MovieChat Forums > The Batman (2022) Discussion > Realsitic grounded Batman, bomb goes off...

Realsitic grounded Batman, bomb goes off in his face,


I did like this movie, apart from one or two things that pulled me out.

I was really into it until the bomb goes off with his face inches away, and we see the explosion in slow motion it only knocks batman into the air and back a bit. At least have him run at the last second, and use the cape as cover. His face would be mush, and there wasn't a scratch on him.

Also when Batman has the cool moment of gliding off the top of a building, some great shots flying between the buildings, like a Bat. Then it turns into a cartoon as he hits the subway bridge FACE FIRST, bouncing around as if he's made of rubber. Did they really need to include that chin hit into the bridge? I can suspend disbelief enough if he ejected and rolled. Not witnessing a certain death smashing into steel girders at speed with his face then dropping on the floor. Less is more, just because you can CGI Batman getting smashed, doesn't mean you should do it.

I assumed this was a smart Batman film, then it insults your intelligence like that. I understand it's a comic book movie, but after being all gritty and realistic, it was just jarring. The thing with Batman is, he's just a man. He's not a super soldier with adamantium for bones. Even Tim Burton's Batman kept it somewhat grounded with the damage he could sustain.

Same with the Alfred explosion. A couple of scratches on his face and beard still intact after the room is filled with fire. But as anybody with an ounce of intelligence knows that an explosion is not just fire, there is something called blast pressure which will do more damage than the fire, and destroy anything within the radius. There's no way that wooden desk saved him with that blast. It would be splinters, with a red goo all over the walls. He literally tossed the package a few feet away and the whole room exploded.

Another annoyance was Catwoman leaving the fridge door open for no reason and ignoring it while she talked to Batts in her apartment. I was more surprised that Batman wasn't distracted by it, paused her for a sec to lean over and shut the fridge door, then let her continue. Not even children leave fridge doors open. The script mustn't have told Zoë Kravitz to shut the door while she was trying to act like a human being.

At the end in the cemetery, her bike is fixed and drained of water. Good luck finding a garage when the city has been submerged in water. That wasn't my main annoyance, what got me was the cat. She chose one of her 3 cats to put in a box on the back of the bike, to only get it out for 2 minutes, hold it to remind us that she's catwoman, then chuck it back into the box to scare the life out of it riding a very loud motorcycle at speed around corners.

Other things of annoyance were the unneeded expositional dialogue like when Catwoman is entering the secret club, and the corrupt cop is on the door with a bandage on his nose. Batman reminds us that this is a guy he beat up earlier. Ok, some people may not remember the face, so the writers jogged our memory. The next line "Looks like I broke his nose", no shit Sherlock, world's greatest detective at work right there. I think we got that after we saw the bandage on his nose and black eyes. Was that line ADR'd in after a studio note reminding the writers that people are dumb?

It wasn't even a good line, a nothing line which could have been replced and bettered, or nothing at all. Then Catwoman meets the DEA who has the hots for her. Without much prompting, he opens up within seconds, talking about things that will get him and others hearing it killed, as he's just a paid stooge, and not untouchable. Even the Russian girl says, "hearing this will get me killed", and he continues to spill his guts to tell us the plot. The script says we need to learn more information about the story, I guess. The scene was handled poorly by the end.

Another uneeded line was Batman explaining that the first Riddler kill had his finger cut off while he was still alive. That explains the amount of blood from the finger then Bats, great work. I'm sure the forensic guy was very impressed. The writers must have been patting themselves on the back, showing us how smart Batman is.

These unneeded, unnatural exposition lines kept happening throughout. Have some faith in your audience.

Other than that, I liked it, it looked great, some good action, I loved the atmosphere, the score. But marked it down because of these problems. There's only so much I can suspend my disbelief with.

reply

Another annoyance was Catwoman leaving the fridge door open for no reason and ignoring it while she talked. I was more surprised that Batman wasn't distracted by it

He was. I think he noticed the fridge door was open when he came in, that was why he looked at her power bill, which was overdue. I think the catwoman was more of a street person, at least growing up.

