed is fine. But some of the clues are pretty basic. The Spanish but being corrected by The Penguin of all people. The guy who pulls a gun in front of a crowd of cops in an extremely tense situation. Really?

And the whole informant mystery. It gets very obvious.

Movie: The informant’s name gets out it would ruin the city, criminal and otherwise.

Me: Oh, so it’s Falcone. Only name that could do that.

Movie: Everyone involved with busting Maroni reached political power all because of that informant. And now they all stop by Falcone’s club.

Me: So it’s Falcone.

Movie: The rat has wings. Pigeons are rats with wings. Like maybe it’s a bird

Me: So, the informant is Falcone. Come on, say it.

Batman: The Penguin!

Me: Right… the toady, who if he was an informant would get stabbed in the shower and nothing else would happen? That’s your best guess there Bruce?

And on the subject of Falcone, man, I watched the movie and still can’t picture John “the Jesus” Turturro in the role.

Another thing I found amusing about the movie was the lighting, or lack thereof. Which, sure, DC wants their Batman movies dark - but you should at least illuminate a crime scene. Every detail could be important, and with floodlights they might have noticed

Spoiler

Show

the recently-tucked in ratty carpet in Riddler's apartment covering his bomb-Gotham's-seawall plan.

[Dr.Samurai]

Spoiler: What I liked...

Show

I liked them demonstrating the fear that criminals have. I also did like that this Batman is less "stealthy ninja that just appears" and instead you can hear the loud footfalls of his boots as he slowly approaches from some nearby pit of darkness.

I like the idea that he takes notes because sometimes he has difficulty remembering. It makes sense that things could blur together for him depending on how long he's been out and what kind of activity he's been engaging in.

I liked the old-timey feel of the city while at the same time they had some high tech stuff like the contact lenses.

I liked the adrenaline shot he gives himself at the end; it makes sense that Batman might use some performance-enhancing drugs when needed.

I dug the soundtrack.

Spoiler: Things I didn't like...

Show

Remember when we all thought Batfleck was emo-Batman? This Batman never even cracks a smile, never tries on the Bruce Wayne persona, was always dour. I like Robert Pattinson and I enjoyed the performance but when he said to Alfred "You're not my father" it came off as quite juvenile and immature and emo. Took away from the character for me.

That coupled with Batman needing Alfred, the Penguin, and the Riddler to put the clues together makes me think this is supposed to be a young inexperienced Batman. Maybe that was the point and I missed the clues, or maybe these are the clues and I just don't like it lol.

John Turturo seems like a total miscast.

The movie went entirely too long. Like... it seemed like it ended half a dozen times before it finally did. They take down Falcone and do the perp walk. Then he's shot and they find the Riddler. Then he goes to meet with the Riddler. Then the Riddler reveals that there's more to the plot. Then the city gets flooded (I honestly thought the movie was going to end on this note and set up the sequel). Then the snipers/mass shooting plot.

At this point I just wanted the movie to end. For whatever reason, Batman goes down from some gun shots despite his armor being bullet proof and he's fading. Ok, now Selina's in trouble so he pumps himself with Adrenaline. Ok cool. But then right after we get the slow-mo jumps and cuts the wire sacrifice scene where he falls into the water. But then he's okay again. (Something similar happens earlier when he discovers Maroni killed his parents, only to, moments later, discover that Falcone killed his parents.)

All in all, I'd watch a sequel. I want them to make a sequel. But pacing needs to be better and given the level of gadgetry they have here, they should power up Batman's skills as well.

[Peelee]

It's still a bad analogy because the Guardians, while being more obscure than other heroes prior to their movie debut, at least had their own long-running headlined comic. Just like Iron Man did prior to his.

So your sole metric here is how long of a comic series they have in order to be featured in a blockbuster movie?

[Psyren]

So your sole metric here is how long of a comic series they have in order to be featured in a blockbuster movie?

Not the only one, no. And I'm not saying an Anarky movie is impossible, but we're talking hundreds of millions to make one of these, so I don't see it as particularly likely when they can do what they did here - graft Anarky-esque motives and methods onto a more marketable character.