That also shows neither the batman nor batwoman was an environmentalist.

The explosion and bumping off bridge, yeah, those were dumb.

reply

Also, after the bomb went off, Batman was transported to the police station, not the hospital. He was lying unconscious on a table in a room full of cops, but nobody lifted his mask to see who he is.

reply

And they only start trying to take his mask off when he regains consciousness. Like they were all NPCs asleep and activated when Batman woke up. Because the script told them to.

reply

Also no villian ever shoots in his face, only in his fully armored chestplate. LOGIC!!!

reply

I can get that. It's the Robocop thing where tons of bullets are flying and none of them hit his chin.

Batman's weakest spot his is chin, and the writers wanted Batman to eat bullets, so they had them all aim for his chest.

I can dig that as long as it's done well, and it was done well enough. But not bombs in the face.

reply

No idea how that makes sense? of course a bomb in your literal face is more than dumb, but never getting shot in your ONLY EXPOSED area is even dumber.

reply

The armored chestplate is also why the bomb would have killed him. The concussion of the blast even if he head had been protected would have been fatal. Ask any cop that has been shot while wearing a bullet proof vest if it hurts and they will tell you it does because the reality is the armor only keeps the bullet or shrapnel of the bomb from penetrating the person but it doesn't eliminate the amount of force the impact puts on the armor and the person behind it that it is touching. Batman wasn't wearing a bomb disposal suit he was wearing body armor that was right up against his body. The blast would have crushed his ribs, stopped his heart from beating and probably sent parts of his sternum and ribs right into his heart and lungs... and that's just the impact of it on his chest.

Now ignore the chin and this blast right by his head and body would have been way worst than the NASCAR wrecks that have killed drivers like Earnhardt by basically knocking their heads loose from their bodies.. Batman was dead from that blast and at that point in the movie it jumped a shark into Loony Toons. At that moment they might as well have had the roadrunner show up and go "beep beep".

reply

VERY good points! 100% Agreed!

reply

A friend who is a firearms and instructor, and another who is a cop with firearms training on his force have both told me the same thing... you always aim for the centre of mass. Itt's very hard to accurately hit things like arms and legs (and by extension heads) from any distance, moreso when the target is moving, even moreso when you are undergoing an adrenaline dump which compromises your fine motor skills.

So, it's only a little unrealistic at best.

reply

just because you can CGI Batman getting smashed, doesn't mean you should do it.

Ackchuallee... it's not entirely CGI. The fall and how Batman hit the asphalt was actually performed by a real life stunt double.
https://youtube.com/shorts/0fEqY-kFQ78?feature=share

reply

Hey, it's a living.

reply

I'm clearly talking about when the parachute hits the bridge, and he swings up, hitting the underside like it was Looney Toons. There's no way in your mind you're thinking of anything but certain death. Suspension of disbelief can't extend that far.

The whole movie has been serious. Realistic, grounded, gritty. This scene was such a cool moment.

Then we have some Batman & Robin sh*t to take you out of the movie.

reply

That's just nitpicking. It's still a comicbook movie afterall. Totally 100% realistic would be no Batman at all, because there is no Batman in real life.

reply

Nitpicking my ass. He hit the underside of the bridge at 80mph, and it looked ridiculous. Certain death.

>It's still a comicbook movie afterall.

It went into goofy Batman and Robin territory after a full hour of gritty darkness. Batman has never withstood that much damage, even in the Tim Burton or the 60's TV show.

reply

You never watch MotoGP? Racers smack the side of the circuit at super high speed all the time, not a certain death.

I know, you just don't like the movie. It's fine. But saying bulletproof Batman smacked the underside of a bridge means a certain death is just beyond exaggeration.

reply

I gave it a 7 out of 10. That's pretty much liking this movie in my book. I've told everybody that's asked I liked it, and it's worth a watch if you have 3 hours to spare. It could have been a 9 if it wasn't for the really dumb stuff.

> Batman smacked the underside of a bridge means a certain death is just beyond exaggeration.