Spoiler: What I liked...

Show

I liked them demonstrating the fear that criminals have. I also did like that this Batman is less "stealthy ninja that just appears" and instead you can hear the loud footfalls of his boots as he slowly approaches from some nearby pit of darkness.

I like the idea that he takes notes because sometimes he has difficulty remembering. It makes sense that things could blur together for him depending on how long he's been out and what kind of activity he's been engaging in.

I liked the old-timey feel of the city while at the same time they had some high tech stuff like the contact lenses.

I liked the adrenaline shot he gives himself at the end; it makes sense that Batman might use some performance-enhancing drugs when needed.

I dug the soundtrack.

Spoiler: Things I didn't like...

Show

Remember when we all thought Batfleck was emo-Batman? This Batman never even cracks a smile, never tries on the Bruce Wayne persona, was always dour. I like Robert Pattinson and I enjoyed the performance but when he said to Alfred "You're not my father" it came off as quite juvenile and immature and emo. Took away from the character for me.

That coupled with Batman needing Alfred, the Penguin, and the Riddler to put the clues together makes me think this is supposed to be a young inexperienced Batman. Maybe that was the point and I missed the clues, or maybe these are the clues and I just don't like it lol.

John Turturo seems like a total miscast.

The movie went entirely too long. Like... it seemed like it ended half a dozen times before it finally did. They take down Falcone and do the perp walk. Then he's shot and they find the Riddler. Then he goes to meet with the Riddler. Then the Riddler reveals that there's more to the plot. Then the city gets flooded (I honestly thought the movie was going to end on this note and set up the sequel). Then the snipers/mass shooting plot.

At this point I just wanted the movie to end. For whatever reason, Batman goes down from some gun shots despite his armor being bullet proof and he's fading. Ok, now Selina's in trouble so he pumps himself with Adrenaline. Ok cool. But then right after we get the slow-mo jumps and cuts the wire sacrifice scene where he falls into the water. But then he's okay again. (Something similar happens earlier when he discovers Maroni killed his parents, only to, moments later, discover that Falcone killed his parents.)

All in all, I'd watch a sequel. I want them to make a sequel. But pacing needs to be better and given the level of gadgetry they have here, they should power up Batman's skills as well.

Yeah I really didn't like his Bruce (both the character itself, and Batman's use of the persona), but I gathered that was the point. I do think the intent was a greener/less effective Batman, as evidenced by his own admission that crime has actually gone up under his tenure.

[Peelee]

Not the only one, no. And I'm not saying an Anarky movie is impossible, but we're talking hundreds of millions to make one of these, so I don't see it as particularly likely when they can do what they did here - graft Anarky-esque motives and methods onto a more marketable character

Again, Guardians of the Galaxy were incredibly obscure. Iron Man was a C-lister who would not have been up for consideration for a movie had Marvel not already sold off the rights to its more marketable heroes. Hancock and Megamind were not based on established comics. Fantastic Four are famously marketable (including at least one TV show) yet have consistently failed to succeed at the box office and have only kept making movies to retain the rights. DC has arguably the most marketable characters in Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, and yet have failed to form a functional cinematic universe with their A team while Marvel managed to do it with third stringers.

Your theories on who can carry a movie don't hold up. Really now - if you were asked in 2010 if a Guardians of the Galaxy movie would be made, would you have said "it has a solid running as a comic for two years so they can absolutely carry a movie," or would you have said "the who of the what now?"

Or, more to the point, have any of your issues with this Batman movie, or hell, any Batman movie, or Superman movie, or any
superhero movie, been "I feel like [character] wasn't really well known enough to carry the movie"? Or were your complaints about the story and execution?

[Psyren]

Again, Guardians of the Galaxy were incredibly obscure. Iron Man was a C-lister who would not have been up for consideration for a movie had Marvel not already sold off the rights to its more marketable heroes. Hancock and Megamind were not based on established comics. Fantastic Four are famously marketable (including at least one TV show) yet have consistently failed to succeed at the box office and have only kept making movies to retain the rights. DC has arguably the most marketable characters in Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, and yet have failed to form a functional cinematic universe with their A team while Marvel managed to do it with third stringers.

Your theories on who can carry a movie don't hold up. Really now - if you were asked in 2010 if a Guardians of the Galaxy movie would be made, would you have said "it has a solid running as a comic for two years so they can absolutely carry a movie," or would you have said "the who of the what now?"

Or, more to the point, have any of your issues with this Batman movie, or hell, any Batman movie, or Superman movie, or any
superhero movie, been "I feel like [character] wasn't really well known enough to carry the movie"? Or were your complaints about the story and execution?

I'm genuinely not sure what you mean; my skepticism about Anarky getting his own movie aren't related to my complaints about this movie. They're two different subtopics in my mind. Could it happen eventually when they start scraping the bottom of the rogues barrel, like they did when he finally showed up in the Arkham games? Probably, but I think that'll at least take a while.

And to reiterate, the main drawback to Anarky (at least as I see it) is that his main schtick is easily graftable onto a number of other rogues known for their smarts. I don't expect everyone to agree with that judgement, but if I were asked for a reason why Anarky hasn't gotten a movie all this time and likely isn't getting one anytime soon, that's what I'd point to.

[Peelee]

I'm genuinely not sure what you mean; my skepticism about Anarky getting his own movie aren't related to my complaints about this movie. They're two different subtopics in my mind. Could it happen eventually when they start scraping the bottom of the rogues barrel, like they did when he finally showed up in the Arkham games? Probably, but I think that'll at least take a while.

And to reiterate, the main drawback to Anarky (at least as I see it) is that his main schtick is easily graftable onto a number of other rogues known for their smarts. I don't expect everyone to agree with that judgement, but if I were asked for a reason why Anarky hasn't gotten a movie all this time and likely isn't getting one anytime soon, that's what I'd point to.

My main point is that the reasons you've given have been incredibly unconvincing and have been directly contradicted by several massively successful movies. That's it, that's my only point. You can go on all day about how a character needs to be a big name to carry a movie (and ignore all the movies and properties that include new characters or obscure characters), but at the end of the day, whether or not it's a good story is going to be one of the biggest selling points. Not anything that you've claimed.

[Psyren]

My main point is that the reasons you've given have been incredibly unconvincing and have been directly contradicted by several massively successful movies. That's it, that's my only point. You can go on all day about how a character needs to be a big name to carry a movie (and ignore all the movies and properties that include new characters or obscure characters), but at the end of the day, whether or not it's a good story is going to be one of the biggest selling points. Not anything that you've claimed.

I understand why you think that, but I still don't think those movies contradict the point.

[Dienekes]

Another thing I found amusing about the movie was the lighting, or lack thereof. Which, sure, DC wants their Batman movies dark - but you should at least illuminate a crime scene. Every detail could be important, and with floodlights they might have noticed

Spoiler

Show

the recently-tucked in ratty carpet in Riddler's apartment covering his bomb-Gotham's-seawall plan.

On the subject of lighting, I know I'm getting old and my eyes aren't the best, but I could not tell what was happening during the car chase scene. At least not up until the huge explosion at the end. Also the whole scene kinda cuts at the films end message that Batsy needs to prioritize saving people. There's a reason cops call off chases when they get too dangerous for civilians (or at least are supposed to). Lotta folk gonna die from that one.

Spoiler: Things I didn't like...

Show

Remember when we all thought Batfleck was emo-Batman? This Batman never even cracks a smile, never tries on the Bruce Wayne persona, was always dour. I like Robert Pattinson and I enjoyed the performance but when he said to Alfred "You're not my father" it came off as quite juvenile and immature and emo. Took away from the character for me.

That coupled with Batman needing Alfred, the Penguin, and the Riddler to put the clues together makes me think this is supposed to be a young inexperienced Batman. Maybe that was the point and I missed the clues, or maybe these are the clues and I just don't like it lol.