You crack me up. You saw the footage, right? You cannot fathom why somebody thinks a human being could die from that?

https://youtube.com/shorts/0fEqY-kFQ78?feature=share


And the bomb directly in the face?


reply

Batman didn't die when he got shot with a machine gun. It's established in the movie universe that his armor is super good. Yes, it is not realistic, there is no armor as good as that in real life. But it's a comicbook movie!

Like I said, if it was realistic there should be no Batman at all. Because Batman is a fucking fantasy! There is no Batman in real life! How is this fact so hard to understand? The whole movie is not realistuc. Hell, the whole superhero genre is not realistic

Show me one, ONE, comicbook movie DC or Marvel or otherwise, that is 100% realistic! There is none!

Again, MotoGP racers hit barriers at a super high speed and they're all right. Sometimes they die. But it's absolutely not "a certain death" like you would like to believe.

People can smack into things very hard and does not die. It's possible. And in a comicbook movie world it is basically given. Tony Stark would be turned into a human slushie inside his armor when it accelerates incredibly quickly. It also would run out it's battery in 3 minutes. It's a comicbook movie ffs!

reply

>Again, MotoGP racers hit barriers at a super high speed

You keep banging on about that. Show me footage of somebody hitting a steel girder in the face at around 80-100mph

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fEqY-kFQ78&ab_channel=CelestialVoices

Slow it to half speed. He takes a steel girder to the FACE. He is most certainly d.e.a.d.

The film makers overshot the mark. They could have removed that and have him land on top of the bus flat. Or eject then roll. DO something good after such an amazing scene. It completely ruined the moment.

>it's a comicbook movie!

Yet for a full hour it's supposed to be gritty, realistic, grounded, serious.

Then for a few seconds it devolves into Batman & Robin, Batman 66. Then back to being gritty and serious.

I'm just disappointed as it could have been great. I was thinking it was better than Batman Begins. Yet for these flaws, it's only good.

>Tony Stark would be turned into a human slushie inside his armor when it accelerates incredibly quickly.

It's called suspension of disbelief, and handling it in a somewhat believable and entertaining way, so the audience is not completely distracted and taken out of the experience. I doubt anybody in the audience thought about Tony Stark being certainly mushed in a suit.

reply

Yet for a full hour it's supposed to be gritty, realistic, grounded, serious.

It was not. That's just like your opinion, man. If it was supposed to be gritty, realistic, grounded and serious the movie would not have a fucking Batman in it!

reply

So you're saying it's on the same level as Batman & Robin and Batman 66? The tones are all the same?

reply

Of course not. Why is everything super black and white with you? If it's not super gritty and realistic then it's super campy and comedic? What kind of thinking is that?

reply

Because the filmmakers established a tone. Once you hold that tone for an hour, then do 180 degrees turn into Green Lantern 2011 territory, then revert back to that tone, it takes the audience out of the movie.

>If it was supposed to be gritty, realistic, grounded and serious the movie would not have a fucking Batman in it!

So what tone is it then? It's you who dismissed it as being gritty and grounded. Explain in your opinion what tone the filmmakers were going for?

reply

I don't think it has a name, but let just say "comicbook realistic." Not really realistic, but still a fantasy.

What style does John Wick have? Obviously not realistic, but not super duper campy comedic either.

Again, it's not always black and white and sometimes stuffs just simply don't have any exact name. It's not science.

I'd say, instead of realistic it's "hyperreal" or "pseudo-real." Or maybe even "bombastic" style.

But this is not a fact, it's just according to me.

reply

But still grounded. Dark. Noir.

Not silly. There is some semblance of reality, and its own world logic as opposed to Batman 66 or Batman and Robin where physics and reality don't matter. Anything goes.

>What style does John Wick have?

John Wick doesn't take a bomb and a steel girder to the face at 100 miles per hour.

reply

John Wick falls down from a 5-story high building, hitting everything in the way down and does not die. And he's old.

Also, where do you get the 100 miles per hour figure?

reply

>Also, where do you get the 100 miles per hour value?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fEqY-kFQ78&ab_channel=CelestialVoices

The footage. How fast do you think he was going?

>John Wick falls down from a 5-story high building, hitting everything in the way down and does not die. And he's old.