John Turturo seems like a total miscast.

Agreed with all this.

Spoiler

Show

At this point I just wanted the movie to end. For whatever reason, Batman goes down from some gun shots despite his armor being bullet proof and he's fading. Ok, now Selina's in trouble so he pumps himself with Adrenaline. Ok cool. But then right after we get the slow-mo jumps and cuts the wire sacrifice scene where he falls into the water. But then he's okay again. (Something similar happens earlier when he discovers Maroni killed his parents, only to, moments later, discover that Falcone killed his parents.)

All in all, I'd watch a sequel. I want them to make a sequel. But pacing needs to be better and given the level of gadgetry they have here, they should power up Batman's skills as well.

I will point out, there's a wee bit of a difference between some small arms fire and indirect shots that Bats takes through the rest of the movie and then there's taking a point blank shotgun to the chest, which is what knocked him down. That seemed reasonable to me.

But yeah, if they're going to take time to show injury it should probably matter a good deal more than 10 seconds. Part of why the action of the original Die Hard was always so good. It established McClane didn't have shoes. Then it had him walk over glass. And then his bloody feet effected him until we got a scene where he dug the glass from his feet and bound himself up. We see the hero taking their injury, have it effect them for awhile and then deal with it.

This movie kinda does it with the shotgun to the chest. Injury. He can barely move. So he takes the adrenaline to fix the problem. Fine. But it happens really fast so it doesn't seem as important. And I think the whole electrocution bit gets solved by... because he's Batman unless I'm misremembering.

[Peelee]

Was it adrenaline? I could be wrong, but I thought it was greenish and especially with the raging out assumed it was Venom. In any event, even a little bit of foreshadowing would have been nice instead of "oh, I'm down? Let me just grab this handy 'not anymore' injector!"

[Psyren]

On the subject of lighting, I know I'm getting old and my eyes aren't the best, but I could not tell what was happening during the car chase scene. At least not up until the huge explosion at the end. Also the whole scene kinda cuts at the films end message that Batsy needs to prioritize saving people. There's a reason cops call off chases when they get too dangerous for civilians (or at least are supposed to). Lotta folk gonna die from that one.

That would have been a great place to show off some batmobile gadgets; even something as simple as putting out the fires Penguin caused, or gluing the out of control trucks to the freeway barriers. And they could put some of that stuff in the toys too - win/win! But it just seems like in their rush to one-up the last dark-and-gritty Batman with the newest one, they make him less and less concerned with, well, saving people. And we're left with a Batmobile that has nothing in it more exciting than a nitro-boost.

Was it adrenaline? I could be wrong, but I thought it was greenish and especially with the raging out assumed it was Venom. In any event, even a little bit of foreshadowing would have been nice instead of "oh, I'm down? Let me just grab this handy 'not anymore' injector!"

Agreed, and there's also the question of why he needed it. Was he dazed? The shotgun certainly didn't seem to do any damage; maybe it broke a rib, but he seemed fine later on lifting people out of the water. And he had been shrugging off high-powered machine guns repeatedly prior to that.

[Trafalgar]

It's still a bad analogy because the Guardians, while being more obscure than other heroes prior to their movie debut, at least had their own long-running headlined comic. Just like Iron Man did prior to his. Anarky's comic meanwhile lasted a mere 2 years before being shuttered and declared a financial flop.

It's a perfectly fine analogy. Guardians of the Galaxy only had the "long-running headlined comic" you mention for a few years in the nineties. Prior to the movie, they mostly made guest appearances in other heroes comic books. Anarky, beside a two year run, has also mostly appeared in other titles.

I think Iron Man has been in constant publication for 40 or 50 years, not to mention all of the Avengers titles. There is a huge difference between pre 2014 Guardian's and pre 2008 Iron Man's popularity.

[Peelee]

Agreed, and there's also the question of why he needed it. Was he dazed? The shotgun certainly didn't seem to do any damage; maybe it broke a rib, but he seemed fine later on lifting people out of the water. And he had been shrugging off high-powered machine guns repeatedly prior to that.

Eh, I don't mind that too much. Being needled by small-round ammo at range vs being hit by a shotgun point blank? There's a difference. Sure, there's still Hollywood logic going on, but still.

[Tyndmyr]

I will point out, there's a wee bit of a difference between some small arms fire and indirect shots that Bats takes through the rest of the movie and then there's taking a point blank shotgun to the chest, which is what knocked him down. That seemed reasonable to me.

But yeah, if they're going to take time to show injury it should probably matter a good deal more than 10 seconds. Part of why the action of the original Die Hard was always so good. It established McClane didn't have shoes. Then it had him walk over glass. And then his bloody feet effected him until we got a scene where he dug the glass from his feet and bound himself up. We see the hero taking their injury, have it effect them for awhile and then deal with it.

This movie kinda does it with the shotgun to the chest. Injury. He can barely move. So he takes the adrenaline to fix the problem. Fine. But it happens really fast so it doesn't seem as important. And I think the whole electrocution bit gets solved by... because he's Batman unless I'm misremembering.

Thought it was a rifle...but it doesn't really matter. In any case, shotguns don't blow people away like that. It's one thing if it's a stylized world where weapons always carry a ton of impact. Tarantino's films definitely have an unrealistic quantity of blood and impact, but it's a consistent level of elevated violence. So, it works. Not everything has to be realistic, especially in a superhero movie, but they should be consistent.

Like, Batman straight walks into two cops mag dumping automatic rifles into his chest at close range with no visible effect whatsoever, but one shot from this dude literally hurls him backward? That's strange. There should at least be some sort of graduated effect. Look at the John Wick movies, which are masterfully done fight scenes. Wick uses armor, but it is made clear(with foreshadowing as you mention), that taking hits remains quite painful. It's a useful tool for him, but when he hurts, it makes sense, and it is clearly lasting.

Ultimately, it's a consistency thing. You want him hurt, you have to make the thing hurting him make sense, and the injury should have consequence. Otherwise...why is it even there? Just padding out the fight scene length?

[Dr.Samurai]

Spoiler: @Tyndmyr

Show

To that point... it's what makes the scene sort of stand out and then get jarring. Because they went out of their way to say "that particular shot hurt him, he's now dangling over the edge and can't really react to the point-blank threat, and even when Cat Woman saves him, he can't get up and is passing out". That's why it stuck out to me, because it was a departure from what we had seen. The adrenaline was cool, but it is sort of out of nowhere; the purpose of this scene is unknown to me. Shortly thereafter, we see the wire dangling threatening to kill everyone below, and Batman makes a choice, leaps off, cuts it, gets electrocuted, and slo-mo falls into the water below, disappearing into the darkness. It seems very much like a "Batman flying away with a bomb hanging from the helicopter" type moment. But he just re-emerges and starts helping everyone.

It's not so much that Batman can't tank an electrocution, more that the scene is set up maybe more dramatic than it needs to be. Maybe I was just grumpy it was dragging on too long .

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, length is definitely part of it.

They certainly had time to establish the presence of gadgets if they were important, after all. It's not as if this would be difficult or unexpected for Batman. So, yeah, I'd agree that the sheer length of the film perhaps made me a little less accepting of stuff by the tail end.

[Trafalgar]

Even back during the trailers, I had issues with Batman walking into gun fire like he was Superman. I mean, no matter how good the armor is, its not covering the lower part of his face.

[Anteros]

Thought it was a rifle...but it doesn't really matter. In any case, shotguns don't blow people away like that. It's one thing if it's a stylized world where weapons always carry a ton of impact. Tarantino's films definitely have an unrealistic quantity of blood and impact, but it's a consistent level of elevated violence. So, it works. Not everything has to be realistic, especially in a superhero movie, but they should be consistent.

If they did, the person firing it would likely get blasted backwards as well.