I've only seen one and two, and if I saw that I'd have similar complaints. There's only so far filmmakers should push, and sometimes they overstep the line.

I just looked at my IMDB ratings and gave John Wick 1 & 2 both a 6/10, and The Batman a 7/10. So there's that.

reply

The footage. How fast do you think he was going?

I don't know. You're the one that came up with 100 mph figure. What I see was just it's pretty fast but absolutely not a certain death.

If you think it was a certain death then it's just like your opinion, man. Except if you can actually show me where does it say 100 mph.

But it's fine. People can have different opinions.

reply

And I originally said 80mph. Then between 80mph and 100mph.

So what speed do you propose? Are you trying to say that he's going at a snails pace, when the filmmakers were purposefully showing us that he was fast?

He leapt off a building, gained speed in a drop, covered blocks in seconds flat, flew past a window in a blur. So fast that if you blinked, you'd miss it.

On the 6-second mark he was aligned with the building he dropped from, then went horizontal to fly away from it, he flew past multiple large buildings (you do understand how big those buildings are?), by 18 seconds he reached the bridge which is quite a distance away, as you see the building he dropped from in the distance.

12 seconds flat from building to bridge.

As a whole from the top of a large building to blocks away in 18 seconds flat.

https://skydivingplanet.com/how-fast-do-you-go-in-a-wingsuit/#:~:text=At%20its%20most%20efficient%20level,on%20record%20is%20246.6%20MPH.

"wingsuit flyers can reach horizontal speeds above 200 MPH"

Again, what speed do you estimate he was going?

>If you think it was a certain death then it's just like your opinion

Hitting a steel girder FACE FIRST at the speed we saw is certain death.

It looked uncanny valley and really, really dumb.

If you think those few frames where his face broke his fall were amazing and didn't ruin the whole scene that's cool. You do you and your goofy stuff.

reply

Like Like I said, pretty fast but not a certain death. That's all that matter in my opinion. The exact speed isn't even important. It's a movie, not a insurance investigation video.

Again, why is it always black and white with you? Not 100 mph automatically means a snail pace? That's no fun.

Anyhow, I now think they originally wanted to make a more Iron Man-like Batman. Bulletproof full body and head armoring and impact protections.

Check this thread and give your opinion:
https://moviechat.org/tt1877830/The-Batman/6273a4aa5f7a5970072f9040/The-only-explanation-I-could-come-up-regarding-the-often-complained-scenes

reply

So this Batman can eat bullets for breakfast, headbutt steel, eat bombs.

Batman is now Superman level. Except he needs a wingsuit to fly.

>Like Like I said, pretty fast but not a certain death.

Oh, but it is. Unless you're in a really, really dumb movie.

>The exact speed isn't even important.

The faster you go, the impact multiplies. Past a certain speed, which they went out of their way to show how fast he was going, it becomes uncanny valley, and looks goofy.

It is pretty important when you're making a film, and you either want to A. Not make it look dumb. or B. Make it look really, really dumb.

I estimated. Anybody with half a brain can estimate what speed he may be achieving, unless you're dumb, or clutching at straws. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're going for the latter.

Freefalling for a few seconds, you can accelerate to well over 100mph. Wingsuit flyers can reach horizontal speeds above 200 mph.

Doesn't take anybody with half a brain for it to register that Batman is covering that distance at anything above 80mph. Unless you're either really, really dumb or clutching at straws.

Are you suggesting that a train with a front made of pure steel smashes into Batmans chin (his weak spot) at anything above 80mph, and you seriously believe he would survive?

>head armoring and impact protections

Chin armouring also? He hit the bridge chin first.

>Check this thread and give your opinion:

YOU have a failing thread going, with 1 reply, why are you attempting to garner sympathy in your own thread?

Besides, you're basically agreeing that some elements simply do not make sense, and they must have been left over remnants from a script where Batman is wearing an Iron Man level suit with a helmet made from adamantium and not a rubber cowl.

You even called these scenes "bizarre". Which is why I'm pointing them out. They are bizarre.

reply

Because it's a different topic and this one line vertical message board sucks. Difficult to read and difficult to reply. Well, it's okay if you don't want to give your opinion. No pressure.

reply

It could be remnants of an old script where Batman has an Iron Man level suit. The only thing is Matt Reeves wrote, directed and had pretty much free rein, why wouldn't he adjust the script to fit. He's made some good movies, but on this one he or somebody made some bad decisions and the quality control wasn't good enough in places.

reply

"Nitpicking my ass."

It sort of is. There is a interesting book called Becoming Batman in which the author analyzed what it would take to train, fight, etc like Batman for real.

He concluded that a 'realistic' Batman would never survive the typical cerebral trauma and concussions that he is exposed to.

So, it all comes down to how much you want to suspend your disbelief. Me, I had no problem with the scene so I enjoyed the movie a lot.

reply

Okay, sorry but I just can't reply anymore because the text box is now only a few pixels wide and I had to type one-letter-in-a-line vertically. So lemme reply here if you don't mind.

First, I'll clear up some points. The only part I have a different opinion than you is where he was going so fast it's a certain death. To me Batman was going fast, but not a certain death. Those are just opinions. You have your observation, I have mine.

The other bizzare scenes were truly bizzare and persplexing (especially the bomb in face scene) and the only thing I could come up with was that they were probably remnants of older idea before it was agreed that Batman should keep he's iconic cowl design.

Oh, and I have a lot of replies now not just 1.

Matt Reeves may write and direct, but he's not the producers and producers handle many other things outside the movie itself. Like considerations for Batman merchandise and toys. Maybe the toys department didn't agree to make Batman design that wouldn't be easily recognized as Batman by kids or parents. Or maybe the legal department thought it would look like a MCU Black Panther rip-off and risk a lawsuit from Disney. Maybe Robert Pattinson's agent won't agree if people can't see him as Batman (like what happened in Stallone's Judge Dredd movie.)

There are countless possible reasons why the writer and director couldn't make some adjustments. He did not make the movie by himself.

But if it was true, that originally this hyper-realistic bulletproof Batman was written with a closed-off helmet in mind, then those bizzare scenes would hold the suspension of disbelief rather well.

reply

Batman has the cool moment of gliding off the top of a building, some great shots flying between the buildings, like a Bat.

Really liked how they did that.

Was recently rewatching the Keaton ones and there's a pretty dated scene when he glided off somewhere or other. He opens up his "wings", then it clearly cuts as they are replaced by a hardened material 😂

Looked pretty feasible in this one however and I loved the landing, how it wasn't perfect, his bat material got caught up and he crash landed. Reminded me a bit of the guy parachuting off Encom Tower in Tron Legacy. Good on them for making that look a lot more realistic...

reply

You think hitting steel with your face is realistic?

They could have handled the landing way better. Like you said the Tim Burton Batman has aged because you can see the seams, where the film making and technology didn't allow them to create something without it being filled with cuts and seeing how janky some parts look.

With this they have the technology. They made it look as if Batman was truly gliding through the city. Then they chose to have a CGI rubber Batman, hit a steel girder with his face, and it did look CGI and physics defying in those frames. Janky, like in the Burton Batman, so this has aged just as badly, and it's not even out of the cinema yet.

reply

No idea. As per previous post, I thought it looked way more feasible and well done than in the Keaton film though 👍

reply

[deleted]

Well you are in the minority. Comic book movies like this should have CGI over the top action. These movies are not documentaries

reply

Terminator Dark Fate is about time travelling robots that have pretty much super human ability at this point in the series. You think that excuses the physics defying, uncanny valley CGI? Terminator is not a dOcuMeNtaRy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf70I2WNvgc&ab_channel=CorridorCrew

SO to you, the Terminator CGI is amazing and excusable?

reply

I love the CGI effects in Dark Fate and that was a great movie in the franchise. Not quite as good as Geneysis but still very good

reply

i cannot sanction your buffoonery

reply

I just wanted him to throw his cape in front of his face. I'll put up with a lot of BS in a comic book movie, but you gotta give me something.

reply

You mean like the Dracula?

reply

What you say is true .. but c'mon, you have to really dissect the movie to get these points

reply