I think It's probably just that I'm old and grumpy, but I find it harder and harder to ignore the things hollywood gets so wrong, either intentionally or not. I work in a hospital so I get exposed to a ton of terrible media via my patient's tv's and it's absolutely amazing how terrible and wrong most of it is. Stuff like cop or medical shows in particular, but those probably stand out to me because that's my wheelhouse. I'm sure they mess up every other area just as bad.

[warty goblin]

There are movies where I care more or less how realistic Hollywood is. Movies about a guy who needs to dress like a bat to help the police catch themed criminals is, rather by necessity, not going to rank high on the realism spectrum. Arguably in fact ballistics are the least of the realism problems, since they are ancillary to the entire ridiculous premise.

[Peelee]

If they did, the person firing it would likely get blasted backwards as well.

Spoiler: That happens.

Show

Recoil gifs are fun. Best ones are people holding a shotgun loosely without shoulder bracing

[Tyndmyr]

Even back during the trailers, I had issues with Batman walking into gun fire like he was Superman. I mean, no matter how good the armor is, its not covering the lower part of his face.

Yeah, I had that same thought looking at the trailer. It's one thing if it's a brief moment as he jumps in from the shadows or something, you can excuse a single miss as good fortune or what have you, but in this case, everyone is just ignoring the face.

And they treat a dude holding a pistol to the masked part of his head as a lethal threat, so I guess that part isn't bulletproof either. It's cool if it's Iron Man or something, but this rendition of Batman does not actually appear to be invulnerable to bullets. So just weird.

If they did, the person firing it would likely get blasted backwards as well.

I think It's probably just that I'm old and grumpy, but I find it harder and harder to ignore the things hollywood gets so wrong, either intentionally or not. I work in a hospital so I get exposed to a ton of terrible media via my patient's tv's and it's absolutely amazing how terrible and wrong most of it is. Stuff like cop or medical shows in particular, but those probably stand out to me because that's my wheelhouse. I'm sure they mess up every other area just as bad.

Yeah, it's basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The explosion affects gun and bullet both.

I assure you, they absolutely do just as bad with computers. What was the film...Hackers? Where one guy is typing too slow, so another person shares the keyboard with him and both start typing on the same keyboard. Yeah, that....doesn't work. We can all accept some imperfections, but there's a point where you just start laughing.

Me, I'm fine so long as the rules stay consistent within that fictional universe. Lightsabers exist? Cool. Keep portraying lightsabers in the same basic way, and we're good. Doesn't matter if lightsabers are realistic. If you suddenly introduce someone who can hold lightsabers by the blade in his bare hands, it'd be dumb, because it contradicts what we've been shown.

I have no idea if that's ever been done in Star Wars. Probably, because there are a billion Star Wars books, but the principle suffices, I think.

Show everyone being blown back by a gun, and realistic or not, most audience members will probably be fine with it. Might even be kind of fun for making fight scenes more dynamic.

[Peelee]

Yeah, it's basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The explosion affects gun and bullet both.

It's not nearly to the effect that Hollywood has people be blasted back when shot, this is why you brace yourself and have a solid stance when shooting. Armor spreading the force over a larger area plus unprepared/poor stance for taking sudden force and I can see someone getting knocked over by a shotgun blast. Nothing like how they showed it in the movie, but I agree with the "themed vigilante with bleeding edge tech who is vital to the police apprehending themed criminals is not a medium I'm going to demand strict realism from" school of thought.

[Psyren]

Even back during the trailers, I had issues with Batman walking into gun fire like he was Superman. I mean, no matter how good the armor is, its not covering the lower part of his face.

Hey now, it's not like he stuck his unprotected chin directly into C-4 or anything. Or got hit by a truck and thrown bodily into a car and metal trash cans before walking away.

[Peelee]

Hey now, it's not like he stuck his unprotected chin directly into C-4 or anything. Or got hit by a truck and thrown bodily into a car and metal trash cans before walking away.

The chute hitting the bridge should have broken some bones at the very least. But yeah, after all that, the gun ast think is hardly something that bothers me.